Wow.

This has been a pet issue of mine for years. I dealt with my first cell-phone crash as an insurance adjuster about a dozen years back in Medford. Thankfully that driver killed only herself.

I have watched the use and the propaganda proliferate. Another trick of the industry is to casually lump cell-phone-use in with "all" the distractions -- eating, putting on make-up, etc., most of which do occasionally take place and none of course with anywhere within spitting distance of the regularity of cell usage.

I am not so sure it has exploded just this summer. It has been growing like a weed for some time. Now you are suggesting it is like ivy and cannot be pulled out. How depressing. I'll suggest only that there is a small window of opportunity on the back of these reports recently issued, establishing that the crash risk rises by 400 percent. That's the point to hammer, and/or to draw close comparisons with the risk from drunk driving. But you're up against not just industry money but also all of the "multi-tasking" and self-importance added to the franticness of our lives now.

Very fine piece, Mr. Sadler. Are Blue Oregonian readers progressive enough to refuse to yak 'n drive? Somewhere that is where the test is, even below the campaign dollars, isn't it? Whether Americans will accept this carnage added to the highway and roadway tolls or whether they will not?

I don't know if this is necessarily a cut and dried "progressive" issue, and I for one don't believe that we can target the cell phone industry as being a clear culprit. The culprit, if that is how we want to phrase it, is our society. Most of us who talk on the phone don't care what the cell phone industry tells us, or what studies say. That's why most people ignored the short-lived "cell phone radiation" craze, because they weren't using cell phones because of what people told them. We live in the most highly interconnected society in history--AIM, text messages, snail mail, fax, e-mail, cell phones, GPS phones, two cans and a string, etc--when many Americans drive, they don't want to be cut off.

Now, as for the issue of cell phones in the car specifically, I must say I'm not as gung-ho about restricting any usage. I'd love to see people never get hurt, but the reality of cars is that people think of them as an extension of their life, and we can't really change that. There was an editorial cartoon reprinted in the Oregonian of a man surrounded by coffee, a phone, a computer, and stacks of paper, looking up at an officer. "Sorry Officer," he says, "I didn't realize I was driving." We don't just talk on cell phones while driving. We chat with the person next to us, reach behind the seat to pick things up, yell at children, eat breakfast, brush our teeth, put on makeup, and god forbid, give ourselves that last-minute sponge bath before the big meeting we are late for. People hurry. People do stupid things. And we aren't going to change that, no matter how much we legislate.

I for one always limit my cell phone conversations in cars to a minimum, generally to take instructions, give updates, or share other important info. But people who travel often are expected now to be working while driving; mothers fear not being able to reach a child who has a cell, etc. We are a busy busy society where time is money, and cell phones, whatever your view of them, are front and center in the picture.

I recognize that talking on cell phones is a distraction. But so is everything else we do in a car. And I fear the interest of over-legislation in regards to something that is becoming so fundamental to many peoples' way of life. While I see your point, I'm not sure if I want to do anything about it.

Argue with me.

I was just watching the 1988 version of Inherit the Wind on television, and I was struck by a speech Jason Robards gave to the jury. He argued that maybe progress was achieved at a cost, like going into a store and being told, "yes, you can have the telephone. but you have to give up your privacy."

Yes, you can have your cell phone. But you have to give up the isolation of the car, the singular experience of driving with no interference except from the cars around you. Maybe to stay connected, you have to accept a little more risk.

"Yes, you can have your cell phone. But you have to give up the isolation of the car, the singular experience of driving with no interference except from the cars around you. Maybe to stay connected, you have to accept a little more risk."

I did allude to what you are saying, Brian, in my first post, when I mentioned "all of the 'multi-tasking' and self-importance added to the franticness of our lives now."

I would take issue with what you call "a little more risk" and call it a lot more risk. Like driving with X percent of the drivers drunk. I am the rare American (outside of Manhattan) who virtually does not drive (any more), so aware am I of what I think is a slaughterhouse. Americans did not find drunk driving an acceptable or worthy risk. Cell-phone driving carries at least the same risk. You are arguing that it is worth it. Obviously (even from the sidewalk) I do not agree.

Whereas, Mr. Sadler seems to think the fiercest opposition will come via the industry. And then, he also suggests that, given enough, and damaging enough, lawsuits, our salvation also could come from there. Reading your posts one would think it is the best if last hope.

Just a question, dispossessed, since I thought of that exact argument you made when writing my original response. Do you support a ban on all alcohol? Obviously, alcohol kills people, but most of society seems to think that even with the deaths that can be expected, alcohol should remain legal.

A little off-topic, but I think pertinent.

It is one thing to be in a large store and hear someone yakking on a cell phone if you are in line or otherwise can't really walk away if you don't want to hear the details of a business deal or what the kids did last night.

It is something totally different to be walking out from that store across a large parking lot. What has long scared me more than highway cell phone drivers is the driver who uses a cell phone in a parking lot, especially if they are driving something big like an SUV and might not see a person of average or short stature trying to walk across the parking lot. Anyone who thinks this is not a danger should watch the next time they have to walk across a large parking lot going to or from their car. There are times when the driver is talking on a cell phone and looking sideways while the vehicle is moving forward. It is amazing there are not more pedestrian accidents in parking lots.

"Just a question, dispossessed .... Do you support a ban on all alcohol? Obviously, alcohol kills people, but most of society seems to think that even with the deaths that can be expected, alcohol should remain legal ... A little off-topic, but I think pertinent."

I don't support a ban on alcohol OR a ban on driving, Brian. This would be the analogy.

Drink all you like. Chat on your cell-phone all you like. Don't do either while engaging a couple of thousand pounds of metal at various speeds down public roadways with dozens or hundreds of other vehicles.

"Don't do either while engaging a couple of thousand pounds of metal at various speeds down public roadways** with dozens or hundreds of other vehicles."

**Forgot to say, in deference to LT, or in private/public parking lots! :=)

my point was that alcohol kills people, yet we accept that cost. and you seem to accept that cost, as long as people who are irresponsible while using alcohol are punished. i agree. i think cell phones in cars should be allowed, but that people who are irresponsible about it should be punished. i dont like the philosophy of pre-emption that seems to predominate liberal thought nowadays--it is a little too protective and occasionally paternalistic for my liking.

I thought this was interesting. It is an older article, from 2000, but it still approaches the issue in a way that works today, arguing that the mere existence of a problem with cell phones in cars does not necessarily mean gov't action is appropriate. It's from AEI-Brookings joint regulatory group:

"Ban Cell Phones In Cars? by Robert Hahn, Paul Tetlock, and Jason Burnett

Robert Hahn is director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and Paul Tetlock and Jason Burnett are researchers at the center. This article is adapted from a longer version appearing in the current issue of the journal Regulation, published by the Cato Institute.

Last year, Brooklyn, Ohio, became the first U.S. city to ban hand-held cell phone use in vehicles, on the grounds that talking on a phone while driving can cause accidents. Meanwhile, similar measures are being debated in state legislatures, and just last month, Verizon, the nation's largest wireless company, announced that it will endorse state initiatives to impose "hands-free" restrictions for phone use in cars. Are these measures a good idea?

Cell phone subscribership in the United States has grown dramatically in recent years, from 92,000 people in 1985 to more than 77 million in 1999. A recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey reports that 44 percent of drivers have a cell phone with them while driving, a number that will only increase with the proliferation of phone ownership. We calculated that car accidents associated with phone use account for about 300 deaths per year. While small in comparison to the 41,000 annual deaths from car accidents, these deaths raise the question whether cell phone use while driving is justifiable. We think a ban is unwise at this time because vehicular cell phone use provides substantial personal and societal benefits, but does not contribute to a large number of serious accidents.

Cell phones in cars make life more convenient and safe: People can coordinate their errands and schedules with friends and family, parents can check up on their children, stranded motorists can call a tow truck or get help in an emergency, and motorists frequently use cell phones to report accidents and fires to police. Indeed, it is nearly impossible to quantify these everyday benefits. How does one determine the number of lives saved by the near-instantaneous deployment of an ambulance to a crash scene, or the number of people who have been rushed to the hospital in time to prevent death or permanent injury?

A prudent regard for safety doesn't imply cell phones should be banned. Americans are willing to tolerate some 41,000 annually deaths from car accidents. If we wish to decisively curtail automobile deaths, the national speed limit should be set at 10 miles per hour and vigorously enforced--yet we're not willing to do that, because that inconvenience outweighs the pleasure and efficiency of being able to get places quickly.

And a ban on drivers' use of cell phones might not make much difference anyway. Our best estimates of accident and fatality reductions do not take into account how drivers would alter their behavior in response to regulation; if police tried to enforce a ban, drivers might simply switch to other dangerous activities. Thus, the net reduction in accidents and fatalities is likely to be overstated, so the benefits of regulatory intervention could be quite small. Also, government regulations are notoriously slow to be enacted. Wireless technology is advancing so fast that regulation could soon be unnecessary.

Indeed, it is likely that the market will more effectively address cell phone risks than will government intervention. If the cell phone problem becomes serious enough, car insurance companies can classify drivers who use cell phones in higher-risk groups and charge them commensurately higher premiums. Because an insurance company bears the burden of reimbursing injured parties for their losses, a company may decide to charge drivers who use cell phones higher premiums, to compensate for the increased risk that cell phones force the company to assume.

Instead of regulating now, the government should carefully monitor the problem and improve the information base for making regulatory decisions. For example, more research on the effectiveness of hands-free devices in countries and municipalities that have required their use could help determine whether those devices should be encouraged. Also, if all states included a statistic in their accident reports describing whether the driver was using a cellular phone at the time of a collision, the resulting national data would be much more reliable.

The broader lesson is that the mere existence of a problem does not mean government action is needed. Drivers' cell phone usage does lead to an increase in accidents and fatalities, but it is not obvious that new regulations would significantly reduce the problem. Moreover, a strong case needs to be made that the likely benefits of a ban exceed the costs by a significant amount. The case has yet to be demonstrated for prohibiting drivers from using cell phones, and we find just the opposite -- a ban would flunk a cost-benefit test."

Let me point out, though, that the article does raise questions that we are now addressing today, about whether hands-free devices are effective. So it in no way fully supports my argument, but it does provide a good overview of the issue from 5 years ago.

dispossessed- i think you'll find this interesting. This is a column from a Chicago writer who doesn't like drivers using cell phones, but doesn't support a complete ban. It was published today:

Steve Chapman The cell-phone quandary Published July 17, 2005

When it comes to cell phones in cars, there are two kinds of people: those who make calls behind the wheel and those who hate them. The latter group includes not only me but a majority of the Chicago City Council, which recently banned motorists from talking on hand-held devices while driving.

Before these gadgets became common, the idea of being able to make a call from the comfort of your car was a pleasant prospect. The reality turned out to be pleasant as well--until we discovered all the other people doing the same thing, and driving badly as they did it.

Mobile-phone addicts insist they are perfectly able to drive and converse at the same time. But it's a feat like a major league pitcher's batting: It can be done, but it can't be done well. If you ever venture down a busy sidewalk, you will notice that most cell-phone users aren't even capable of walking and talking at the same time.

Mayor Richard Daley sees the ban as a safety measure that is "just common sense." But common sense is sometimes nothing more than an educated guess. While common sense may say that hands-free phoning will reduce the risk, the evidence has a different tale to tell.

There is no longer any doubt that cell-phone use makes for worse drivers. A recent study of accidents published in the British Medical Journal estimated that drivers using phones are four times more likely than other drivers to get into serious crashes. Previous research suggested that a cell phone and a bottle of vodka have roughly similar effects on driving skills.

So why not ban their use? Because no one is talking about banning all cell phones--only hand-held ones. That, it turns out, is about as rational as a speed limit that applies to red cars but not blue cars.

One scientific investigation after another has arrived at the same stark conclusion: The problem with using a cell phone behind the wheel is not that it occupies your hand but that it occupies your mind. Human brains just aren't up to the task of giving adequate attention to driving and talking on the phone at the same time, and a lapse in concentration can be fatal.

The British Medical Journal study reported that "the use of currently available hands-free devices does not seem to reduce the risk." Says Robert Hahn, director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center on Regulatory Studies, "There is no evidence that banning the use of hand-held devices while driving promotes safety."

Having once endorsed the idea, I hate to admit that I was mistaken. Given what we now know, all this law promises to do is induce motorists to substitute one unsafe activity for another equally unsafe activity.

That raises the obvious question: If all cell-phone use behind the wheel is dangerous, why not forbid it all, hands-free as well as hand-held? There's a plausible case to be made for that, but then, there was a plausible case to be made for Prohibition. Even a sound principle can be taken too far.

In the first place, a law against all cell-phone use by drivers would be a nightmare to enforce. Are cops going to pull over anyone who's alone in his car with his lips moving? This would quickly become the mostly widely ignored statute since the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws.

About the only way to stop motorists from using hands-free gadgets would be to force carmakers to provide equipment that disables cell phones when the car is moving. But we could also require factory installation of devices to require every driver to pass a Breathalyzer test before the car will start.

There's a word for simple, effective measures like these: impossible. They're perfect for a utopian society, but utopian societies are not for this world.

The philosopher Immanuel Kant observed, "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made." Sometimes the law has to accept that human beings are imperfect, intractable creatures who cannot be compelled to behave in the way that is best for them and those around them. If you want a society in which drivers don't talk on cell phones, here's my suggestion: Get a time machine.

"my point was that alcohol kills people, yet we accept that cost. and you seem to accept that cost, as long as people who are irresponsible while using alcohol are punished. i agree. i think cell phones in cars should be allowed, but that people who are irresponsible about it should be punished. i dont like the philosophy of pre-emption that seems to predominate liberal thought nowadays--it is a little too protective and occasionally paternalistic for my liking."

Brian, your analogy breaks down here completely. By your logic we should "punish" only the drunk drivers who get in crashes rather than have laws banning driving under the influence of intoxicants.

So, which is it? Do you punish or do you (try to) prevent the toll this adds to highway death, injury and property damage?

Of course "distractions" cause crashes. Distractions or inattention cause most crashes. They don't just "happen." They happen because a driver fails to drive cognizantly or carefully, and sometimes because a driver is uneducated as to following distance or the like.

The two most significant causes of inattention and crashes are drunk driving and cell-phone driving.

It is no more paternalistic to establish road safety standards than to build or maintain them. I find it one of the more justifiable forms of government activity. More highway patrols -- fewer social service agents in my ideal world.

Even Mr. Chapman's argument that cell-phone driving can't be stopped is a bit disingenuous. It certainly could be lessened with bans on it, and penalties (after the fashion of DUII laws) when violations produced a crash.

You are correct that somewhere in this, as other laws, a basic societal agreement to the pact will prove essential. It is really that that we are arguing about at this point. By the sounds of this thread, I guess I'll be waiting for Mr. Sadler's prediction of liability lawsuits against the industry to see if this tide of recklessness can be stemmed.

There are typical Conservative arguments here that I find irksome. First is, if you're on the slippery slope, take it all the way, and second, everybody will do it anyway so we may as well condone it.

On that slippery slope I hear the explanations that since we can't prevent all cell phone related accidents justifies our not taking efforts to prevent any. It's the same argument about the environment. There's no saving all the trees so why save any?

As for the everybody will do it anyway suggests the Conservatives ought to back off their fight against a safe and legal abortion because people will have them anyway. Maybe we can leave Iraq now because there will be terrorists regardless of what we do there, or even in Afghanistan, so why bother? Take Israel for example, they've been fighting the Palestinians since day one and it will never stop. Should the Israeli Army lay down their weapons? They've been fighting them all my life, and still they are not eradicated.

Hang up and drive! You're on a public road willfully placing my safety at risk, and I disagree that anything you have to do needs to be done while your're behind the wheel of a moving vehicle!