What might the hands-free law accomplish?

Unless you have been living in a cave, you are probably aware that California's hands-free cellphone laws go into effect at midnight. It appears that different agencies may enforce the law differently, according to my colleagues David Pierson and Hector Becerra in a story at The Times' website.

First, the gist of the laws: you cannot hold a phone and have a conversation when driving, although you can touch the phone to dial. If you are 16 or 17, you can't use a phone period. And, the law fails to address text messaging. Here's a link to a Q&A I wrote recently on the laws.

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.

--Steve Hymon

Comments

[Steve]

I hate those bluetooth headsets. I found this thing called the gizi pouch. It lets me use the speakerphone option already in my phone. This thing was not expensive and looks cool. Google it. You will see.

[Dustin Jones]

I read about the law on handsfreeinfo.com. Whoever said FOOL the police and put your hand over one ear is hilarious. :)

[Benjamin]

Who would like big brother watching over us. It is out of a movie with an evil community association. I don't think cell phone laws are quite that bad. One can similarly say the same thing about seat belt laws. It seems the laws are more to boost sales for tax revenues as well as boost public opinion of politicians, hey they are doing something for public good. A win win scenario.

I think the laws will allow people to think more about how dangerous it is to be distracted in a car, and maybe avoid an accident here or there. I think the main benefit will be more people will have to go less to the chiropractor for holding their neck and arm up while driving and looking. Non the less I think the days of headsets will start being challenged by some of the new speaker phones. People will switch to speaker phones in their cars like the TalkNBluetooth at http://www.talknbluetooth.com. The sound and ability to talk is so much better than with a headset. Many people complain about the ear piece hurting over time. This problem can be easily solved by a speak phone.

Its hard to get over the government having control of your life and can tell you what to and what not to do. It is so good being in America, most people in the rest of the world are property of the state and so must comply. In Germany for example you have to register you TV and Computer with the local police station. Bazaar stuff for us Americans, but the rest of the world does not understand what blessing we have here. To even be able to write about our government as big brother is a jail term in the majority of the other countries of the world.

It seems to me this a good natured law, and its foundation most likely comes from someone's family member being killed or injured badly while using a cell phone. Could a law have helped, maybe, maybe not one could argue. I think the main problem with cell phones is dialing the things, you have to take your eye off the road. Hopefully technology will get us out of this one.

[E. Lopez.]

How about people who drive standard (clutch) vehicles and like to use their phones while driving. For these type of people, the law makes perfect sense. If this law can save one life, isn't it worth the inconvenience and $30 we each must pay for a headset? Stop complaining and blaming the world for your issues.

[Mike H - Redondo]

I think this law is long overdue, although the tip of the iceberg - a pity we have to enact laws to protect ourselves. There is also new legislation prohibiting driving with a dog in your lap. Now we just need something to address applying makeup, shaving, eating (a bowl of cereal!), reading, and a number of incredibly stupid things I see every day while people are barrelling down the road.

[fedUpinLA]

Make no mistake about it....THIS IS A MONEY GRABBER!

If the State of CA was slightly interrested in our 'safety', they would deport millions of illegals who are murdering. raping, robbing, mugging, and driving drunk on our streets and highways!

HIDE YOUR WALLETS...OR GET OUT OF CA NOW...CA is nothing more than a kleptocracy!

[papasutra]

The best solution is to outlaw phoning - hands free or otherwise - completely.

Think people...When I was growing up in the 70's and 80's my friends and I made plans before we went out the door. If we needed to call we either waited until we arrived at point of destination to say what we had to say or we stopped at a pay phone. We survived - as I would today w/o phoning during driving.

Life as we know wouldn't change without cell phones even though I'm sure some or even many would have a complete kiniption fit if phoning during driving were to be outlawed.

[Charlie]

ABOUT TIME! I've lived all over the world and love LA, but the drivers here are the WORST I've ever had to protect my family against. Phone law will go some way towards curbing their moronic, zoned out behaviour.

Can we make using a TURN SIGNAL mandatory too?

[Fleur]

In Australia, we've had these laws for years, and people don't see them as a point of contention. Any law that's introduced also needs to be enforced, and this is where drivers usually change their behaviour.

As a regular pedestrian and cyclist (I don't own a car, but occassionally use one) its nice knowing that drivers generally have their attention on the road and hands on the steering wheel.

[anony]

I don't know how to text message, but I sure enjoy learning while I'm driving - stupid law.

[gary]

I think this is a sound piece of legislation. I've seen countless drivers (especially SUV) holding a phone and performing dangerous tricks on the road. Say what you want about the hands free device makers it is just a sorry excuse to keep indulge yourself while endanger others. Get a ten dollar corded hands free earbud/mic. No one tell you to spend $40, $50 or $100 to get a fancy wireless bluetooth device. Please...your SUV is not a tank even if you feel like drive one. I believe this law will definely make the road safer. If you want to fight a unfair law, go fight the cesus survey (interrogation) law!

[Michael V. Chapman]

I disagree on this new "hands-free" law. The legislators stick it to us in order to attempt to modify our behavior. Moreover, we're forced already to pay more at the pump so those lawgivers should go to a bridge and jump!

[Big Bro]

Instead of being worried about not being able to talk on the cell while driving, you should worry about the phone companies who are recording your conversations and turning them over to the Department of Homeland Security...and you can't sue the phone companies because Congress voted to give them immunity! hahaha

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/12/fisa.senate/

[I'm Driving Hands Free]

I'm glad the legislation passed. This is good for SoCal for the following reason:

Really bad drivers talking on the cell phone while driving cause accidents and raise insurance rates for everyone else!!!

Think about it: More accidents means higher insurance for everyone...even if you have a perfect driving record!

[leslie]

really? i am a little shocked at everyone's reaction to the law. It is UNSAFE to talk and drive. what's the problem with the law. i understand fear of big brother but clearly this law is a good one.

[stpid]

...next there going to restrict the number of passengers in the car...useless government providing useless rules while stealing the peoples money...another way for the state to try and take our money to pay off there debt

[DogBitez]

I really don't like Big Brother laws. But that said, I guess you have to live in a rural mountain community to fully appreciate the terror of someone driving one-handed while yammering away into a cell phone. We've had a number of fatal accidents on our mountain roads because someone was taking a blind curve at 55MPH one-handed... and yeah, they strayed into oncoming traffic and killed the occupant(s) in the other car. So I see how deadly one-handed driving can be. The only problem is... they need to make it illegal to eat a Big Mac while driving (been there, done that), reach over and fish out sunglasses from inside a purse (guilty)... well, you get my point, there are any number of reasons a person will drive one-handed. So I'm thinking they should outlaw cupholders in vehicles... since that just enables you to pick up a beverage and drink while driving one-handed. But what makes this law completely retarded is that the REAL KILLER is when people are not only driving one-handed, but looking away from the road while dialing. I've done it, you've done it, and we all know how insanely bad it is. And that's completely legal to do still.

[Rich Seymour]

PS I ride my bike to work. And... I can use my cellphone on my bike if I have a death wish without being ticketed as far as I know.

[Rich Seymour]

I have yet to get an earpiece, but has anyone done a study of how receiving a call with an earpiece in affects driving? Also, I've seen some of these studies before, and they mention that the act of communicating with someone who is not watching the road with you is the danger of a cellphone. At least with a phone in my hand I can toss it if danger happens... I know because I've done it. The last thing I need in a split second decision is my friend in my ear saying "And so like, she was all..." while I'm trying to figure out how I hang up... With a real phone in my hand I can just let go of the phone.

Why was no one up in arms about CB radios in the 70s/80s? Too small a userbase? This is a ridiculous law, not a groundbreaking one. We should be promoting safe driving regardless of what new electronic gadget comes out, not punishing those who chose not to buy another gadget.

[Vic Arpeggio]

What's worse? A phone or a giant LED billboard DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to distract you. But as the billboard companies have LA's City Council in their back pocket, we'll never see any real legilation passed to deal with this. Welcome to the Nanny State people.

[RyDOGG]

Dialing the number is the dangerous part. So why is that legal? Stop being so stupid America. dumb da dumb dum dumbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

[matt]

when are they going to ban billboards.

I mean they are essentially billion dollar campaigns to distract drivers, no?

[Curmudgeon7]

What will the women do who leave their homes, get into their Escalades and begin dialing as they back out of the driveway? Life as they have known has ended.

[Valerie]

Nothing will come of it. It has to do with being distracted. I was almost sideswiped by some Doofus on a "hands free" set who was yakking away, oblivious to where his car was going.

[larry]

There's also a study that says that cars with adult passengers have a higher rate of accidents. I say we should ban all passengers in cars.