YourCT.com header image 2

California Goes Hand Free, Research Says Doesn’t Matter


by turfgrrl


July 1st, 2008 · 14 Comments

The endless march towards mass hysterical stupidity continues as California joins the states who penalize everything but the bad driving they should be penalizing. I refer to the ongoing battle between propping up the bluetooth headset manufacturers and drivers stuck in traffic. Oh yeah, other people call it banning driving while holding a cell phone. Today marks the first day of the new law, and in charatisc fashion the LA Times chronicles all the bits and pieces of the law, how it came to pass and what the implications are. I turned my attention to the part about the aftermath. From the LA Times:

Second, I wanted to address the most important point of such a law: will it make the roads safer? My former colleague Myron Levin, whose story in March in The Times has this juicy detail:

Indeed, federal highway safety officials drafted a letter from then-Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta to the nation’s governors in 2003 to warn against laws like California’s that allow hands-free calling. For reasons never fully explained, the letter was neither signed by Mineta nor sent. According to the bluntly worded letter, obtained by The Times, “overwhelmingly, research worldwide indicates that both hand-held and hands-free phones increase the risk of a crash.”

There has been a lot of research on the subject, with mixed findings. Here’s a summary of some of the best-publicized research. If I’m leaving a study out, please note it on the comment board:

University of Utah: Studies released in 2006 and 2008, respectively, concluded that drivers on cellphones — hands-free or not — drove as badly as those under the influence of alcohol and also were prone to clog traffic because they weren’t paying sufficient attention. Here’s a link to an earlier post on U of U’s research.

Carnegie Mellon University: In a study released earlier this year, researchers found that people talking on a cellphone while driving — again, hands-free or not — were devoting 37% less of their brain to driving.

California Public Policy Institute: The May report concluded that the hands-free law will result in a drop of about 300 driving fatalities each year — mostly from crashes in adverse conditions.

New England Journal of Medicine: The 1997 report, based on studying crash data and cellphone bills, showed that motorists were four times more likely to be involved in an accident when using a cellphone versus when not. However, the report also found “Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event.”

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis: A 2003 study projected that, across the U.S., 2,600 people die each year and more than 330,000 are injured as a result of cellphone-related crashes — a number that got a lot of media attention with little mention how it was calculated. Overlooked, perhaps, was that the numbers were not based on figures from each state but on a complex calculation involving several factors — i.e., how much time people talk on the phone and how much they drive.

Statistics from the states: New York state was the first to institute its hands-free law in 2001. The state also keeps statistics on contributing factors to accidents. From 2001 through 2006, hand-held phones were a factor in 1,170 crashes versus 214 crashes involving hands-free phones, according to the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. There are some important caveats here: accident factors were reported in 82% of all crashes, and in many instances the police must count on getting data from those involved in accidents — who may or may not have seen what happened or may or may not be honest about it.

Some people can drive perfectly well with only 37% of their brain engaged in driving. Others. drive poorly with 100% of their brains engaged. The point about improving driving is to enforce laws that penalize bad driving. Not the behaviors that might contribute towards bad driving. It’s easy to enforce an unsignalized lane change. It’s much harder to enforce a law banning talking on a cellphone.

source: LA Times, What might the hands-free law accomplish?, by Steve Hymon, July 1, 2008

Tags: Transportation

14 Responses so far “California Goes Hand Free, Research Says Doesn’t Matter”



  • 1 Ray // Jul 1, 2008 at 11:47 am

    You’ve got something against driving with both hands on the wheel?

  • 2 another anon // Jul 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

    TG it is the safety of other drivers are the road you should be concerned about. This law helps prevent accidents.

  • 3 anonymous // Jul 1, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    I agree that it is more important that the person is obeying the traffic laws than whether they are talking on the phone or not. I think people are more distracted by eating and drinking coffee, playing with the radio, or trying to control their children. There are already laws about crossing double lines, failing to stop, and other reckless driving. Just enforce those and you don’t need a law specifically for cell phones.

  • 4 Driver's Roads // Jul 1, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    I also fault cars that make you believe that you’re competent in conditions that would make an Andretti slow down. Or that you can pull out into traffic without looking.

  • 5 suomynona // Jul 1, 2008 at 5:50 pm

    Is it about enforcement?

    1. I know someone who was driving home rather drunk one night. He ran out of gas on the Yankee Doodle bridge, on I-95 South in Norwalk between exits 16-15, where there really is no shoulder.

    Then, he fell asleep at the wheel of his Jeep. Minutes later, another car rear ended him. Since he had empties in the Jeep, his lawyer got him off of any DUI charges, arguing that he consumed the alcohol in his system after he ran out of gas.

    2. A gentleman consumes too much alcohol at one of New Canaan’s fine watering holes. Too drunk to drive, he goes to sleep in his car. An hour later, he wakes up very cold, so he starts his car. He was arrested and found guilty of Driving Under the Influence.

    These examples show that there are flaws in the legal system.

    Add to that, the indications of the studies, that people drive badly due to many distractions, including passengers and cell phone use.

    Hands free devices may put a second hand on the wheel of talker-drivers, but it doesn’t make bad drivers better, and they likely won’t stop the hands free users from congesting traffic due to unattentive driving.

    Enforcement creates revenue, and supports the flawed legal system supporting enforcement.

    I stopped on a side street in Bridgeport due to construction. I decided to call my next appointment to tell them I would be a few minutes late therefore. The officer on foot stopping the traffic gave me a warning. When I explained that I only used the phone after he stopped me, he didn’t care, and stressed that I was lucky I was only getting a warning. I still had to wait a couple more minutes.

    I would guess there has been many a male driver involved in accidents, including fatal, that were caused by being distracted by scantilly clad women walking somewhere in his view. Should we ban tank tops and mini-skirts in view of roads?

  • 6 anonymous // Jul 1, 2008 at 6:47 pm

    The definition of operation is what is important in all these cases. If the gentleman on the bridge did not have keys in the ignition, he was not operating the vehicle, and therefore not DUI. In the second instance. The individual in the parking lot was operating his vehicle, and therefore subject to DUI. I am assuming he had an attorney who verified that the lot was not private property and covered by statute, otherwise he too could have gotten off. In your own situation, by merely pulling to the side of the road, you did not cease operation. In order to make a cell phone call and not violate the law, you either needed to pull over and remove the keys from the ignition.

  • 7 Anonymous // Jul 2, 2008 at 5:52 am

    Poll: How many of us have seen a cop on a cell phone while operating a cruiser?

  • 8 Anon5 // Jul 2, 2008 at 7:18 am

    Blue tooth or not, it’s the CONVERSATION that’s distracting a driver, not the use of a device in their hands.

  • 9 Anon5 // Jul 2, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Plus society in general (an I am not including myself in this since I’m not a cell phone addict, I use it strictly for emergencies) is just too addicted to the damn things. If it’s a true emergency, you should be pulling over to the side of the road anyway, and if it isn’t, it should wait until you get where you’re going.

  • 10 anonymous // Jul 2, 2008 at 7:48 am

    Anon 5- then I guess it is safe to say that it should be illegal to talk to your passengers while driving.

  • 11 Ray // Jul 2, 2008 at 8:33 am

    Condemning the acts of other obvious malactors does not justify holding and talking on a phone in a car. Buying and using a wired headset is a simple enough act of compliance. But I guess in today’s go-go world, if the earpiece is a little off kilter then we say to hell with it, I’m not using this anymore, I’ll just take my chances. It’s so laughable, I’ve personnaly witnessed the driver of a Range Rover overshoot the entrance of a Stop and Shop and run up over the sidewalk, because he couldn’t juggle the wheel and his hand held phone at the same time. I witnessed another similar case but I’ve said my piece.

  • 12 Anonymous // Jul 2, 2008 at 8:59 am

    I would like to see a law where doing a drive by shooting with one hand on the wheel would be equally as bad as cell phones.

  • 13 anonymous // Jul 2, 2008 at 9:09 am

    The same could be said for coffee, food, maps, newspapers, cigarettes, etc. My point is that no matter what the distraction is, there are already laws in place to give tickets to people who drive over curbs. You don’t need a separate law to cover cell phones when you can enforce violations already on the books. Would it matter if the person missed the entrance juggling a big mac?

  • 14 YOU CAN TELL BLABBER A MILE AWAY // Jul 2, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Ride a motorcycle anywhere and in 2 days you will be able to tell in an instant when a driver is talking on a cell phone. You don’t even have to see him doing it, you just can look at the vehicles movement and get that instant feeling of stay away from this jerk. When you drive a car you should be aware of the other driver near you. When you ride a motorcycle if you want to stay alive you have to be aware of EVERY DRIVER including pedestrians around you.

Leave a Reply