Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Government // Leadership
01:14 PM
Connect Directly

Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out

In a state where government plays nanny, mobile phones equal a danger as great as DUI. Let's apply critical thinking to the issue of regulating phone use in cars, instead of mob mentality.

There's nothing like passion to create overreaction. My column last week on why it's a bad idea for communities such as Chapel Hill, N.C., to ban vehicle drivers from using even hands-free mobile devices generated an outpouring of reader comments and email. Some agreed with me, others didn't, but disturbingly a few readers used a broad brush to correlate the dangers of mobile phones with DUI. "Driving while talking on a cell phone has been shown to be equivalent to driving drunk," says one reader. "Are you against DUI legislation?"

Um, no. But only DUI is DUI. Although there might be levels of seratonin and oxytocin generated by social contact, no alcohol whatsoever enters the bloodstream from mobile phone use. Partisans often use this kind of hyperbole to create an inflated sense of urgency. As long as we're engaging in this type of logic, why not call mobile phone use the new genocide? Mobility presents some significant safety challenges, but we need to find solutions, not run around shouting that the sky is falling.

To be fair, there's sound science behind the comparison of just-at-the-legal-limit DUI and mobile phone use. But before jumping to conclusions, you must actually a) read the research, and b) note the disclaimers and experiment control groups. My objection isn't to the comparison; it's to the unequivocal comparison. Here's what one study on the subject, by researchers at the University of Utah, says (emphasis mine): "Impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk." The researchers go on to say that "although the study established a strong association between cell phone use and motor vehicle accidents, it did not demonstrate a causal link between cell phone use and increased accident rates." I understand why it's tempting to establish a causal relationship between phone use and accidents that's as serious as DUI. Back in high school, one of my classmates died due to DUI. A peer of my high school-age son died as a result of texting while driving. We have serious conversations about both in my household. We as a society need to avoid a knee-jerk reaction that shuts off all rational discourse.

We need to take experimental science into account, and apply a bit of critical thinking. One reader wrote: "Cell phone calls are far more dangerous than carrying on a conversation with a passenger. A real passenger is privy to the situation you are in from weather, road conditions, and traffic, and they know when to shut up and let you concentrate on driving. A cell caller does not."

Global CIO
Global CIOs: A Site Just For You
Visit InformationWeek's Global CIO -- our online community and information resource for CIOs operating in the global economy.

But to my point that passengers can be equally distracting, my kids don't care about weather, road conditions, or traffic, and they never know when to stop talking or fighting. When they were younger, they were far more distracting than any phone call. But that doesn't mean the government needs to step in and regulate kids in cars. The question isn't about whether something is "bad" or "dangerous." I think we all agree that, to some extent, mobile computing and communications can be distracting. The question is whether it's right for the government to use fear tactics to remove our free will in order to give us a sense of safety. And anyone paying attention understands that mobile technology--unlike DUI--actually can provide safety benefits. For example, police departments recommend that if you think you're about to be pulled over by a scam police officer, dial 911. As one reader noted: "There are indeed responsible ways to drive and talk, but there are no responsible ways to drive drunk."

Let's remember that the "wisdom of the crowd" is often not wisdom at all, but a mob mentality. Taking action without applying critical thinking can be embarrassing and even dangerous.

But heck, some folks argue, even if texting and chatting on the phone while driving isn't like DUI, why not regulate and see what happens? One reader, citing states as an incubator of ideas, said: "I would hope to see a few states or cities institute a ban, and then after a few years we can compare data to see if the number of accidents goes down."

That's a tempting argument, but only if you agree that more regulation should be the default recourse for solving problems. I'm not arguing that we downplay the risks or dangers of mobile technology, but we shouldn't downplay the risks of home swimming pools either, and according to behavioral economist Steven Levitt, they're 100 times more dangerous than owning a gun. Ban home swimming pools, right? Absolutely not.

Instead of passing more laws in a country where one law can run 2,700 pages, cost people lots of money, and remove personal liberty, let's rethink the role of government in encouraging personal and corporate responsibility. The role of government isn't always to say no. Governments can also say yes and encourage discussion and certain actions. Governments can provide incentives and education, and even work with entrepreneurs to solve problems. Becoming more of a fear-based nanny state isn't the answer.

Jonathan Feldman is a contributing editor for InformationWeek and director of IT services for a rapidly growing city in North Carolina. Write to him at [email protected] or at @_jfeldman.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
User Rank: Apprentice
4/11/2012 | 10:33:51 PM
re: Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out
you think what you think right or wrong does not matter the I can do it because I am better than you is the attitude of most people
User Rank: Apprentice
4/10/2012 | 2:54:06 PM
re: Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out
"We have serious conversations about both in my household."
Good for you! And for the 90% of reckless folks who don't do any of that we need laws...unless you can come up with some way to make them more intelligent.

As far as DUI is concerned, there is also DWI. DWI stands for "Driving While Impaired", which covers anything from changing CDs, eating a donut, shaving, and holding hot coffee at 80 mph all at the same time to texting while driving or reaching back to deal with the kids.
All of that should not require laws and penalties as anyone in their right mind would never think about doing that. Unfortunately, we deal with a growing number of egocentric morons, especially on the road.
User Rank: Apprentice
4/10/2012 | 12:53:40 PM
re: Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out
Idiots can behave like idiots all they want, but they are not entitled to do so in public. Why should a driver be allowed to do anything but drive? Everyone should be able to drink and text all they want, just not when operating their vehicle on a PUBLIC roadway. It is that simple. It is the same as guns - own all you want, just don't use them in public. To suggest that "mob mentality" is a bad thing here overlooks the fact that the time for critical thinking was actually BEFORE the first driver was ever allowed to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. So, you proved your own point when you said Gǣ
Taking action without applying critical thinking can be embarrassing and even dangerous.Gǥ The action (allowing people to use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle) was already taken without applying critical thinking, and you are right G it proved to be very dangerous G more so than the last 10 years in Iraq!

The mob is in response to the idiots that allowed something so stupid to be allowed in the first place. Just like a responsible gun owner would never drive on a crowded freeway using his gun, so should a responsible car owner know he shouldn't do the same with his cell phone <or distraction="" favorite="" here="" insert="" your="">. To argue that you should be able to shows that you are not a responsible car owner. Just pull off the road and use your cell phone all you want.

One last thingGǪwhen kids act up in a car to the point where it distracts the driver, a responsible car owner would pull off the road and take care of that.
User Rank: Strategist
4/10/2012 | 11:44:12 AM
re: Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out
i like Google's Self Driving car concept: there are just too many idiots operating vehicles.

but, a place to start is distracted driving : cheeseburgers, newspapers, coffee, diet pop, cheezeos, cell phones, --- computer consoles -- which are being built into many new cars -- the list goes on and on
User Rank: Apprentice
4/9/2012 | 8:44:17 PM
re: Calling While Driving Bans: Readers Speak Out
Dear Jonathan,

I am with you (explicitly) on the notion that you can not blanket a scenario by blocking with a law that costs the taxpayers millions and reduces the liberties of 'responsible' and 'intelligent' citizens. For that reason, I just don't understand why an IQ test (or something similar) is not required for drivers.

I find that creating such 'bans' does actually harm the population more than it helps. For instance: There are many many countries with much lower threshold for legal drinking age. They have far less drunk-driving accidents per capita.

Using a hands-free device will not guarantee that the driver of a 3-ton vehicle traveling at 80mph will be alert.

I don't see hands-free as a solution; only because the drivers are not responsible enough to realize that driving is a 'privilege' and not a 'right'.

English is the primary language of US. If road signs are written in English, then why should the books need be translated into several languages to help "drivers" who can't read English?

I say: Stop wasting my money. If you can't read and write in English, learn it or don't drive.
Can Cloud Revolutionize Business and Software Architecture?
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  1/15/2021
10 IT Trends to Watch for in 2021
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/22/2020
How CDOs Can Build Insight-Driven Organizations
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  1/15/2021
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you.
Flash Poll