Disclaimer: If you think I’m advocating bad driving or increased accidents, then please finish reading the entire post before making your judgment call.
Starting July 1st, all Californian drivers who want to use a mobile phone for talking will be required to use a headset (or here, if you prefer being called dude). This is presumably for our safety, and if there was an impact on our safety, I’d be endorsing it all the way to the DMV. But it seems like this is really just politicians putting laws in place to placate constituents, rather than focus on issues which do impact public safety. This law is just plain off the mark, and here are some reasons why (along with facts from the government to really spice it up):
Issue #1: Calling requires headsets, but texting, email, and other keyboard use is still acceptable. Numerous studies have shown the distraction factor is about the content of the call, not the fact that someone is holding a phone (in fact, NHTSA studies have shown that a CD player causes more distraction than using a cell phone, and we’ve had CD players in cars for many many years – no new laws there for some reason). So just remember, if you get pulled over, insist you were texting or maybe listening to a podcast on your phone, as neither are fineable offenses.
Issue #2: No supporting statistics from existing “trials”. A headset-only law went into effect in NYC back in 2001, giving the state 7 years’ worth of data. Checking through their news and stats pages, the NY State DMV has not issued a single report showing a decrease in accidents or fatalities. I’ll talk more about lacking statistics in just a moment, but considering how quickly NY dropped stats while discussing drowsy drivers (100,000+ crashes a year), one would think there’s something they could share on the “success” of the cell phone law.
Issue #3: A $20 fine?!?! Really? Are they being serious here? The entire purpose of our criminal justice system is to create disincentives to committing a crime. For example, I would rather not be in prison, hence the lack of grand larceny I’m involved in. Pretty logical stuff. The fine for not using a headset is $20. It’s almost like they are saying “yeah, we know this is a silly law, so our method of abdicating ourselves is keeping the fine ridiculously low.” Want to make this one effective? Make it $200 per offense, and start giving out points after the first offense.
Issue #4: No other relevant statistics of any kind. I went scouring the NHTSA web site for some statistics on cell phone usage, driving, and accidents. I found lots of stats on cell phone usage while driving (PDF). I found lots of stats on accidents (PDF). I found NO stats that link the two together. Not one single piece of data which said anything like “with the ever-increasing number of cell phones being used while driving, here is the resulting increase in accidents”. In fact, I couldn’t even find a casual implication where anyone from NHTSA actually stated it just maybe might kinda sorta possibly cause accidents. Amazingly, if I found anything, its that both accident rates and injury/fatality rates are on the decline, year after year.
Here is the only “data point” I could find across the entire Web (aka “what I found by looking through a few pages of Google search results”), from the Public Policy Institute of California:
The findings indicate that mobile phone ownership is associated with higher traffic fatality rates in bad weather, on wet roads, and in rush-hour traffic. California’s new law should lead to some 300 fewer traffic fatalities a year.
I think that is awesome. Except, again, there’s no data to back it up, so it sounds more like “good spin” than anything else. But I could be wrong, and if on July 1, 2009, the state can in any way prove that they saved us lives, I’ll eat my (virtual) words. Of course, since accidents and fatalities are on the decline anyway, I am not exactly sure how they’ll do so, but I promise to keep an open mind.
Now for some hyperbole. It surely seems like every time I almost get sideswiped, or someone rolls through a stop sign while I’m pushing the stroller, the driver has a phone at his/her head. From all appearances, its definitely those idiots on their phones that are causing all the problems. And I, like everyone else, want fewer accidents and safer roads for all. But maybe it’s just the impression of idiocy? On the freeway yesterday I almost merged with a Ford Pickup that was in my blindspot, but I wasn’t on the phone at the time.
The bottom line, in my eyes, is bad drivers are bad drivers, and give a bad driver a distraction, and he/she will find a way to become a worse driver with the distraction. I hate the catch-all blame of technology for society’s woes. We should be requiring car manufacturers to enable voice-controlled stereos, temperature controls, and GPS systems, as all have been causally linked to accidents. The real question here is why isn’t the State (or Country) protecting its citizens by putting the power in the manufacturers’ hands? Hint: the answer is, similar to the copyright laws, its easier to push individual citizens around than it is to get big companies with big lobbyists to make change.
The NHTSA states “the task of driving requires full attention and focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving.” This seems to apply to many products beyond a cell phone, but have been in cars for much longer. It’s a shame that this law takes effect tomorrow, as it will, in my best guess, cause more work for police, not help the growing nationwide traffic problems, and fundamentally not save us from the bad drivers who just don’t pay attention regardless of the phone, donut, coffee, Blackberry, iPod, rattle, stapler, or other attention-getter they are holding in their hands. The State of New York (remember, the ones with LOTS of data) has advice, which is labeled with “use common sense“. Shouldn’t that apply to the lawmakers as well?
A couple things. The NHTSA cites a statistical correlation with cell phone availability in the car when crashes occur, suggesting a possible relationship to idiot who rear-ends you while yapping on the phone also being the kind of person who lies to the cops about being on the phone. Giving cops a specific reason to check for cell phones should improve the data. If the correlation can be strengthened, the penalties can go up.
As far as other distractions, I’m reasonably sure that modern car stereos don’t have to be held up to your head anymore. And if the freeways were full of douchebags weaving across lanes while they switched CDs the *entire goddamn time* they were driving, then I’d definitely be trying to get that banned too.
But even if this is just a pointless feel good measure, I’m going to buy a headset just so I can call the cops to rat out the daily string of yammering idiots playing ping pong with the freeway lane markers. Because it will feel really good.
Zota – the comment on stereos is that NHTSA *has* determined a link between changing stereo settings (CD players #1 culprit, radios below) and accidents. That’s the whole point here – if they wanted to pass a law to causally decrease accidents, they’d require manufacturers to build stereos that don’t require interaction to use while the car is moving…
My point was that most people don’t change CDs the entire time they’re in transit from A to B. If a significant percentage of drivers held CD cases open front of their face the entire time they were in the car, we’d probably would see legislation about that too.
I tried a bluetooth headset long ago when Palm first released its headset companion for the Treo.
Bluetooth had been around for a while already, but the thought of maintaining yet another battery operated device was as attractive as, say, I don’t know…maybe looking at JT’s back while sunbathing in breast laden Saint-Tropez.
Maybe it was my negative initial frame of mind, or maybe it was because the bluetooth headset sucked. Either way…it sucked. The crackling sound, the constant babysitting of the battery life, and that oh so attractive, always blinking, infamous blue light.
The minimalist LED interface was surprisingly useful and supported by audio feedback. Nonetheless, the pairing sometimes went array. If the headset was off, it often times took too long to turn on and the phone to find it to be able to answer a call in time.
I still have the Treo headset. It sits on a cemetery drawer next to other classics like the Treo 180, the 1988 Sharp Wizard, and the shameless 1983 Seiko Data 2000 Computer Watch.
It’s finally time for the 2006 Senate Bill 1613 to go into effect. I like to think of it as Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) cell phone version of Bush’s policy for Aids prevention.
The billn actually borrowed from Bush’s language to describe the number one deterrent strategy: Abstinence – don’t use your cell phone while driving.
You know you need to worry when a Democratic bill borrows from Bush’s language.
But I digress. It is the law of the land and I thought of getting a head start by looking for a solution this past month.
Without regard for my own history, I though of going back to the manufacturer of my phone and try their bluetooth headset.
I figure the technology must have been perfected further and I have an iPhone. Apple would not let me down.
Well, Apple did. The form factor was not designed for my earthling ears. The crackling sound is also still there. The iPhone/Apple bluetooth headset combo is in fact worst than my previous Palm experience. I can’t put the phone in my pocket without feeling like I’m Neil Armstrong broadcasting back to earth.
To be fair, in the car, the audio quality while holding the phone in my hand is just fine. The funny thing is that the 1613 Bill allows me to hold the phone in my hand, which at that point, it’s no different than using the phone without the headset.
The part that troubles me most about this misguided bill is the higher potential for accidents it may create.
Let’s be honest, the 1990’s promise of what Bluetooth was going to be never really materialized. I remember the first article I read about it. The article described the must have use case of pressing the chosen soda button of a soda machine and having your cell phone handled the $1 transaction via bluetooth without you even touching the phone.
All of the standards implementation issues that delayed deployment are the least of the bluetooth’s problems.
The battery life consequences, for example, are still unrealistic for mass adoption.
I would go as far as saying that king Harald Bluetooth did a better job at uniting the Scandinavian tribes than my iPhone does at working with Apple’s headset.
I now look down at the phone while driving, squinting my eyes to see if the tiny king Harald icon is in fact blue already and safe for me to press the button on the headset to answer the phone.
Sometimes, I miss the call. The pairing stopped working, or the headset simply did not turn on in time.
While driving, I go into troubleshooting mode to get the headset to work.
The alternative is to have a wired headset, but I’m not capable of judging which is more dangerous while driving: trying to get the bluetooth to work or untangling the wire of the wired headset.
Either problem can only be reached after you dig the device out from its storing location in your car.
A speakerphone solution does not merit much consideration. It would work as often as a conference call is appropriate.
Of course I could simply ignore the call and practice abstinence, but I’m less concerned about what I’ll do.
I’m much more concerned about how many people will put up with the bluetooth corks, or try to untangle wires, or go grabbing for either solution at 65 down the freeway.
I hope I’m wrong. It would not be the first or last time.
I take comfort that even King Harold was wrong when he decided to have a son. Harold died fighting his rebellious son, which makes me think abstinence may not be so bad after all. Maybe Sen. Simitian knows something we don’t…
Pingback: The Mobile Gadgeteer mobile edition
Pingback: Gizmos for Geeks
Lame?. It should have never been eancted. It is not the phone in hand tha is a hazzard, it is the conversation which causes inatention. Fact.
The tendency is really good. All countries in Europe have same laws, hope all states of America will join our state in banning the use of mobile phones with the hands while driving.
The fine should be much more i think. Then one could even have no ability to compare the price of a hands-free and a fine.
A headset law that allows texting?!!!! Completely lame. Either ban all cell phone and PDA use in the car, or leave it alone and allow their use.
> All countries in Europe have same laws…
I guess you think we should all be taxed at a 50% rate too, huh? The problem is we have too many laws… not that we have too few laws! We have no system for verifying the effectivity of the laws we already have! “Got a problem… make a new law. Didn’t work? Not a problem… make a new law!” Politicians want to prove they are ‘doing their job’ so they can get re-elected. The easiest way to do that is spending our money and creating laws! I would not be surprised if the Handsfree Headset Lobby Group of America is behind these laws.
I for one am waiting anxiously for the day automated driving vehicles become available and take the driving out of everyone’s hands!