An issue in need of a story: drivers on the phone

The New York Times’ Room for Debate blog has been looking at the issue of drivers talking (or texting) on their phones, asking, “Should Cellphone Use by Drivers Be Illegal?” and examining “What to Do With Drivers on the Phone.” They’ve also run two disconcerting stories on the topic this week, “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks” and “U.S. Withheld Data on Risks of Distracted Driving.”

The articles and blog discussion are worth reading, but the gist is this:

• The research on distracted driving is clear: it’s hazardous. The line that most caught my eye came from the “Drivers and Legislators” article: “Studies say that drivers using phones are four times as likely to cause a crash as other drivers, and the likelihood that they will crash is equal to that of someone with a .08 percent blood alcohol level, the point at which drivers are generally considered intoxicated.”
• Despite this evidence, and the fact that 48 percent of respondents in a national poll felt that “Using technology like a cellphone” is the “most dangerous distraction for people while driving,” and 81% of respondents said they had talked on their cellphone while driving, 98% (!) consider themselves to be safe drivers.
• Legislation on the issue has been raised, defeated, and/or passed in a number of states, but there is no agreement about what laws should be in place (if any), even though there does seem to be agreement that cellphone use causes a statistically significant number of traffic accidents annually. (One study estimated 2,600 deaths and 330,000 accidents that result in moderate or severe injuries each year.)

So what to do? The What to Do With Drivers on the Phone discussion
includes several possible options, beyond the obvious legal ones:

• Raise insurance premiums
• Jam cellphone circuitry in the car
• Re-envision road design
• Make driving while on the phone a licensed activity

All of these hold some potential, but none sounds like a real solution, for two major reasons.

One, we all think we’re better drivers than everybody else. It’s all those other idiots who drive like morons when they’re talking on the phone, not us. (Fill in your own “everybody’s a better-than-average driver” joke here.)

Two, we’re addicted to our phones — literally. The “Drivers and Legislators” article again:

John Ratey, an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard University and a specialist on the science of attention, explained that when people use digital devices, they get a quick burst of adrenaline, “a dopamine squirt.” Without it, people grow bored with simpler activities like driving. Mr. Ratey said the modern brain is being rewired to crave stimulation, a condition he calls acquired attention deficit disorder.

Good news, huh? We’re addicted and delusional.

But there is another solution: storytelling.

In 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Driving was founded by a mother whose daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driving offender. Since then, according to statistics on the MADD website, “alcohol-related traffic fatalities have decreased nearly 50 percent, from over 30,000 to under 15,500 and MADD has helped save over 383,000 lives.”

MADD has been active in pursuing legislation, which has no doubt had an impact. But where MADD really made its impact was with awareness. In 1983, sparked by MADD’s efforts, the Ad Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched the Drunk Driving Prevention campaign, and in 1990 they introduced the tagline “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk,” which quickly became a ubiquitous catchphrase. They used individual stories, including the “Innocent Victims” public service announcements, to put a face on the issue.

Sure, laws were needed. Yes, plenty of drunk assholes still think they can drive, and do. But MADD and the NHTSA changed the story people told themselves about drunk driving.

We need a similar campaign for driving while dialing. Other elements — legislation, insurance premiums, technology — can help. But those all appeal to reason, and if appealing to reason was enough to change behavior, then the statistics alone would be enough. Clearly, they’re not.

To change the story people tell themselves about talking while driving — in the same way that MADD and the Ad Council and the NHTSA changed the the story people told themselves about drunk driving — we need to appeal to emotion. We need to change the association people have so that as soon as someone driving hears the phone ring, the immediate thought is not, “I have to answer that,” but, “I’ll let it go to voicemail.”

The way to change that association is with better storytelling.

The statistics and the facts in the articles linked above are scary. But one of the most memorable and persuasive things you’ll read in those articles is the story of Christopher Hill, a 20-year-old driver with a perfect driving record who was on the phone when he ran through a red light he never saw — and didn’t notice Linda Doyle’s oncoming SUV until the last second. “He hit her going 45 miles per hour. She was pronounced dead shortly after.”

That story leads off the article. All the facts and research and statistics come later. Why? Because journalists know the power of stories to pull you in and grab your interest. Once you’re engaged, the data works to reinforce what the story has set up — but if there’s no story to establish a foundation of interest, data is just a bunch of numbers, which most people will tune out.

Sadly, there are thousands of stories like that one. We need to leverage the power of those individual stories to change the story people tell themselves the next time they reach for their phone in the car.

Anybody know somebody we could talk to at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration?

:: Posted by Eric Ratinoff ::