Just saw an NBC News report on current political moves to ban all use of cell phones in cars. Several very sad parents speak about their cute kids having died due to accidents involving drivers distracted by phones. Tom Costello, the correspondent, calls it "an epidemic," and says that 28% of all auto accidents in 2008 involved cell phones in some way. Seems like a pretty clear and present danger, no? After hearing those grieving parents and seeing the photos of the kids who died, it sure feels like a big problem.
But is it? Hard to tell, because this is "journalism" the way marshmallow fluff is "food." Where's the context, Tom? Have accident rates increased since the introduction of cell phones? Is this a problem mainly of young drivers, new to driving, or to older drivers, new to phones? He never says.
But he ends the piece by noting that, "study after study suggests there's no difference between hand-held and hands-free devices. It's the distracted brain," Costello concludes, "that's the problem."
If the distracted brain is the problem, why not legislate against radios, cd players, and passengers (duck or human) in the car along with the driver? A screaming two year-old has got to be more distracting than a relaxed hands-free chat with a friend, no? Is the brain more distracted by speaking with a person a few feet away than by a hands-free conversation via phone?
I don't know, but stories like this one, heavy on emotional interviews with grieving parents but lacking even the most elemental information or sense of doubt are certainly causing brain damage every day in America.
