19 October 2000

Senator James P. Jajuga
Representative Timothy J. Toomey Jr.
Senate and House Chairs
Joint Committee on Public Safety
Statehouse
Boston, MA 02133

Gentlemen:

Thanks very much for the opportunity to testify before the Joint Committee on Public Safety.

I'd like to summarize the points that I hope will go into the minutes of the hearings.

I have spoken to many people and read the opinions of many others about the issue of banning the use of cell phones while driving. I must say that the arguments against such a ban are weak and the points made are often spurious.

Here's a summary of those arguments and my comments:

1. "Why pick on cell phones? What about putting on lipstick while driving? Or shaving?"

Clearly, all these activities are foolish and dangerous while driving. We are not "picking on" cell phones. It seems silly that we need to make laws to prevent people from doing these things, but it appears that a law is necessary since we can't trust the judgment of a large percentage of the population, as is apparent by any short drive around Massachusetts.

Our suggestion is that the proposed law should focus on distraction; i.e., a ban on any behavior that dangerously detracts from a driver's attention to driving, and make it include, but not be limited to, talking on a cell phone while operating a moving vehicle. And we should bear in mind that there is very strong evidence to suggest that the real distraction derives not from using one's hands but from using one's mind; i.e., the "hands-free" solution will not eliminate the true source of the distraction.

2. "Well, just how dangerous is it? Is it really as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol?"

As you know, one (rather prestigious) study suggests that it is, and another--notably funded by a major cell phone company--suggests that it is not. But does it really need to be that dangerous to allow it? Does anyone, besides the cell phone lobbyists, dare to suggest that it makes driving safer? Surely not. We do not need scientific studies to conclude that talking on the phone obviously distracts drivers. Again, a brief drive around any city will convince anyone that driving and talking result in erratic driving behaviors.

3. "But there are many benefits to the cell phone. It would be unconscionable to prevent people from reporting accidents or calling for help when their cars break down."

This argument is just plain stupid. Pulling over to report an accident is hardly a terrible inconvenience. And if your car breaks down, you're obviously not driving anyway.

Other critics--some from prestigious "think tanks"--perform what appear to be erudite cost/benefit analyses. The problem here is that the benefits are always in units of convenience and productivity while the costs are in units of injuries and people's lives! We need to ask these critics and ourselves, "How much convenience is your child's life worth?"

4. Some legislators have asked if banning the use of cell phones while driving will put the legislature on a "slippery slope," which I presume means being forced to ban other distractions while driving.

The answer is an unequivocal "yes." But, as I testified, the slippery slope is really in the other direction. If we do NOT ban the use of cell phones, we will soon be confronted with distractions beyond our wildest dreams. The automotive and electronics industries have plans for devices that will be far more distracting than cell phones: fax machines, e-mail, stock quotes, news-group messages, etc.

The automotive industry has not shown good judgment in designing automotive features that distract drivers. A classic example is the use of a touch-sensitive screen to replace all the controls for radios, tape/CD players, and heating/cooling. Although an interesting technology, such devices require that the driver take his eyes off the road. Drivers and pedestrians need protection from this "progress run amok" attitude. We are depending on you to provide that protection.

None of us wants Big Brother controlling what we do, but we must acknowledge that the cell phone industry's primary interest is increasing sales of cell phones and related services. Our government's primary interest is in protecting the well-being of its citizens. In the cell phone issue, the two goals are at loggerheads.

We must insist that our government step in to insure basic protection for those of us who need to use the roads and sidewalks in the state of Massachusetts. We are hoping that the members of the legislature will show us that the needs of the citizens far outweigh those of private interests.

Thanks for listening.

Tom Magliozzi   Ray Magliozzi
Co-hosts, Car Talk on NPR