Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Is state on road to hands-free car phones?

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 22:27:36 -0500

Is state on road to hands-free car phones?

Senator says research about cell phones in hands of
drivers has a convincing ring
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021209cellphonereg2p2.asp

Monday, December 09, 2002

By Jonathan D. Silver, Post-Gazette Staff Writer

Any honest driver will admit that it's impossible to avoid the occasional
distraction.

Whether unfolding a map, applying makeup, separating squabbling kids or
fiddling with the radio, we're all guilty of risky behavior on the road from time
to time.

While nobody's trying to outlaw that supremely dangerous balancing act of
downing a Big Mac and handling a stick shift at the same time, talking on a
hand-held cell phone is considered so potentially perilous that New York
state banned it last year. Not so in Pennsylvania, where driving while phoning
remains perfectly legal.

Thanks to a Harvard University study released last week, however, state Sen.
Joseph Conti, R-Doylestown, hopes he has new ammunition for his battle to
ban drivers from using cell phones.

The study, by researcher Joshua Cohen, concludes that the risk of yakking on
a hand-held cell phone while motoring has more than doubled over the past
two years. Talking on a hands-free phone, as is allowed in New York, is
hardly better, according to the findings. Cohen estimated that the use of cell
phones by drivers might result in 2,600 deaths per year compared with 1,000
in 2000.

Another way to look at it, according to the study: The chance that a driver
using a cell phone will die in a crash is estimated at 13 in a million, though that
number is hardly concrete and could actually range from 4 to 42 in a million.

State police statistics seem to bear out the Harvard findings of increasing risk.
For the first 10 months of this year, 256 drivers were using cell phones during
the 42,395 serious crashes troopers handled. That's up from 198 drivers on
the phone during the 49,948 serious crashes state police responded to during
all of last year.

Conti, who has met with failure several times trying to pass legislation
forbidding the use of hand-held cell phones by drivers, believes the study
bolsters his crusade, which stemmed from the death of a 2-year-old girl in his
Bucks County district. She was killed when a driver dialing a cell phone ran a
stop sign and crashed into her family's car.

"If a ban on hand-held cell phones can save one life, I think we should move
on it immediately," Conti said.

What drivers say

Cliff Gorski is one cell-phone-using driver who happens to agree, even though
such a ban would affect him.

"I think it's a necessity," said the 37-year-old Belle Vernon resident and vice
president of the Pittsburgh Riverhounds soccer team. He has watched his
share of distracted drivers. "I've seen them use [cell phones] and not drive
properly."

Gorski might be guilty of that himself -- he concedes he has "zoned out" while
talking and driving -- but said it was hard to give up the convenience of a cell
phone and "unrealistic" to expect drivers to pull over and dial.

"Sometimes it can be very distracting. You'll lose your focus," Gorksi said.
"It's a convenience thing, especially when you're driving in rush-hour traffic
and you have to let everyone at home know you're going to be a half-hour
late."

As much as Conti would like to use the Harvard findings to bolster his
argument, the study concluded that the body of knowledge about cell
phone-related crashes was slim -- too slim, the research contends -- to start
fashioning public policy about whether to ban hand-held cell phones while
driving.

"The record keeping on this is very poor," said David Ropeik, spokesman for
Harvard's Center for Risk Analysis. "The current state of the data indicates a
rising trend. They tell us that there still isn't real good, hard information on
which to base knowledgeable policy. They suggest that societywide, the risks
are enough to get your attention, but they're not that high."

Motorists such as Gorski are hardly ignorant of the hazard inherent in splitting
their concentration between talking and driving. However, they continue to do
both at the same time for a variety of reasons.

Some, such as Jaleen Jones, believe that they are safe enough drivers that
they can compensate.

"I'm aware of the risk," said Jones, 25, of Knoxville, who concedes that she
chats with friends while driving. "I feel as though I'm a safe driver. I tend to
keep my eyes on the road."

Jones said she didn't dial unless she was at a light or a stop sign. And she tries
to avoid stressful or distracting conversations.

"It's the same as changing a CD or lighting a cigarette," Jones contends. "It
would be the same as having a conversation with the person sitting next to
you."

Lots of other hazards

Actually, having that conversation might be more dangerous than talking on a
cell phone.

"According to crash statistics from Pennsylvania during 1999 and 2000, other
occupants caused approximately twice as many distractions leading to crashes
as cell phones, so that a ban of wireless conversations doesn't seem promising
when personal conversations with other occupants would presumably remain
unabated," stated a 2001 report by Pennsylvania's Joint State Government
Commission.

As far back as 1913, according to a section of the report that cites General
Motors, there have been concerns about driver distractions. Early worries
were based on the standardizing of windshield wipers in cars. Some feared
drivers would become hypnotized by the repetitive motion.

The potential for distraction has only grown since those days. Research cited
in that report indicates numerous factors that played a bigger role in crashes
than using or dialing a cell phone.

At the top of the list: outside objects, people or events. That was followed by
several categories including adjusting the stereo, other occupants, adjusting
vehicle/climate controls and eating/drinking before cell phones were even
mentioned.

The report argues that prohibiting one distracting behavior, such as talking on
a cell phone, would do nothing to mitigate risks posed by other actions.

"The simple and appealing solution of regulating a specific distraction might
not improve traffic safety," the report says. "Any policy addressing a particular
distraction will likely only alleviate the risk presented by that distraction."

Industry views vary

The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, a wireless trade
group, opposes a cell-phone ban and issued a statement this week criticizing
the Harvard study for recycling old data and relying on admittedly inexact
data.

"It's important to note that the statistics on injuries, fatalities and property
damage noted in the article do not demonstrate a proven link to wireless
phone use," the group said. "The wireless industry has long supported driver
education and the enforcement of existing reckless driving laws as the most
effective way to address all potential distractions drivers face while behind the
wheel."

Verizon Wireless, the nation's largest wireless provider, stands alone: The firm
has said it won't oppose legislation that would ban the use of hand-held cell
phones, as long as drivers who use them in an emergency are not penalized.
The company believes no regulations should be imposed on the use of
hands-free phones.

"If the person has both ... hands on the wheel, [he or she is] going to be
focusing more on driving," Laura Merritt, Verizon's spokeswoman for
Pennsylvania and Ohio, said while driving and speaking on a hands-free
phone.

With Verizon's tacit support, Conti plans to take his battle to Harrisburg once
again when the Legislature convenes next year.

"When we return in January, I'm going to reintroduce a very comprehensive
cell phone safety bill, which will only ban hand-held cell phones," Conti said.
"I'm not going to give up."

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/