Guest Columnist
In traffic safety, we've seen study after study demonstrate that phoning while driving increases crash risk. The data come from a variety of studies over years: lab studies, simulator studies, on-the-road studies, driving record analysis, phone record analysis and collision data. Many authors conclude that phone use increases crash risk four-fold and such behavior is equivalent to driving while legally intoxicated. (Texting is another matter altogether. New studies find a 20-fold increase in risk while text messaging.)
However, this year The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) (an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) released a rigorous study that found no reductions in crashes after hand-held phone bans take effect. Comparing insurance claims for crash damage in four U.S. jurisdictions before and after such bans, the study found no decrease in claims compared with nearby jurisdictions without such bans. The HLDI researchers were perplexed by the results because their data didn't match the existing literature.
There may be many reasons why cell phone bans don't work, not the least of which are the impossibility of enforcement and no real consequences to the driver. However, according to AlertDriver data with more than 4,000 drivers, the bans send the wrong message. They focus on the cell phone instead of risky attitudes and behaviors. Our study and others show that most small distracting activities, including phoning, eating, putting in a CD or fidgeting with the kids, increase crash risk. Cell phones per se are not the only culprits. The prime suspect is the attitude that "I can get away with something else and drive."
As long as drivers minimize the negative consequences of doing the small stuff when they drive, there is no incentive for them to change risky behavior. Instead of an attitude "Being inattentive could hurt or maim someone else for life," the prevailing attitude is "It's OK to do if I don't get caught."
So people switch from hand-held phones to hands-free under the illusion that they are safer. Or they wait until they are at a stop light to bend down and text, phone still in the lap when they move. They choose to have a fast food bag on their lap and a drink in one hand. Recently I witnessed a student reading notes on her steering wheel while going 45 mph on the 54 Bypass. In our studies, driver overconfidence is a prominent risk factor.
A true sense of public outrage is starting to emerge about inattentive drivers. People are becoming alarmingly conscious about what the person in the next car is doing: phoning, eating, grooming, etc. Why? They know it can kill them.
The point is that a ban on cell phone use without a significant change in public attitudes about inattentive driving is likely to fail. However, the citizens of Chapel Hill and Carrboro are progressive in their attitudes about health and safety. The proposed ban by the Chapel Hill Town Council represents a grassroots effort to cut down on risky behaviors. We have a strong judicial community, an involved citizenry and a sense of identity around public health. A local ban will get the attention of the media and that is important. We need to send the message that inattentive driving attitudes and behaviors are unacceptable and dangerous to our community.
Kenneth C. Mills of Chapel Hill is a psychologist who developed the Alert Driver program. He is the author of "Disciplined Attention, How to Improve Your Visual Attention When You Drive."
