REPORT: NHTSA withheld results of studies on cell phone use while driving because of Congress
As always, it ain't the crime, it's the cover-up. In what looks to be Congress protecting its turf, a planned study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on driver distraction – specifically, drivers using cell phones – was put on hold. The reason, according to The New York Times, was allegedly a fear of upsetting the Capitol body. The reason, according to an ex-head of NHTSA, was "to avoid antagonizing members of Congress who had warned the agency to stick to its mission of gathering safety data but not to lobby states."
In 2003, NHTSA already had "hundreds of pages" of research on the effects of multitasking while driving. And yes, as many Autoblog commenters have surmised, the research does indeed point to people using their cell phones being "as likely to cause an accident as someone with a .08 blood alcohol content." NHTSA officials also felt that hands-free systems weren't a safe enough solution – drivers were still too distracted.
But when the safety agency drafted a letter to then Transport Secretary Norman Mineta that included policy recommendations, the head of the agency began hearing complaints about NHTSA overstepping its bounds. Congress, it was said, "warned the agency not to use its research to lobby states." As the story goes, the threat to NHTSA was that if it upset Congress, it "could jeopardize billions of dollars of its financing."
So instead of going forward with a focused study of cell phone usage that would include 10,000 drivers, the agency shelved everything and stayed quiet. Due to Freedom of Information Act requests, the research gathered up to now is being revealed. But there is still the issue of Congress holding back information that, frankly, could save lives.
What do you think? Do you use your mobile phone while driving? Do you think doing so should be illegal? Drop your fellow reader a line in 'Comments.'
[Source: The New York Times | Image: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Brian 1:06PM (7/24/2009)
Its not about cell phones its about CONTROL. The government wants MORE control and power over our lives.
First smoking, then cell phones, then fatty foods, red light cameras...etc. Its all about showing the plebs who is really in charge, and with Democrat Socialists in charge it will only get worse.
Reply
Sean 1:12PM (7/24/2009)
I was with you until you said 'socialists'.
DayShifter 1:14PM (7/24/2009)
You were making sense until you showed your bias towards Democrats.
James Sonne 1:20PM (7/24/2009)
Actually, he was never making sense. Laws aren't about control, they're about ensuring everyone has the right to the same opportunities. That's why we have stoplights, right-of-way, smoking bans in public places, etc. Blasting through a red light leads to someone potentially getting killed or severally inconvenienced, which is taking away their right to the opportunities to reach happiness.
To call the current leanings of the Democratic party "socialist" is actually ... fairly apt. There's just too much stigma with that word for people to actually understanding the meaning of the word itself.
Tony 1:58PM (7/24/2009)
@ Brian - spot on. Some here appear to be drinking the kool-aid.
Jake B 1:58PM (7/24/2009)
The problem is that opportunity and fairness are usually inversely connected. As the government attempts to increase "opportunity" for some races or groups of people, they are decreasing the overall fairness of society at that time. It's not my fault that I am a white male, I have to compete against lots of people that have a leg up on me because of the way they look. We are all people, no one should discriminate.
Jake B 2:05PM (7/24/2009)
Autoblog 4.0 new and improved w/o edit system...
Anyway, it seems like the government is always generating legislation that makes some people happy while stepping on the toes of others. There will always be ways that people can distract themselves behind the wheel, the government's only job when it comes to cell phone use while driving is deciding how to serve up judgment to a person that becomes a criminal for ACTUALLY curtailing others' freedoms. Instead we have many people rotting in jail for behavior that is barely criminal while the real sickos walk the streets.
Our government needs to worry about keeping this country in existence right now, not this kind of BULLS***!
Rick C. 2:09PM (7/24/2009)
Did you read the title? Congress squashed the report. That only means one thing: Releasing it would step on someone's toes. Those toes belonging to the telecom industry. A socialist issue? Laughable. Quite the opposite. This is a greedy capitalist issue. Safety concerns are SECONDARY to profit. This is lobbying and special interests at its finest.
PJ 2:18PM (7/24/2009)
"...its about CONTROL"
No, It's about money. Congress won't bite the hands that feed when writing legislation. Telecom companies and execs represent some of the biggest-contributing PACs and individual donors during campaigns, which is why they've played down the research on cell-phone driving for the last decade.
Tobacco PACs exerted similar power until the 1970s--there had already been decades of solid research out by the time Congress began legislating warning labels, etc. Those who still think they're supporting "individual freedom" by opposing smoking laws, rather than simply being the tobacco lobby's tool, are frankly kidding themselves.
Also, as those who read beyond the headline know, the conflict detailed in the post dates from 2003, so we can't blame it on the "socialist Democrats." Special-interest bribery is a fundamental problem with the structure of the legislative branch that goes beyond political parties.
ChopperDave 2:43PM (7/24/2009)
@ Brian and Tony: Enjoying life in your self-sufficient shacks? How's the weather in Militia Hill?
UCJR 3:09PM (7/24/2009)
Wow. I've seen Brian respond to a blog entry within ten minutes of its posting TWICE today. I wish I had that kind of disposable time on my hands to idly complain about society.
cdwrx 6:34PM (7/24/2009)
If you don't like corporations controlling elected officials then support publicly financed elections. The problem is the anti-tax crowd has a seizure when they hear "public" and "financed" in the same sentence. I bet it would cost less in the long run though.
Kyle 1:07PM (7/24/2009)
I do, and its irresponsible and stupid. However I am very observant of my surroundings and at times I will stop talking to concentrate on whats going on on the road. But unlike me most motorists (especially here in New York) don't even possess the ability to read their gauges while driving let alone have a conversation with another person while holding a cell phone.
Reply
johnmichael.jfc 1:17PM (7/24/2009)
Kyle +100 (I feel your pain, I live in New York too.)
James Sonne 1:23PM (7/24/2009)
98% of drivers think they're better at driving than the average driver...
Doesn't really add up, does it?
Scott 1:25PM (7/24/2009)
I agree with you, being an avid motorcycle rider I find horrid that people talk on the phone when they drive. I support anything that limits the distractions from the one job a person has when they are behind the wheel of a car DRIVING!
James Sonne 1:27PM (7/24/2009)
http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/3603.html
The costliness of imperfect self-knowledge
SenatorPerry 1:55PM (7/24/2009)
I say we make it illegal to have anyone diagnosed with ADD and ADHD to drive a car or any motor vehicle.... Afterall, they are diagnosed inattentive while people using a cellphone are only inattentive while using the telephone. Lets also ban people listening to audiobooks. That is distracting. How about those people daydreaming? Horrible.
You can't make a car safer by legislating actions. You make it safer by improving the technology within it and appealing to the public to use it.
Redline 2:31PM (7/24/2009)
No SenatorPerry, when you are having an in depth conversation with someone NOT in the car with you, you are a more dangerous driver. You can actually pass a law to prohibit cellphone use, not daydreaming. Clever Senator you are with your logic
PJ 5:45AM (7/25/2009)
"However I am very observant of my surroundings and at times I will stop talking to concentrate on whats going on on the road."
Uh-huh, and this is different from all of the "really, I drive better when I'm high" posters from last week... how? You know distracted when you're on the phone. When you're distracted, you generally don't know you're about to cause an accident until it's about to happen.
It's the sense of entitlement that really boggles my mind. Cell-phone drivers *know* they're more erratic while they're on the phone, and they *still* make excuses for themselves instead of taking 5 seconds to pull to the curb or take an exit before taking their crucial, emergency, life-depends-on-it call about their grocery list or last night's episode of "So You Think You Can Dance."
It's like 75% of people saying they're better than average drivers... 99% of drivers think they're more important than everyone else on the road.