Silliness in Action: California Poised for Cell Phone Ban

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: August 26, 2006 11:15:52 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: lauren () vortex com
Subject: Silliness in Action: California Poised for Cell Phone Ban


Dave,

As you know, I frequently speak out against what I view as silly
laws that fly in the face of logic, science, or just plainly
observable facts.

In yet another proof that reality and politics often don't mix,
lawmakers here in California are poised (after many years refusing
to go along with the bill's main sponsor) to approve a ban on
handheld cell phones when driving.  This may happen as soon as next
week.  You can count on Arnold, desperate for popular actions he can
take so close to election day, to sign the bill.

All of us have been annoyed by the gabbing cell phone user who seems
to be driving oblivious to everything around them.  So without a
doubt this law will have wide appeal.  And if experience in other
states holds, the law will have little or no long-term positive
safety effects, and handheld cell phone use will quickly rise back to
pre-law levels after a brief initial reduction.

The reasons are obvious.  Study after study shows that distracted
driving of *any kind* is a key factor in accidents.  While someone
holding a cell phone clamped to their ear is easy to spot, we're less
aware of the radio manipulators, people screaming at their children
in the back seat, makeup applicators, food eaters, and any of a
myriad number of other distracted drivers.  In fact, studies have
shown that the most common distractions leading to accidents when
driving are other people inside the vehicle or things seen outside
the vehicle.

Even worse, research shows quite clearly that talking on hands-free
cell phones (still permitted under the bill) is equally distracting
as using a handheld device.  It's the remote conversation itself
that is the real distraction, not the act of holding the cell phone
-- plus there's all the situations where people fumble around to
answer or dial a call even on a hands-free cell phone.

When proponents of this legislation are presented with these
inconvenient facts, they tend to reply with, "Oh well, at least
we're doing something..."

"Something" isn't good enough when it's based on bad science.  If you
really want to remove cell phones as a distraction, you need to ban
them totally when driving -- handheld or hands-free, as has been
done in some other countries.  I'm not advocating this, nor do I
think that politicians here have the guts for such actions anyway.
In fact, banning children from cars might be far more effective in
terms of reducing accidents, however unlikely the prospect.

To a certain extent this law will be a paper tiger.  Major California
cities don't have enough police to deal with serious crime, much less
pulling over people for illegal cell phone use.  And the bill's
penalties -- $20 for first offense, $50 for subsequent, will hardly
be seen as an onerous burden by most drivers in an era of $3+ gasoline.

But this law itself is still primarily pandering to voters in a manner
that flies in the face of science.  Perhaps laws officially
recognizing astrology will be next here in the Golden State.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
   - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
   - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/