Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Howard Wasserman on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Gerard Magliocca on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Mike on Super En Banc in the Ninth Circuit

    • Ben on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Samir Chopra on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Chris Berry on Who Gets to Keep Trover?

    • Prof. W. Matias on Introducing Guest Blogger andré douglas pond cummings

    • Andrew on Public Finance and National Security

    • Joe on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?

    • Timothy Zick on Free Speech Architecture - Responses

    • Joe on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Joe on On the Servicing Settlement

    • Shag from Brookline on Employment Division v. Smith is Wrong

    • Shag from Brookline on On the Servicing Settlement
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Phoneslaughter

posted by Frank Pasquale

My past few posts on cell phones have focused on their potential to annoy. But when we move from public to private transit, their influence can be deadly. Consider this story from law prof Lisa Heinzerling and economist Frank Ackerman:

Right up to the day they died, Russian immigrants Mariya Diment and Liya Murkes loved to take long walks together along the oceanfront near the senior residence where they lived in Santa Monica. One summer day in the year 2000, [a driver], reportedly talking on a cell phone while driving her Mercedes-Benz, plowed into Diment and Murkes while they were strolling, killing them both. What happened to Mariya Diment and Liya Murkes is not unusual, and almost certainly will become less so; as many as 1,000 people a year now die in car accidents caused by what some are calling “phoneslaughter.”

Why are these risks tolerated?


Heinzerling and Ackerman claim that misuses of economic analysis are the key explanation:

Most states, and many cities and towns, are deciding whether to do something to prevent these accidents. Some places have banned cell phone use while driving. Others have used laws already on the books — even homicide laws — to try to get at the problem.

Some of the country’s most influential economists, however — based on research conducted with the help of generous funding from wireless providers — have concluded these restrictions are a bad idea. Why? Because the people who are talking while driving are willing to pay a lot to talk on the phone — more than many people who face deadly risks are willing to pay to avoid the risk of being killed. What these researchers have done is compare the price of phone calls made while driving with the “price” of deadly risks. Since risk is not, like cell phones and calling plans, directly bought and sold in the marketplace, economists have tried to find places where it is sold indirectly. (emphasis added)

By comparing the price of cell phone use with [an imputed] “price” of risky work, economists have concluded that banning cell phone use in cars makes no economic sense. The technique of translating lives into dollars is complex, but the bottom line of the cell phone studies is simple to state: the Cheryl Chadwicks of the world can go on talking into their cell phones while driving their Mercedes-Benzes, even though it means that quite a few of the Mariya Diments and Liya Murkeses of the world end up in the morgue. All based, amazingly enough, on the price of someone else’s phone call.

I don’t know if this is one of the studies (I can’t find any acknowledgment of industry funding in the document), but I have a sense it gives the flavor of the genre. Heinzerling and Ackerman raise several broad challenges to cost-benefit analysis in general and its prevalence in the cell-phone discourse in particular. I agree with their moral objection to permitting the buying power of cell phone users to outweigh poorer individuals’ interests in life. Perhaps “groups of workers doing dangerous jobs are paid, on average, a total of about $5–6 million more, per work-related death”–but my guess is that most of us would need to be compensated much more for accepting a similar risk of death via the negligence of a cell phone user. The first figure is based on work, which one needs to do to earn a living; the second is a risk that can easily be avoided.

Admittedly, some countries have overestimated the risks of cell phone use based on rumors that the gadgets “fry your brain.” But it appears that we have a regulatory system that systematically biases us against reasonable precautions via highly artificial assessments of risk.


 November 6, 2007 at 8:42 am   Posted in: Economic Analysis of Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. Al Anon - November 7, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    This is an interesting question. One problem I have with these studies is that it’s almost impossible to isolate the cell phone use as a contributing cause to the accident. In other words, in what percentage of these accidents is the cell phone use the “but-for cause”? A similar problem arises in the context of drunk driving accidents. In any instance where a driver has a BAC above the legal limit, the statisticians record it as a drunk driving accident. This must certainly overstate the number of accidents deemed to be caused by drunk drivers.

  2. 3L - November 7, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    I fail to see the utility in isolating the contributing cause in any individual accident. If you have a significant enough population of events which consider all significant variables, the risky behavior should produce a measurable uptick in wrecks, deaths, injuries, whatever data point interests you.

    Beyond that, if we’re willing to tolerate the tens of thousands of deaths which result from the use of automobiles at all, why not extend a death allowance to cell phone use in cars? The logic is identical, the moral problem is simply intuited differently. On the other hand, perhaps we’re simply more familiar with, and therefore more tolerant of, more traditional methods of car related death. How many people die every year because someone was changing the radio station instead of watching the road? Nobody’s screaming about that.

    I’m more interested in exploring Prof. Pasquale’s point over the cost benefit analysis employed, and differentiating between higher payouts for the death of workers in dangerous jobs, versus death by negligence. Is the conclusion that one method of death should be more expensive than another? Or another facet, voluntariness – that we want a premium when someone else chooses how we die?

  3. Urgency, Medicalization, and Sick Days : HEALTH REFORM WATCH - November 11, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    [...] demand for anti-anxiety drugs. Decimate funds for roads and public transit, and turn a blind eye to dangerous driving, and watch the ER’s fill with accident victims. The closer we come to a “minimal [...]

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress