Columnist Susan Snyder: Dialed in on phone dangers

Tuesday, Dec. 3, 2002 | 8:20 a.m.

Harvard University researchers say motorists' increasing use of cell phones has led to more crashes, but that we still think the benefit of making the calls outweigh the risks.

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis researchers cited a growing public health risk by using estimates to update 1997 cell phone usage and crash statistics, according to an Associated Press report.

The new figures say about 6 percent of the nation's motor vehicle crashes are caused by drivers using cell phones, killing about 2,600 people and injuring about 330,000 other each year.

These crashes cost about $43 billion annually, which the study also says is the value cell phone owners place on using their phones. Users cited in the study say their phones bring them security, increased work productivity, quicker reporting of crash and crime, and peace of mind.

The argument over whether to ban cell phone use while driving makes the average adult cell phone owner sound like a 10-year-old kid arguing with his parents over owning one of those gas-powered scooters:

"But, I'll get to school quicker than if I walk so I won't be late. And nobody will be able to abduct me because I'll be moving faster. So I'm actually safer with one than without one. And I'll get home faster after school, which means I'll have more time to do my homework and ..."

There are cell phone users, of course, who didn't bat an eye when they became readily available.

The rest of us, however, took a little longer to come around. Harvard's researchers say more than 128 million people now subscribe to cell phones, compared to 94 million in 2000.

For many of us, "safety" was the initial justification. We didn't want to be stranded in some deserted stretch when it's 116 degrees with no water or food and big, scary men with huge guns bearing down on us from all directions. My god, how did we manage to enjoy a trip to the outlet stores in Primm before Verizon Wireless?

I broke down and bought one a couple of years ago right before embarking solo on a weeklong trip across the state, thinking I'd need it if something went wrong with the car.

A brand-new car I had purchased two weeks earlier. (Hey, it's a Ford Focus. Anything's possible.)

My plan only offered 150 minutes during the week. But again, I got the thing only for -- as the Harvard study says -- safety and peace of mind.

Right. Two months into cell phone ownership. I was coughing up an extra $50 a month for running over my weekday limits. Less than a year into it, I caved in and quadrupled the plan's weekday minutes. I still go over some months.

And I'm thinking those "safety" calls or big business deals we're all making sound something like, "Hi. Whacha doin'? I'm heading to Albertson's, are we out of milk?"

Next time you're parked on the 215 count the number of drivers talking on the phone who seem distressed or in trouble. Divide it into 2,600.

How many lives is a call worth? We don't need a cell phone ban. We need to do the math more often and get some perspective on the chances we're willing to take. Which is worse -- more than 300,000 people injured or one too many gallons of milk at home?

Shouldn't take a Harvard professor to figure that out.