Unintended Consequences: NY Times on History of Cellular Driving Safety Issue

Yesterday's NY Times has an article on "who knew what when" on the issue of cellular/texting use while driving.  It starts with this anecdote:

"Martin Cooper, who developed the first portable cellphone, recalled testifying before a Michigan state commission about the risks of talking on a phone while driving.

Common sense, said Mr. Cooper, a Motorola engineer, dictated that drivers keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.

Commission members asked Mr. Cooper what could be done about risks posed by these early mobile phones.

'There should be a lock on the dial,” he said he had testified, “so that you couldn’t dial while driving.'

It was the early 1960s"

The article also quotes Bob Lucky, one of Bell Labs' superstars and founding chairman of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC):

Other early innovators of cellphones said they felt nagging concerns. Bob Lucky, an executive director at Bell Labs from 1982-92, said he knew that drivers talking on cellphones were not focused fully on the road. But he did not think much about it or discuss it and supposed others did not, either, given the industry’s booming fortunes.

“If you’re an engineer, you don’t want to outlaw the great technology you’ve been working on,” said Mr. Lucky, now 73. “If you’re a marketing person, you don’t want to outlaw the thing you’ve been trying to sell. If you’re a C.E.O., you don’t want to outlaw the thing that’s been making a lot of money.

What seems to be lost here is that early cell phones were bulky systems that were only used in cars and lunchbox sized units.  Thus the inevitable marketing focus was on car use.  Only with new semiconductor technology, a spinoff of DoD research, did handheld and pocket cell phones become a reality.

==========

UPDATE

The NY Times seems to have problems with the cell phone industry.  On December 12, they followed up on the above article with an editorial entitled "Turn Car On; Turn Phone Off":

Like drivers chattering on their mobile phones, the cellphone industry was for years too distracted — by rising profits — to see the dangers ahead. As Matt Richtel wrote in The Times last week, the mobile phone industry promoted the glamour and convenience of “car phones” for years while failing to heed warnings that driving and phoning can be a deadly mix.

One ad from 1984 shows a bigwig driver on the phone and tellingly asks, “Can your secretary take dictation at 55 m.p.h.?”

A great measure of responsibility for safety lies with drivers. But now, as study after study shows the hazards of talking on the phone, or especially texting, while driving, it is time to ask why the wireless phone industry fought controls for so long on a product that could be used so dangerously.

It brings to mind that row of tobacco company executives who swore to a Congressional subcommittee 15 years ago that their products were not addictive. Or the car companies that went on making hefty S.U.V.’s that had a record of rolling over.

The reasons the cellphone industry representatives have given to block bans on phone use while driving sound straight out of the “Thank You for Smoking” playbook. One refrain was that the evidence was not settled, an assertion that continued as the industry itself was beginning to warn drivers about driving while phoning.
In California, the mobile industry fought off bans on talking while driving for years, at one point arguing that they were looking out for consumers. Consumers want to use their cellphones, that is true, but most who drive would also prefer to make it to their destinations. And distracted drivers put everyone else on the road at risk.

Even though the police are too seldom required to determine whether cellphone use was involved in an accident, the data about texting or phoning while driving is alarming. Harvard researchers estimated that drivers on cellphones cause about 2,600 fatal crashes a year and 570,000 accidents. Hands-free devices do not eliminate that risk. Other studies show that someone legally drunk could outperform a person texting behind the wheel.

Congress has slowly begun to focus on this issue and proposals for bans are now circulating in both houses, some with support of the cellphone industry. None of them are terribly high on Washington’s agenda, however. It is time for Congress and the wireless phone industry to take highway safety a step beyond seat belts and air bags.

USA Today Article on
Cell Phones' SAR Data
and FCC

On September 8, USA Today published an article entitled "Cellphone radiation levels vary widely, watchdog report says" . It began with this line the CMRS industry probably didn't want to hear, "Some cellphones emit several times more radiation than others, the Environmental Working Group found in one of the most exhaustive studies of its kind."

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is a measurement of how much radio power from a cell phone is absorbed in body. Usually the head is the key area for cell phones since they are held there. The FCC limit for SAR is 1.6 Watts/kilogram. It found phones that ranged from as low as 0.35 to as high as 1.55. Interestingly, Motorola had both one of the highest units as well as one of the lowest.

I have no personal knowledge or firm opinion about whether radio signals from cell phones affects health. However, there is no reason to believe it does any good to your health* so I understand why people might want to decide to minimize exposure even though the CMRS establishment thinks this is unnecessary. I think it is a matter of consumer choice in the face of uncertainty and government should make reasonable efforts to make relevant data available so market forces can work. Thus I am proud that while at FCC I helped break the impasse on making this information public by proposing a method for doing so that did not require unaffordable redesign of the FCC website.

At the end of the USA Today article, it stated

"The FCC currently doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels. As a result, radiation rankings for dozens of devices, including the BlackBerry Pearl Flip 8230 and Motorola KRZR, aren't on the group's list."

This statement is misleading to wrong. The SAR data is submitted to FCC and is in the publicly available file on equipment approval for each model. The required report is difficult to read for the nonexpert, but in the process of reviewing it, FCC extracts the key numbers and puts them in a place that can be found relatively easily.

I posted the following to the USA Today site to clarify this point ans tell the public how to find the data for any model sold (legally) in the US. (Since FCC spends little resources on equipment marketing enforcement, one can never be sure that all models sold are actually legally authorized.):

The article says
"The FCC currently doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels." When FCC decided about 10 years ago to follow a UK precedent and make the information public, it had no money to revise its website to make the information simple to find. Also industry was lobbying strongly against making the information public - actually it always was public but the key number was in an obscure detailed report.

If you can't find the data for a specific phone on a nongovernment website, you can look it up yourself. First find the FCC ID of the cell phone in question. It is often under the battery. Then go to https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Gene ricSearch.cfmI The first 3 characters go in the first box and then the rest go in the second box. Then hit "Start Search" at the bottom of the page.

When the next screen appears, hit the checkmark icon under "Display Grant". You will get a copy of the FCC approval for that model. Just below the section with 6 columns of data is a statement of the SAR data.
So for the Nokia model with FCC ID PDNRM-421, enter PDN in the first box and then RM-421.

Like many cell phones, this model can transmit on several frequencies so there is different data for each band.

The process is not simple, but it is straightforward. This is how the private sites get their data to make it more usable for the public.

===============================
* By contrast, there is a controversial theory dealing with ionizing (nuclear) radiation called radiation hormesis that states that small doses of such radiation actually improve health. However, I am not aware of anyone supporting a parallel theory for radio radiation.

Cellular Industry on
Driving and Safety

This post has several excerpts from cellular industry websites. They were all downloaded July 31. If they are hard to read, click on them for a larger version. The top post from the CTIA site says

Safe Driving

CTIA Position

When it comes to using your wireless device behind the wheel, CTIA-The Wireless Association® and the wireless industry believe that safety should always be every driver’s top priority.

Wireless devices are one of the best safety tools drivers can have on the road. Everyday more than 290,000 calls are made from wireless devices to 911 or other emergency services. That’s about 200 calls every minute. More Americans are using their wireless device to report emergencies, prevent crimes and to save lives. While mobile phones can be important safety tools, there’s an appropriate time and an inappropriate time to use them.

On July 29, CTIA issued the following statement:

CTIA–The Wireless Association® Statement on Texting While Driving

July 29, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – CTIA - The Wireless Association® President and CEO Steve Largent issued the following statement on texting while driving:

“CTIA and our member companies continue to believe text messaging while driving is incompatible with safe driving.

“We support state legislative remedies to solve this issue. But simply passing a law will not change behavior. We also need to educate new and experienced drivers on the dangers of taking their eyes off the road and hands off the wheel.

“CTIA and our members have been working to educate all drivers on the dangers of distracted driving for years now and we hope that people continue to learn more.”

For more information on texting while driving, please visit: www.ctia.org/consumer_info/safety/index.cfm/AID/10369

(Amusingly, as of this writing the indicated link "for more information" just points to a list of all CTIA press releases including this one.) So CTIA is now in favor of laws banning texting while driving. Where are they on laws about cell phone use while driving? Still "neutral"?


Here is an excerpt from the "Safe Driving Brochure" on the CTIA website. It advises not to "take notes or look up numbers while driving". It also advises you to place calls "before pulling into traffic" - does that mean while you are moving?












For reference on major industry players, here is what T-Mobile's website says about driving and cell phone use. Paralleling CTIA it says, "Dial sensibly, place calls when not moving or before pulling into traffic."












Verizon Wireless is more proactive. They announce their support of antitexting legislation. They also state,

"Verizon Wireless broke from the rest of its competitors in the U.S. wireless industry by supporting state-wide hands-free driving laws as early as 2000. Since then, Verizon Wireless has been the only wireless company supporting bans on texting and e-mailing while driving."

So congratulations to VZW for its responsible position on safety.

Unintended Consequences

The cellular industry brought up the concept of "unintended consequences" in trying to say - without justification - that jamming of prison cellphones would inevitably result in interference to others and adverse impacts on public safety.

While the US cellphone industry has made tremendous achievements in promoting public safety and has had a large economic impact, it consistently turns a blind eye to its own unintended consequences - be they impacts on traffic safety, prisoner use of cell phones, obnoxious usage of cell phones in public areas, or questions of safety from RF exposure. Think how many ads you have seen from the alcoholic beverage industry advocating safe use of its products and keeping them away from teenagers. How many ads have you seen from the cellular industry advocating responsible use of its products?

Today's New York Times has a front page article, covering about a third of the front page in fact as shown at left, entitled "Dismissing Risks of a Deadly Habit".

The article focuses on legislative inaction on this issue, but let me explore industry inaction since I am really a big believer in deregulation. The article has this comment about actions by one big player:

"Verizon Wireless, for instance, posts instructions on its Web sites not to talk while driving — with or without a headset. But neither Verizon nor any other cellphone company supports legislation that bans drivers from talking on the phone. And the wireless industry does not conduct research on the dangers, saying that is not its responsibility."

Here's a quote about CTIA:

"The association (CTIA), a trade group, fought rules to ban phone use while driving until January, when it shifted to a neutral position on the issue. 'I wouldn’t say, ‘Talk on the phone more and have fewer accidents,’ ' Mr. Walls added. 'I’m just saying, ‘How does this square?’ ' "
...
For its part, the cellphone industry trade group said it had dropped its objection to restricting cellphone use by drivers — it now is neutral on the subject — because it decided the industry should play no role in trying to shape public policy on the issue. “The change came after we had an epiphany that, if you will, we’re in the business of providing service, and how they use that service is at their discretion,” said Mr. Walls, the industry spokesman.

Faithful readers may recall hearing from Mr. Walls, Vice President, Public Affairs of CTIA, previously here on the inevitable unintended consequences of prison jamming. (Current CTIA position on "safe driving".)


The Times included on their website a video with useful background information to the cellphone driving controversy.

(Click on photo above to see video.)

Frankly, all technologies have some unintended consequences - especially if we are not careful to anticipate them and address them. Let's hope the cellular industry sees the errors of its ways and finds something more constructive to do than to maintain a neutral stance on cell phone use while driving. They might also want to address the issue of the recent MBTA (Boston subway) accident that injured 49 people that was caused by the operator texting while driving!

I recall that when I returned from Japan in 1999, Chairman Kennard wanted to publicly post at the FCC website SAR data for individual cellphone models that showed how much RF radiation each transmitted into the user's body. The UK had recently adopted such a policy at the time. The industry lobbied strongly against such action, even though the data was already in the FCC website in obscure places. Fortunately Chairman Kennard decided to go ahead and the information is now readily available for the public.

The cell phone industry is probably more concerned about cell phone jamming in schools, theaters, and restaurants where cell phone use is merely obnoxious than they are about jamming in prisons where it is dangerous. Recently FCC gave up on permitting cell phone use in airplanes where it is technically possible (despite FAA paranoia) because of public backlash about how obnoxious it could become. Wake up cellular industry - obnoxious cell phone use is a real threat to industry growth and the public forces that blocked airplane use may someday lead to something like the French law that explicitly permits jamming in both prisons and theaters.

Hopefully the cell phone industry can look to the alcoholic beverage industry for some lessons on civic responsibility.

UPDATE - It Get's Worse

On 7/20 NY Times had a new article that starts:

Driven to Distraction
U.S. Withheld Data Showing Risks of Distracted Driving

In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel.

They sought the study based on evidence that such multitasking was a serious and growing threat on America’s roadways.

But such an ambitious study never happened. And the researchers’ agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, decided not to make public hundreds of pages of research and warnings about the use of phones by drivers — in part, officials say, because of concerns about angering Congress.

Original NHTSA Documents on Cell Phone Safety in Cars Obtained by FOIA Request

7/22 New York Times editorial

The Truth About Cars and Cellphones

An excerpt:

"The (NHTSA) researchers had rightly proposed a warning to state governors about the initial finding that laws mandating the use of hands-free devices did not solve the problem. The conversation is the distraction. This is a finding since confirmed by other studies that show a driver on the phone is four times as likely to crash as other drivers, and is comparable to someone with 0.08 blood-alcohol content, the threshold for drunken driving.

Six years later, the Transportation Department advises drivers to avoid cellphones except in emergencies. But far too many Americans now consider phoning while driving to be standard behavior. The department estimates that roughly 12 percent of drivers are on the phone at any given time — twice the estimate of its own researchers when their effort to document the risks was rebuffed."

Driven to Distraction
Texting Raises Crash Risk 23 Times, Study Finds

NY Times 7/27/09
Excerpt:

The first study of drivers texting inside their vehicles shows that the risk sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research — and far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.

The new study, which entailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months, found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting.