On January 12th, 2009 the National Safety Council launched it's campaign to ban cell phone use (while driving) nationwide.
Before I get into this, I want to make a few of things abundantly clear:
- I do not disagree that talking on a hand-held phone, or worse, texting, is dangerous behavior that might as well be banned.
- I'm going to completely ignore slippery-slope and other non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious arguments. Come to business, I've learned to ignore almost all fallacious arguments. Except my own, hypocrite that I am. ;)
- This post is less an argument in opposition to a ban (although largely, it will take that tone) than it is a critical look at the disingenuous nature of the NSC's campaign.
To begin with, the NSC bases much of it's argument(s) on two studies, although they claim to have used over fifty. The first (and foremost) is a 2002 study done by Harvard Center of Risk Analysis. (A taste of what's to come: in 2000, the same Harvard Center of Risk Analysis concluded that "The risks [of using a cell phone while driving] appear to be small compared to other daily risks but are uncertain.") The second study heavily relied upon is a 2006 study by the University of Utah. I promise, no Mormon jokes.
In their first week media-blitz, the spokespersons for the NSC have collectively (and selectively) misrepresented the findings of the studies, cherry picked their phrasing to imply findings that do not exist, and outright lied. For example, according to the NSC's own website:
Cell phone use contributes to an estimated 6 percent of all crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year. (Harvard Center of Risk Analysis).
But, on the very same page, they claim:
80 percent of crashes are related to driver inattention. There are certain activities that may be more dangerous than talking on a cell phone. However, cell phone use occurs more frequently and for longer durations than other, riskier behaviors. Thus, the #1 source of driver inattention is cell phones. (Virginia Tech 100-car study for NHTSA)
Using the two above examples, the NSC is claiming that 80% of crashes are related to inattention. 6% of crashes are related to cell phone use. The remaining 74% - which are admitted to be at least in part riskier - are dismissed as being too infrequent to be considered the "#1 source of driver inattention." It is therefore logical to assume that (in accordance with the NSC's figures) there are a minimum of 15 less frequent behaviors which contribute to driver inattention (14 behaviors at 5% frequency, and one at 4% frequency). Anyone care to Family-Feud up the 15 examples? Eating, drinking, smoking, playing with the radio, talking to passengers, reading, sex, uh... playing road games, um... well, it's not as easy as it sounds. And this is the minimum amount of behaviors considered both less frequent and (possibly) riskier, according to the NSC's own figures. The fallacy here is classic argumentum ad verecundiam; the NSC is correct in that some cell phone behaviors are found to be dangerous, but they cherry-pick the studies to promote their agenda. And since "experts" are saying it, it can't be wrong, no matter that the studies are contradictory (the 2002 and 2000 Harvard Center of Risk Analysis studies), show that cell phone use is related to only a small minority of crashes and that there are much riskier behaviors, and do not actually support the conclusion that cell phone use is the "#1 source of driver inattention."
A spokesperson recently appeared on the Ed Schultz Show and spoke authoritatively on the subject. He said that even hands-free cell phone use was just as dangerous as hand-held use or texting (the latter unsupported by studies). He said that drivers actually drove better with passengers in the car. He said that talking to a passenger is significantly safer than talking on a cell phone. The astute listener (and now, reader) may have already pinpointed the problem here. But for the rest, who may have been distracted by the kids clubbing each other with their Wii remotes, I'll point it out. He did not say that talking on a hands-free headset is more dangerous than talking to a passenger. He did not say that drivers drove better while talking to a passenger. And with good reason. Such statements wouldn't require intensive study before being discarded as patently false. Common sense can tell you that. The message was that a conversation made you drive safer, but a conversation was incredibly dangerous. If that sounds nonsensical, it is. The distinction that wasn't made (again, with good reason) is that if the person is there, it's safe, and if the person is not there, it's risky. Again, the spokesperson plays it fast and loose with which form of cell phone use was being discussed when statements were being made. (And since the transcript is not available insofar as I know, the reader is free to disregard my report that he was very selective about connecting statements with the studies. In other words, he backed up factual statements when he could, and was careful not to associate the studies with more disingenuous statements. In the above paragraph, for example, the first statement was not followed by citing the related study, as the texting portion was unsupported.)
I could go on (as anyone who has ever read my diaries can attest), but for the sake of brevity, I'll move forward to my main point. In the above example, the intellectually honest argument would be that while other behaviors are just as dangerous, they cannot be regulated, or that they already are. I feel safe in saying that sexual activity while driving is illegal. But talking is not. Nor is telling your son to stop hitting your daughter, or you'll pull this car over, I swear to god! The latter is simply beyond legislation, and even if it weren't, it would be political suicide. But with the correctly (and selectively) applied "facts" and a few reminders of that one time that idiot who was dialing what seemed to be a 57 digit number swerved all over the road and nearly killed you, a specific kind of talking while driving might be a much easier political sell.
Falsely equating talking on a bluetooth with drunk driving (as NSC president Janet Froetscher did on Fox News and MSNBC) and repeatedly quoting the completely ludicrous, "people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated" conclusion is disingenuous. (It is not an absolute fact that the quote was indeed drawn from the University of Utah study, as such a conclusion is utterly without credible merit. Also, the idea that cell phone use is the #1 cause of accidents - the implication, if not the direct statement - might fly in the face of the legions of anti-drunk driving groups who say otherwise.) Selectively misrepresenting the studies from which evidence is drawn and leaving the public to base conclusions on erroneous information is disingenuous. Cherry-picking data that seems to support your argument while ignoring data that mitigates the efficacy of the argument is disingenuous.
All of the above simply begs the question; if the cause is true and the evidence irrefutable, why then the deception? Is cell phone use while driving so dangerous that it need to be banned nationwide? If so, where is the overwhelming evidence necessary to convince even the skeptics? Okay, so it begs the plural; questions.
Distracted driving is less safe than driving while not distracted. True. Talking on a cell phone - even on a headset - is distracting. True. Why the tricky language and balderdash? Perhaps because common sense tells us that talking on a headset is not much different than talking to someone sitting next to you. It's not that cell phone use doesn't make driving less safe. It just appears (IMHO) that the extra measure of safety comes at too high a price, with too little gain, and that's a tough sell.
Okay, that's out of my system now. For the record, I am very much in favor of a ban on texting or handheld cell phone use while driving. I am not so much in favor of banning hands-free calling. But either way, I am dead set against bringing legislation forth using misleading and untrue information. If that sounds familiar, it is.