Published in the Western Standard (www.westernstandard.ca), April 8, 2008

 

Don't Phone and Drive?
by
Pierre Lemieux

This week, the governments of Québec and Nova Scotia imitated Newfoundland (which was probably itself following a few American states) with a prohibition of hand-held cell phones while driving. The proponents of this sort of ban cite studies from the past decade claiming that cell phone use while driving increases car accidents. Cost-benefit analysis reaches different conclusions. Economists Robert Hahn, Paul Tetlock and Jason Burnett have estimated that drivers using cell phones obtain benefits (corresponding to what they would be willing to pay to keep on phoning while driving) which are worth five times more than the costs supported by the victims of the accidents they provoke. The economists conclude that an outright prohibition of phoning while driving makes no economic sense. Note a problem with cost-benefit analysis: in most cases, it weighs the benefits of some against the costs to others, without any guarantee that the ones who lose will be compensated by the ones who gain. This hiatus between gainers and losers also explains why some laws are adopted, and others not: the people in power adopt laws that benefit them while shifting their costs to others. This suggests that a complete ban on cell phone use while driving is unlikely, because the people who influence, conceive, draft, and adopt laws are attached to their cell phones and BlackBerries. Indeed, in our three avant-garde Canadian provinces, hand-free cell phones are still allowed. The hand-free devices cost a few dollars, or a few tens of dollars at most, but this expense could be justified as transferring the cost of avoiding the risk to the ones who actually create it. On this argument, we should approve the prohibition of hand-held cell phones. But matters are a bit more complicated. Hahn et al. also argue that, on realistic assumptions, outlawing only hand-held cell phones also carries greater costs than benefits. Moreover, all this assumes that cell phones do cause accidents, which is contradicted by new evidence. Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram Pathania, two economists with the Center for Regulatory Studies, have produced econometric estimates on the effects of higher cell phone use at non-peak hours (typically starting at 9 p.m.), of lower use of cell phones in rural areas, and of hand-held bans: their results show no impact on accidents. Many reasons could explain why drivers’ cell phones do not increase the net number of accidents even though they appear to be distracting. Individuals who face new constraints adjust their behaviour so as to maintain their preferred levels of risk--what has been called the “Peltzman effect”. A 1975 study by economist Sam Peltzman suggested that automobile safety regulations (like compulsory seat belts) do not save lives because the drivers are made to feel safer and will therefore drive less carefully. The same could happen with cell phones. Another phenomenon to consider is that cell phone conversations may actually forestall accidents due to boredom and driver fatigue. Similarly, individuals with hand-free, as opposed to hand-held, cell phones may stay longer on the phone, get into more animated conversations, and get as distracted as with hand-held phones. How can we reconcile these considerations with the studies that found a positive correlation between cell-phone use and accidents? Some economists argue that, in a real sense, the causality runs the other way: careless drivers “cause” the use of cell phones while driving. In other words, cell phones may be used by generally less careful drivers, who would have more accidents anyway. Once you enter into the logic of regulation, what exactly should be left unregulated? Consider the story of Benoît Sauvageau, a Bloc Québécois MP killed in 2006 when his car hit a tow truck stopped at the roadside. The coroner noted that Mr. Sauvageau was distracted by an animated phone conversation with his wife. What then caused his death? Driving? Using a cell phone? Using a hand-held cell phone? His animated conversation? Or having a conversation with his wife? Why not forbid drivers from carrying conversations with their passengers or, say, listening to the audio version of The Economist? Obviously, costs and benefits are involved, which only the affected individuals can evaluate properly. Individual preferences are different. Risks are unavoidable. In brief, the logic of regulation is untenable. Moreover, in case of doubt, individual liberty should prevail. Another factor must be taken into account. A mere prohibition of hand-held cell phones at the wheel would not be a serious matter in a free society--although perhaps in such a society, a ban would not be considered or could not be enforced. In a free society, small and rare restrictions on liberty can be supported. But in our society, where multiple regulations and prohibitions constrain the largest part of our daily lives, where driving on the state’s roads (formerly public roads) has been reduced to a privilege, no new prohibition has a benign impact on our liberties.