There should be a ban on using cell phones while driving. Not just handheld devices, but all cell phones. In consideration of the traffic accidents, the cost of those accidents (not only in money, but in human life as well), and the sheer repugnancy of the act, the use of a cell phone should be banned, and the ban should be strenuously enforced.

The debate started about a decade ago, when the New England Journal of Medicine published a report that stated that a driver who was talking on a cell phone was four times more likely to get in an accident than a driver who was not talking on a cell phone. (New England Journal of Medicine). It likely started before that, back when people had those cumbersome mobile phones, such as the one used in the 80’s adventure show, “The A-Team.” Presumably, that method of communication was so expensive and unwieldy that it wasn’t feasible to use it as often as the relatively cheap and easy-to-handle cell phones we have today. The number of cell phone-related accidents is on the rise, and I’m here to tell you: it needs to stop.

There are many accidents every year that involve cell phones. The exact numbers are not available, as most states don’t require cell phone use to be a consideration when filling out an accident report. (Cohen). There are two factors that increase the likelihood of accidents for cell phone users: the first is the driver must dial the phone number or answer the incoming call, which lowers the driver’s attention by 20%. The second is the driver can become so absorbed in the conversation that his attention is hindered by 33%. (Mangalonzo). Use of a hands-free device offers no more safety than a hand-held device. (McEnvoy). Some data shows that 6% of auto accidents each year are caused by cell phones. It sounds like a small number, until you do the math: that comes out to 2,600 deaths, 330,000 injuries and 1.5 million instances of property damage per year. (Mangalonzo). 2,600 deaths? That’s half the population of Rosemont, Illinois! (ePodunk).

With all of these accidents, insurance rates are bound to go up. Again, hardly anybody keeps tabs on whether a cell phone was the cause of an accident, so there are no good numbers on insurance rates in relation to cell phone related accidents. (Volger). It’s presumable however that the more accidents there are, the higher the insurance rates go. These days, people treat litigation like it’s a contact sport. In fact, that’s one of the factors Senior Research Scientist, Dr. Joshua Cohen, used in formulating the cost benefits of a complete ban on cell phone use while driving:

“…the [cost] benefits of a ban on [non-emergency use
of cell phones while driving], measured by medical
costs, reduced property damage, insurance claims and
litigation, estimates of what people would be willing
to avoid pain, suffering and death…would be worth
approximately $4.3 billion.”

There’s one factor that Dr. Cohen’s equation didn’t take into account – the cost of human life. Did Dr. Cohen figure in the lost life of Elpidio Mata, a 46-year-old truck driver who was burned to death when his semi tractor-trailer was engulfed in flames after he jackknifed while talking on a cell phone? (Maciel). Did Dr. Cohen calculate the loss of life for Morgan Pena, the two year old girl who died when a 27-year-old man, distracted with dialing his cell phone, blew through a stop sign and killed little Morgan? (Fields-Meyer). Of course not – what is the monetary value of life? It can’t be calculated. Well, in a way, the value can be estimated: the young man who killed Morgan received two $25 traffic citations, and paid a civil settlement. (Fields-Meyer). Estimates can also be made about how much money was spent on emergency medical services for Elpidio and Morgan, as well as the cost of their funerals. Considerably more difficult to calculate is the cost to Morgan’s mother, who will never get to see her beloved daughter grow up. Elpidio’s death was a recent tragedy, and no facts have come forth about any family he might have had. However, there was someone on the other end of that cell phone conversation, and Elpidio will be missed by at least one person, and one person is enough.

To be fair, the odds of dying in a cell phone related accident are only about four in one million. The chances of dying in a drunken driving related accident are about eighteen in one million. (Pickler). Again, the statistics are not completely accurate, as most states don’t require use of a cell phone to be a consideration when determining the cause of an accident. Perhaps this would change, and the chances of dying in a cell phone related accident would increase, if cell phone signals were as abundant and accessible as beer.

The biggest problem with banning cell phones is enforcing the ban. In November 2001, New York banned the use of cell phones while driving. Researchers found that before the ban went into effect, 2.3% of the 72,000 drivers surveyed (in both New York and Connecticut) used cell phones while driving. When the ban went into effect, 1.1% of the drivers used a cell phone while driving. A year later, that number was back up to 2.1%. The researchers concluded that a cell phone ban is not effective without continued publicity and constant enforcement. (McCartt).

It might serve us well to follow in the footsteps of countries that have banned hand-held cell phone use while driving. These countries include India, Ireland, France, Egypt, Japan, Russia, Mexico, and Australia. The list just goes on and on. (Dryden). Why are we so behind? There are many stranger and less dangerous things that are legally banned. A simple internet search for “dumb laws” turns up laws barring things from carrying an ice cream cone in your back pocket to whistling while underwater. These are far less dangerous than driving while talking on a cell phone.

A ban like this certainly wouldn’t be the first ban on the nuisance of cell phones. In 2002, New York City banned the use of cell phones in places of public assembly: “anyplace…where members of the public assemble to witness cultural, recreational, or educational activities.” (Jacobs). This would include places like the movie theater, art galleries, museums, the library, live theater, and concert halls. Surprisingly, the ban doesn’t extend to sporting events, but it could be assumed that there is so much noise in the crowd at a sporting event that a cell phone conversation isn’t worth having – it would only be drowned out.

Traffic Committee Chairman Burton F. Nataurus (of Chicago’s 42nd ward) pointed out that not putting a ban on cell phone use while driving is akin to not putting a ban on televisions in the front seat. (Pickler). Essentially, it’s a matter of safety versus how much freedom people have to govern their own well-being. Sometimes the law has to step in. Drunk drivers often feel that they’re fine to drive, but the law stepped in to stop people from driving drunk. This is another case of people getting behind the wheel and thinking that they’re okay to drive, but they’re not. One highway patrol trooper in Nevada said that when following certain drivers, he has noticed that there are similar characteristics shared between an intoxicated driver and a driver who is using a cell phone. (Arambulo).

Opponents of such a ban argue that it’s nobody’s business what a driver does behind the wheel of his own car, as long as he’s not intoxicated and is not causing an accident. They’re wrong – what a person does while operating a ton of steel at any speed, be it 25 miles an hour or 70 – is a safety concern, and therefore everybody’s business.

A big reason why people talk on the phone while driving is because they’re too busy to make calls when they’re not driving. Those that work multiple jobs or have to put the importance of their children’s schedules at the forefront of their day aren’t often left with a lot of time to take care of business or make personal calls when not operating a vehicle. It’s not a valid excuse. This is a safety issue. People have to make time to deal with their personal business on their own time. Time spent on the road is not personal time – it’s time that you share with that minivan in front of you that goes ten miles below the speed limit, it’s time that you spend waiting for someone to let you change lanes. It’s time you spend with the community, such as it is. It’s time that we all take each others’ lives in our own hands, and it should be treated with a delicacy and grace that cell phones do not provide.

A 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety said that talking on a cell phone ranks pretty low on among the things that distract drivers while driving. (Insurance Information Iinstitute). The natural question that arises is: why are we so worried about cell phone use, when there are other factors that are more of a distraction? Well, the rank of distractions depends largely on who you talk to. Some studies say that talking on a cell phone while driving is far and away more likely to lead to a crash. The low ranking is probably a ranking according to how often something is done, as opposed to how likely it is to cause an accident. Besides, a cell phone conversation can last ten or twenty minutes, while it only takes about twenty seconds to take a sip of coffee, light a cigarette, or change the radio station.

People could complain that a ban on cell phones while driving would lead to a ban on coffee cups in the car, or a fine for driving with only one hand on the wheel. This is a ridiculous and over-reactionary rejoinder. A cell phone call, including the time to dial or answer the phone, plus the time of the conversation, takes up much more of the driver’s time and attention than just sipping coffee or resting his arm on the window.

Enforcement is an obstacle that we must all overcome together. Police should keep a vigilant eye out for people on cell phones, as they now do for drunk drivers. Stiff fines should be set in place, as well as loss of license and jail time for repeat offenders. How many more people have to die before we, as a nation, stand up and do something about a problem that is so easy to solve? Driving drunk gets all of the press now – why not ads about driving while talking on a cell phone? The key plan here would be to ban it, advertise the ban, and then enforce the ban. Doing anything less would be the same as telling someone it’s perfectly fine to become the cause of one of those accidents.

The very first step would be to demand that cell phone use be included as a possible factor when determining the cause of an accident. We can have no real analysis of the situation, nor any comprehension of the devastation caused by this situation, unless we have more cold, hard facts about what’s going on. We must learn from the mistakes of our past and use that knowledge to conquer the future.

In consideration of the loss of lives and property, driving while talking on a cell phone should be banned. This behavior, this blatant disregard for human life and the obnoxious encroachment on the rights of other people’s feelings of well-being, should be stopped. Enforcement should be ferocious and swift, like a screeching eagle snatching a slow, shimmering salmon from a bubbling stream. Given that there are 2,600 reported deaths every year due to cell phone use, it is the least we can do is make reporting of this factor a mandatory step in accident details. The life we might save might be yours. Works Cited
Arambulo, Adrian. "KLASTV.com." News for Las Vegas, Nevada. 15 Dec. 2005. WorldNow and KLAS. 12 Apr. 2006 .

Cohen, J. T., and J. D.Graham. "A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the Use of Cell Phones While Driving." Risk Analysis 23((Feb. 2003)): 5-17

Dryden, James. "Keep Your Hands Where They Belong (Ban Cell Phone Use While Driving)." Motor Trend 57((July 2005)): 28.

ePodunk.com. "ePodunk." ePodunk.com - The Power of Place. 2006. ePodunk Inc. 12 Apr. 2006 .

Fields-Meyer, T., & Birkbeck, M. (2001, May 21). Fatal Distraction. People Weekly, 55, pp. 66-68.

Insurance Information Institute. "III - Cell Phones and Driving." Insurance Information Institute. Jan. 2006. Insurance Information Institute, Inc. 7 Apr. 2006 .

Jacobs, Leonard. "Effectiveness of Cell Phone Ban Unclear." Back Stage 45((20 Aug. 2004)): 2.

Maciel, Clair. "Truck Driver Dies in U.S. 59 Wreck." Herald-Coaster. 17 Apr. 2006. Fort Bend Herald. 17 Apr. 2006

Mangalonzo, John. "Pull Over - Officials: Cell Phone Use Adds to Road Hazards." Journal-Advocate. 8 Apr. 2006. MediaNews Group, Inc. 10 Apr. 2006 .

McCartt, Anne T. "Longer Term Effects of New York State's Law on Drivers' Handheld Cell Phones." Injury Prevention 10((Feb. 2004)): 11-15.

McEvoy, Suzanne P. "Role of Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicle Crashes Resulting in Hospital Attendance: A Case Crossover Study." British Medical Journal 331((20 Aug. 2005)): 428.

Pickler, Nedra. "Cell Phone Benefit Balances Risk." Chicago Sun-Times (3 Dec. 2002): 7.

Redelmeier, Donald A., and Robert J.Tibshirani. "Association Between Cellular- Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions." New England Journal of Medicine 336((13 Feb. 1997)): 452-458.

Volger, Mark E. "Cell phone use cited in fatal accident." Eagle-Tribune. 5 Dec. 2004. Eagle. 10 Apr. 2006 .



Back to the infamous English papers