Why Did the Feds Bury Data on Cell-Phone Dangers?

Photo of Joe Teater provided by the Teater family; Front page photo used under a Creative Commons license by flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/goldberg/">goldberg</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last October, we reported what the New York Times has now discovered—something we’ve all probably suspected, but had little hard data to go on: that driving a car while yakking or texting on an electronic device is an extremely risky proposition. And that the hands-free laws many states have enacted are of little value, a politically expedient solution that is unlikely to save lives, but lets lawmakers seem to be doing something without incurring the wrath of the powerful cell phone industry.

The moving story by Mother Jones contributor Myron Levin involved the plight of the Teaters, a Michigan family whose 12-year-old (pictured) was killed by a chatting motorist, and his father’s determination to get some answers. The driver, Levin reported, “had clear skies and good visibility. She was sober. And yet she had failed to process a whole string of visual cues. To Dave Teater, this made no sense at all—so he began to do some research.” Key to Levin’s story was the quashing, by top Transportation Department officials, of an extensive report on cell-phone driving risks that the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) had intended to make public.

That report might have saved lives had it been released as intended back in 2003. It included the first official government estimate of the number of people killed on the road by cell phone use each year—nearly 1,000. As noted in the story, that’s a conservative estimate. (Harvard researchers put the number closer to 2,600.) But any government acknowledgement of the problem would have done much to raise awareness. DOT brass also put the kibosh on a letter that NHTSA officials had composed to the governors of every state, warning that hands-free legislation was unlikely to make their citizens safer. Without this knowledge, states forged ahead with their bills.

Not long after the original story, we reported on a lawsuit by Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety to force the government to reveal its trove of documents related to driving distractions. That suit has finally yielded results. “By keeping this information secret from the public for the past six years, the government has endangered even more lives,” the victorious plaintiffs noted in a press release today touting the release of hundreds of pages of documents, which “reflect facts about safety risks that the public had every right to see.”

Also from the release:

These documents show that it is the conversation itself, not the device used to hear it, that causes “inattention blindness,” a cognitive state that slows a driver’s reaction time and limits his ability to detect changes in road conditions. Further, well-documented scientific research and driving simulations analyzed in the NHTSA documents found that drivers using hands-free technology talk on the phone with greater frequency and for longer intervals.

“People died in crashes because the government withheld this information,” Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, noted in the release. “The studies NHTSA concealed showed that all cell phone use is as hazardous as drinking and driving.”

“A travesty,” was how Public Citizen attorney Margaret Kwoka described the agency’s failure to release the documents in response to an earlier freedom of information act request, forcing the groups to sue. The Center is now petitioning NHTSA to support state programs to limit any cell phone use while driving, and to take steps to ensure that in-vehicle communications systems won’t let drivers chat while the vehicle is moving.

Follow Michael Mechanic on Twitter.

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate