First you dial, then you crash

Brookline police chief Kevin O'Leary is one of those worried about enforcement. While he supports the concept behind the ordinance, he is concerned that the term "handheld device" is vague enough to mean just about anything, such as the handheld radios many taxi drivers use. Sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, he suddenly rises and strides over to the window to illustrate what he means. "You see that?" he says, pointing to a nearby building. "That's Boston, less than 500 yards away."

O'Leary worries that people won't know when they are entering Brookline and so won't be aware that they are breaking the law. As a result, he says, he fears that his officers might face a backlash from angry and aggressive motorists who have no idea that they are cruising through a handheld device-free zone. He also believes that existing reckless driving laws may be sufficient to address the problem.

"Not everybody is a bad driver," explains O'Leary. "There are people who are generally conscious of what they are doing and don't drive crazy just because they are using a cellphone. And this law says everybody is a hazard. And I don't think that's true."

While O'Leary says he believes that it would be more effective to enact legislation at the state level, police officer Rich Hovan of Brooklyn, Ohio, a Cleveland suburb, says enforcement of the town's local ordinance has not been a problem. Since March of last year, when Brooklyn became the first place in the United States to pass such a law, more than 275 tickets have been issued.

Hovan has become a minor celebrity of the anti-cellphone brigade -- he even appeared once on "Oprah" -- and has issued most of Brooklyn's tickets himself. It was on "Oprah," in fact, that he met the Penas of Hilltown Township, Pa., who were appearing on the show to discuss the cellphone-related death of their toddler, Morgan.

"I write every single one of those tickets in Morgan Pena's name," says Hovan. "I sign her initials, M.P., where my name goes. I told her family that her name won't be forgotten."

Representatives of the wireless industry say that without data on the number of crashes caused by cellphones, it is unfair to sanction their use and that of other electronic devices.

"Wireless phone use is just one of many driver distractions," says Dee Yankoskie, manager of wireless education programs at the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association, an industry trade group. "We don't want wireless phones to be singled out when people do everything from eating a cheeseburger to cleaning up coffee in their cars -- especially since a wireless phone is the only potential distraction that can save your life or the lives of others."

Indeed, in July the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis issued a study (funded by AT&T Wireless) that delineated some benefits of using a cellphone in the car. According to the study, cellphones can serve many purposes, from reporting crimes to making emergency calls; in fact, 1 million emergency calls to Massachusetts State Police were made from wireless phones in 1998.

Joshua Cohen, a senior research associate at the center and a co-author of the report, says that drivers would be less likely to have their phones with them for emergency purposes if the law bans their use under normal circumstances. As a result, the report concluded that it was premature to pass such ordinances.

"There are laws that you can't drive recklessly," says Cohen. "There is no law to control you when you play around with your CD player. There's a responsibility when you drive. That means you don't fool around with your radio when it's going to increase your risk of getting in an accident. To try to come up with a separate law for each of these devices is probably counterproductive."

While telecommunications giant Verizon Wireless recently announced its support for statewide laws restricting handheld phones in cars, it remains vehemently opposed to local legislation. "Is every community going to start erecting signs at every entry point detailing what their local ordinances are?" demands Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson. "Common sense says that is more confusing for people on the road than less confusing."

As Nelson speaks, a symphony of street noise, including blaring horns and scooters chugging by, peppers his words. He is speaking on his cellphone and defending Verizon's stance from -- where else? -- his car.

Deciding whether to push for local or state legislation might prove to be the least of critics' worries. Car manufacturers are shipping new models with built-in phones as well as the Global Positioning System, a navigational device allowing a driver to view a screen pinpointing a car's location.

"All of these devices are certainly not essential to the driving experience, and research isn't being done ahead of time to assess the risk they present not only to the driver but to others," says Bents, the co-author of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report. "And of course there's no crash data available, and you have to wait until someone hits someone."

What's more, in all but two classes of Mercedes-Benz 2001 product line, owners can opt for a 3-inch-by-4-inch monitor -- lodged in the spot where the radio normally is -- that displays individually selected news or sports or weather reports from CNN Interactive while they're in the driver's seat. The service costs just $125 a year.

Mercedes-Benz U.S.A. spokesman Jim Resnick insists that the manufacturer takes driver distraction very seriously. He points out that the built-in cellphones are hands-free models; the news items are no more than 25 words long and only appear after the driver actively overrides an electronic suggestion that the text be delivered later.

But that begs the question: Does the driver have any business reading while at the wheel? "We wouldn't offer it if we didn't believe it was safe," says Resnick. "The text is no more difficult to read than climate control or the radio or any number of other features in the center dashboard."

That may or may not be true; Resnick has no data yet to back up his claims because the first cars sporting the feature only came out in July. Yet Resnick's attitude is just the sort of approach to the issue that enrages Silber.

Silber has learned to forgive the woman who robbed him of his ability to walk on his own; he recognizes that she simply made a terrible mistake. Instead of blaming her, he saves his scorn for those who manufacture these new gizmos without sufficient regard for safety concerns. He recounts his reaction at one of the Suffolk County executive meetings at which the cellphone bill was discussed.

"There were a couple of lawyers from the phone industry companies reading their briefs, and it came my turn to speak and I looked at them directly," he recalls. "I said, 'What the hell are you waiting for? The bodies are piling up. Do you want the pile to be higher?'"

• View blog reactions