Slashdot Log In
Study Confirms Mobile Phones Distract Drivers
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Dec 02, 2008 05:44 PM
from the hang-up-and-drive dept.
from the hang-up-and-drive dept.
An anonymous reader notes a Reuters report of a study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, confirming that Mobile phone calls distract drivers far more than even the chattiest passenger, causing drivers to follow too closely and miss exits. California's ban on using a handheld cell phone while driving, which went into effect last summer, is looking less than fully effective. A handful of other states have instituted similar bans, but none has forbidden driving while talking on a cell phone at all. "Using a hands-free device does not make things better and the researchers believe they know why — passengers act as a second set of eyes, shutting up or sometimes even helping when they see the driver needs to make a maneuver."
Related Stories
Submission: Mobile phones DO distract drivers - study by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This just in. (Score:5, Funny)
Sleeping at the wheel found to correspond to an increase in accidents.
talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Informative)
There is a ton of supporting evidence that talking on your mobile while driving is dangerous. The legal situation has more to do with convention and historical artifacts than anything of substance.
In fact, not only is talking on your mobile more dangerous than talking to passengers, but talking on your mobile while driving can be as dangerous as driving intoxicated, at least according Mythbusters which did a cellphone vs drunk driving [wikipedia.org] experiment on season 3 ("Killer Brace Position")
The two hosts arranged an obstacle course into four parts: accelerating to 30mph and then stopping at a stop sign, parallel parking, seeing how long it would take to do 15mph through the whole course, and while going 30mph, being told to switch left, right or center lane. Each part was graded by an instructor.
During a sober run of the course, both test drivers passed. However, during the cell phone run, Hyneman asked the drivers three questions in which they had to either think about the answer, repeat a sentence, figure out a verbal puzzle and list five things. Both drivers failed the obstacle course.
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Adam's conclusion is the most important. The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
So maybe drivers need to be taught how to refocus their attention when necessary. You know, instead of being told that tehy should expect everything to be perfect all the time with no distractions.
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Insightful)
The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
I'm not sure that's entirely true.
People don't believe they are impaired when driving while talking on a cell phone. "Sure, some people may have a problem," they'll say. "But not me. I'm a great driver. I've never had an accident and I use my cell phone all the time."
I've heard similar arguments from people talking about how they have no problems driving while legally impaired (say, 0.08 BAC). And the only thing that keeps them from driving while impaired in the threat of losing their license or jail time.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Adam's conclusion is the most important. The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.
While technically this is correct, due to numbers and relative odds of people driving with cell phones vs. driving intoxicated, the theory is completely flawed. Somehow I seriously doubt the sheer numbers of 15 - 18 year olds with very little driving experience cruising around with a cell phone pinned to their ears (or thumbs) comes even close to those driving intoxicated.
So maybe drivers need to be taught how to refocus their attention when necessary. You know, instead of being told that tehy should expect everything to be perfect all the time with no distractions.
Ah, "when necessary"? You're driving 2 tons of steel traveling 40MPH while making 100+ decisions every 60 seconds. That's just while y
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:4, Interesting)
In California, no person under the age of 18 may use a cell phone while driving for any purpose (other than calling 911). There are no exceptions for hands-free devices. If they're not calling 911, they have to pull off the road to make the call. I can see some logic in requiring this also for those who are 18 or older but have their driver's license for less than, say, two years.
Parent
just say "stand by" (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot on. Pilots are told by instructors that you "don't drop the airplane to fly the microphone". It is entirely proper to say "stand by" to a controller when you're busy with an aircraft control task.
If only driving instructors taught the same thing ...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Welcome to the untrained. People are stupid; you need to teach them how to be smart. It also helps if while you're tolking to them on the phone, you don't use garden-path sentence structures, ambiguous grammar formations, metaphors and slang. Each of those requires a language buffer on the part of the listener, and often a reparsing delay before the sentence can be understood on the second pass. But it's supposed to be up to the driver to divert attention appropriately, as the situation and their streng
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Funny)
Prioritizing the driving is a simple as ignoring the conversation when required.
So you're saying married men are better phoning drivers?
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Funny)
I pray to god you don't work in the medical industry.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be easily surprised. The users I talk to are trying to type the backslash by tilting the keyboard to the left.
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Interesting)
What I've always wondered is if the increased distraction a cell phone brings vs. a passenger has something to do with the brain activity of talking on a cell vs. in person.
I'm no neurologist but I've noticed that while talking on a phone I have a tendency to imagine that person and their expressions, reactions, etc. Perhaps this results in the use of more brain "power" to use a cell than talk to a person?
Anyone know of any studies using fMRI or the like which suggest such a thing?
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone know of any studies using fMRI or the like which suggest such a thing?
I suspect any study would confirm that driving whilst undergoing an fMRI scan is extremely dangerous and distracting.
How are you supposed to check your wing mirrors and blind spots before changing lanes if you can't move your head?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I've always wondered is if the increased distraction a cell phone brings vs. a passenger has something to do with the brain activity of talking on a cell vs. in person.
Passengers generally know it is in their interest not to distract the driver. The person on the other end of the phone conversation is not at risk so they talk about anything at all.
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Funny)
Basically all of these "compared to passengers" arguments are null and void when it comes to children in the backseat. Should we ban driving with children in the car? They won't help with directions or know not to distract the driver.
Nope. Just require them to ride in the trunk.
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically all of these "compared to passengers" arguments are null and void when it comes to children in the backseat. Should we ban driving with children in the car? They won't help with directions or know not to distract the driver.
A very young baby will either sleep or need attention which requires the vehicle to be stopped. A two or three year old will spend their time commenting on cars, trees, people etc. My son (now six) just wants to play 24/7 on his DS.
On the whole I find children less distracting than adults.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to think of it as the "ability to be rude" factor.
If a passenger is in the car, it is very acceptable socially to shout "SHUT UP!" or "BE QUIET!" during periods of the drive where higher concentration is required (e.g., merging, changing lanes), especially if the passenger(s) don't automatically realize it and shut up themselves.
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Insightful)
All of that drama could be avoided if you just said "hold on a sec, I'm merging" and then ignore anything that come safter that until your done then come back and say, "Sorry, I was merging"
If people were that good at quickly shifting their attention to and from the phone as the need arises, cell phones wouldn't be that big a deal to begin with. An accident can happen while you're saying those six words.
Anyway, the correct response, the one I use in those rare times that I would pick up the phone at all, is "I'm driving, I'll call you back."
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you ever pick up the phone to say that? If you are not going ot talk to the person, let them get the voice mail.
Because the call might be important enough that I would pull over and talk to them. I answer the phone, I find out, and either use Correct Response #1 and hang up, or use Correct Response #2 and pull over. If I have no reason to expect an important call, I probably don't answer at all.
The Correct Response is never to announce your intention to pay attention to driving for a few seconds, then resume talking when the need for attention to driving diminishes. The whole point is that talking distracts you so you don't notice these situations fast enough to react, much less politely inform the person you are talking to.
Parent
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still amazed at the idea that any phone call needs to be answered *now*, and not in 15 minutes. Whatever it is, 15 minutes won't matter that much. People have conditioned themselves to treat a phone call as a higher priority than their own survival. Society really did funtion just fine before cell phones!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could even be more easily avoid by not answering the phone in the first place, or saying "I'm driving, I'll call you back, bye". Just how many calls are really that important that you absolutely must take them right now?
Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, not only is talking on your mobile more dangerous than talking to passengers, but talking on your mobile while driving can be as dangerous as driving intoxicated, at least according Mythbusters which did a cellphone vs drunk driving experiment on season 3 ("Killer Brace Position")
Karma be damned. Mythbusters is entertainment NOT science and should not be cited by intelligent people to back up their discussions. The mythbusters methods are less than scientific and are more about ensuring ratings tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you drive. At all? Every day I see some ass on the road, male and female alike, yakking on the phone while:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people on the road, sadly.
If there's a collision, they'll typically continue to talk with the person on the other end of the phone for several minutes, before getting out and yelling at the other driver.
As bluetooth headset manufacturers rake it in... (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in California, where it now looks like an army of cyborgs has invaded. Everyone walks around with one of those damn bluetooth headsets on since it became law to use a hands-free device while driving. Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
I sure wish I was in the bluetooth headset business.
Re:As bluetooth headset manufacturers rake it in.. (Score:5, Insightful)
To make matters worse here in CA, only talking on the phone is illegal. Texting is perfectly ok - what were they thinking?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Exactly why ther should be no (Score:5, Insightful)
"using cell phones while driving" laws.
If someone is driving recklessly, give them a ticket for driving recklessly.
I've seen people sue cell phones, read a paper, put on make up, shave and get a hummer while driving. DO we need an explicit law against each on of those?
No, just use reckless driving laws to cite them.
No excuse me, I have to bring up porn and masterbate while I drive home... Since there is no law, what's the harm?
Parent
Any bet takers? (Score:4, Funny)
How long until the first news of an iPhone/Blackberry using driver who, upon a collision, is killed when the airbag drives the smartphone through their brain? Has it already happened?
Re:Any bet takers? (Score:5, Funny)
That would require the driver in question to have a brain in the first place. I've noticed most (not all) self-important Crackberry-toting snobs do not.
Parent
Insurance (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the insurance companies have known this all along but never shared the data.
Re: (Score:3)
Driving in France (they drive on the right, we Brits drive on the left) is scary even before you contemplate the suicidally daring nature of the average French driv
Cost of Convenience? (Score:5, Insightful)
How dangerous do cell phones have to be in order to be outlawed for drivers? If they result in 3 accidents and 1 death per year per 100,000 drivers, is that acceptable risk? What if the number of deaths goes up to 10, or 100?
Before you scoff, consider that speed limits are set in this manner. Raising limits adds convenience at the cost of higher rates of accidents and deaths.
However, I am inclined to view the convenience of cell phones much more harshly, because cell phone use is not an essential part of the driving process. If you want the privilege of using public roads and putting others at risk, you should take the responsibility of devoting your full attention to driving well. I would be glad to see cell phones outlawed on the road entirely.
Re:Cost of Convenience? (Score:5, Informative)
Except that's not true. When the limits were raised from 65 to 75, the accident rate dropped.
Parent
Re:Cost of Convenience? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cite proof. I keep hearing the speeding advocates toute this but they never EVER reference anything that shows this supposed trend.
Parent
Re:Cost of Convenience? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/960439 [sae.org]
It costs money, though the brief is still useful.
Basically the leading cause of accidents would seem to be bad road design. Additionally most accidents happen on roads with lower-than-highway limits. Also, the German autobahns, with no speed limits, have consistently been safer than US low limit roads.
"Speed limits were found to have minimal effect on the traffic accidents. "
Parent
Re:Cost of Convenience? (Score:4, Interesting)
Having been on both German autobahns and Irish and British motorways and US highways, I can safely say the biggest difference of all is that far less people drive like morons on German roads. I don't need any studies to explain why the Irish situation is so bad either when we have so many people on the roads who haven't sat a test ("provisional licence" supposed to be for learning to drive, and people who got "free" licences in 1980 or so last time there was a testing backlog). That's for starters (there are a host of other reasons that need little analysis to see their contribution to traffic mayhem).
In the US I didn't feel particularly safe on the highways, and there was a much bigger emphasis on "the bigger the vehicle the more I can act as if I am crash-proof" - the trucks in particular were road-hogs. The 55 mph limit is stupidly low of course, meaning that there is a lot of problems caused between faster drivers and slower ones (still no excuse for the maniacs driving in excess of 70mph or so).
Germany we encountered only two people trying to get everyone killed in half a week of driving well over 1000km, whereas on a single 100km trip on Irish motorways you will meet at least a dozen people trying to get everyone killed (tailgating and crazy lane-switches are exceedingly common).
A side note about German Autobahns though - it's disturbing how the hyper-fast travel distorts perceptions. At 180km/h it eventually feels just like the normal Irish limit of 120km/h. You slow down on an exit and think you are down to 50km/h for the curve (the Autobahn junctions often were pretty compact), and realise you're still 100km/h!
I think 120km/h limit as in Ireland is reasonable for two lane motorway. Where there are three lanes, it would perhaps be possible to allow the outer lane (next the median) to have 150km/h or so (don't know about elsewhere, but our new motorways in Ireland have a design speed of 160km/h). Two lane unrestricted autobahn sections in Germany were a bit hairy between the 80km/h trucks/buses, the 120 km/h normal drivers, and the people wanting to make full use of the lack of speed limits. Talk about lane changing!!!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And this would be different from cell phones how?
The existing laws cover the problem. If you want to do something, enforce them better.
Time to hang up the phone (Score:4, Funny)
Because at least then I have a free hand to hold the steering wheel whilst I'm smoking a cigarette/eating some food/applying my makeup.
What's with that off statement of hands-free? (Score:3)
Ok....I thought this would be handsfree vs. handheld talking vs shutting the hell up. If a person is in the car with you, OF COURSE they're going to tell you "Hey dumbass, get over. Your going to miss the exit."
Next thing you know they'll says
"PASSENGERS IN CAR MAY CARE ABOUT GETTING TO DESTINATION AND WILL HELP DRIVER GET THERE"
So do (Score:4, Insightful)
Weird take on why passengers are good... (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference between a cell phone conversation and passenger conversation is due to the fact that the passenger is in the vehicle and knows what the traffic conditions are like, and they help the driver by reminding them of where to take an exit and pointing out hazards"
Passengers do probably have a small assistant role in the car like "hey would you change the cd?" ect... but that doesn't fully explain the deficit.
Reaction times and ability to stay in the lane are altered, something the passenger has little to do with. The big reason there is less of an affect on driving ability from passengers is that social rules of phone conversations and in person conversations place a different demand on the drivers.
Next time you are talking on the phone, try not talking for maybe 10 seconds. Now try it in the car with a passenger. Notice that in the phone conversation the silence is very awkward and jarring? While in person it feels more or less normal. This illustrates that the different social demands of different types of conversation. It's not that they help by actively doing much, it's that they can shut up and let you drive because they are also aware of the need to perform the task at hand!
This is a load of dung (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding phones are a distraction. Everything and anything is a distraction. No kidding it's more dangerous to drive with a phone than without a phone. It's more dangerous to drive with a book on your lap than without one.
But here's the thing. I drive year-round. I drive often, and I drive frequently. I dirve short and long distances. I drive in blizzards, at night. I drive in fog. I drive in rain. Each of these is way more dangerous than driving on a nice day with dry roads and infinite visibility.
So here's my question. If you, or anyone else, is going to say that I can't drive with the phone because the risk is too high on the sunny day, then you're going to have to say that I can't drive in a blizzard at all. There are certainly limits to my driving ability. Quite frankly, in the blizzard, at night, I'm not on the phone, I turn off the radio, and I turn off the fan. You want to say that I can't be on the phone in the blizzard at night on ice? You'll get no argument from me there.
Incidentally, the whole hands-free thing is also garbage -- for other logical reasons. I drive an automatic transmission. I have one hand on the steering wheel to steer, and one foot on the pedals. My other hand is available for radio and phone and picking my nose -- every driver's right. If I were to drive a standard transmission, I'd have one hand on the steering wheel, one on the gear shift, on foot on the pedals, and one foot on the clutch -- and I'd have to co-ordinate ALL FOUR limbs in stop-and-go traffic. Again, if you want to say that I can't be holding the phone while driving a manual transmission, you'll get no argument from me -- there are limits to the number of hands that I have. But if you're going to let me drive a manual transmission, then you can't say that I lack the second hand for a phone while driving an automatic transmission.
Look, no one's saying that it's safer to drive with a phone. Let's say that driving with a phone is like driving with 0.079% blood-alcohol level. Drinking and driving is perfectly legal. Driving while drunk is not, and legally drunk is 0.08% blood-alcohol. So, if the phone equals 0.079% blood-alcohol, and you want to say that I can't drive with a phone unless I'm completely sober, you'll get little argument from me.
Ultimately, it comes down to this in all of those cases. You're not going to say that I can only drive when everything is perfect and there are no dangers and no increased risk of any kind. That'd mean clear sky, visibility, no rain, no ice, no snow, no fog, no phone, to alcohol, no radio, no itch behind my left ear, no fatigue, no hunger, no bowel, no bladder, no boredom, no excitement. You're going to have to accept some level of risk. Do you need a road-sign saying "use at your own risk"? Do you need something on the form of your licence saying "you accept a level of increased risk"?
You're going to have to accept that driving is more dangerous than not driving, and you're going to have to accept a certain level of fluctuation and buffer. Air-bags and seat-belts increased the risk by decreasing the danger (people drive faster when they feel secure).
Incidentally, I'm all for improving the safety of phone use while driving. Teach drivers how to drive with phones. Make it another class of licence, like motorcycle. Teach drivers to physically drop the phone when something happens on the road.
Re:This is a load of dung (Score:4, Insightful)
If there's a blizzard out, and you do not have to drive, then you shouldn't. If you do have to drive, well, it's not like you can make it stop snowing, which is why that's legal. Hopefully enough other people were able to stay home that it's safe.
There is no reason why you must talk on a cell phone while driving. If the call is that important that you can't miss it, pull over. If your time is so valuable that you can neither skip the call nor stop driving, then you need to hire a driver. Can't afford a driver? Then your time isn't that valuable. Pull over or call them back.
Hands-free vs hands-on has nothing to do with your available limbs, and everything to do with using those limbs for a completely separate task. I drive a manual, shifting is simply part of the task of driving that I'm focusing on, not a distraction. Fiddling with a cell phone is a distraction, a completely orthogonal task of coordination. It's the difference between a drummer using all their limbs to perform, and using 3 of their limbs to perform and one to juggle. Not that hands-free headsets have been shown to substantially reduce the risk posed by driving while on the phone, because you're already more than distracted enough to cause problems just by talking to someone who isn't present.
Also, it's already been established that talking on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than driving while at a 0.08% BAC, the legal limit. Which is why you shouldn't do it, no matter how sober or how good a driver you incorrectly think you are. Even if both a 0.08% BAC or talking on a cell phone, by themselves, aren't as dangerous as driving in a blizzard.
Parent
Results not supposed causes (Score:5, Insightful)
When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all. However, when driving in bad weather or in city traffic, my using a phone in most situations is distracting to my driving, more so than most other things, which is why I won't use or answer it. The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.
But for SOME people, using a phone is overly distracting under any circumstances. People are different, conditions are different there is no one golden "rule" that is going to make any sense or be fairly applied to everyone or even most everyone. People need to be trained to NOT distract themselves and pay attention to their attention spans.
You can't legislate stupidity away. After phone use is made illegal in cars- what's next? GPS? Music? Food? Kids? Cold medication? Pets? Enforce laws about the RESULTS of poor behaviours, not the supposed causes. It doesn't matter why someone is weaving, following too closely, drifting, not using turn signals, not checking blind spots, etc... they should be ticketed just the same. Combined with education and public service messages, perhaps not everyone has to suffer for the lowest common denominator.
The problem is attention is a finite resource... (Score:3, Interesting)
... this all comes back to the fact that we have a limited amount of attention and the more we spend it focusing on conversation and thinking about what is being talked about (our minds eye being 'elsewhere') the less we are focused on our environmental surroundings, we're increasing the attention resolution for conversation on the phone while decreasing our attention to the surrounding environment.
This happens even without a phone, I remember driving and having something fall on my lap, just the momentary lapse of your mind focusing on something other then what you're doing takes your ability to focus attention on the environmental changes as needed. I remember almost hitting someone, even though just a few seconds before everything was clear. After that I promised myself never again would I ever change the focus of my attention. It's just too dangerous a lot of the time, in heavy traffic / slowed to a crawl, I don't mind if people are on their phones when traffic is going to be at a dead stop for a while but outside of that, I wouldn't personally.
It's the same thing - using your mind to assess the situation intelligently, it applies to everthing - if you exercise and don't overeat you won't get fat (barring extenuating circumstances like disease, etc).
Personally I think anyone who's a phone junky really needs to experience what it's like to have a near miss accident, there's nothing like a near miss to change your thinking about driving forever IMHO. I'm glad my near miss never hurt anyone, and it certainly smartens you up afterwards. For the people who say "eh I'll risk it", I just hope you don't one day end up regretting it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because draconian punishments work so well to prevent all these other crimes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the whole reason pulling licenses does work, some of the time. In essence, it is a fine. It causes people to expend more effort getting around (leaning on friends, family, coworkers, etc). Most people I know who have had their licenses suspended have been in that position from DWI... and most of the