The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) woke up to a New York Times hatchet job. “In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel,” the NYT begins, without specifying who, what, when, where or how. But we do get a general sort of why: “They sought the study based on evidence that such multitasking was a serious and growing threat on America’s roadways.” And then, da da DA! “But such an ambitious study never happened. And the researchers’ agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, decided not to make public hundreds of pages of research and warnings about the use of phones by drivers — in part, officials say, because of concerns about angering Congress.” Dive! Dive! Dive!
So, here’s the “secret” preliminary data (all 266 pages of it). Now, a bit further down the Times article, we get the smoking gun. Allegedly.
Dr. Jeffrey Runge, then the head of the highway safety agency, said he grudgingly decided not to publish the draft letter [to Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta "warning states that hands-free laws might not solve" the cell phone distracted driving problem] because of larger political considerations.
At the time, Congress had warned the agency not to use its research to lobby states. Dr. Runge said transit officials told him he could jeopardize billions of dollars of its financing if Congress perceived the agency had crossed the line into lobbying.
The fate of the research was discussed during a high-level meeting at the transportation secretary’s office. The meeting included Dr. Runge, several staff members with the highway safety agency and John Flaherty, Mr. Mineta’s chief of staff.
Mr. Flaherty recalls that the group decided not to publish the research because the data was too inconclusive.
Who are these “transit officials” of which Dr. Runge speaks? And why are we to believe Dr. R’s characterization of events when Mineta’s main man Flaherty says the data was withheld due to its quality?
He recalled that Dr. Runge “indicated that the data was incomplete and there was going to be more research coming.”
He recalled summing up his position as, the agency “should make a decision as to whether they wanted to wait for more data.”
But Dr. Runge recalled feeling that the issue was dire and needed public attention. “I really wanted to send a letter to governors telling them not to give a pass to hands-free laws,” said Dr. Runge, whose staff spent months preparing a binder of materials for their presentation.
DOT telling NHTSA not to play politics? Sounds sensible to me. Now, can the NYT backpedal? Sure!
The highway safety agency, rather than commissioning a study with 10,000 drivers, handled one involving 100 cars. That study, done with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, placed cameras inside cars to monitor drivers for more than a year . . .
Not all the research went unpublished. The safety agency put on its Web site an annotated bibliography of more than 150 scientific articles [here] that showed how a cellphone conversation while driving taxes the brain’s processing power. But the bibliography included only a list of the articles, not the one-page summaries of each one written by the researchers.
“It became almost laughable,” Mr. Monk told the Times. “What they wound up finally publishing was a stripped-out summary.”
It’s a conspiracy! Or not.
Mr. Monk and Mike Goodman, a division head at the safety agency who led the research project, theorize that the agency might have felt pressure from the cellphone industry. Mr. Goodman said the industry frequently checked in with him about the project and his progress. (He said the industry knew about the research because he had worked with it to gather some data).
But he could offer no proof of the industry’s influence. Mr. Flaherty said he was not contacted or influenced by the industry.
In summary, then, we now know the NHTSA is not in the business of releasing preliminary data, which is open to misinterpretation. In fact, suggesting that agency torpedoed a study of 10k drivers because they don’t care about driver safety, or care too much about congressional oversight, is a slur against the NHTSA’s history of protecting American motorists and calling it like they see it.
At least the NYT ends (as do we) with a quote from the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Rae Tyson, the spokesman who’s helped us investigate potential fraud re: the fed’s “Cash for Clunkers” program.
Rae Tyson . . . said [the DOT] did not, and would not, publish the researchers’ fatality estimates because they were not definitive enough.
He said the other research was compiled as background material for the agency, not for the public.
“There is no report to publish,” he said.
78 Comments on “Editorial: Between the Lines: NHTSA Hung Out to Dry By NYT...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I have had two bosses in the past, one bragged about reading books behind the wheel on road trips. The other had me in the shotgun seat while she applied makeup as she drove. I did not say anything because she was an (at times) abusive boss who could not take criticism. She was keeping the vehicle in the lane, so I stayed quiet, but would have said something (as in shrieked in horror) about any impending dangerous circumstances.
Personally, I think multitasking behind the wheel is a side effect of traffic regulations that dictate driving styles that just don’t command a mind’s attention. Dumb down the task at hand to the point of genuine boredom, and some people naturally will fill in the time with other activities. Personally I tend to just speed because all the extra mental tasks and awarenesses needed to avoid meeting nice Mr. Officer makes up for the mental energy that could just as well get me down the road at far higher speeds.
As I recall from the 60′ or 70’s , cruise control and cup holders were late to the market in German cars. After driving on the Autobahn many years later, it was obvious why.
In a chat I had with a former NHTSA official a couple months back, he also felt that pressure from the cell phone industry, combined with the business-friendly attitude of the Bush II administration, scrapped this above mentioned study. The suggestion (based on that small population) that a one to two thousand fatal accidents were caused by driving while phoning was just too much.
He pointed me towards a couple of articles published last hear that had leaked some of those conclusions (and led to the above FOIA request).
Here’s the link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/10/do-cell-phones-kill-1000-people-year
Cellphone use while driving is a serious problem and one should concern everyone. Again, it is critical to understand the nature of the problem — when you are on a cellphone and driving you literally do not see some parts of the visual field. This effect is called ‘attentional blindness’ and is well documented. The science is beyond doubt.
So establishing it is a hazard is not really the issue. The problem here, I think, is that this concerns drivers and not vehicles, and licensing and regulating drivers has alway been a right and responsibility of the state.
Unfortunately states seem to be slow to appreciate the nature of the problem and meet their responsibility to stop behavior that leads to unsafe traffic conditions.
I think ignorance of the nature of the problem by the public is responsible for the lack of real regulatory action. Drunk driving is easy to understand. Attentional blindness is harder to understand. What people need to learn is this: talking on a cell phone while driving has an effect on reaction time, etc. that is equivalent to driving while drunk. You and yours are threatened by every yahoo driving while talking on their cellphone. It’s not just being annoyed that someone isn’t paying more attention while driving — treat them as if they are physically impaired, because they are.
Again: Cell phone driving is _not_ like eating while driving, talking to someone in the car while driving, etc. There is a specific way in which cell phone driving impairs the ability of the person to see what is happening and react.
The political issues alluded to above are real wrt policy making, but it doesn’t change the fact that this problem must be dealt with for everybody’s sake.
Richard Chen:
Did you see the disclaimer on the Mother Jones piece?
“There is no evidence that wireless companies interfered directly to crush NHTSA’s initiative, but the industry has nonetheless ensured itself plenty of clout in the corridors of power.”
TTAC is plenty skeptical of ALL claims made by ANYONE at ANY TIME. But we never lose sight of the simple fact that when you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And it should also be noted that every state has laws against dangerous driving.
@RF: yes, I did; however I also posted what the former career insider at NTHSA felt was going on with the cell phone lobby. He quit a few years ago because he was frustrated butting heads daily vs. political appointees during the last administration who didn’t put safety first.
He also noted that NHTSA weakened upcoming ESC standards from pressure from the auto manufacturers due to cost reasons. ESC safety data was done with expensive systems capable of sensing/reacting faster that what’s mandated for 2011. Will that mean that cheaper ESC systems are less safe? that remains to be seen.
“The Old Gray Hag” is a dying husk of what was once a powerful newspaper at the center of the most important medium for news delivery.
Between their obvious political agenda and their “Jayson Blair” fiasco… I have no use for what they say.
cellphones? hell, what about the morons with their little yappy white mutt in their lap? saw one of those (again) this morning. gives me great fear as i was commuting by bicycle …
Anti-phone laws have become the latest flavor-of-the-month feelgood measure for traffic safety. And like other feelgood traffic safety measures, the advocates resort to hyperbole and erroneous hypothetical studies to prove their points.
The laws won’t help, in part because “distraction” is a symptom, not a cause. Drivers who can’t multitask are not going to suddenly morph into driving perfectionists if there is no phone within reach. They will find other ways to crash.
The hypothetical studies are wrong, because they don’t account for real world behavior. Drivers using phones tend to account for the slightly greater reaction time by taking defensive actions that offset the potential ill effects of the increased reaction time. (Funny thing — that is exactly what happened when speed limits were increased, which is why that all of those doom-and-gloom lab and simulator studies that anticipated death and destruction due to increased reaction times and anticipated higher impact speeds were wrong, too.)
Phone usage has clearly become common, yet fatality rates continue to decline, as they always have. Jurisdictions with laws against handhelds have not received any quantifiable long term benefit from banning them. Most sensible people don’t respond to laws that don’t work by suggesting an expansion of laws that don’t work.
It’s quite sad, really. Reality just refuses to obey the studies. You can decide for yourself whether that means that there is a problem with reality or a problem with the studies.
That using a cell phone impairs ones ability to drive is a certainty in my mind, based both on admittedly less than scientific studies and on my personal experience. The question is how much of an impairment. To borrow from a previous posting and current anti drunk driving campaign, driving while talking on a cell phone is like driving buzzed. For some people that means all over the road for others that means inattention to anything that isn’t directly in front of them. Personally, there is rarely an instance where that phone call is so important it can’t wait. Discussions about what rob did last night and my new hairdo are not emergencies that need to be or should be addressed while driving down the road.
I’m not surprised lawmakers don’t want to see this research:
1. Cell phone use legislation is unpopular and difficult to enforce.
2. The numbers in the study, while interesting, are incomplete.
3. The number of claimed fatalities is relatively low. It may not seem it but when compared to other major causes or death, this is more like electric window fatalities and accidentally backing over pedestrians in trucks & SUVs – tragic but not easily fixed by legislation.
As for the insinuations that the cell phone lobby involvement, this may be possible but most likely overstated. Cell phone legislation that mandates hands free systems may actually increase sales in new blue-tooth capable phones and accessories.
@ Samuel L. Bronkowitz
You are absolutely spot-on here. Kudos. You have said what many of us have basically said or thought as well…..I’m finding myself reading the WSJ more for greater depth and coverage of important topics that one simply won’t find in much of the mainstream media
Phone usage has clearly become common, yet fatality rates continue to decline, as they always have.
That could also be explained by greater car safety, air bags, ABS, etc.
Jurisdictions with laws against handhelds have not received any quantifiable long term benefit from banning them. Most sensible people don’t respond to laws that don’t work by suggesting an expansion of laws that don’t work.
That doesn’t really address the issue here. The studies that they are referring to show that the act of talking not holding the phone is the cause of reduced attention. I know of no state law banning the use of a cell phone in a motor vehicle, only the requirement that a hands free device is used while driving. Second, in California, where hands free units are required by law, I see people driving down the road talking on a cell phone all the time. The law simply is not enforced; so, why would you expect to see any difference in accident rates, even assuming that it is the act of holding the phone that causes the inattention?
OK, I admit it. I like to talk on the phone while I drive. I have a 30-40 minute commute and it not only helps the time pass, but it also allows me to spend my home time with the kids and not the phone.
My commute is very easy. Few lights, a lot of highway. I drive a minivan, and slowly at that. I have not gotten in an accident in nearly 20 years.
A few folks have mentioned this already, but we are at historically low fatality rates on the road. Do we really need another reason (cellphone usage) for the cops to pull us over and hand us a $200 ticket?
When I ride my bike, the ones on that road that worry me are the late-for-work types that are cutting through traffic, and very young (or very old) drivers that don’t seem to pay enough attention. Most working types seem to drive fine.
Gary Numan
WSJ ? Do be on the alert that you don’t become an ideological lackey of Rupert Murdoch. I am making the assumption you and he do in fact have divergent goals and priorities, not to mention wealth and income levels.
And before anybody starts bleating about the NYT being a dreaded “liberal” publication, do remember they covered Mr Bush’s ass in the 2004 election http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/20/nation/na-media20
That could also be explained by greater car safety, air bags, ABS, etc
This misses the point.
We have been told that phone usage is something akin to drunk driving. We have other data that suggests that 10% of drivers are using a phone at any given time.
Do the math for that. If we had a national bout of alcoholism that led to 10% of drivers being drunk at any given moment, we would see fatality rates soaring beyond belief. No quantity of airbags or stability control would be able to cope with such a substantial increase in DUI, and we would be measuring the results in rising body counts.
No such thing is happening here. This substantial amount of usage is apparently insufficient to change the trends.
Again, there is a basic logical flaw common to these erroneous analyses. This is how they blow it with the methodology:
-First, take a problem and assign a statistical probability to it specifically
-Then, assume a world that if Law X is imposed that the behavior goes away or is reduced
-Voila, new Law X
Instead, here’s the reality:
-Phones create a certain risk (delayed reaction time)
-Drivers who use phones compensate for the risk by adjusting their driving to account for the risk.
-Result: No phone, no compensation for risk. Real world statistical outcome: No change.
The phone debate is very much like the speed limit debate of earlier years, except now the enthusiasts have joined the wrong side, going for what feels good instead of what makes sense. We should be avoiding the search of what feels good or “seems right”, and instead focus on what gets results.
@ Pch101
What are these ‘hypothetical’ studies?
Here is a link to some of the research from a leading lab for this issue: http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/
@ Lumbergh21
The problem does not have to do with holding or not holding the phone. Hands free cell phone use is just as bad. The issue is the type of cognitive processing required to carry on a cell phone conversation. So even the existing laws concerning cell phone use while driving do not address the hazard.
This is not an issue of ‘reduced attention’ the effect is a kind of literal blindness. It is a result of the way in which humans process visual information and has nothing to do with one’s ability to concentrate or attitudes about personal responsibility.
what about the morons with their little yappy white mutt in their lap?
And the fools with large dogs bounding from the back seat onto the console.
Along with the ubiquitous eye test every 5 years, drivers should be forced to watch a faces-of-death-style documentary of auto fatalities.
The simple fact is that your life is at immediate risk every time you are behind the wheel.
What I find amazing is that with all the states being strapped for fundage, they haven’t implemented and aggressively enforced attention-impaired driving laws (celphone, texting, reading, make-up applying, shaving, whatever)with a high fine ($500). These idiots would be prime pickin’s as a revenue generator for the states, as they are always so visible….
The way to reduce anything is to put a tax on it…..so start writing tickets for it, and reduce the behavior significantly while abating a portion of the states’ financial problems.
Thank you, thank you, just send my commission check for the great idea….
Or, in the spirit of electronic nannies, we could put a mandatory chip in all cars which first gives a warning if it senses the radio-electronic signature of a cell-phone operating within the passenger cabin, and checks to see (using the weight sensors attached to the smart airbag system) if the driver is alone in the car. (To allow passengers to use celphones, that’s why.) If the driver is alone, it gives a one minute warning that the engine will be disabled if the call continues, then shuts off the engine after said minute (to allow for the “I’m stuck in traffic” calls.)
Don’t like that idea? Then hang up your damned phone and stop endangering other peoples lives!
Keep using that pic, Robert. Lovely.
From the article: “is a slur against the NHTSA’s history of protecting American motorists and calling it like they see it.”
PROTECTING American motorists??? REALLY??? You mean these are the guys that ensure we get to drive vehicles that fold up like an empty beer can on impact? The ones that consider 35,000 to 50,000 deaths a year and unnumbered PERMANENT disabilities a job well done? The ones that insist the kids go in car seats but can’t bring themselves to require an integrated rollcage? Yeah, they really care about the kids… and the parents… right.
michaelC :
“…lack of real regulatory action” ….
“Again: Cell phone driving is _not_ like eating while driving, talking to someone in the car while driving, etc. There is a specific way in which cell phone driving impairs the ability of the person to see what is happening and react.”
You just forgot the standard killer argument: “If just a single accident could be avoided by such a law…”
Brilliant idea, anyway. As everybody knows, new laws are proven cures against all kinds of accidents.
In the meantime I will wait for a convincing argument why cell phone driving is worse than driving with my mother in law and a child in the backseat and my wife at the passenger side.
Distracted drivers might be dangerous. But do we need a law against each and every reason for distraction? Why not a law against fiddling on the car hi-fi or on the SatNav while driving? Another one against sneezing? I would not care for the reason in a head-on, BTW.
I simply wonder what the driving forces behind people like you are.
Do the math for that. If we had a national bout of alcoholism that led to 10% of drivers being drunk at any given moment, we would see fatality rates soaring beyond belief.
A bit of a strawman to claim that cell phone is absolutely equal to drunkenness, huh? There are definitive reasons why drunk driving tends to result in fatalities, but I guess if a crash isn’t fatal, it doesn’t count.
Also, I’m pretty sure we’ve been through the basic reasoning behind correlations before.
Anyway, I guess some more research is here now (that’s not published by cell phone industry through a think tank), so the deniers need to start thinking about what threshold they’re looking for because it’s going to become a question of how much instead of if.
A bit of a strawman to claim that cell phone is absolutely equal to drunkenness, huh?
Well, the very same David Strayer of the University of Utah who was cited above for his expertise was quoted as saying, “Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar.”
So don’t shoot the messenger when I’m quoting those who hold your point of view — this is your side’s rhetoric, not mine. Perhaps you should chide the good doctor for his sloppy use of hyperbole if you don’t care for it.
Michaelc:
My point exactly, the effect on your driving is there whether you are holding the phone or not. So, why would laws requiring hands free phones be expected to have any effect on the numbers of accidents, least of all deaths (once again, concurrent increases in car safety systems and medical treatment that decrease the likelyhood of death)?
@ Lumbergh21
Just how many accidents (caused by cell phone usage) are you talking about? How many deaths? Where’s the data? Where’s the beef?
So don’t shoot the messenger when I’m quoting those who hold your point of view — this is your side’s rhetoric, not mine.
I think his stuff were basic cognitive tests? IE. given same situation, talking on phone is as dangerous.
It’s entirely possible or likely phone users show somewhat better judgment to not get into the same situations, thus the need for more comprehensive study like this one.
Again, real question for laws is how much to justify one. Never an easy answer.
Just how many accidents (caused by cell phone usage) are you talking about? How many deaths? Where’s the data? Where’s the beef?
Huh? What do you think the blog post was about?
The laws won’t help, in part because “distraction” is a symptom, not a cause. Drivers who can’t multitask are not going to suddenly morph into driving perfectionists if there is no phone within reach. They will find other ways to crash.
Well, yes and no. The trick here is to minimize the chance and magnitude of distraction. The problem is how these studies are being applied: banning or fining the use of phones and such isn’t going to help, much like enforcing speed limits and intersection etiquette isn’t necessarily going to be fixed by cameras and fines.**
The NHTSA perhaps ought to handle this in much the same way they handled ESC: by mandating a technology change to minimize the problem. People are not going to give up their distractions, and technology is going to make sure that more distractions are coming our way.
So how do we deal with these? Well, we already have a some very good technology for dealing with physical distraction (pairing your phone with your stereo, integrating text services with readers) which wouldn’t add significant cost or weight. Mandating a universal, cross-industry standard for in-car telephony and supplying a target date to implement it should be step #1.
The next step is dealing with logical attention deficits. Again, we have technology to deal with this, too. Volvo and Infiniti already sell cars with systems that compensate for lane drifting, following too closely. Mercedes and Lexus already have pre-collision systems that will slow the car and pre-engage belts and active seating in the event of a crash. And we already have in-development systems that can tell, based on eyeball patterns, whether or not you’re paying attention to the road. Again, the NHTSA could speed the implementation of such systems much like they’re forcing ESC now. And again, none of these ideas add significant weight or particularly problematic complexity.
We, as a culture, are fixated on punitive methods and reactionary troubleshooting. We need to stop that and become more progressive.
** or rather, they do work, but perhaps they’re not targeted correctly. What red-light cameras ought to be doing is adjusting signal light timings dynamically to prevent accidents; what speed cameras should do is feed back to urban planners that they need to find a way to slow traffic through a particular zone.
This seems to be another discussion worthy of argument that the America needs to do something about its Driver Education system. I was floored when I learned to drive in Germany that it took a year and nearly $1500 (this was 2001) for a citizen to get their driver’s license. I won’t say all, but a vast majority of German drivers pull off the road to have their conversation on the phone. American’s can’t be bothered with that. We don’t seem to care that we are risking other people’s livelihoods and lives not to mention our own. I realize this is my opinion, but its on the driver to do the right thing, the hard thing for many of us for some reason and either don’t talk on the phone while driving or pull over to talk.
NHTSA is a total waste of time. We have to rely upon European tests and standards, or the IIHS crash test porno released to the news networks. If your car is not sold “over there” then you don’t even get the Euro standards.
Rear collision, rollover, seat back strengths, etc are much stronger in europe. If you ever go to a junkyard, take a hard look at the seats. Euro market seats are angle iron…US market seats are lawn chairs.
NHTSA supported Sealed Beam headlamps for a good 20 years past the “sell by” date. They are afraid to challenge the car industry and force innovation.
Is anyone surprised that during the Bush years, an agency who was basically instructed to sit down and shut up (don’t bother the car companies) would soft pedal a study that would run against the big telecommunications companies, (don’t bother our biggest contributors, who only want the UHF TV spectrum) who have made sure that every major highway has perfect cell service ?
Sorry, the cell phone is now a tightly interwoven thread in the fabric of life. Those of us who recall pre-cell days don’t always think it’s a good thing.
Blue tooth and hands free, but NO TEXTING
Quote from the Conclusion on the NHTSA report; While it is NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO CRASH RISK from experimental results… blah blah blah.
So, I ask again, How many accidents? How many deaths? Where’s the beef????
It always begins with the insurance agencies. If they can get out of paying, they will. In Yurp, they want to be given information as to drivers’ cell phone usage in the period before serious accidents. If you’ve been surfing, texting, chatting – that could become a problem.
Quote from the Conclusion on the NHTSA report; While it is NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO CRASH RISK from experimental results… blah blah blah.
So, I ask again, How many accidents? How many deaths? Where’s the beef????
Research isn’t always direct, especially with somewhat low probability events. For direct measure, every accident needs cooperation from cell companies to extract records (which was kind of done once in england and shows high correlation). You really think that’s going to happen given the industry’s interests?
The trick here is to minimize the chance and magnitude of distraction.
You’re right, that would be magic. Which is why it won’t happen.
All of these proposed solutions miss the basic cause of accidents, and therefore miss why these proposals for broad bans or more training all fail to work.
Accident rates are ultimately created by risk taking. Those who take more risks end up having more wrecks than those who take fewer risks. Young people tend to be bad drivers because they are highly risk tolerant — they don’t fear death. Drunks are bad because wasted people lose their inhibitions, which would make them less likely to spin out of control. Middle aged sober folks, despite having inferior motor skills, outperform the young people in large part because they don’t want to die.
All of us have some tolerance of risk. Those of us who aren’t paranoid don’t expect a world free of risk, but we do put limits on how much we’ll accept. We make tradeoffs, and will subconsciously substitute one piece of risk for another, so that our total level of risk matches our willingness to have it.
That applies here. The various simulator studies impose a phone onto a given environment, in an effort to prove the degradation from the phone itself. What those studies ignore is the very human impulse in the real world to manage such an added risk by reducing another risk somewhere else.
A driver on the phone will typically offset that risk in other ways, such as slowing down, allowing more distance, or by avoiding some other behavior that they may likely undertake were it not for the phone. Their goal is to not exceed a given level of risk, and when they hit their threshold, they’ll ease off.
This same issue arose with those failed speed limit studies. The core argument made in those studies was that delayed reaction times, combined with the laws of physics, would result in carnage and death. That made perfect logical sense in a vacuum, but ignored the point that the driver who increases his speed within reason will make allowances for the increased speed with other behaviors that offset that element of risk. The drivers don’t cease all risk, they just substitute one form for the other.
Ban phones, and you’ll just have more daydreaming, coffee drinking, tailgating, iPod shuffling or whatever else fits within that driver’s level of risk tolerance. This also explains why that nanny devices are effective, while education is not — you can’t teach people to want to be less risky, but you can use technology to convert their perceived levels of risk into results that are less painful.
In a perfect world, we could get rid of the phone risk and keep a cap on the other risks at the same time. But in the real world, that isn’t going to happen. It didn’t happen with speed limits, and it won’t work with phones.
Ban phones, and you’ll just have more daydreaming, coffee drinking, tailgating, iPod shuffling or whatever else fits within that driver’s level of risk tolerance.
So basically the assumption here is that people are good at evaluating risk.
Wait, isn’t that exactly what many people are supposed to be poor at doing?
Plus, if risk tolerance (and by extension accurate assessment for low-probability events) were anywhere near conserved, pretty much all safety rules are not that useful because all these folks would find other outlets for risk.
-
It’s generally know that auto are operated much more safely in say germany vs india. It guess according to pch, it must only have to do with the fact that only middle aged people live in german, and wreckless kids in india.
So basically the assumption here is that people are good at evaluating risk.
We are all good at assessing what levels of risk are acceptable to ourselves. We each have an envelope that we won’t exceed for ourselves.
That does not mean that the level of risk that each individual accepts for himself is socially acceptable or optimal to everyone else. However, that’s the level that dictates how each of us chooses to behave. We tend to be selfish and put ourselves before others when it comes to activities such as driving (and again, the more selfish we are, the more likely we are to wreck.)
You can’t teach people to reduce their risk tolerance, that comes largely from personality and culture. That’s why education fails — if anything, greater knowledge allows people to falsely assume that they have lowered their risks enough in one area (in this case, their previously inferior level of knowledge) to take more chances elsewhere.
You could try to introduce other risks that overwhelm the base level of risk, such as the risk of getting caught that comes from enforcement, but enforcement tends to be ineffective unless the odds of getting caught are very high.
The most effective thing to do is to make it technologically harder to wreck cars or hurt people once the cars have wrecked, in those ways that humans aren’t inclined to compensate for the benefits of the technology. Those changes have led the long-run decline in fatality rates.
I’m inclined to take the Agency at its word because this is a somewhat nebulous area to begin with. However, dare I say that the Bush years did feature a great deal of manipulation of various agency research and findings to suit a variety of political ends. And it can’t be blamed on the New York Times either, though some will no doubt try.
The New York Times can be blamed for attempting to make something out of nothing. There’s a bunch of innuendo in the paper’s article, and, upon closer examination, not much else.
We are all good at assessing what levels of risk are acceptable to ourselves. We each have an envelope that we won’t exceed for ourselves.
Your assumption is that human are good at evaluating the risk by themselves for low probability events. The fact is, sometimes we are, sometimes not. This is why education matters. People changed behavior after learning about smoking risk, diabetes risks, etc.
-
You can’t teach people to reduce their risk tolerance, that comes largely from personality and culture.
Finally getting warmer, but again the dichotomy between culture and “education” and “law”.
How do you think cultural norms are set? Maybe people listen to celebrities? These are actually serious questions and have non-trivial and often unexpected answers.
-
If we’ve learned anything from psychology and sociology it’s that humans can be predictably condition just like other creature. That “selfish when driving”? Conditionable. “Risk taking”? Conditionable.
Do you really think the youths acting like dumbasses on MTV Spring Break are uninfluenced by teen culture?
Again, we seem to have this conversation about risk regularly. Let’s try to break it down so easier to think about:
1. Are accidents avoidable? Are they worth avoiding?
2. How can they be avoided? Law, perhaps, there’s always prohibition; education, might work in some cases; celebrity PSA, interesting.
There is no easy answer since the basic evaluation of risk and our morale attitude toward it is somewhat complex.
For the sake of running a simulated logic game let’s say your assumptions about evaluation and conservation of risk are correct. In general risk due to personal choice without potential effect on related parties is more socially acceptable, like skiing. So if risk is conserved, is it proper to try to move at some cost the risks a person takes while driving to some to other activity?
I think that should make it pretty clear there are no clear “sides” to these question as some would like to make it.
–
Those changes have led the long-run decline in fatality rates.
That and all the society barbs around DUI.
Profit driven entities among many others have already been explicitly conditioning their customers with improving effectiveness and efficiency. Surely that can be considered a useful technology with potential application here.
Your assumption is that human are good at evaluating the risk by themselves for low probability events.
That isn’t what I said. Go back and read it again.
There is no easy answer since the basic evaluation of risk and our morale attitude toward it is somewhat complex.
The answer is actually quite easy, it’s just not the answer that drivers in general, and enthusiasts in particular, want to hear.
What works:
-Enforcement that is consistent, conspicuous and involves a very high risk of getting caught
-Nanny devices
-Higher driving ages with probationary licenses
-Passive safety
What doesn’t:
-Education/ training
-High fines
-Random enforcement blitzes
-Gotcha-style enforcement (speed traps, etc.)
-Active-safety (works temporarily, but is eventually offset)
That isn’t what I said. Go back and read it again.
It’s necessarily implicit.
–
The answer is actually quite easy, it’s just not the answer that drivers in general, and enthusiasts in particular, want to hear.
Save the simpleton crap for the simple audience, and try thinking about the hard questions.
BTW, why are you questioning people’s ability to evaluate risk now that it doesn’t come out in your favor?
It’s necessarily implicit.
Only to someone who doesn’t understand what’s being said.
Again, go back and read the point. It’s not quite what you believe it to be.
why are you questioning people’s ability to evaluate risk now that it doesn’t come out in your favor?
Apples and oranges. Again, it goes back to your lack of understanding of the point being made.
agnethex: “Research isn’t always direct, especially with somewhat low probability events.”
Another “analyst style” meaningless weasely statement.
The problem wasis, that they CAN’T PROVE cell phones are causing any increase in accidents or deaths. But it’s politically correct (and possibly revenue enhancing) if we can create a new
excuselaw to fine another aspect of normal human behavior.And if it’s “proven” that conversing is “distracting” while driving and therefor needs to be banned, are you also willing to argue the same for police??? Are you willing to ban them from talking on their radios and operating their computers while driving? I’m bettin not… Which makes the entire anti-cellphone argument a rather hypocritical exercise.
agnethex; “It’s generally known that autos are operated much more safely in say germany vs india. I guess according to pch, it must only have to do with the fact that only middle aged people live in german, and wreckless kids in india.”
Or, just maybe, it’s because a majority of Germans have had years of driving on a modern highway system, in high powered cars at high speeds, and Indians are still in the process of converting from dirt roads, bicycles and rickshaws to modern vehicles and paved roads…
Only to someone who doesn’t understand what’s being said.
Their valuation of risk is either accurate or not. You’re now claiming it’s not accurate anyway, so what the hell are they conserving?
-
Apples and oranges
No, they’re evaluating the risk of cell calls. They ‘feel’ it’s high. They are drivers. How is it different.
-
Again, it goes back to your lack of understanding of the point being made.
Your point may or may not be true. Thus the reason for studies like the one above.
I just pointed that if you follow the logic (need more hand holding?), the question is not simple.
–
Another “analyst style” meaningless weasely statement.
The problem wasis, that they CAN’T PROVE cell phones are causing any increase in accidents or deaths.
Not all proof is done directly. For example, studies of diseases are usually not done by going to every door of every person in a country and performing a biopsy, and doing it very often, but instead by sampling and stats.
It would help if you could also read more than this one study of this type.
The problem wasis, that they CAN’T PROVE cell phones are causing any increase in accidents or deaths. But it’s politically correct (and possibly revenue enhancing) if we can create a new excuse law to fine another aspect of normal human behavior.
As pointed out above, to do that you need the cell phone companies to act against their own interests and that is difficult to do except in a piece meal case by case basis. But, for you I have included links to two recent events in the lightly populated far northern California where I live.
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/jul/10/blm-officers-from-redding-hurt-in-i-5-crash/
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/apr/04/shingletown-woman-sent-to-prison-for-text/
The second one in particular exemplifies a callous disregard for other peoples lives.
@ Lumbergh21;
I’m not saying people don’t have accidents while on their cellphone. That’s not the point. My statement (which was simply rephrasing the NHTSA studies conclusion statement) was that; “they CAN’T PROVE cell phones are causing any INCREASE in accidents or deaths.”
How many rearending accidents per vehicles on the road were there before cell phones? How many after? How many of the current rearending accidents as a percentage of all rearendings are caused by cell phones? These are really simple questions that SHOULD be very easy to answer.
Instead we get 266 pages of psycho mumbo jumbo about the inherenent mental processing capabilities of the average cretin used in the study… More commonly known as B.S.
They made a might effort, and spent God knows how much public money, trying to justify the governmental control freaks desire to banish communication on the roadways… but even with all that effort, they couldn’t actually PROVE anything.
I honestly believe there are MANY people that DEFINITELY SHOULDN’T be talking and driving. (Or breeding for that matter…:) But rather than punish EVERYBODY because of the incompetent minority, I’d rather stick to the side of freedom for the MAJORITY and take my chances.
These are really simple questions that SHOULD be very easy to answer.
No, they’re extremely difficult to answer questions since we don’t have pervasive tracking nor time machines. Again, it would really help to read the methodology, especially for similar studies.
They’re only easy to answer if cell companies would allow access to their db, but that’s not going to happen for a variety of reasons.
agenthex : “They’re only easy to answer if cell companies would allow access to their db, but that’s not going to happen for a variety of reasons.”
And rightly so… In fact, there shouldn’t even BE a cell company db of users phone calls, positioning, and conversations.
@ herb
“In the meantime I will wait for a convincing argument why cell phone driving is worse than driving with my mother in law and a child in the backseat and my wife at the passenger side.
Distracted drivers might be dangerous. But do we need a law against each and every reason for distraction? Why not a law against fiddling on the car hi-fi or on the SatNav while driving? Another one against sneezing? I would not care for the reason in a head-on, BTW.
I simply wonder what the driving forces behind people like you are.”
People like me are pointing out there is solid research explaining why cell phone driving in particular is dangerous. I’ve given links to research and tried to explain the foundational cause of the problem. The research also shows cell phone use has an impact unlike that of tuning a radio, or holding a conversation with someone in the car. Again, this is not about simple forms of distraction.
You can ignore the science, but it doesn’t change the facts. It is not unreasonable, however, to say that in spite of the danger, there should be no law against cell phone driving because of beliefs about the relationship between citizens and the state. Something like that seems to anchor the views of many commentators here. I recall similar arguments were made against drunk driving laws when they were first enacted. In the end the danger to others was deemed to overrule personal liberties.