Hypocrisy at the wheel

Many years and dozens of studies ago, the National Safety Council called for a ban on all phoning-and-driving, including hands-free devices, because research showed their use to be as dangerous as driving and talking with cell phones — which has been determined to be about the same as driving while drunk, distraction-wise.

How did some states, including ours, respond? By passing laws making it legal to drive and talk with “hands-free” devices.

How did some automakers respond? By building and heavily advertising vehicles that come with “dashboard infotainment systems” that respond to one’s voice commands. (If spoken quite clearly and slowly.)

(Coming soon: The NSA dashboard-info-gatherer, with its secrets-per-mile algorithm.)

So it comes as no surprise that a study released last week by AAA shows that talking on a hands-free phone isn’t safer than holding a phone, and using hands-free devices that translate speech into text is the most distracting of all, researchers reported. (Emphasis ours.)

“People aren’t seeing what they need to see to drive. That’s the scariest part to me,” Peter Kissinger, president and CEO of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, told Newsday.

That’s because the greater the concentration required to perform a task, the more likely a driver is to develop what researchers call “tunnel vision” or “inattention blindness.” Drivers will continue to look straight ahead (while ignoring side and rearview mirrors) but fail to see what’s in front of them, like red lights and pedestrians, researchers say.

Predictably, the auto industry disagrees.

“We are extremely concerned that it could send a misleading message, since it suggests that hand-held and hands-free devices are equally risky,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said.

Focusing on which is riskier — hand-held or hands-free — ignores the larger issue, and mountains of scientific evidence, that both are dangerous.

Is it because we can’t measure someone’s blood for cell-phone use after an accident that refuse to take this seriously? Or is it because those who ignore the law and/or scientific evidence cross all income and education levels? As many studies have shown, over and over again, people who drive and talk on the phone believe the habit poses a danger when practiced by others, but are completely confident that they, themselves, are perfectly safe drivers.

The aforementioned “attention blindness” means that car-phone talkers are often unaware of any danger they may pose, the speed they are going, or close scrapes avoided by the defensive driving of others. They aren’t in a position to evaluate the quality of their driving.

Let this be your command: “No calls, no texts, no Tweets.”

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, May 7

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks to reporters during a press conference about the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Wednesday, May 1, 2024. Senate Democrats reintroduced broad legislation on Wednesday to legalize cannabis on the federal level, a major shift in policy that has wide public support, but which is unlikely to be enacted this year ahead of November’s elections and in a divided government. (Valerie Plesch/The New York Times)
Editorial: Federal moves on cannabis encouraging, if incomplete

The Biden administration and the Senate offer sensible proposals to better address marijuana use.

A radiation warning sign along the road near the Hanford Site in Washington state, on Aug. 10, 2022. Hanford, the largest and most contaminated of all American nuclear weapons production sites, is too polluted to ever be returned to public use. Cleanup efforts are now at an inflection point.  (Mason Trinca/The New York Times)
Editorial: Latest Hanford cleanup plan must be scrutinized

A new plan for treating radioactive wastes offers a quicker path, but some groups have questions.

Maureen Dowd: Consider the three faces of Donald Trump

Past, present and future are visibile in his countenance; an especially grim one on the cover of Time.

Paul Krugman: Still no stag and not much flation

The grumbling about inflation’s slow path to 2 percent isn’t worth steps that risk a recession.

David Brooks: Why past is prologue and protests help Trump

Today’s crowd-sourced protests muddle their message and goals and alienate the quiet disapprovers.

Jamelle Bouie: We pay price for upper-class state legislators

If we want more working-class representation, we need to make those positions more accessible.

RGB version
Editorial cartoons for Monday, May 6

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Michelle Goldberg: When elections on line, GOP avoids abortion

Even among the MAGA faithful, Republicans are having second thoughts on how to respond to restrictions.

Paul Krugman: Digging into the persistence of Trump-stalgia

Most Americans are better off than they were four years ago; so why doesn’t it feel that way to them?

David French: Only one candidate has a serious foreign policy

Voters will have to choose between a coherent strategy and a transactional temper tantrum.

Eco-nomics: The climate success we can look forward to

Finding success in confronting climate change demands innovation, will, courage and service above self.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.