Cell$PhoneUseWhileDriving - University of Denver · Cell$PhoneUseWhileDriving ASafety$and$Effectiveness$Analysis$of$Cell$Phone$Use$While$Driving$in$the$United$States!!!! $ $ Caitlin$Tedesco$

Cell Phone Use While DrivingA Safety and Effectiveness Analysis of Cell Phone Use While Driving in the United States

Caitlin Tedesco

MPP Candidate, 2014

Policy Memorandum

Institute for Public Policy Studies

University of Denver

May 2014

Tedesco, Caitlin Page 2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 4

PROBLEM DEFINITION 8

THE HISTORY OF THE CELL PHONE 8

CELL PHONE USE WHILE DRIVING COMPARISON TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 9

TYPES OF DISTRACTIONS 18

NEW YORK VS. COLORADO 20

METHODS 23

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS 24

ISSUE ANALYSIS 25

COST-‐BENEFIT FRAMEWORK 27

CBA MATRIX AND RESULTS 32

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A: IMPACT IF NUMBER OF PEOPLE PLEDGE TO NOT USE CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING DIFFERS 47

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS B: INCREASE IN COST OF ADMINISTRATION 48

LIMITATIONS AND WEAKNESSES 49

INCREASED EDUCATION EFFORTS 53

ADDITIONAL NOTES ON IMPLEMENTATION 54

APPENDIX A: GRAPHS & FIGURES 56

APPENDIX B: LIST OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 57

WORKS CITED 60


Executive Summary Efforts to increase overall roadway safety continue to increase as the number of motor vehicle

injuries and fatalities due to car crashes continue to rise. Historically, state governments have taken the

lead to enact policies in order to address roadway dangers within state boundaries despite these

dangers being a nationwide problem. Cell phones are quickly becoming the most dangerous form of

distraction while driving and as cell phone ownership and use continue to increase, this roadway danger

will only continue to rise unless there are meaningful and effective policies to deter their use while

behind the wheel. Cell phone use while driving is a form of distracted driving that is shown to be more

dangerous than other forms of distraction that a driver can engage in behind the wheel and it is an

action that is in fact comparable to the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol or driving

with a blood alcohol content of at least a .08 level. There are many benefits from decreasing the number

of drivers who choose to use their cell phone while driving, such as safer roadways, a decrease in the

number of motor vehicle crash fatalities and injuries and a reduction in costs to society for every life

lost.

Despite the economic and safety benefits, there are costs associated with improving roadway

safety. Any policy addressing cell phone use while driving must take into consideration and provide a

balance between the promised benefits of policy action and the costs associated with implementation.

This memorandum finds that education efforts that warn drivers of the dangers cell phone use while

driving pose is the best policy effort to reduce the number of drivers engaging in this particular

behavior. This policy option minimizes the cost burdens placed on society while saving the most lives or

preventing the most number of deaths caused by cell phone use while driving. Though implementing

such a policy may prove little challenges, education efforts alone may not be enough to maximize the

social and economic benefits and to solve this specific threat to roadway safety.


Introduction As of today, there are currently zero states in the United States that ban all types of cell phone use,

meaning a driver can use their cell phone in some form. However, every type of cell phone use is

becoming problematic when a cell phone user chooses to engage in a conversation, text, surf the web,

check their email, and so much more while operating a motor vehicle. As of May 2013, 91 percent of

American adults own some type of a cell phone (Brenner, 2013). Coupled with the fact that 95 percent

of American households own a car and 85 percent of Americans commute to work by car Monday

through Friday, it is no wonder that government and legislative bodies are focusing on enacting laws

that aim to restrict cell phone use while driving in an effort to improve roadway safety (Chase, 2013).

Despite previous legislative actions across the United States by state governments to prohibit

specific cell phone related activities while driving and other efforts to warn the general public about the

risk cell phone use pose to not only the driver but to their passengers and the entire community, cell

phone related car accidents and fatalities continues to increase. Only twelve states, the District of

Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands prohibit every driver from texting while driving

and every driver from using a hand-‐held cell phone while driving. If a driver in one of these states or

territories wishes to use their cell phone, they must have a hands-‐free system, such as a Bluetooth,

while talking on the phone. Thirty-‐seven states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers, defined

as a driver in their first year of driving solo, and forty-‐one states including D.C. prohibit texting while

driving for every driver. Not a single state in the United States completely bans all cell phone use for

drivers and this is surprising. It is surprising because in 2010, the National Safety Council announced that

at least 28 percent of all traffic crashes or at least 1.6 million crashes each year involve a driver using

their cell phone (National Safety Council, 2010). Other reports also show that cell phone use while

driving is comparable in multiple aspects to driving while under the influence of alcohol. In one such


study, the data indicates that texting while driving increases a driver’s crash risk twenty-‐three times,

which is similar to the risk of a crash when a driver has a blood alcohol level of 0.19 (Gregg, 2013).

This analysis will take a look at the evolution of the cell phone, the data comparisons between

driving while using a cell phone and driving while under the influence as well as a comparison between

Colorado’s cell phone regulations to New York’s cell phone bans laws. This analysis will show how vastly

states differ on cell phone laws and that what is currently being done is not only not enough but the lack

of uniformity, severity and collaboration among states is not working to reduce the risks cell phone use

while driving pose to the driver, passengers and the community.

It is important to look at the evolution of the cell phone and its capabilities because a cell phone’s

functions make it possible for a driver to do so much more while behind the wheel of a car. Without

features like texting and internet browsing, there would not be the heightened risk of an accident or

fatality while driving. It is also important to look at the different classifications of distracted driving, such

as eating while driving, listening to music, and talking to a passenger(s) in the vehicle and how cell

phone use while driving is different, more dangerous and warrants more attention. Use of cell phones

occurs throughout the United States and the problem with cell phone use behind the wheel is the same

regardless of which state is being examined. However, and unlike driving while intoxicated laws, cell

phone use while driving laws vary greatly from state to state and there has not been any notable efforts

among states to collaborate in regards to establishing more uniform laws. New York and Colorado are

examined in this analysis in order to shed light on how vastly cell phone laws can differ from state to

state. New York has one of the toughest laws in the nation to address the dangers cell phone use while

behind the wheel poses. Unlike New York, Colorado still has one of the weakest laws to address the

dangers of cell phone use while driving. The Colorado State Legislature banned texting while driving for

adult drivers during the 2009 legislative session as well as banned all cell phone activity for minor


drivers. In March of Colorado’s 2014 legislative session, a proposal to require hands-‐free devices for all

cell phone use while behind the wheel was defeated in Colorado’s House Transportation and Energy

Committee because the bill did not go far enough to address the dangers of cell phone use while driving.

Since the bill failed to pass out of committee, it is for this reason why it is not examined in the paper and

Colorado law addressing cell phone use while driving remains unaltered since 2009.

Cell phone use while driving also produces negative externalities because the driver is not held

accountable for the full dangers or costs that cell phone use while driving produces. The cost of using a

cell phone while driving is of greater cost to society than it is to the driver. Drivers are making a decision

based on where their marginal cost equals their marginal benefit, and since they are not taking into

account the cost of the negative externality being produced by their actions, this results in a market

inefficiency. This also means that the socially optimal quantity of texts, cell phone calls, and other cell

phone activities being performed by the driver is smaller than the socially acceptable market quantity

because the dangers to the driver are much greater than what is socially acceptable. In order to correct

this failure, consumer surplus and producer surplus needs to be reduced to the socially optimal level.

Also, cell phone use while driving produces dead weight loss to society and in order to shrink the dead

weight loss that is experienced, a shift of the marginal private cost is necessary in order to reach the

socially optimal level.

The examination and analysis of cell phone while driving reports quantify the problem. The number

of fatal and injury car crashes per year that are due to cell phone use while driving indicates how big of a

problem cell phone use while driving is and also shows whether there is any increase or decrease in the

number of cell phone related fatalities and accidents that occur over time as a result of regulation

efforts. An explanation of any increase, decrease or absence of change in the number of cell phone

related accidents and fatalities per year are also given. Also, this report examines any federal, state or


local laws and educational efforts already in place that aim to reduce cell phone use while driving in

order to determine if they have an impact and determine whether or not these efforts lead to an

increase, decrease, or no change in the number of fatalities or injury car crashes per year. It is also

necessary to look at different types of distracted driving and the frequency in which each action results

in a car accident or fatality. This will be important for comparison reasons and to show that cell phone

use while driving is more dangerous and therefore warrants more attention. Another way to quantify

the problem so that it is more easily understood is to examine the comparisons between cell phone use

while driving research to driving while under the influence data and results. The research shows that the

level of impairment of cell phone use while driving is comparable to the impairment level of drinking

while driving. Establishing an impairment level for both allows comparison of laws in order to determine

which activity warrants stricter laws and whether or not the laws are adequate enough for the level of

impairment each activity produces.

Quantifying the data also shows the relationship between the two forms of distraction and

impairment driving. Driving requires a person’s eyes, hands, feet and brain to operate a motor vehicle.

Like driving while under the influence, cell phone use while driving has negative effects on a driver’s

physical and mental skills that are necessary to operate a motor vehicle. Alcohol and distracted driving

are both shown to slow reflexes, which decrease the ability to react swiftly to changing situations, slow

eye muscle function, alter eye movement, and alter visual perception. Both activities also decrease the

ability to judge the car's position on the road, or the location of other vehicles, causes attention to

driving to decrease and/or drowsiness to occur, and reduces eye/hand/foot coordination. The positive

comparison between cell phone use while driving and driving while under the influence of alcohol allows

for comparison of laws (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2004).


Problem Definition Cell phone related car accidents and fatalities continues to increase despite legislative action by

the state governments that prohibit specific cell phone related activities while driving and despite

educational efforts to warn the general public about the risk cell phone use pose to not only the driver

but its passengers and the entire community. Due to the similarities of risk between cell phone use while

driving and driving while under the influence of alcohol, a demand to regulate cell phone use while

behind the wheel in order to decrease the number of accidents and fatalities is not being met.

The History of the Cell Phone It was in 1946 when the first commercial mobile phone call was made and by 1948, wireless

telephone service was available in about 100 cities and highway corridors. Since then, the technology

and the number of cell phone users have only continued to grow and expand. With the introduction of

the internet in 1969 and the concept of a small handheld camera, the capabilities of cell phones are now

endless. The first cell phone went from costing roughly $3,900 dollars, measuring about 10 to 11 inches

in height, about 1 1/2 inches in width, and weighing about 2 1/2 pounds to costing anywhere on average

from mid $50s to $800 dollars and weighing mere ounces. Not only has the size and cost to purchase a

cell phone changed dramatically but so has the number of cell phone owners and subscribers. Prior to

the 1990s, there were only roughly one million cell phone users and subscribers in the world

(Anjarwalla, 2010). According to a survey conducted between April 17, 2013 and May 19, 2013 of 2,252

adults, 91 percent of adults now own a cell phone and 65 percent of those adults own a smart phone

(Rainie, 2013). Cell phones are also equipped with an unlimited amount of features and capabilities that

have not only made them more useful but more distracting. Applications or what is better known as

Apps are now available to help users watch movies, choose restaurants, do online banking, make

appointments, trade stocks, make purchases, navigate directions, read barcodes and performs millions


of other everyday tasks. Today, “81% of cell phone owners send or receive text messages; 60% of cell

phone owners access the internet; 52% send or receive email; 50% download apps; 49% get directions,

recommendations, or other location-‐based information; 48% listen to music; 21% participate in a video

call or video chat; (and) 8% “check in” or share their location” (Duggan, 2013).

Cell Phone Use While Driving Comparison to Driving Under the Influence

DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) or DUI (Driving Under the Influence) are both defined as driving

while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In all 50 states, the legal limit for drunk driving is a blood

alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08. To put this in perspective, a “120-‐pound female can reach this level

of intoxication after only two drinks, and a 180-‐pound male can be at .08 after only four drinks. These

numbers, however, are only an average because alcohol affects every person differently. One drink may

be enough to push some people over the legal limit while it may take a person several drinks to feel any

affect. “A ‘drink’ is considered to be either one 1.5-‐ounce shot of hard liquor, one 12-‐ounce glass of

beer, or one 5-‐ounce glass of wine” (University of Colorado Police Department & Emergency

Management, 2010). Additionally, and for the purpose of comparison, at a .08 BAC level, drivers are

eleven times more likely to be involved in a car accident than drivers with no alcohol in their system.

When comparing driving while under the influence to cell phone use while driving, the research by

the University of Colorado Police Department and Emergency Management suggests that cell phone use

is more dangerous than driving while intoxicated. While an impaired driver is eleven times more likely to

be involved in a car accident, a driver that is texting or talking on the phone while driving is twenty-‐three

times as likely to be involved in a car accident. Like driving while under the influence, cell phone use

while driving also puts the driver, its passengers, other vehicles, and pedestrians at risk of injury or

death but unlike drunk drivers, drivers using their cell phone while operating a vehicle do not face


similar penalties for violating the law. A DUI offender faces increased penalties and fines compared to

that of a diver found to be using their cell phone while driving. In Colorado a driver found to be texting

while driving faces a fine of $50-‐$100 dollars depending on if it is their first or second offense and

insurance costs are unlikely to increase due to the nature of law. On the contrary, a person convicted of

a DUI in Colorado will experience an annual insurance increase of about: $3,000; pay about $650 for

mandatory DUI classes; is subject to $685 towing and storage fees; about $4,000 for fines and attorney

fees; and a $100 DMV reinstatement fee for an estimated minimum total of $8,435 dollars (University of

Colorado Police Department & Emergency Management, 2010). The national average for a DUI is

estimated at $10,000 dollars and is commonly referred to as the $10,000 ride home (Solomon, 2011).

David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews and Dennis D. Crouch at the University of Utah conducted a study in

2006 in order to highlight the similarities between cell phone use while driving and driving while

intoxicated. The study’s 40 participants were asked to “drive” a PatrolSim simulator four different times

in order to measure six performance variables that determine how participants react to the vehicle

breaking in front of them. To achieve the baseline for the study, the participant operates the simulator

undistracted. The following simulations included the participant using a handheld cell phone, using a

hands-‐free cell phone and then finally driving the simulator while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-‐

alcohol level after drinking vodka and orange juice. In order to determine the level of distraction,

reaction times and impact of impairment, participants followed a simulated pace car that braked

intermittently. “Brake-‐onset time is the time interval between the onset of the pace car’s brake lights

and the onset of the participant’s braking response (expressed in milliseconds). Braking force is the

maximum force that the participant applied to the brake pedal in response to the braking pace car

(expressed as a percentage of maximum). Speed is the average driving speed of the participant’s vehicle

(expressed in miles per hour). Following distance is the distance between the pace car and the

participant’s car (expressed in meters). Half-‐recovery time is the time for participants to recover 50% of


the speed that was lost during braking (expressed in seconds)” (Strayer, Drews, and Crouch, 2006). The

table shows the total number of collisions in each phase of the study. Strayer, Drews and Crouch use

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) followed by planned contrasts in order to provide an

overall assessment of driver performance in each of the experimental conditions.

TABLE 1:

Alcohol Baseline Cell Phone Total Accidents 0 0 3

Brake Onset Time (msec) 888 (51) 943 (58) 1022 (61)

Braking Force (%of maximum)

69.6 (3.6) 56.4 (2.5) 55.2 (2.9)

Speed (MPH) 52.8 (.08) 54.9 (.08) 53.2 (.07)

Following Distance (meters)

26.5 (1.7) 27.3 (1.3) 28.5 (1.6)

½ Recovery Time (sec) 5.4 (0.3) 5.4 (0.3) 6.2 (0.4)

*Means and standard errors (in parentheses) for the Alcohol, Baseline, and Cell-‐Phone conditions. Standard error is a measure of the statistical accuracy of the estimate.

The MANOVA indicates that both cell phone and alcohol conditions differed significantly from the

baseline as well as from each other. The findings above show that when drivers were talking on a cell

phone, either hands-‐free or handheld, they were involved in more rear-‐end collisions and their initial

reaction to vehicles braking in front of them was slowed by 8.4 percent, relative to baseline. Also, it

takes drivers who are talking on the cell phone 14.8 percent longer to recover lost speed during

breaking compared to baseline drivers (Strayer, Drews, and Crouch, 2006). On the other hand, “when

participants were legally intoxicated, neither accident rates, nor reaction time to vehicles braking in

front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly from baseline.

Overall, drivers in the alcohol condition exhibited a more aggressive driving style. They followed 3.0%

closer to the pace vehicle and braked with 23.4% more force than in baseline conditions. Most

importantly, our study found that accident rates in the alcohol condition did not differ from baseline;


however, the increase in hard braking that we observed is likely to be predictive of increased accident

rates in the long run” (Lee et al., 2002).

Strayer, Drews and Crouch also conclude that handheld and hands-‐free cell phones impaired driving

produced no significant difference in the degree of impairment; both were found to be equally

dangerous. This unexpected finding calls into question many state laws that prohibit handheld cell

phone activities in favor of laws that approve and encourage hands-‐free cell phone options. The

researchers conclude that these types of legislative initiatives are unlikely to eliminate the problems

associated with cell phone use while driving (Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J, 2006). The study

also found that drivers “who talked on either handheld or hands-‐free cell phones drove slightly slower,

were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as

their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal

speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-‐ended the pace car. All

were talking on cell phones. None were drunk. Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-‐alcohol level

drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more

aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds

before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force” (Strayer, D. L.,

Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J., 2006). What is most surprising to the researchers during this study is the

lack of accidents among the study’s drunken drivers. While three participants crashed while using a cell

phone while driving, none of the intoxicated participants crashed during the simulation.


FIGURE 1:

Figure 1 presents the braking profiles. In the baseline condition, participants began braking within 1 second of pace deceleration. Similar braking profiles were obtained for both the cell phone and alcohol conditions. However, compared to baseline when participants were legally intoxicated they tended to brake with greater force, whereas participant’s reactions were slower when they were conversing on a cell phone. Source: (Strayer, Drews and Crouch, 2006.

FIGURE 2:

Figure 2 presents the driving speed profiles. In the baseline condition participants began decelerating within 1 second of the onset of the pace car’s brake lights; reaching minimum speed 2 seconds after the pace car began decelerate, whereupon participants began gradual return to pre-‐braking driving speed. When participants were legally intoxicated, they drove slower, but the shape of the speed profile did not differ from baseline. By contrast, when participants were conversing on a cell phone it took them longer to recover their speed following brake. Source: (Strayer, Drews and Crouch, 2006).


FIGURE 3:

Figure 3 presents the following distance profiles. In the baseline condition, participants followed approximately 28.5

meters behind the pace car and as the pace care decelerated, the following distance decreased, reaching nadir approximately 2 seconds after the onset of the pace car’s brake lights. When participants were legally intoxicated, they followed closer to the pace car, whereas participants increased their following distance when they were conversing on a cell phone. Source: (Strayer, Drews and Crouch, 2006)

Another study by Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice Eric Ip from Touro University in Vallejo

found that cell phone use while driving causes driver impairment. The preliminary results were released

in 2013. “Led by Ip, a team of Touro students and doctoral students used the same kinds of tests police

officers give to suspected drunk drivers -‐-‐ the standardized field sobriety test. In the test, two groups

were assembled to try to show the effect of hands-‐free cell phones on driving functions, particularly

reaction time in the need to brake, swerve or avoid hitting something” (Rohrs, 2013).

What makes this test very valuable for the comparison purposes between cell phone use while

driving and driving while intoxicated is that the research team used the same kinds of tests law

enforcement use on possible drunk drivers. These DUI tests were able to compare reactions of those

talking on hands-‐free devices to those not talking on a cell phone at all.


“Nearly 80 people participated. In one group, some wore a "Bluetooth," a common hands-‐free cell

phone device, but did not talk. Those in the second group also wore Bluetooths and were talking with

someone on the other end. While either talking on the devices or not talking on them, participants were

asked to perform three components on the sobriety test -‐-‐ horizontal gaze test, walk and turn and the

one leg stand” (Rohrs, 2013).

27.5 percent of those talking on the hands-‐free devices failed the tests. This group displayed slowed

reaction time in braking when compared to the others.

Further research is needed since these are preliminary results. The College of Pharmacy plans to

perform a study similar to that of Strayer, Drews and Crouch by using a driver simulator to do more

specialized tests and comparison between those using hands-‐free devices and those talking on the

phone without such devices (Rohrs, 2013).

When comparing DUI and cell phone use while driving statistics, alcohol impaired accidents and

fatalities statistics are currently higher but the number of fatalities and accidents caused by a drunk

driver continues to decrease. On the other hand, the number of cell phone use while driving accidents

and fatalities are increasing as the number of people using their cell phones while driving continues to

rise. Alcohol-‐impaired driving fatalities accounted for 31 percent of the total vehicle traffic fatalities in

2010 and over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving while intoxicated or under the influence of

narcotics. Between 1991 and 2011, the rate of drunk driving fatalities per 100,000 population has

decreased 49 percent nationally. In 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated

that 9,878 people were killed in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal .08 BAC or greater

(The Century Council, 2013).


FIGURE 4:

Source: The Century Council. “Drunk Driving Statistics: Drunk Driving Fatality Rates.” 2011. Web. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-‐driving/drunk-‐driving-‐statistics

FIGURE 5:

Source: The Century Council. “Drunk Driving Statistics: Drunk Driving Fatalities.” 2011. Web. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-‐driving/drunk-‐driving-‐statistics


TABLE 2: DRIVER DISTRACTION

YEAR Overall Distracted Crashes Drivers Fatalities Crashes Drivers Fatalities

2004 38,444 58,395 42,836 4,409 (11%)

4,672 (8%)

4,978 (12%)

2005 39,252 59,220 43,510 4,117 (10%)

4,309 (7%)

4,572 (11%)

2006 38,648 57,846 42,708 5,323 (14%)

5,536 (10%)

5,917 (14%)

2007 37,435 56,019 41,259 5,398 (14%)

5,623 (10%)

5,988 (15%)

2008 34,017 50,186 37,261 5,331 (16%)

5,501 (11%)

5,870 (16%)

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in NHTSA Databases.” September 2009. Web. http://www-‐nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.pdf

In terms of cell phone use while driving, it is estimated that eleven percent of vehicles or one in ten

drivers during daylight hours has a driver using their phone. The number of drivers distracted at the time

of a fatal crash continues to increase as cell phone ownership becomes widespread. Fatal car crashes

increased from eight percent in 2004 to eleven percent in 2008, which is a 37.5 percent increase over a

four-‐year period. A total of 5,870 people were killed in 2008 and an estimated 515,000 people were

injured due to distracted driving according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009). A 2010 study by The National Safety Council

shows that this number continues to rise despite increases in efforts to deter this type of behavior. In

2010, cell phone use while driving accounted for about 25 percent of all car accidents. This amounts to

not only a 56.25 percent increase over a three year period but also means that there are approximately

1.4 million car accidents per year due to cell phone use. Texting is even more deadly than what is

detailed above. Reading and/or responding to a text message takes away a driver’s attention for

approximately five seconds, which is enough time for a moving vehicle to travel the length of a football

field. Studies found that texting while driving causes a 400 percent increase in the amount of time spent

with eyes off the road. Texting while driving is responsible for an additional minimum 3 percent of


crashes or 200,000 crashes per year. Meaning, texting alone raises the number cell phone related car

accidents to 28 percent of all car accidents (National Safety Council, 2010).

A 2012 National Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behavior found that 48 percent of

drivers admit to answering their cell phones while driving and 14 percent of drivers surveyed admit to

reading text message or emails while driving. Despite these admissions of risky behavior, as of 2011, 94

percent of drivers support bans on texting while driving and 74 percent of drivers support bans on hand-‐

held cell phone use (Governor’s Highway Safety Association, 2011).

Types of Distractions There are many types of distractions a driver faces while operating a motor vehicle. Distractions

include but are not limited to:

• Eating and drinking; • Talking to passengers; • Grooming; • Reading, including maps; • Using a navigation system; • Watching a video; • Adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player;

A survey by Road Charity Brake and Insurance company Direct Line found that three out of five

drivers on the road admit to eating while behind the wheel in the past year. Of those who admitted to

eating while behind the wheel, two percent acknowledge being distracted while doing so. “The survey

also revealed five per cent of drivers have shaved, combed their hair or applied make-‐up while on the

road. 15 percent admitted to having carried out personal grooming when their vehicle was stationary”

(Hyusman, 2014). A study conducted by the University of Leeds found that the reaction time of drivers

who were eating while their car was in motion had a 44% slower reaction time than usual. Drivers

drinking a non-‐alcoholic beverage while driving had a 22% slower reaction time and were 18% more


likely to demonstrate poor lane control (Ward, 2012). While there seems to be an endless amount of

research, reports and studies to determine the cognitive affects cell phone use and alcohol produce,

comparable studies were not found in regards to other forms of driver distraction. However, insurance

companies and roadway safety organizations alike claim that other forms of distraction involve some

combination of visual, manual and cognitive attention from the driver as well but there currently lacks

adequate research and data to provide a definitive answer as to which behavior is riskier (NHTSA, 2009).

Despite other forms of distraction, the National Safety Council identifies cell phone use while driving

as the number one distraction behind the wheel. What sets cell phone use while driving apart from the

above mentioned list is that talking on the phone or text messaging requires visual, manual, and

cognitive attention from the driver as well as auditory when talking on the cell phone. Visual distraction

is defined as looking at something other than the road; auditory is hearing or listening to something not

related to driving; manual distraction involves manipulating something other than the wheel, pedals or

gears; and cognitive is the process of thinking about something other than driving. “Drivers talking on

cell phones miss half of the information in their driving environment. Drivers using cell phones not only

display slower reaction times and have difficulty staying in their lane. But also are less likely to see high

and low relevant objects, visual cues, exits, red lights and stop signs” (National Safety Council, 2012).

Like cell phone use while driving, driving while intoxicated impacts cognitive functioning. Alcohol is

classified as a depressant because it slows down the functions of the central nervous system. Alcohol is

absorbed into the bloodstream where it travels directly to the brain, where it then causes normal brain

functions to be delayed and preventing a person from functioning normally. “Alcohol affects a person’s

information-‐processing skills, also known as cognitive skills, and hand-‐eye coordination, also referred to

as psychomotor skills. Consuming alcohol prior to driving greatly increases the risk of car accidents,

highway injuries, and vehicular deaths” (Xavier, 2013). A study conducted by P. L. Zandor, S. A. Krawchuk


and R.B. Voas in 2000 estimated the risk of an accident when driving with a specific blood alcohol

concentration. For drivers 21 to 34 years old who has blood alcohol concentrations between 0.05% and

0.79%, the odds ratio of a car accident is estimated to be 3.76. In the same age range and at blood

alcohol concentrations between 0.08% and 0.99%, the odds ratio is estimated to be 6.25 (Zandor, et al.,

2000). By comparison, a study conducted by Strayer, Drews and Crouch estimated odds ratio of an

accident for cell phone drivers to be 5.36. This is a relative risk similar to the estimates obtained from

the other study’s results listed above for drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08% ” (Strayer, D. L.,

Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J., 2006).

New York vs. Colorado According to the Governors Highway Safety Association’s December 2013 data, the United States

currently has twelve states that prohibit all drivers from using hand-‐held cell phones, meaning it is illegal

for a driver to use any of a cell phone’s capabilities without the use of a hands-‐free system. The

remaining thirty-‐eight states have varying laws that prohibit certain cell phone actions and allow others.

Although cell phone use while driving laws are on the rise across the United States, laws and penalties

for breaking the law as well as law enforcement capabilities vary from state to state. For example, New

York has a primary enforcement law that allows law enforcement to cite a driver solely for using their

phone while driving without any other traffic offense needing to take place to pull over and cite a driver

for using their cell phone while driving. On the other end of the spectrum, Colorado has a secondary

enforcement law, meaning that a police officer cannot pullover and cite a driver for simply using their

cell phone while behind the wheel. So, even though texting while driving is illegal for all drivers, a driver

in Colorado would need to commit another traffic offense, such as running a red light or speeding, in

order to be pulled over and cited for using a cell phone while driving. Like many other states, New York

and Colorado also differ in what cell phone actions are acceptable behind the wheel. In New York,


texting while driving is an illegal activity for every driver and a hands-‐free device must be used in order

to use the voice capabilities on the cell phone while driving, meaning they need a Bluetooth or

headphone capability to talk on the phone. Although texting while driving is illegal in Colorado, a person

does not need a hands-‐free system to talk on the phone. The comparison between Colorado and New

York is just one example of how vastly states differ in their cell phone regulation laws.

TABLE 3: NEW YORK VS. COLORADO, LAW COMPARISON

State Hand-held Ban

All Cell Phone Ban Text Messaging Ban Crash Data School Bus

Drivers Novice Drivers

All Drivers

School Bus Drivers Novice Drivers

Colorado None None <18 (Primary) Yes Yes Covered under all

driver ban Yes

New York

Yes (primary) Yes

(primary) Covered under all

driver ban Covered under all

driver ban Yes

Source: Governor’s Highway Safety Association. “Distracted Driving Laws.” December 2013. 2 August 2013. Web. http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Not only do cell phone laws differ from state to state but so does police enforcement capabilities

and penalties for violating cell phone while driving laws. As recently as January 9, 2014, New York

Governor, Andrew Cuomo, stated in his State of the State address that he plans to propose a law “that

would suspend the driver’s license for one year for young adults under age 21 caught texting while

driving” (Hupfl, 2014). Even if this law fails to pass, New York still has one of the toughest cell phone use

while driving laws in the country. New York was one of the first states to implement cell phone while

driving laws and most recently implemented harsher laws and penalties for cell phone use while driving

that went into effect on July 26, 2013. For a first offense, the minimum fine is $50 and maximum fine is

$150. For the second offense and if committed within 18 months of the first offense, the minimum fine

is $50 and the maximum fine increases to $200. For a third or subsequent offense committed within 18

months, the minimum fine is $50 and the maximum fine increases to $400. New York drivers also face


losing their license if they continue to violate the law. For the first offense, a New York driver can receive

up to five points on their license. A driver will lose their license for one month in the state of New York

after if they receive eleven points on their license in less than eighteen months (New York DMV, 2013).

These fines and penalties are in stark comparison to the laws and penalty system in place in

Colorado and there is no indication of Colorado passing even tougher legislation any time soon. On

December 1, 2009, Colorado made texting on your phone while driving illegal. This includes text

messages, emails, tweets, etc. The law also bans anyone under the age of 18 from using a cell phone

while driving. Violators of the law are subject to a $50 fine for the first offense and the offense is

considered a class-‐A traffic infraction. A class-‐A traffic violation in Colorado is considered a civil matter in

rather than a criminal matter and the violator faces only a monetary penalty. For a second offense, a

Colorado driver faces a $100 fine and an additional infraction (Colorado DMV, 2013). Colorado’s police

enforcement capabilities are also limited in comparison to New York police officers’ capabilities.

Colorado’s cell phone laws are considered secondary law, meaning that a person cannot be pulled over

and fined simply for using their phone while driving. A driver must be pulled over for another reason,

such as speeding, to receive a ticket for texting while driving. It is shown that secondary laws are widely

ineffective compared to primary laws and very difficult to prove a law was even broken (Colorado DMV,

2013). Unlike Colorado, New York has primary laws for cell phone use, which means a driver can be

pulled over and ticketed just for being on their phone.

It is clear that states, like Colorado and New York, have been taking steps to implement laws in

order to tackle the dangers of handheld cell phone use while driving; however, it is also clear from what

is detailed above that whatever is being done is not producing the desired results. Drivers are still

pursuing narrow self-‐interests by texting or talking on their cell phone while driving without considering

how their actions may impact the rest of society as a whole. This produces outcomes that are inferior to


the outcomes that would have been produced if coordination between drivers and the community

existed.

Methods This policy memorandum conducts an ex post analysis of cell phone laws and the laws’ goal to

deter cell phone use while driving. It is vital to determine if the future costs of continuing state lead

regulation is the most efficient and effective way of delivering the benefits or if an alternative policy

needs to be explored.

If policymakers were to do nothing, the status quo is maintained, meaning that states are

responsible for addressing cell phone use while behind the wheel if they feel it is necessary to do so.

States are also solely responsible for the costs and producing the benefits they promised through

regulation. There is currently no collaboration among states and cell phone laws continue to vary

significantly. Due to variations in cell phone use while driving regulations and the growing problem cell

phone use while driving presents to drivers, passengers, other drivers on the road, pedestrians,

insurance companies, law enforcement, courts, lawyers, the federal government, state governments,

cell phone companies and services, and society as a whole. Cell phone use while driving regulation

deserves attention because the dangers and lives lost due to cell phone use while driving is a grave cost

to society both in terms of monetary costs and costs to safety and life. In order to move forward with a

recommendation to best address the dangers and costs of cell phone use while behind the wheel, the

measurement of success will be determined by the number of lives saved or the number of death

prevented due to regulation. The value of statistical life monetizes a life in order to determine what

each life lost costs society.


Proposed Solutions The first policy option to consider is to let the current legal and enforcement status of cell phone

use while driving continue as is. This is the “status quo” policy option. Under this option, the United

States continues to allow each individual state to pass their own laws in regards to cell phone use while

driving and continue regulating and enforcing their state laws. This would mean that there is also no

uniformity of laws across states or collective action to deter cell phone use while driving. The first

alternative policy option is to increase educational efforts that aim to warn more drivers of the dangers

cell phone use while driving pose. This option prevents further regulations and government control and

is the more conservative side of the debate. This policy’s main goal would not be to change anything to

the current laws or regulations but aims to change people’s behaviors through increased education and

awareness efforts. The second policy alternative option is to create a national law similar to that of the

United States’ Driving While Under the Influence laws or better known as DUI/DWI. This would mean

there is a nationwide collaboration to enact similar laws, implement equal enforcement capabilities and

similar penalties to not only to deter cell phone use while driving but to decrease car accident and car

fatality occurrences. This policy option would use both the federal government’s and states’ capabilities

to alleviate a failure and social ill through the cooperation of all levels of government. This policy option

would not only be similar to DUI/DWI laws but have consequences similar to DUI/DWI laws as well,

especially since the studies detailed above show that driving while intoxicated and cell phone use while

driving produce similar levels of impairment. This policy option also means that there is a complete ban

on cell phone use while driving and the option to use a hands-‐free option is no longer offered.

The stakeholders include cell phone users who need to be aware of laws they are expected to

abide by and the dangers they impose if they chose to use their cell phone while driver; other drivers on

the road that are at risk of injury or death by another driver deciding to use their cell phone while


driving; passengers of the driver who is using their cell phone while driving; the community as a whole

who bear some type of cost; law enforcement who also need to be aware of their capabilities when

trying to enforce the law and the law itself; the courts who deal with a driver who caused death or injury

to another person or family by using their cell phone while driving; safety advocates who are responsible

for promoting educational campaigns and creating awareness; victims of cell phone related car

accidents who want to prevent future victims; the federal and state departments of transportation who

head many safety departments and publish reports on cell phone use while driving statistics and

initiatives; insurance companies who bare some of the cost and risk by insuring drivers who use their

cell phone while drive and any injury to victims; cell phone manufacturers and providers who are also

responsible for education efforts of the dangers cell phone use while driving produce while also making

it more easy to use cell phone capabilities when driving a vehicle; and state legislatures who are actively

passing cell phone laws.

Issue Analysis In order to analyze the issue, I performed a meta-‐analysis so that I could contrast and combine

results from different studies and research collected. A meta-‐analysis combines pertinent qualitative

and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater

statistical power in order to identify similar patterns among study results, sources of disagreement

among those results, and any other interesting relationships that may emerge in the context of multiple

studies. The conclusion that is drawn from this analysis will be statistically stronger than the analysis of

any single study, due to increased numbers of subjects, greater diversity among subjects, and

accumulated effects and results. A meta-‐analysis is the best approach because it will be able to establish

statistical significance if the examined studies have conflicting results, will be able to develop a more

correct estimate of effect magnitude, will be able to provide a more complex analysis of harms, safety


data, and benefits and will be able to examine subgroups with individual numbers that are not

statistically significant. The meta-‐analysis is also coupled with confidence intervals in order to offer

estimates for the upper and lower limits of the true effect size. A confidence interval will be able to

indicate the reliability of an estimate and whether or not it is probable that the confidence range

captures the true population parameter given a distribution of samples.

The approach to the cost benefit analysis (CBA) is the calculation and the comparison of benefits

and costs of each policy option being proposed. In order to determine whether the benefits produced by

each policy, such as safer roads and less car accidents and fatalities, outweigh the cost of each policy,

such as the cost of implementing new laws, increased enforcement, and/or increased education efforts,

the CBA will also measure the positive or negative consequences of each policy. This may include:

effects on participants; effects on non-‐participants; externality effect; and other social benefits. Through

the analysis and CBA, the results of this memo shed light on what does not work to deter cell phone use

while driving and which policy provides the most benefits and produce the desired results lawmakers

have been looking for from the very beginning.

Possible weaknesses of the analysis, CBA, and policy recommendations are just how recent current

cell phone laws are. Only fifteen states enacted some type of cell phone law by 2010, meaning that

many laws are relatively new and may not have had the necessary post-‐implementation time needed to

address the problem and see positive results. It may also be difficult to show that cell phone use was

without a doubt the cause of a car accident or fatality because there are often many other contributing

factors, such as weather and other forms of passenger distraction that could also be a contributing

factor in addition to cell phone use when the accident occurred. There is also the concern that there

may be a lack of scientific evidence because it is very difficult to reproduce the dangers of cell phone use

while driving. While there are studies using car simulation, there are limitations to that as well because


it cannot perfectly represent every scenario that occurs on roadways. It is politically feasible that any of

the policy recommendations would be accepted by the majority of policymakers and Americans because

to a certain degree, some aspects of each policy are already established. However, the policy

recommendations may not be feasible in a monetary sense or have the necessary capabilities for a

meaningful impact. With the United States already in fiscal strain, the amount of federal and state

monies needing to set up the appropriate oversight, implement new laws and regulations and provide

the necessary amount of enforcement may not be adequately filled if we do not have the funds to

enforce a new policy.

Cell phone use in general, is not viewed as life threatening. There are no attempts to deter cell

phone use in any other situation or concerns of cell phone use between two people when both are not

behind the wheel of a car. However, cell phone use is problematic when done while driving because of

the level of distraction it produces. Cell phone use while driving not only puts the driver in danger but

also puts his or her passenger(s), surrounding drivers, nearby pedestrians and the community as a whole

in danger.

Cost-Benefit Framework As detailed previously, New York is known as one of the pioneers of cell phone use while driving

legislation. New York continues to adjust its cell phone laws and is moving towards stricter regulations

and punishments for a driver if he or she is found using their cell phone while operating a motor vehicle.

As recently as 2013, New York implemented stricter laws and more severe penalties if a driver is caught

using their cell phone while driving without using hands-‐free technology. The current state of New

York’s cell phone laws, penalties and fines, and number of fatalities, injuries and property damages due

to distracted driving are as follows:


• For a first offense, the minimum fine is $50 and maximum fine increases to $150. • For a second offense committed within 18 months, the minimum fine is $50 and the maximum

fine increases to $200. • For a third or subsequent offense committed within 18 months, the minimum fine is $50 and

the maximum fine increases to $400.

An analysis done after the first year of implementation of the handheld cell phone ban in New York

found that despite regulation efforts in place to prevent cell phone use while driving in an effort to

reduce cell phone related car accidents and fatalities in New York, the laws are not reducing cell phone

related crashes. Although the laws reduced handheld phone cell use overall, cell phone related car

accidents continue to remain relatively the same. Despite these findings and lack of impact, New York

continues to pass harsher laws and increase the amount of enforcement to further curb cell phone use

while driving.

FIGURE 6: MOTOR VEHICLE CRASHES BEFORE AND AFTER CELL PHONE LAW IMPLEMENTATIONS

NEW YORK Collision claims per 100 insured vehicle years for new vehicles before and after hand-‐held phone use law, compared with Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania (The Highway Loss Data Institute, 2010).

Unlike New York, there is no data showing the benefits or lack of benefits Colorado’s texting

while driving ban and cell phone use ban for all novice drivers has produced since the law was first

implemented in December of 2009. A couple things can be inferred from the lack of data. One, it can be

inferred from the most recent attempt to enact even tougher legislation during Colorado’s 2014


legislative session that the current law is failing to produce the promised or necessary changes. Change

to or an attempt to enact additional regulation is usually only done when the current law and level of

regulation is failing or produces unattended consequences. The second inference that can be made from

the lack of data is that there is no new data or that there is neither positive nor negative data to report.

There is also the argument that the law has not had enough time to produce any notable impacts but

that is unlikely since New York was able to track changes within the first few months if implementation.

Whatever the reason may be for the lack of data analysis to show the impact of Colorado’s cell phone

use while driving laws, this means that this portion of the analysis is unable to compare New York’s

analysis done after the first year of implementation of the handheld cell phone ban to Colorado’s cell

phone use while driving laws. This produces a limitation when comparing the differing laws. For this

reason and due to the lack of available data, New York’s cell phone while driving laws and research will

only be examined in the cost-‐benefit analysis portion.

A cost-‐benefit analysis (CBA) is used to determine if the limitations on cell phone use while

driving is not only effective but is also able to determine if the benefits that are a result of the

regulations outweigh the costs of implementation and enforcement. Cell phone use while driving bears

many risks to society, including but not limited to: harm and/or death to the person behind the wheel

using their cell phone, harm and/or death to any passenger in their vehicle as well as harm and/or death

to other drivers on the road and any pedestrians nearby. The reduction of these risks will undoubtedly

provide many benefits to society but also at a cost to society. The following CBA provides a comparative

framework for societal costs and benefits. In order to complete the CBA, the benefits are quantified and

monetized in order to determine the impact of New York’s cell phone while driving laws but how it

compares in terms of costs and benefits to other policy options. The costs and benefits of New York’s

cell phone laws are then converted to national costs and benefits for easy comparison.


The cost this CBA is concerned with is any cost placed on various stakeholders in a monetary

term. Any cost placed on the stakeholders under the policy options will add up to the policy’s net

present cost (NPC). On the contrary, any benefits to stakeholders will sum up to the policy’s net present

benefit (NPB). The difference in these two sums results in a policy’s net present value (NPV).

The benefit assessment for the proposed regulations uses the value of statistical life in order to

determine all the benefits to society. More specifically, it indicates what society is willing to pay per life

saved or pay to prevent one death from cell phone related car accidents and fatalities. The best program

will not only have the lowest cost and save the most lives but will be able to distribute risk reduction

funds in a consistent and equitable manner in order to achieve the most risk reduction for society as a

whole.

The U.S. Department of Transportation latest 2012 figures indicate the Value of Statistical life is

$9.1 million dollars. According to their calculations, an income elasticity of 1.0 should be used to project

future VSL meaning that in 2014, the VSL is $9.3 million dollars. Also, based on wage forecasts from the

Congressional Budget Office, there is an expected 1.07% annual growth rate in median real wages over

the next 30 years. These estimates imply that VSL in future years will grow about 1.07% per year before

discounting to present value. The prevention of injury, illness, and loss of life is a significant factor when

making private economic decisions. When government entities decide to makes direct investments or

controls external market impacts through regulation, it is in fact pursuing these benefits while also

imposing costs on society. It is for this reason why the VSL is used as the measure of benefit for this CBA.

Government entities are choosing to make direct investments to not only control the impacts cell phone

use while behind the wheel produce but are attempting to control society’s behavior through the use of

regulation. The government therefore is in pursuit of these benefits while also imposing costs on society

(U.S. Department of Transportation, 2013). There are approximately 3,500 car accident fatalities per


year due to distracted driving, resulting in a cost of $32.5 billion dollars based on VSL. This means, that

with appropriate policy action, the United States could save at least $32.5 billion dollars per year if all

3,500 lives are saved (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014).

The VSL measures the benefit of preventing a fatality and the additional cost that individuals

would be willing to bear for improvements to reduce the number of fatalities by one person. This is not

the valuation of life but the valuation of reductions in risks through regulatory actions. For the purpose

of this analysis, it is assumed that the willingness to pay to avoid risk of a fatal injury increase

proportionately with growing risk. The U.S. Department of Transportation uses the Median Usual

Weekly Earnings (MUWE) as an index to measure real income growth as it affects VSL. The weekly

earnings series uses a median employment cost for wage and salary workers over the age of sixteen. A

median value is preferred because it better reflects the factors influencing a typical traveler affected by

transportation actions and occurrences. The Consumer Price Index (CPI-‐U) is also used as a price index

that is also representative of changes in the value of money that would be considered by a typical

worker making decisions corresponding to his or her income level (U.S. Department of Transportation,

2013).

In order to determine all the costs to society and stakeholders, the CBA will determine if the

annual cost per life saved benefit outweighs the costs imposed on society and the government for

regulation efforts. Increased expenditure on cell phone regulation is expected to reduce cell phone use

while driving related accident and fatality risks. The annual cost per life saved (CLS) is:

CR

CLS = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Lives saved due to increased regulation


Where CR is the annual cost spent on increased regulation measures. The expected number of annual

lives saved is the accident and fatality rate before the implementation of increased cell phone use while

driving regulations multiplied by the percentage risk reduction due to increased cell phone use while

driving regulations (R)

100CR

CLS = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

R X fatality rate before increased regulation

R needs quantification for the following measures:

R(police officers’ service)

R(judges, law clerks)

R(lawyers, paralegal)

R(oversight, probation)

R(insurance costs)

R(capital expenses)

CBA Matrix and Results A. Status Quo:

A fine in New York for using a cell phone while driving can range from $50 to $400 dollars with

an additional $93 dollar surcharge per violation and points added to a driver’s license. If someone

chooses to plead guilty or not contest to the violation, they are to pay the fine, accept the number of

points on their license which may lead to a license suspension or probation and face an increase in

insurance costs or they can decide to plead not guilty to the violation and go to court. Unlike the fine

system, it can be difficult to calculate court costs because cases can involve many people and are often

funded through a number of agencies. It can also be difficult to calculate because a detailed budget and


staffing data is needed and whether the costs associated with court proceedings vary or are fixed. In

terms of traffic violations, if the driver decides to contest the ticket they must attend an assigned

hearing date where they can either represent themselves or, depending on the nature of the ticket, hire

an attorney to represent them. By picking either route, the defendant is acknowledging the possibility

that they could lose the option for a plea bargain involving lesser penalties if found guilty or face the

possibility of no penalties if found not guilty. In either outcome the defendant is accepting any

applicable court and attorney fees (New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2012). For the

purpose of this cost analysis, New York court costs will be examined. The Bureau of Labor Statistics most

recent data is from May 2012. For this reason, costs have been adjusted for 2014 by 1.07% for median

real wages.


TABLE 4: STATE REGULATION COSTS: NEW YORK

Title

Annual Wages ($)

#

Mean Estimate (2012) Mean Estimate (2014)

Legal Occupations 104,020 Employed $122,430 per employee

$125,064

Lawyers 67,210 Employed $153,920 per employee

$157,231

Judicial Law Clerks 800 Employed $99,640 per employee

$101,783

Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates

3,330 Employed $131,180 per employee

$134,002

Paralegals and Legal Assistants*


$55,468

Legal Support Workers, All Other


$55,938

Police and Sherriff’s Patrol Officers


$70,831

Capital Expenses 20 checkpoints per year; N/A

$24,300 per checkpoint or $480,000 annually

$1,000,000 Spymobile program

Insurance Costs 638 Injured per year in New York. N/A

• $25,000 for bodily injury (not resulting in death) or $50,000 for any


Source: New York State Department of Labor. “Labor Statistics.” 2010. March 2014. Web http://labor.ny.gov/stats/lswage2.asp#23-‐0000. New York State Department of Financial Services. “Shopping for Auto Insurance. 2013. March 2014. Web. http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/auto/auto1202.htm. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Summary of Motor Vehicle Crashes. http://dmv.ny.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/statistics/2012nys.pdf

The total cost for New York’s entire police, judicial system and insurance system totals

approximately $16.3 billion dollars per year. However and in order to give more meaning to this

estimate for the purpose of this paper, out of the total 606,000 New York cases per year only 640 are

distracted driving related offenses that resulted in injury or death and are therefore the only cases

included in this analysis (New York State Division of Criminal Justice, 2012). The average cost per case is

injury resulting in death, sustained by any one person in any one accident. $8.2 million annually for New York based on 329 people injured per year due to cell phones.

• $50,000 for bodily injury (not resulting in death) sustained by two or more persons in any one accident, or $100,000 for any injuries resulting in death sustained by two or more persons in any one accident (subject to the above per person limits). $200,000 annually for New York based on 2 people dying as a result of cell phone use.


$26,846 dollars meaning that the total cost for the current level of regulation in New York is

approximately $17.2 million dollars per year. Assuming that the average cost per case could be applied

at a national level, it is estimated that the U.S. spends $11.3 billion dollars a year on regulation efforts

based on 3,500 deaths and 416,000 injuries per year due to cell phone use while driving (National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2014).

The costs to society associated with cell phone use while driving is calculated using national

data. This is done for the primary reason that cell phone use while driving related car accident injuries

and fatalities is a national epidemic. While New York has the necessary data to determine how much

efforts cost a specific portion of society to enforce cell phone laws, it is important to determine the cost

to the entire United States since every single person is impacted by any benefits and costs associated

with regulation efforts.

TABLE 5: COSTS TO SOCIETY: UNITED STATES

Societal Costs Estimate and Method of Evaluation

Cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with motor vehicle crashes injuries

The total annual cost amounts to $500 for each licensed driver in the U.S. The approximate population of the U.S. is 316 million. 95% of Americans drive a car and 91% of those people own a cell phone. The annual cost of medical care is 135.6 billion dollar annually.

Source: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “CDC Study Finds Annual Cost of Motor Vehicle Crashes Exceeds $99 Billion.” 2012. Web. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/research/cost.html

Per-‐person cost of traffic fatalities

The 2005 data showed 148 fatalities due to distracted driving, amounting to $473.6 million dollars in 2005 dollars or $521.2 million dollars in 2014 dollars.

Per-‐person cost of traffic injuries

The 2014 estimated per-‐person cost of traffic injuries is $75,022 per year. The 2005 data estimated a total of $1.8 billion for 24,304 injuries that year or $1.98 billion in 2014 dollars.


Employer Costs $43 billion annually. Would include loss of productivity, employment opportunities or existing employment standing. Source: National Safety Council. Distracted Driving. 2014. Web. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Employer%20Traffic%20Safety/Pages/NationalDistractedDriving.aspx

Total cost of traffic crashes a year

Including medical, emergency services, property damage, lost productivity, and quality of life, The Automobile Association of America (AAA) estimated in 2008 it totaled 164.2 billion a year. In 2014, this would amount to $175 billion per year. Source: The Automobile Association of America. “Crashes vs. Congestion. What’s the Cost to Society?” 2008 March 5. 2014. Web. http://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2011/10/200835920140.CrashesVsCongestionExecutiveSummary2.28.08.pdf

Taking the approximate national average based on New York’s cost of regulating and enforcing

cell phone use while driving laws, regulation and enforcement costs 11.2 billion dollars per year. The

total cost to society of traffic accidents and fatalities is approximately $356 billion dollars per year.

Combining the total cost of regulation and enforcement plus the costs place upon society, current cost

of the status quo is $367.4 billion dollars per year.

There has been an increase in the number of fatalities despite increased spending to enforce

regulation efforts making CLS a negative value. For each policy option: I have two policy options in

addition to maintaining the status quo. 1) Increase education efforts to spread awareness and deter cell

phone use while driving. 2) Pursue nationwide cooperation and collaboration to implement similar laws

in every state to address cell phone use while driving regulation and punishment.

B. POLICY ALTERNATIVE ONE: EDUCATION EFFORTS

Education efforts aim to change behavior of drivers by making them aware of the dangers cell phone

use while driving produces in an effort to decrease car accidents and fatalities caused by cell phones. In

addition to cell phone service providers dedicating money and resources to educate drivers about the

dangers of cell phone use while driving through educational campaigns, such as AT&T’s “It Can Wait”

campaign, other organization, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are


also working to address emerging safety concerns in regards to cell phone use while driving. For

example, AT&T’s main focus is to educate all roadway users and community leaders about the dangers

of cell phone use while driving and how to adopt safe behaviors in order to reduce accident and fatality

reports. The use of social media, TV ads, radio ads, celebrity advocacy, pledges to not text and drive,

partnering with other cell phone companies and businesses, and much more are all being used by

NHTSA and cell phone service providers in order to reach the most amount of people.

TABLE 6: COSTS & BENEFITS OF EDUCATION

Item Cost Benefit Campaign efforts

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requests $8 million dollars to advance the anti-‐distracted driving campaigns and examine the effectiveness of a combined emphasis safety campaign. Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.” 2014. Web

Increased education efforts = increased awareness

Social media • No financial costs of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc.

• Twitter is a service for broadcasting news and random thoughts.

• Facebook is a good place for personal information or a good place to catch up or reconnect with people.

• One out of three people in the United States -‐ more than 128 million -‐ visit Facebook every day.

• Facebook’s has 101 million US daily mobile users make up 78% of its 128 million daily US users. Twitter has 49 million monthly active users on average

Smartphone Apps.

• On average, to develop an app costs $6,453. It has also been reported that the development cost range for “small apps” is $3,000 to $8,000 and that “more complex or recognized brand apps” can cost $50,000 to $150,000. An average app developer in the US charges around $100 per hour

• Apps can be free or cost users to

•


download Source: Smith, Kevin. “The 17 Most Expensive Apps For

iPhone And iPad In The World.” Business Insider. 26 July 2013. 10 November 2013 Web.

Stetler, Mark. How Much Does it Cost to Develop A Mobile App?” App Muse. 2011. 2 November 2013. Web.

NHTSA Administrative Overview Expense

• $124,823,000 for Administrative Expenses.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.” 2014. Web.

• Supports the Agency’s ability to develop vital safety standards, address the emerging safety issues related to distraction, and oversee and enhance the effectiveness of programs designed to encourage safe driving

Grants • Section 411 Distracted Driving Grant, $50.0 million dollars.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.” 2014. Web

• The new incentive grant program will increase its focus on the emerging safety issue of distracted driving to encourage states to enact and enforce laws that prevent distracted driving, specifically laws restricting cellular phone use and texting while driving.


FIGURE 7: FACEBOOK JUNE 2013 MONTHLY ACTIVE USERS AND DAILY ACTIVE USERS

Source: (Constine, 2013)

C. POLICY ALTERNATIVE TWO: NATIONAL REGULATION

Implementing similar laws and consequences of cell phone use while driving in each state, a

model equivalent to that of drinking while driving laws and consequences is a nationwide recognition of

the dangers of cell phone use and the commitment to reduce cell phone use while driving accidents and

fatalities

Driving while Impaired is classified as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or higher

while operating a motor vehicle and it has been shown throughout this paper, that cell phone use while

driving is just as or more dangerous than driving while drunk.

Distracted driving has three types of classifications.

0 20,000,000 40,000,000 60,000,000 80,000,000

100,000,000 120,000,000 140,000,000 160,000,000 180,000,000 200,000,000

Monthly Acvve Users (MAU)

Total

Daily Acvve Users (DAU)

Total

MAU Mobile Moobile DAU

Facebook June 2013

United States

United Kingdom


1. Visual: taking eyes of the road.

2. Manual: taking your hand off the wheel.

3. Cognitive: taking your mind off driving.

Simply talking on the phone (handheld or hands-‐free) extends a driver’s reaction time as much as

having an illegal blood alcohol concentration level of .19%.

FIGURE 7: DRUNK DRIVING AND DISTRACTED DRIVING COMPARISON

Driving While Impaired Distracted Driving In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-‐impaired driving crashes. This accounts for 31% of all traffic related deaths in the U.S.

2011: 3,331 people were killed. 2012: 3,267 were killed. An additional 387,000 people were injured in 2011.

In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.

No arrests for using cell phone while driving but if a person is killed, people have been charged for higher offenses.

Annual cost of alcohol-‐related crashes totals more than $51 billion dollars

The annual cost of crashes caused by cell phone use was estimated at $43 billion in 2003, according to the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis

In 2010, more than 1 out of every 3 drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of .08% or higher involved in a fatal crash were between the ages of 21 and 24 years of age (34%). The next two largest groups were ages 25-‐34 (3-‐%) and 35-‐44 (25%)

23% of all crashes, or about 1.3 million car crashes, each year involve some type of cell phone use. 69% of 18-‐64 year old drivers talk on their cell phone while driving and 31% read or send text messages or emails while driving.

Checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol-‐related crashes by about 9%

N/A (data is unavailable)

Legal drinking and driving law and zero tolerance for drivers in all states.

• 12 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using hand-‐held cell phones while driving.

• Currently, 41 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers.

• *No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers

• Severity of law, fines, regulations, etc. all vary from state to state


FIGURE 8: COSTS & BENEFITS OF NATIONAL REGULATION

Item Cost Benefit Fines $300-‐$1,200 (depending on the

state). In New York, first offense ranges from $500-‐$1,000.

High cost is a deterrent.

Attorney $2,500-‐$25,000 (depends on complexity)

Fair representation of defendant and can help reduce fines or penalty for the defendant.

Investigator $1,000-‐$3,000 to interview witnesses, transcribe police video, and collect evidence.

Can help reduce fines or penalty for the defendant OR help provide support for police officers so that defendant receives the proper penalty.

Experts $3,000 and up for experts to testify about the accuracy or lack of field sobriety tests

Helps provide an unbiased conclusion of the violation. Provides support for either defense or prosecution.

Trial $2,000-‐$3,000 for first offense Provides an avenue to pursue justice.

Alcohol evaluation $80-‐$90 per session and could take up to 4 sessions

Provides scientific evidence that is unbiased.

Alcohol monitoring bracelet

$100 to install and $300 per month Prevent future incidents and ensure the safety of everyone else on the road

Education and treatment $300 Awareness of dangers actions posed in the hopes it will deter a future repeat of behavior. Possibility this knowledge will spread to others.

License reinstatement fee

$95-‐$200 Deterrent and provides incentive to not violate the law again.

Bail $150-‐$2,500. This will depend if the person uses a bonding company or not.

Deterrent and provides incentive to not violate the law again.

Towing $100-‐$1,200. Depends on towing company, what day it was towed and how long it is kept at towing area.

Deterrent and provides incentive to not violate the law again.


Indirect costs: life insurance premiums can rise, missed work means loss of income or the job

entirely, a DUI conviction can impact ability to enter specific schools and/or professions, DUI conviction

is on criminal record (number of years depends on state), etc.

The Stop-‐DWI Office in Erie County, NY estimates that drunken driving in New York costs on

average $9,500 for the first offense alone and the national average cost for a DUI is $10,000. Mothers

Against Drunk Driving published a report showing that drunk driving costs the United States $132 billion

dollars a year. This figure includes money paid by the government, employers, as well as quality-‐of-‐life

costs (VSL) (Jonson, Allie).

Net Present Benefit (NPB)

Net Present Cost (NPC)

Net Present Value (NPV)

The Status Quo $32.5 billion $367.4 billion -‐$399.9 billion Alternative 1: Education Efforts

$2.25 trillion $182.8 million $2.2 trillion

Alternative 2: National Effort

$103.5 billion $132 billion $235.5 billion


Cost Benefit Analysis for Cell Phone Use While Driving

COSTS

ALTERNATIVES

Status Quo Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Lawyers $10,567,495,510 Campaign Efforts $8,000,000.00 Fines $1,200.00

Law Clerks $81,426,400 Use of Social Media

$-‐ Attorney $25,000.00

Judges $446,226,660 Smartphone Apps $6,453.00 Investigator $3,000.00

Paralegals $1,325,130,520 Administration $124,823,000.00 Experts $3,000.00

Legal Support $114,627,900 Grants $50,000,000.00 Trial $3,000.00

Police & Detective Services $3,700,211,440

Alcohol

Evaluation $360.00

Check Points $486,000 Education $300.00

Spymobile Program $1,000,000

License Reinstatement

Fee $200.00

Insurance $31,900,000 Bail $2,500.00

TOTAL $16,268,504,430 Towing $1,200.00

Total # Cases Per Year 606,000 Cost per DUI $39,760.00


Average Cost Per Case $26,846

Average Cost Per DUI

$10,000.00

Average # Cell Phone Cases per Year 640

Number of DUIs

Per Year 1,400,000.00

Total Cost of Cell Phone Cases $17,181,258

DUI average Cost $14,000,000,000.00

Total # Cell Phone Related Deaths in U.S. 3,500

Loss of productivity, employment

impacts, medical care, etc.

$118,000,000,000.00

Total # Cell Phone Related Injuries in U.S. 416,000

Average Cost Per Case $26,846

Total COST of Cell Phone Related Deaths in U.S. $93,961,000

Total COST of Cell Phone Related Injuries in U.S. $11,167,936,000

Total COST of Cell Phone Related Injuries & Deaths in U.S. $11,261,897,000

Cost to Every Driver $135,591,000,000


Per-‐person cost of traffic fatalities $521,200,000

Per-‐person cost of traffic injuries $1,980,000,000

Employer Costs $43,000,000,000

Medical, Emergency Services, Loss of Quality of Life, Property Damage $175,000,000,000

TOTAL COST TO SOCIETY $356,092,200,000

NPC $367,354,097,000 NPC $182,829,453 NPC $132,000,000,000

BENEFITS

ALTERNATIVES

Status Quo Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Lives Not Saved/ Deaths Preventable 3,500.00

# of people pledge to not use their cell phone while driving

241,573 Lives Not Saved/ Deaths Preventable

11,127

VSL $9,300,000 VSL $9,300,000 VSL $9,300,000

NPB $32,550,000,000 NPB $2,246,628,900,000 NPB $103,481,100,000

NET PRESENT VALUE -‐$399,904,097,000 $2,246,811,729,453 $235,481,100,000


Sensitivity Analysis A: Impact if Number of People Pledge to Not Use Cell Phone While Driving Differs

Impact if Number of People Pledge to Not Use Cell Phone While Driving Differs

Baseline Total Lives Saved Due to Pledge

241,573 241,573 241,573 241,573

% of People Who Actually Use the Cell Phone While Driving

Despite Pledge 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

Number of people who continue to use their cell

phone while driving 12,079 24,157 36,236 48,315

Total Lives Saved Due to Pledge 229,494 217,416 205,337 193,258

Value of Statistical Life (VSL) $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000

Net Present Benefit (NPB) $112,331,445,000 $224,662,890,000 $336,994,335,000 $449,325,780,000

Net Present Cost (NPC) $182,829,453 $182,829,453 $182,829,453 $182,829,453

Net Present Value (NPV) $2,134,294,200,000 $2,021,968,800,000 $1,909,634,100,000 $1,797,299,400,000


Sensitivity Analysis B: Increase in Cost of Administration Increase in Cost of Administration

Baseline Total Administration Cost $124,823,000 $124,823,000 $124,823,000 $124,823,000

% Increase of Administration Cost 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

New Administrative Cost $131,064,150.00 $137,305,300.0 $143,546,450.00 $149,787,600.0

NPC $189,070,603.00 $195,311,753.0 $201,552,903.00 $207,794,053.0

NPC (# of people pledge to not use their cell phone while driving)

241,573 241,573 241,573 241,573

VSL $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000 $9,300,000

Net Present Benefit (NPB) $2,246,628,900,000 $2,246,628,900,000 $2,246,628,900,000 $2,246,628,900,000

Net Present Value (NPV) 2,246,439,829,397 2,246,433,588,247 2,246,427,347,097 2,246,421,105,947

As can be seen by both sensitivity analyses, even if the number of people whole pledge to not use their cell phone while driving decreases and if there

are any increases in administrative costs, this policy options remains the best option. Education efforts will still produce the most benefits at the least amount of

cost. Also, any increase in administration cost will have little impact on the total NPV. It is clear that the sensitivity analysis both support education efforts as the

optimal policy option.


Limitations and Weaknesses The research and data presented in this analysis is not without limitations and weaknesses. I

found that there lacked a large amount of data in this topic area due to this issue being a relatively new

problem. Some flaws also exist within the current education campaigns’ structures and effectiveness.

Another limitation and weakness was found when trying to quantify a life, which is not only very difficult

to do because it is a sensitive and controversial estimation to make. The last weakness found during the

course of research and analysis was the lack of technology and certainty to determine if a cell phone is

the sole cause of an accident. Despite these limitations and weaknesses found, they do not pose a

threat to the overall issue or impact possible policy initiatives explored.

Assumptions and estimates regarding the cost of education efforts, the cost of cell phone use

while driving to each state, and the cost of cell phone use while driving if the laws are similar to

DUI/DWI laws are made in order to completely translate specific statistics into usable forms. AT&T is

the leader in the educational campaign to curb texting while driving. Their campaign is known as the “It

Can Wait” campaign. Their message targets business and individuals alike with the belief that any text

can wait because it is not worth your life or someone else’s. However, this specific education campaign

could not be used in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Administration’s education

campaign’s available data because AT&T does not release their budget to the public. It is for this reason

why the “It Can Wait” campaign is not used and why the expenditures of the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration is the only data used in the cost estimates. It would have been more beneficial to

have financial data on more than one educational campaign because it would have brought more

validity to the costs estimates by taking an average. The “It Can Wait” campaign stated that it spends

“millions” of dollars on education efforts (Hall, 2013). An analysis can be greatly impacted depending on

how many millions one is talking about. A company that spends $999 million dollars on education efforts


will not only have more of a fiscal impact than if they were to spend one million dollars towards the

same goal but will be able to make much more of an impact on society. It is for these reasons why only

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s education campaign budget is used to represent all

educational efforts across the United States that work to deter cell phone use while driving. Despite the

lack of financial data, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s budget is still beneficial and

vital to this analysis because it is already a national campaign working to expose the dangers of cell

phone use while driving (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2013).

Many campaigns, state governments, the federal government, and organizations are mainly

targeting texting while driving. Even though texting while driving has been shown to be a greater risk, by

focusing on only one aspect of the problem fails to completely address all the dangers posed by all cell

phone related activities while driving. There is also the tendency of all these entities to only target most

of their efforts on a specific age range. This results in a significant portion of the population not being

represented or targeted for cell phone deterrence. If a certain portion of the population is left out, they

are not learning of the dangers or being sent the message that they are also part of the problem. The

specific age groups that are targeted are between the ages of 18-‐25 year olds. The current efforts are

too narrow to have a larger national impact. This narrow focus will result in the failure to inform all

drivers who use their cell phone while driving about the risks they are taking and the dangers they pose

to others unless the target audience is expanded and every function of cell phone use is incorporated

into the message.

There is however, an effort by AT&T Inc.’s global marketing officer, Cathy Coughlin along with

Sprint Corp., T-‐Mobile US Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., to make texting while driving as socially

unacceptable as driving while under the influence of alcohol. Although this is a policy path explored and

encouraged in the paper, the campaign is once again, completely ignoring talking on a cell phone while


driving. While this may be the step in the right direction, if the campaign truly wishes to make cell phone

use while driving as socially unacceptable as driving while intoxicated, every function of a cell phone

needs to be included. There is also the issue of every state having their own unique cell phone use while

driving laws and penalties. In order to make cell phone use while driving as socially and legally

unacceptable as drinking while driving, there would need to be the collaboration of states to not only

create similar cell phone laws to that of DUI/DWI laws and similar consequences for violating the law

but there would need to be an agreement across the board on the dangers of using a cell phone while

driving and that these dangers are equivalent to that of drinking while driving. As shown by the CBA,

this policy route is costly because it involves many levels of the state and federal government, the

cooperation and engagement of private organizations and a large enforcement capability.

The use of the value of statistical life (VSL) often provokes misunderstanding on the part of both the

public and policymakers. It is very uncomfortable to place a value on a life based on quantifiable

characteristics. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the VSL is the best way to determine what the

potential benefit is of preventing a fatality caused by a driver using their cell phone.

VSL has been controversial since it was first used in the 1960s and 1970s for the purpose of cost-‐

benefit analysis. The “value of saving a life was measured by the potential victim’s expected earnings,

measuring the additional product society might have lost. These lost earnings were widely believed to

understate the real costs of loss of life, because the value that we place on the continued life of our

family and friends is not based entirely, or even principally, on their earning capacity” (U.S. Department

of Transportation, 2013). Although there continues to be a shift away from this previous way of thinking

due to the many emotional factors left out, valuing a person’s life is still very difficult but also

unavoidable in many policy decisions. For one, these additional factors are also not easy to quantify. It is

difficult to put a cost on a relationship because the cost of a relationship can differ from person to


person based on many different factors. What one relationship is worth to one person may not be the

same for another person. For this reason, studies based on estimates of individuals’ willingness to pay

for improved safety is widely used as a way to measure the value of reduced risk in a more

comprehensive way. This also has its issues as well. People still defer on how much a person’s life is

worth and whether each life is worth the same. It is argued that a newborn baby with a whole lifetime

of productivity potential is worth more than a 90-‐year old man who is no longer a productive member to

the economy.

There are also differing estimates for VSL. The U.S. Department of Transportation noted that out

of all the studies they examined and took into consideration when conducting their analysis, the VSL

ranged anywhere between $5.2 million dollars to $12.9 million dollars for 2012. For 2014 dollar

amounts, this would range from $5.31 million dollars to $13.17 million dollars. Depending on which data

set one chooses to rely on, it can mean the difference between policy action and policy inaction. In

terms of cell phone use while driving regulation efforts, relying on a VSL closer to $5.31 million dollars

would definitely eliminate regulation and enforcement actions altogether because the cost of such

initiatives far outweigh the benefit of lives saved or the number of deaths that could have been

prevented. On the other hand, using the higher VSL estimate would surely benefit regulation and

enforcement efforts much more than the $9.3 million dollar value used in this analysis. Education efforts

still remains the best policy option no matter what VSL estimate one uses in the range given above.

However, a stronger case could be made for more regulation or a national law if a higher VSL was used

in this analysis.

It is also difficult to determine with 100 percent certainty if cell phone use while driving was the

sole cause of any car accident or fatality. In many highway and roadway data reports, cell phone

distraction is grouped into the broad category of driver distraction. This is done because there are other


elements that contribute to a car accident or death or there is no definitive way to prove that cell phone

use was solely responsible for the car accident. It is difficult to prove a cell phone was used at the time

of a car accident that resulted in an injury or death unless police are able to access the driver’s cell

phone, there are witnesses, if traffic cameras are available, or if the driver confesses to using his or her

cell phone prior to the car accident. This places some limitations on data, meaning that there could be

more driver deaths or injuries caused by a driver using their cell phone than we currently know. While

this is a weakness, collaboration with other reports and data made it possible to determine

approximately how many accidents and fatalities reported under distracted driving were cell phone

related.

Increased Education Efforts Increased education efforts produce the highest NPV of any policy option presented. Education

efforts provide the most benefits (i.e. lived saved or deaths prevented) at the lowest cost. Education has

the possibility to prevent approximately 241,573 lives from a cell phone caused car accident. This

prevents more deaths than the status quo currently is and also projects more lives saved than policy

alternative two does. An increase in education efforts would cost the United States roughly $182 million

dollars per year, which is significantly less than current regulation efforts that are estimated to cost the

entire United States roughly $367.4 billion dollars per year. Education efforts also cost the United States

substantially less than a national effort similar to DUI and DWI regulation is estimated to cost. A

nationwide effort would cost the United States about $132 billion dollars per year.

This policy is also supported by both sensitivity analyses. Despite the possibility that a

percentage of those drivers who pledge to not use their cell phone actually end up using their cell phone

while driving and despite any possible increases in administrative costs, education still remains the least

costly with the best results. An education effort produces the most benefits at the least amount of cost


to society and has the potential to prevent the most injuries and prevent the most deaths than the

status quo and a national effort to ban cell phone use while driving.

Additional Notes on Implementation Despite the results, this discussion is not complete without looking at the feasibility of

implementation both in regards to logistics and the likelihood that increased education will have the

desired impacts. During the course of research, an increase in education efforts is highly recommended

by United States’ highway safety programs. However, these programs also agree that education alone is

not enough and that a combination of all policy alternatives explored in this analysis is necessary to have

an impact. The combination of regulation, education and national cooperation is the only way to impact

and produce the benefits of this type of goal. For example, thanks to the combined efforts of regulation,

education, and statewide cooperation, seat belt use increased from 11 percent in 1981 to nearly 85

percent in 2010 (Center for Disease and Control Prevention, 2013). Similar to cell phone use while

driving data, people not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during

a crash and more than three out of four people who are ejected during a motor vehicle crash die from

their injuries. The rise in seat belt regulation, education and use saves thousands of lives each year and

seatbelt use is continuing to increase through these combined efforts. In 2009, seat belts saved 13,000

lives (Center for Disease and Control Prevention, 2014). This example is given in order to demonstrate

that while education has a vital role in spreading awareness and informing the public of the dangers cell

phone use while driving present to every single person in society, it may not be effective without

continued regulation and cooperation of the entire United States.

Education efforts regarding cell phone use while driving are already beginning to take place.

However, impact still seems to be minimal. A 2011 study found that 94 percent of respondents found

texting while driving a very serious threat, 87 percent feel that cell phone use while driving causes


distraction, 88 percent feel drivers do not know how distracted they really are when using a cell phone

and 88 percent feel distracted driving can lead to a motor vehicle crash. It is clear that most drivers

realize the dangers of cell phone distracted driving. However, many of the drivers surveyed also claim

that they were not the problem and that they are able to drive safely while using their phone, but other

people cannot (National Safety Council, 2012).

An increase in education efforts is not logistically difficult and it appears that policymakers, cell

phone companies and transportation safety programs are already making strides to implement such

efforts. The feasibility of the policy is threatened due to the lack of impact on a person’s behavior.

Education will fail at reducing the number of people injured or killed each year due to cell phone use

while behind the wheel if each driver continues to believe that he or she is not a danger to others.

Education efforts need to aim to reverse this way of thinking and show that anyone using their cell

phone, no matter their age or driving ability is a danger to others if they choose to use their cell phone

while driving.


Appendix A: Graphs & Figures


APPENDIX B: LIST OF TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Cell phone/mobile phone: A small wireless device that has at least the same functions of

a standard wired telephone but is smaller and more mobile. Generally, they have more

functions than traditional land lines (Business Dictionary, 2014).

Smartphone: smartphones are high end cellphones that are most basically distinguished from traditional

ones due to its more advanced features. A cell phone is not considered a smartphone unless it

carries and Operating System (OS). An OS is a series of programs managing computer hardware

and software resources to provide specific services. An operating system is what makes

smartphones work and have the additional capabilities that a typical cell phone doesn’t have,

such as internet browsing, mobile banking, voice command technology, and more (WD

Technologies, 2012).

Cell phone use: Cell phone use for the purpose of this paper encompasses texting, talking on the phone,

emailing to communicate with another individual and/or use of social media, such as Facebook,

Instagram, twitter, accessing news sources, surfing the web, and/or accessing a Smart Phone

Application.

Cell phone use while driving: Cell phone use for the purpose of this paper encompasses texting, talking

on the phone, emailing to communicate with another individual and/or use of social media, such

as Facebook, Instagram, twitter, accessing news sources, surfing the web, and/or accessing a

Smart Phone Application WHILE operating a motor vehicle.

Distracted driving: occurs when a driver’s attention is diverted away from driving by some other

activity. There are four types of driver distraction:


i. Visual – looking at something other than the road

ii. Auditory – hearing something not related to driving

iii. Manual – manipulating something other than the wheel

iv. Cognitive – thinking about something other than driving

Driving while under the influence: All 50 states set .08% Blood Alcohol Concentration as the legal limit

for driving while under the influence of alcohol.

Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC): refers to the amount of alcohol contained in a person's blood. It is

measured as weight per unit of volume. Typically this measurement is converted to a

percentage to indicate what percentage of a person's blood is alcohol. This type of information

is important because alcohol in the blood travels directly to the brain, affecting cognitive

functioning. Impaired cognitive function due to alcohol can result in increased risk of many types

of injuries. Most significant among these is the risk of a motor vehicle crash when a person

drives with too great a concentration of alcohol in his or her blood system (The University of

North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center).

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA): The main objective in using MANOVA is to determine if

the response variables are altered by the observer’s manipulation of the independent variables.

There are several types of research questions MANOVA can answer:

i. What are the main effects of the independent variables?

ii. What are the interactions among the independent variables?

iii. What is the importance of the dependent variables?


iv. What is the strength of association between dependent variables?

If the overall multivariate test is significant, we conclude that the respective effect is

significant. MANOVA is useful in experimental situations where at least some of the

independent variables are manipulated. It is also able to measure several dependent

variables in a single experiment in order to better discover which factor is truly

important (French, et al.).

Standard Error: The standard error is the measure of variability in the sampling distribution of a statistic. A low

standard error means there is relatively less spread in the sampling distribution. The standard error

indicates the likely accuracy of the sample mean as compared with the population mean. The standard

error decreases as the sample size increases and approaches the size of the population. Sigma (σ)

denotes the standard error; a subscript indicates the statistic. For example, the standard error of the

mean is represented by σM. To find the standard error of the mean, divide the standard deviation by the

square root of the sample size: , where σ is the standard deviation of the original

sampling distribution and N is the sample size.


Works Cited Anjarwalla, Tas. “Inventor of Cell Phone: We Knew Someday Everybody Would Have One.” CNN. Web.

10 November 2013. 9 July 2010.

Brenner, Joanna. “Pew Internet: Mobile.” Pew Research Center. 18 September 2013. 1 November 2013. Web. http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/February/Pew-‐Internet-‐Mobile.aspx

Business Dictionary. “Cell Phone.” 2014. 2 January 2014. Web. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/cell-‐phone.html

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “Impaired Driving: Get the Facts.” 17 April 2013. Web. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-‐drv_factsheet.html

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “Distracted Driving.” 23 May 2013. Web. http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. “Injury Prevention & Control: Motor Vehicle Safety.” 121 January 2014. 2014. Web. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/

The Century Council. “Drunk Driving Statistics.” 2011. 2 January 2014. Web. http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-‐driving/drunk-‐driving-‐statistics

Chase, Robin. “Car-‐Sharing Offers Convenience, Saves Money and Helps the Environment.” U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Information Programs. 2013. Web. http://photos.state.gov/libraries/cambodia/30486/Publications/everyone_in_america_own_a_car.pdf

Colorado DMV. “Colorado Safety Laws: Cell Phone and Texting Laws in Colorado.” 18 Spetember 2013. Web. http://www.dmv.org/co-‐colorado/safety-‐laws.php#Cell-‐Phone-‐amp-‐Texting-‐Laws-‐in-‐Colorado

Constine, Josh. “Facebook Reveals 78% of US Users Are Mobile as It Starts Sharing User Counts by Country” Tech Crunch. 13 August 2013. Web. http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/13/facebook-‐mobile-‐user-‐count/

Duggan, Maeve. “Cell Phone Activities 2013.” Pew Institute. 10 November 2013. 19 September 2013. Web. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Cell-‐Activities.aspx

French, Aaron, Marcel Macedo, John Poulsen, Tyler Waterson and Angela Yu. “Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA).” San Francisco State University. Web.


Governor’s Highway Safety Association. “Distracted Driving Laws.” December 2013. 2 August 2013. Web. http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html

Governor’s Highway Safety Association. “Distracted Driving: What Research Shows and What States Can Do.” 2011. Web. http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/sfdist11.pdf

Gregg, Susan. “Study Finds Nearly Half of State’s Distracted Drivers Are Texting.” University of Washington Medicine and University of Washington Health Sciences. 9 September 2013. 1 October 2013. Web. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/efc/classes/biol710/manova/MANOVAnewest.pdf

Hall, Cheryl. “AT&T Spending Millions to Get It Can Wait Message Across.” Dallas News. 21 September 2013. 1 October 2013. Web. http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/cheryl-‐hall/20130921-‐att-‐spending-‐millions-‐to-‐get-‐it-‐can-‐wait-‐message-‐across.ece

Hyusman, Margot. “Over 60% Drivers Admit to Eating and Driving Which ‘Increase Chances of Crashing’.” The Independent. 20 February 2014. Web. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-‐news/over-‐60-‐drivers-‐admit-‐to-‐eating-‐and-‐driving-‐which-‐increases-‐chances-‐of-‐crashing-‐9140562.html

Lee, J. D., McGehee, D. V., Brown, T. L., & Reyes, M. L. “Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and

Driver Response to Imminent Rear-‐end Collisions in a High-‐fidelity Driving Simulator.” Human Factors, 202. Vol. 44, 314-‐334.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget.” 2014. Web.

http://www.distraction.gov/index.html National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. “An Examination of Driver Distraction as Recorded in

NHTSA Databases.” September 2009. Web. http://www-‐nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811216.pdf National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. “Alcohol’s Damaging Effects on the Brain.” U.S.

Department of Health & Human Services. Number 63. October 2004. 2 November 2013 Web. National Safety Council. “Cell Phone Fact Sheet.” 2012. 23 August 2013. Web.

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/Documents/Cell%20Phone%20Fact%20Sheet%2012-‐09PCIrevisions.pdf

National Safety Council. “Distracted Driving.” 2013. 23 August 2013. Web. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Employer%20Traffic%20Safety/Pages/NationalDistractedDriving.aspx

National Safety Council. “National Safety Council Estimates that At Least 1.6 Million Crashes Each Year Involve Drivers Using Cell Phones and Texting.” 12 January 2010. 12 March 2014. Web. http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx


National Safety Council. “Understanding the Distracted Brain: Why Driving While Using Hands-‐Free Cell Phones is Risky Behavior.” April 2012. Web. http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distracted_Driving/Documents/Cognitive%20Distraction%20White%20Paper.pdf

New York DMV. “Cell Phone and Texting Laws.” 2013. December 2013. Web. http://www.dmv.ny.gov/cellphone.htm

New York State Department of Labor. “Labor Statistics.” 2010. March 2014. Web http://labor.ny.gov/stats/lswage2.asp#23-‐0000.

New York State Department of Financial Services. “Shopping for Auto Insurance. 2013. March 2014. Web. http://www.dfs.ny.gov/consumer/auto/auto1202.htm.

New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Summary of Motor Vehicle Crashes. 2012. 2014. Web. http://dmv.ny.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/statistics/2012nys.pdf

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. “New York Adult Arrests.” 2012. 2014. Web. http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/dispos/index.htm

Rainie, Lee. “Cell Phone Ownership Hits 91% of Adults.” Pew Institute. 6 June 2013. 10 November 2013. Web. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-‐tank/2013/06/06/cell-‐phone-‐ownership-‐hits-‐91-‐of-‐adults/

Rohrs, Sarah. “Touro Study: Hands-‐Free Cell Phones as Bad as Driving Dunk.” Times Herald. 22 May 2-‐13. 2014. Web. http://www.timesheraldonline.com/ci_23297252/hands-‐free-‐cell-‐phones-‐almost-‐bad-‐driving-‐drunk

Smith, Kevin. “The 17 Most Expensive Apps For iPhone And iPad In The World.” Business Insider. 26 July 2013. 10 November 2013 Web. http://www.businessinsider.com/most-‐expensive-‐apps-‐for-‐iphone-‐and-‐ipad-‐2013-‐7?op=1#ixzz2kTetmOho

Solomon, Christopher. “DUI: The $10,000 Ride Home.” MSN Money. 22 March 2011. 10 November 2013. Web. http://money.msn.com/auto-‐insurance/dui-‐the-‐10000-‐dollar-‐ride-‐home

Stetler, Mark. How Much Does it Cost to Develop A Mobile App?” App Muse. 2011. 2 November 2013. Web http://appmuse.com/appmusing/how-‐much-‐does-‐it-‐cost-‐to-‐develop-‐a-‐mobile-‐app/

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. “A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver.” Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Vol. 48, Pages 381-‐391. 2006. 4 December 2013. Web

University of Colorado Police Department & Emergency Management. “Driving Under the Influence.” University of Colorado. February 2010. 2 January 2014. Web. http://police.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/drunkdriving20100511.pdf


U.S. Department of Transportation. “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses.” 2013. 2014. Web. http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/VSL%20Guidance%202013.pdf

Ward, Victoria. “Eating While Driving 'More Dangerous Than Using Phone'.” The Telegraph. April 2012. Web. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/9197930/Eating-‐while-‐driving-‐more-‐dangerous-‐than-‐using-‐phone.html

WD Technologies. “The Many Benefits and Advantages of Smartphones.” 2012. 2 January 2014. Web. http://www.wd-‐tech.com/the-‐many-‐benefits-‐and-‐advantages-‐of-‐smartphones/

Xavier, Anelli. “Alcohol Impairment.” DUI DWI Foundation. 2013. Web. http://www.duifoundation.org/drunkdriving/impairment/

Zandor, P. L., Krawchuk, S. A., & Voas, R. B. “Relative Risk of Fatal Crash Involvement by BAC, Age, and Gender (DOT HS 809050). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. 2000.