Cell Phone Use While Driving

Cell Phone Use While Driving A 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

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 2

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 3

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 4

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 5

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 6

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). Tedesco, Caitlin Page 7

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 8

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 9

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 10

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; Tedesco, Caitlin Page 11

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 12

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). Tedesco, Caitlin Page 13

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 14

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). Tedesco, Caitlin Page 15

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 16

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 17

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 18

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 19

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, Tedesco, Caitlin Page 20

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 School Bus Drivers Novice Drivers All Drivers Text Messaging Ban School Bus Drivers Novice Drivers Crash Data 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 21

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 22

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 23

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 24

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 25

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 26

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: Tedesco, Caitlin Page 27

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 28

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 29

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 30

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 (C LS ) is: C R C LS = Lives saved due to increased regulation Tedesco, Caitlin Page 31

Where C R 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) 100C R C LS = 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 32

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 33

TABLE 4: STATE REGULATION COSTS: NEW YORK Annual Wages ($) Title # 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* 23,890 Employed $54,300 per employee $55,468 Legal Support Workers, All Other 2,050 Employed $54,760 per employee $55,938 Police and Sherriff s Patrol Officers 52,240 Employed $69,340 per employee $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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 34

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. 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 35

$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 Per- person cost of traffic injuries 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. 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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 36

Employer Costs Total cost of traffic crashes a year $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/nationaldistractedd riving.aspx 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.p df 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 C LS 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 37

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 Campaign efforts Item Cost Benefit 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 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. Increased education efforts = increased awareness 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 38

NHTSA Administrative Overview Expense 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. $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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 39

FIGURE 7: FACEBOOK JUNE 2013 MONTHLY ACTIVE USERS AND DAILY ACTIVE USERS Facebook June 2013 200,000,000 180,000,000 160,000,000 140,000,000 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 Monthly Acvve Users (MAU) Total Daily Acvve Users (DAU) Total MAU Mobile Moobile DAU United States United Kingdom 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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 40

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 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. In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Annual cost of alcohol- related crashes totals more than $51 billion dollars 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%) Checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol- related crashes by about 9% Legal drinking and driving law and zero tolerance for drivers in all states. Distracted Driving 2011: 3,331 people were killed. 2012: 3,267 were killed. An additional 387,000 people were injured in 2011. No arrests for using cell phone while driving but if a person is killed, people have been charged for higher offenses. 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 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. N/A (data is unavailable) 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 41

FIGURE 8: COSTS & BENEFITS OF NATIONAL REGULATION Fines Item Cost Benefit $300- $1,200 (depending on the High cost is a deterrent. state). In New York, first offense ranges from $500- $1,000. Attorney Investigator Experts $2,500- $25,000 (depends on complexity) $1,000- $3,000 to interview witnesses, transcribe police video, and collect evidence. $3,000 and up for experts to testify about the accuracy or lack of field sobriety tests Fair representation of defendant and can help reduce fines or penalty for the defendant. Can help reduce fines or penalty for the defendant OR help provide support for police officers so that defendant receives the proper penalty. 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 Alcohol monitoring bracelet $80- $90 per session and could take up to 4 sessions Provides scientific evidence that is unbiased. $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 Bail Towing $95- $200 $150- $2,500. This will depend if the person uses a bonding company or not. $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. Deterrent and provides incentive to not violate the law again. Deterrent and provides incentive to not violate the law again. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 42

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: $2.25 trillion $182.8 million $2.2 trillion Education Efforts Alternative 2: National Effort $103.5 billion $132 billion $235.5 billion Tedesco, Caitlin Page 43

Cost Benefit Analysis for Cell Phone Use While Driving 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 COSTS 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 44

Average Cost Per Case $26,846 Average # Cell Phone Cases per Year 640 Average Cost Per DUI Number of DUIs Per Year $10,000.00 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 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 Loss of productivity, employment impacts, medical care, etc. $118,000,000,000.00 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 45

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 ALTERNATIVES Status Quo Alternative 1 Alternative 2 BENEFITS 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 46

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 % of People Who Actually Use the Cell Phone While Driving Despite Pledge 241,573 241,573 241,573 241,573 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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 47

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 48

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 49

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 50

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 51

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 52

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 53

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 Tedesco, Caitlin Page 54

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. Tedesco, Caitlin Page 55

Appendix A: Graphs & Figures Tedesco, Caitlin Page 56