“Regulating cell-phone usage by community is confusing.”
"Banning the use of hand held cell phones while driving is an infringement of my personal freedom."
"Talking on a cell phone is no more dangerous than putting on makeup, eating fast food, tuning your radio or reading a map while driving. People need to use common sense, and we can't write laws that make that happen."
"There are already laws that punish careless and reckless drivers appropriately for reckless driving. We don't need another one specifically for cell phones."
"A law like this would not be enforceable."
"This law will be bad for business."
"There isn't enough evidence to prove that using a cell phone while driving causes accidents."
Illinois law allows communities to regulate the usage of cell phones while driving. Increasing the driving safety of one community cannot decrease the driving safety in another community. Instead, it should increase the driving safety of all communities in the area. Drivers are already required to follow the different driving policies of their employers. Specifically, the University of Illinois does not allow the use of cell phones in their vehicles or equipment. UI employees will be less confused if this policy is in effect at all times.
Some people have asserted that they believe they have the right to use their cell phones while driving. They do not have that right. The state of Illinois does not guarantee its citizens driving privileges, let alone the ability to drive and talk on a cellular phone.
Our state and national constitutions guarantee us all the freedom to live our lives. We have the right as parents to thoughtfully and responsibly care for, nurture, and raise our children. These are the kinds of freedoms that build the foundation of a democracy. These are the kinds of freedoms worth fighting for. Cell phone users face no such compelling loss of freedom. They're faced with a minor inconvenience, a change in relatively recent habits, and nothing more. Any small discomfort someone may experience as a result of this legislation is far outweighed by the overall benefit to public safety.
There is no question that there are many distractions occurring in the car. Of course responsible drivers should make every effort to minimize those distractions. But none of those behaviors rise to the same level of driver inattention as does dialing and then conducting a conversation or closing a business deal on a cellular phone. Human Factors experts tell us that there are basically three kinds of driving distractions. The first is visual. Looking away from the roadway would be an example of this. The second is mechanical. This would include manipulation a control -- such as dialing a cellular phone or adjusting a radio, and can often be associated with a visual distraction. The third is cognitive. By example, we have all had the experience of traveling from point A to point B and then realizing that we aren't sure how we got there or what happened in between. Being "lost in thought" or being in focused conversation with someone causes us to withdraw from situational awareness. Researchers are beginning to obtain evidence that shifting from hand held to hands-free phone use while driving does not result in eliminating all cell phone distractions. It addresses the visual and mechanical distractions, but does not address the cognitive issues. This raises the question, "How is conversing on a phone different from talking with a passenger in the vehicle?" There are two important differences. The first is that a passenger in a vehicle is aware of the driving situation and can even serve as an additional look-out for hazards. If there is a needed pause in conversation, the reasons are evident to all parties. The second is that phone use seems to carry a certain obligation of immediacy. When the phone rings, we feel compelled to answer it -- whether it is convenient, safe, or appropriate to do so or not. We become focused on the phone call and lose the situational awareness so necessary for safe driving. Of all the distractions mentioned, only the use of a cell phone incorporates all three of those demands. The sheer magnitude of cell phone usage also differentiates these behaviors. The landmark NHTSA 100-car, 241-driver study found that cell-phone usage is the most common driving distraction, and that distraction is a factor in almost 80 percent of crashes. As of September 2006, there were 219 million cell-phone subscribers. We know that as a society we can provide the means to keep in touch with family and friends, conduct business deals, entertain ourselves, or order a carry out dinner while driving our cars, but the important question that has not been adequately addressed is should we?*
Some people have a problem with the concept of legislating personal responsibility, but legislating personal responsibility is nothing new. The state of Illinois has enacted laws enforcing the use of seatbelts and child safety seats, and sobriety while driving. Aren't these, too, personal responsibilities? Once it was realized that people were not wearing seat belts or strapping their children into car seats, it took an act of legislation to force the public to change their habits. This change in social non-acceptance of drunk driving came about as a direct result of the legislation. In today's society we MUST legislate because there are people out there who do not take personal responsibility for their own safety and that of others. We do not pass laws to punish responsible people; we pass laws to protect ourselves from irresponsible ones.
Careless and reckless driving laws do cover a wide variety of driving infractions. Yet we don't choose to simply lump all driving behaviors under reckless or careless driving. We make special laws making it illegal to drive through a red light, to follow the speed limit, or to stop when a school bus lets off children. We also made a law specifically addressing the behavior of driving while intoxicated. Why? A person violating any of these laws could surely be accused of reckless or careless driving. When we recognize a specific behavior as being particularly hazardous we address it independently. Those laws clearly define particular behaviors as unacceptable leaving no ambiguity for drivers or law enforcement officials. A law is needed because it underscores to the public exactly how dangerous and destructive the behavior can be. A law forces people to think about that specific behavior and its consequences.
Some lawmakers have raised the question of whether a law such as this would be enforceable. How do police officers detect whether someone is wearing a seatbelt? How do they know whether a driver is intoxicated? All of these things are difficult to detect and therefore enforce. Yet we’ve made them laws anyway. When we are faced with overwhelming safety concerns, we legislate. We’ve even passed laws making it illegal to carry a concealed weapon. The very nature of that offense would make it highly unlikely that an officer would be able to enforce it. Yet we’ve still passed the law anyway. Why? The hope is always that lawmakers will be able to spot and remove potential hazards from the public before harm occurs, but if that fails, it gives us the ability after the fact, to assess additional penalties on those who have chosen to act recklessly or irresponsibly.
The fact is that as we speak there are businesses all over this country who are rewriting their employee handbooks to prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Companies such as Johnson & Johnson, the third largest pharmaceutical company in the world, and Praxair, a bottled gas transportation company, just to name a few, have prohibited their employees from using cell phones in moving vehicles while on company time. They see how vulnerable they are, in terms of liability, if an accident were to occur. The companies can distinguish the difference between the small advantage their employees incur by conducting business on their phones while driving, and the enormous disadvantage of being held financially responsible for the injury or life of the employee and any person they strike while exhibiting this behavior. If even the Defense Department, with its wide-ranging acceptance of risk and ability to pay for damages has found it necessary to ban cell-phone driving of any kind on its bases in Hawaii, and hand-held on any U.S base, how can any other entity afford to allow it?
A lack of statistical data about a problem is not the same thing as a lack of evidence!*
The fact is, we have evidence that a problem exists. We don't have statistics not because they don't exist, but because we don't currently collect them.
According to the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, “Some states include use of cell phones as a data element where driver distraction contributes to a crash, but generally very few studies and limited crash data is available that provides a direct correlation between use of cell phones while driving and crashes.” The landmark NHTSA 100-car, 241-driver study found that cell-phone usage is the most common driving distraction, and that distraction is a factor in almost 80 percent of crashes. As of September 2006, there were 219 million cell-phone subscribers.
"The information you need most is not available, because we are not collecting it," said Mark Burris of the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research. In 2002, after Japan banned handheld phone use while driving, accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped by 75 percent the next month according to the New York Times (10/01/2002).
One line of evidence is the finding of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s 2006 study that found that death rates would have begun rising in 1994 if it were not for improvements in car crash-worthiness. In fact, the death rate per vehicle mile did rise in 2005 for the first time since 1990 according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, in spite of vehicle improvements.
When 120 children and small-statured women were killed with airbags, there was a huge government, industry and societal response. When 150 people died using Firestone tires, the response was similar. Both airbags and tires are essential parts of the driving environment. Cell phones are not, so why do we tolerate this problem?*
*Information marked with an asterisk provided by Fran Bents, co-author of the Department of Transportation's 1997 report entitled "An Investigation of Wireless Communications in Vehicles," in her March 7, 2000 testimony before the Senate Transportation Committee in Pennsylvania.
According to http://www.iihs.org/news/pr081006.html “The designs of passenger vehicles have been improving for years, becoming more protective of their occupants in crashes. Without these improvements, the motor vehicle death rate per registered vehicle would have stopped declining in 1994 and started going up. This is the main finding of a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.”