Benefits and costs of restricting cell phone usage while driving

Cell Phone Ban Proposal

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that distracted driving (which includes drivers distracted by cellular telephone use) accounts for as many as 5,000 preventable highway deaths annually in the United States (Cohen & Graham, 2003). Precisely because of the potential for danger represented by cell phone use by drivers, individual states began restricting cell phone use by drivers in 2002, led by New York State (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2005). So far, those laws have had only very limited effectiveness, largely because they do not ban the use of cell phones by drivers but only require hands-free devices for their operation (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2005).

According to researchers, these measures are insufficient because the mechanism through which cell-phone use interferes with drivers' attentiveness is not as simple as had been assumed previously. Specifically, it is not the physical act of dialing a phone pad or holding a cell phone that distracts drivers; rather, it has been demonstrated through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies that it is actually the way that cognitive attention is diverted at the neurological level within the brain by the process of conducting a conversation irrespective of whether or not the subject is using a hands-free device. Moreover, the phenomenon is specific to conversations with someone who is not present, which makes conducting telephone conversations while driving much more dangerous than other types of "traditional" distractions, such as conducting conversations with a passenger present in the car. This fundamental process and mechanism of cognitive attention from the responsibilities of driving are not addresses at all by current state laws that distinguish hand-held and hands-free cell phone use (Hennessy & Wiesenthal, 2005).

Therefore, the only effective approach to mitigating the risks to human life, health, and welfare, and to the financial costs associated with the consequences of vehicular accidents attributable to cell phone use by drivers must address the use of cell phones and not the type of equipment involved. Accordingly, this proposal presents the significant projected cost savings associated with a more comprehensive federal ban on any non-emergency use of cell phones by drivers. In principle, the proposal calls for the gradual mandatory implementation of cell phone disabling technology in new automobiles so that it would be phased in gradually as the older passenger vehicles are replaced by newer models with the technology necessary to achieve the important objectives of saving lives and unnecessary costs associated with accidents and injuries to people and tangible property.

Analysis Method and Assumptions

The fiscal analysis used for this proposal and detailed in the Results section of this proposal consisted of a net cost-to-benefits calculation for both high-impact and low-impact scenarios. These two cases were examined at two discount rates (5% and 10%) which generated four permutations in total. More specifically, the basic outputs for the analysis relied upon four Kaldor-Hicks Tableaus (representing two impact cases and two discount rates), as indicated in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Aggregated net-benefits are represented in the lower right-hand bottom cell and the rest of the tableau illustrates the manner in which each of the major stakeholders is affected according to the statistical analysis.

Fundamental assumptions included the following specific types of economic benefits and costs associated with the proposal:

Benefits -- prevention of consequences of vehicular accidents caused by cell phone use, prevented loss of human life, prevented medical costs necessitated to treat accident victims, prevention of property damage, prevention of lost work productivity, prevention of lost wages, and prevention of court costs necessary to administrate justice after the fact.

Costs -- Lost consumer surplus on avoided calls, equipment design, installation, and implementation, program start-up costs, enforcement costs, and increased cost of new vehicles to consumers.

Results

Policy Recommendations