I have prepared an original scientific review article on the subject of cellphone use while driving, substantiating the huge safety implications for allmotorists, and the even greater safety implications for motorcyclists. Ireviewed the landmark epidemiologal studies and the controlled experimentalstudies, as well as converging studies from other disciplines of science,such as neurology and psychology.
I have reprinted the “Introduction” to the review article below, but I wouldurge those of you who are interested in motorcyclist safety issues toconsider the full article, which is amply supported by references to thescientific studies, also liberally quoting from the supporting text of thescientific literature. The Review Article appears at:http://motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/cell-phones-and-dui-drunk-driving.html>http://motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/cell-phones-and-dui-drunk-driving.html
We believe the article is also important for the “freedom fight,” inparticular to undermine the efforts of NHTSA to “create evidence” to supporttheir failed “motorcycle safety” policies focusing so myopically on “whatbikers wear.” Most importantly perhaps, the information presented in thearticle effectively undercuts NHTSA's comparisons of raw fatality data”before” and “after” the repeal of helmet laws. Very quickly, the escalationof cell phone use while driving has been literally epidemic over the past 10years. During the past 6 years rising from 4 percent of all American driverson the road at any given daylight moment in time actively engaged in cellphone conversation as of the year 2000, rising to 6 percent in 2002, then to8 percent in 2004 and then to 10 percent by 2005.
To make the implicationsplain, in the year 2000, four percent of all the drivers on the road at anygiven moment were driving as impaired as a DUI drunk driver, four times morelikely to cause an accident than those who were not involved in cell phoneconversation. The percentage has risen steadily over the past 6 years so nowwhen we ride, one out of every ten of the cars we encounter on the road isbeing operated by a DUI level impaired driver.
These cell phone impaireddrivers are actually substantially more dangerous to to motorcyclists, as wemake the case in the review article. But the inescapable fact is that therehas been a huge increase in the incidence of accidents generally andmotorcycle accidents in particular, which is what scientists would call anvery powerful “independent variable” which NHTSA and the states failed tocontrol for in their rush to blame the rise in motorcycle fatalities on therepeal of helmet laws. This line of reasoning is more elaborately explainedin the M-A-D-D article. Below I have reprinted the somewhat terseIntroduction.
The convergence of epidemiological studies, controlled experimental studies,psychological and neurological studies demonstrate that driving under theinfluence of a cell phone is as dangerous as DUI drunk driving. The numberof drivers actively using cell phones on our street at any given daylightmoment is epidemic and rising by more than a percentage point per year forthe past 5 years, from 4 percent of all drivers at any given daylight momentas of the year 2000, to 10 percent as of the end of 2005.
The dangers posedby cell phone impaired drivers also escalates muliplicatively as there arefewer unimpaired drivers every year capable of using evasive action adequateto avoid the hazards created by those driving under the influence of theircell phones.
The mechanism of cell phone driving impairment is demonstrated in thecontrolled experimental literature to be a form of “inattentional blindness”a constriction of what cell phone users consciously “see,” deriving from theshifting of limited conscious capacity for attention to theinternal-cognitive tasks associated with the give and take of the cell phoneconversation away from the external-visual tasks essential for safe driving.
We suggest that the dangers posed by auto drivers who drive under theinfluence of cell phone conversation are even greater for the motorcyclistswhom they fail to “see.” One reason is that motorcyclists are morevulnerable to serious injury and death resulting from accidents generallyand hence from the increased general incidence of accidents caused by theDUI level cell phone impaired. Additionally, auto drivers have a profoundpreexisting inattentional blindness specific for motorcyclists, asdemonstrated by the pre-cell-phone-age studies demonstrating adisproportionate incidence of motorcycle accidents resulting from autodriver inattention specifically at intersections, after the auto driverenters the intersection or turns left at the intersection into themotorcyclist's right of way.
The fact that the auto drivers claim that theydon't “see” the motorcyclist derives from visual/visual inattentionalblindness. The cell phone impaired contribute an additional, different formof auditory-internal-cognitive distraction resulting in external-visualinattentional blindness. We suggest that the combination of the two forms ofinattentional blindness leads at least to an additive and possibly asynergistic effect to disproportionately increase the dangers formotorcyclists.
We conclude that all cell phone use while driving should be outlawed. Thusfar the states which have considered the issue have either rejected bans oncell phone use or have banned only to use of handheld cell phones whiledriving. It will become more and more obvious that cell phone use needs tobe prohibited while driving as the death told continues to mount. Becausecell phone impairment is an intentional blindness resulting from the cellphone conversation, not from “holding” the cell phone, legislation banningonly handheld cell phone use can be expected only to be completelyineffective in reducing the human carnage left in the trail of the cellphone impaired. Only comprehensive bans on all cell phone use while drivingwil be effective.
Cell phone use while driving must be severely penalized, by lengthy driverslicense suspension for first time offenders and jail time for repeatoffenders, equivalent to the penalties for DUI drunk driving. Fines haveproven ineffective in curtailing handheld cell phone use even where drivershad the option to use hands-free cell phones while driving.
There is no economic risk/benefit analysis which recommends permitting cellphone use while driving. To the extent that productive or semi-productivework is accomplished while driving, employers beware, if the employee causesan accident while engaged in business related cell phone conversation youwill be held liable for the resulting injuries. The use of cell phones bythe commuting work force also results in an impediment to traffic flow,traffic delays and longer commutes for all workers. Cell phone users take 19percent more time to regain flow-of-traffic speed after each brakingepisode. With one in ten drivers on our streets and highways activelyinvolved in cell phone conversation at any given daylight moment, indeed theeffect on traffic flow and city congestion is enormous.
The societal costsof driver cell phone use is measured by broken bodies, the loss of our lovedones, medical expense, increased length of driver commutes and citycongestion, increased fuel consumption, and the environmental impact. Nocolorable benefit of cell phone use while driving can justify the costs.
Again, we would hope that you would consider the full M-A-D-D article, at:
Ride safe, my friends,And keep an eye out for the cell phone impaired,because you can be sure that they won't be keeping an “eye” out for you,
–“M-A-D-D Ray” Henke
–from Rogue
Motorcycle Hall Of Fame Member 2005
www.bikerrogue.com
