| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Spring 2000 Crash Data Given what the evidence suggests, the next important question is the magnitude of the problem. That is, how many accidents each year are caused by people using cellular phones while driving? The logical place to find that information is the police crash reports. These reports, filled out by law enforcement officers at the scene of an accident, show factors that commonly contribute to an accident, i.e., excessive speed, bad weather, etc. However, as of 1999 only two states, Oklahoma and Minnesota, include "cellular phone use" as a possible factor on their police crash reports, and only these two states train their police officers to check for such use as a factor contributing to the accident. The other forty-eight states do not easily provide a way for police officers to include "cellular phone use" as a contributing factor. Therefore, it is very difficult to accurately judge the magnitude of the problem. Nonetheless, an examination of the data from Oklahoma and Minnesota, as well as of some additional data provided by the NHTSA, does provide some partial answers. The official Oklahoma traffic collision report includes two categories that deal with cellular phones. The first, "telephone installed," is checked by the investigating officer if the officer sees evidence of a cellular phone in the automobile, e.g., installed units or large portable units that are easily visible. If the officer sees evidence of a cellular phone, the officer then inquires whether the telephone was in use at the time of the crash - the second category. If both of the qualifications are met, it is likely that cellular phone use was at least a factor contributing to the crash. In 1994, cellular phone use contributed to at least 119 automobile crashes in Oklahoma. By 1997, this figure had increased to 148 automobile crashes with two fatalities also attributed to cellular phone use (Oklahoma Highway Safety Office 1998). In the span of three years, automobile crashes attributed to cellular phone use have increased by nearly 25%, and the number is expected to grow as cellular phone use expands among the general public. It is true that crashes attributed to cellular phones are less than one percent of the overall auto accidents reported in Oklahoma. However, as noted above, this number is growing rapidly. Furthermore, Oklahoma's method of attributing crashes to cellular phone use arguably contains some flaws that lead to under-reporting of crashes caused by cellular phones. First, the reporting officer will probably check the "telephone installed" category only if evidence of a phone is visible. In its absence, the officer is unlikely to ask whether a phone was in use at the time of the accident. The problem with this system of reporting is that the great majority of cellular phones in use are tiny pocket models that will not be visible to the officer. In 1995, the CTIA reported that 73% of all cellular phones sold were the pocket models, and this percentage has only grown since 1995 (NHTSA 1997, 1.1). Also, culpable drivers may not actually admit they were using their cellular phone at the time of the crash, and the officer is not usually expected to check cellular phone records to verify cellular phone use. Therefore, the method Oklahoma uses to attribute crashes to cellular phone use most likely leads to considerable under-reporting. The State of Minnesota also includes cellular phone use in its police auto-crash reports, and based upon preliminary data, the problem is also increasing dramatically there. In 1996, police cited cellular phone use as a contributing factor in 89 accidents, including one fatality. In 1997, this figure rose to 111 crashes with zero fatalities (Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety 1998). As in the case of Oklahoma, this is nearly a 25% increase in crashes attributed to cellular phone use, but in Minnesota this increase was in the space of a single year. Again, as in Oklahoma, cellular phone use is in less than one percent of the total number of auto accidents in the state, but is increasing at an alarming rate. In addition to the reports available from Minnesota and Oklahoma, the NHTSA has also attempted to compile data in North Carolina. In North Carolina the police reports have a narrative section that officers use to describe, in a few sentences, the circumstances of an accident. This allows the officer some leeway in describing the accident, including comments such as cellular phone use, not in one of the normal categories. For the years 1989 to 1995 the NHTSA analyzed these narratives. It found only a relatively small number of crashes were attributed to cellular phone use, but it suggests this small number is once again due to underreporting. However, the NHTSA also concluded: In addition, the findings suggest an increase in cellular telephone related crash frequency as more cellular telephones become available. Furthermore, as the functionality of cellular telephones is expanded to include more "demanding" tasks (e.g., access to the Internet, email, faxing, etc.), there is concern that there will be an associated increase in risk where these services are accessed from a moving vehicle (NHTSA 1997, 4.6). In summary, raw data pointing to the magnitude of the problem of cellular phone use by drivers is very limited, and it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Only two of the fifty states even attempt to compile data regarding drivers' cellular phone use, and these states' reporting methods likely lead to under-reporting of the actual number. Nevertheless, this limited data shows that the number of crashes attributed to cellular phone use is increasing rapidly. This is reinforced by the NHTSA's study in North Carolina. Legislative Initiatives Lawmakers have not ignored the problem. Since 1995, in at least twenty states in the United States, legislators have proposed bills concerning cellular telephones in automobiles (Sundeen 1999, 2). Nevertheless, most lawmakers are still trying to decide how exactly to address the issue. 43 |
