Slashdot Mirror
Cellphone Drivers Drive Like Drunks
TDavid writes "A University of Utah study claims that drivers who use a cell phone will be 'more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.' The study also says that use will turn a driver who is age 20 into age 70. Hands-free systems apparently don't help much either as they still require a driver to 'actively be part of a conversation.' What about in vehicle systems like OnStar?"
Indeed. And /. editors spell like dumb.
$6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
If it is a proven scientific fact that old people drive like they are drunk, why are they allowd to drive?
adventure-today.com
Then what is the difference between talking to someone in your car, and talking to someone on a hands free headset.
--sig fault--
That should read:
"Cellphone Drivers Drive Like Women."
Let's be fair here, cell phones turn SOME drivers into worse-than-drunk drivers. ANYONE with a .08 BAC is going to drive poorly, only some folks who talk on a cell phone while they drive will drive poorly.
I'm going to be preemptive here, the solution lies in education, training and responsibility, not prohibition.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
I bought a hands free system so I could talk on the cell phone in the car and IT DIDN'T WORK. As soon as I turned it on and let go of the steering wheel, the car drifted off the road and hit a Big Boy statue. What a rip off.
Unknown host pong.
OnStar is nothing like a cell phone. If you're using OnStar, you have most likely already crashed. It's a system for helping you when you're in trouble, not a cell phone with speaker phone enabled. Slightly useful service :)
-b0lt
got sig?
Click here to order the ideal telephone for the "drunk talker" driver.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Driving while talking on the cell I almost ran a red light.....
I'm usually a very good driver. On the cell phone though.... Ok... From now on, no more talking and driving.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
When people are driving with cellphones, rather than realizing how hindered their attention is, they just continue on thinking their fine, because hey, they're not drunk!
And yes, I realize this is not the exact thought process, but my point was that for the vast majority of people, they do not see in-car cellphone use as a huge risk compared to say...drinking while driving. And good luck convincing people otherwise. People aren't going to like being told that they cannot talk to other people while driving. Thank god for cordless headsets and speakerphone.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Nokia and Apple team up to create the iFlask. For all your driving impairment needs.
Clicky.
The folks at El Reg had a question:
"Which means that a 70-year-old yakking away on his cellphone has the reaction times of a 120-year-old, or have we misunderstood this rather poor analogy?"
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
First off, I love the word "likely" which means that they really don't know.
Actually, it's very possible that they are using the word "likely" to refer to the probabilistic nature of the data they have. You can't say that everytime you are involved in a conversation there is a 100% chance that that you will be a poorer driver. "Likely" refers to "likelihood".
GMD
watch this
If police would do their jobs instead of sitting on their asses at speed traps, we wouldn't need cell phone laws, or studies like this.
Inevitably, anyone on a cell phone is breaking about 15 other driving laws because they can't concentrate. The drunkenness or cell-phone conversation is not the problem -- the swerving and going 20 miles an hour under the speed limit in the passing lane is. Pull them over for those things, and the idiot cell phone holding driver would quickly become a thing of the past.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
..that the use of cell phones while driving should not be outlawed. From TFA:
...elderly drivers using a cell phone aren't any more of a hazard to themselves and others than young drivers... more experience and a tendency to take fewer risks helped negate any additional danger.
when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who were not using a cell phone.
If these elderly people are allowed to drive with these reaction times, then young people using cell phones should be allowed to drive if they have equal reaction times. Also from TFA:
So elderly drivers should be allowed to use cell phones as well.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
I have always maintained that handsfree doesn't do squat... it's the split mental attention and not having both hands on the wheel.
Try this easy test... during the superbowl, call someone up on your phone (with headset or without, doesn't matter). During the conversation, after every play, write down the number of yards gained/lost and the number on the jersey of the player that gained/lost them. You'll probably experience "slave can't serve two masters" syndrome and have to dedicate more attention to one or the other, either by having to say "hold on" or "um, what was that?" to whoever you are talking to or missing play stats to keep up with the conversation. Unfortunately, priority in a car most often goes to the conversation.
They have no skills for paraphrasing. If the blurb was true I'd never drink alcohol again for fear of instant wrinkled skin, white hair, and random cancer.
When you talk with a live person in the car, you're getting a lot more input from your senses. Our minds (and probably brains and other organs) are evolved to interact with a live person, while doing other things simultaneously (cooperative work). Talking on the phone is an abstract activity, and further occupies many of the higher functions, like imagination, that driving also requires. So it's easier to concentrate on driving, while also talking to a live person, than while talking on the phone.
;). Then we can get some real insights into this problem that daily threatens lives and wellbeing on our roads.
BUT, even talking to a live in-car person in the car is more distracting than driving alone. Driving isn't that hard 99% of the time, but the very hard 1% is usually totally unpredictable. Even while distracted by the passenger, we can usually drive well enough. So we need to get some real data on the driving ability alone, with a person, on a handsfree, holding a phone, and while drunk (and maybe while 70 years old
--
make install -not war
What does anyone in the state of Utah know about drinking?
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
If it is a proven scientific fact that old people drive like they are drunk, why are they allowd to drive?
... a joke, I think, but that's how much driving meant to him.
Because they control the government: police, courts, armed forces, etc.
Because they run the economy -- banks, corporate boards, regulations. (Alan Greenspan is no spring chicken.)
Because they can -- or think they can -- continue to drive forever, and they don't want to stop.
I remember one old guy who'd been in an accident, mainly because his driving skills had eroded badly. When challenged, he stated that he would give it up when he killed somebody
-kgj
-kgj
"This supports the suggestion by Storie (1977) that men are more at risk from accidents involving high speed while women are at more likely to be involved in accidents resulting from perceptual judgement errors."
Social Research Centre Study
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
By this logic, why require people to have driver's licenses? After all, if they're not qualified to operate a motor vehicle, then they're clearly going to be held for the consequences of their actions when they plow headlong into oncoming traffic, right?
The difficulty with this reasoning is that your actions can have direct and easily fatal consequences for the fifty-odd people sharing the freeway with you at any given moment. Yes, we can't outlaw everything because it might be a distraction to driving, but we can isolate things that tend to cause a person to drive significantly worse than they otherwise would--like DUI, cell phones, and dash-mounted television sets.
To point at the culprit and say "HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS" provides little consolation to the family of the guy he just killed in a wreck. There's nothing wrong with taking preventative action to minimize the risk of traffic accidents.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
If it's just having a conversation that impairs your driving, are we supposed to not speak with fellow passengers either?
When someone else is physically present, they are aware of what else is going on; they will make allowances for this in the conversation. It's naturally what we do.
Yesterday, for example, I was in a restraurant and there was a loud crashing noise from the kitchen. There was a group of guys at the table next to me, and one was talking. He paused for the sound, then resumed talking when it was over. Everyone understood what he said fine. It was an automatic thing.
If you're talking to someone on a cell phone in a car, they aren't aware, for example, if you're in heavy traffic and maybe they should let you focus on the driving. Compare car conversations to normal conversations the next chance you get.
2) Everyone is different. Some people are better drivers even when drunk or distracted than many of the idiots on the road are at the best of times. I think if you want to drive while talking on your cell, say, you should be able to take a special driving test that demonstrates you have the talent to do so safely, and get a special license that says so.
Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telophone. Psychological Science, 12(6), 462-466.
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 23-32.
These papers are generally accepted as showing that talking on a cell phone (hands-free or not) decreases driving ability, and that conversing with an occupant does not have nearly the same impact. I should note that I believe that there are major flaws in both studies.
G
Does this 0.08 "blood alcohol level" have any units?
If you're in a situation where you can't talk and drive at the same time, don't make phone calls and don't answer the phone. Your phone has voicemail and caller ID for a reason.
You are not available 24/7. If someone can't understand this, this is their problem. If it's your job to be available 24/7, get a hands free device or something.
If you have a passenger, have them make phone calls if possible.
Avoid lane changes while on the phone (unless you have tons of room). Even if it means following that truck at 60mph for a minute or two.
If you suddenly need to pay full attention to driving, do so. Being impolite is better than totalling your car.
If you were in a traffic jam, but aren't anymore, it's OK to tell the person on the other end of the line and say you need to hang up.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
There should be a law against "Driving while Not Me", because everyone else on the road is a menace.
Cell phone users also act like drunks. They stand in public places, yell very loudly and think that their conversation about whether it's pizza or Chinese tonight is so important we must all hear it.
The only thing missing is public urination, but I'm sure that's an add-on service.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I've certainly tried using a cellphone in the car and it's really aparrent to me that I'm not driving as well as I should. So my cellphone stays off in the car. I'm a big time supporter of banning hands-on cellphone use by the drivers of moving vehicles.
But these studies that show that hands-free devices are also unacceptably dangerous make me worry about having another person in the car with me? If I have an 'active conversation' with a passenger as I drive, am I at the same risk as with a hands-free cellphone?
I've never used a hands-free cellphone - but I certainly don't *feel* like my driving is suffering when I talk with a passenger as I drive.
So if that's an accurate observation - and a hands-free phone conversation is somehow worse than chatting with a passenger - then what makes the difference?
Is it that a passenger notices when driving conditions require more of my attention and stops talking? Is it something to do with the quality of the audio from the phone? What?
Seems like a study of *THAT* distinction would provide interesting data on the nature of the problem.
www.sjbaker.org
A rant...
.08, Strayer and colleague Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology, found during research conducted in 2003.
A rant... (mainly cause it seems like they keep re-publishing this identical article every 3 months, and it gets annoying)
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging."
In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding
What this really says article says...
Is that Elderly are a helluva a lot more dangerous than drunk drivers and should really be taken off the road.
Secondly, there is much question as to the validity of the tests.
"The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked."
The first part is in deed a concern. The second is not. The 17% increase length to regain speed is most likely due to a cell phone user being extra cautious after such an ordeal and double-checking before they regain speed. This is NOT a bad thing.
Anyways, how much time are we talking here?
"The numbers....come down to milliseconds"
"The new research questions the effectiveness of cell phone usage laws in states such as New York and New Jersey, which only ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. It's not so much the handling of a phone, Strayer said, but the fact that having a conversation is a mental process that can drain concentration."
First off, we have to start admitting that not everyone can multi-task. We also need to see the statistics on an individual level. If 1/3 showed minimal impairment, and 1/3 showed no impairment, and 1/3 showed dramatic impairment. What is the breakdown?
I know plenty of drivers who are often 'distracted drivers'. Particularly when they have people in the car. How do these statistics compare to the same driver with a passenger? with four passengers? And I am sorry....a cell phone user is NOT more impaired than a drunk driver. It is political BS. I refuse to buy it and no statistic will prove it to me. Simply put...I see tons of people driving on the cell phones - and driving fine. Sometimes a momentary reaction issue...yes. But when I see a drunk driver they are all over 2 or three lanes. They nearly hit everyone. They often run off the road. Somehow it is hard for me to accept that I can see a 100+ cell phone users who are supposedly "more impaired" and they don't perform as poorly as drunk drivers.
So let's look at the truth instead of the non-stop media propaganda bullcrap.
-
According to the American Automobile Association, wireless phones were not among the top five contributing factors in auto accidents. From the more than 32,000 accidents analyzed, wireless phones contributed to 1.5 percent of accidents, according to the AAA research published in May.
The most distracting was an outside object, person or event, which contributed to 29.4 percent of accidents analyzed. AAA also determined that cassette or CD players were more distracting than cell phones, resulting in 11.4 percent of accidents analyzed.
Distractions from another occupant in the vehicle, such as a chatty passenger or baby, contributed to 10.9 percent of accidents. Eating or drinking contributed to 1.7 percent, according to the AAA study.
-
Well, 1.5% compared 11.4% for CD players. Sure seems like car CD players should be banned before cell phones does it not. Let's ban whiny babies from cars as well.
In truth, I spend much of my time driving on the cell phone. And drive much better than most of my local area residents. Furthermore, it has helped me remain awake and vibrant on long road trips.
In truth, I've been bitched out on a few
This process takes approximately 50 years.
I read
Well, I have a Treo 650 and it's great because I can post on Slashdot while I drive and it's actually quite safe bec[NO CARRIER]
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
1. A children, or a group of children misbehaving is many more times distracting than a simple phone conversation. How do you stop the distraction then?
2. True, but I like to ignore people in my car, prefering the sounds of screams and terror as they react to my fast driving.
3. What happens to AM Talk radio shows? Pretty active conversation to concentrate on to keep on topic.
Why can't we say those drivers simply suck? I bet the same drivers would have problem without any distractions. To be thorough, they should run tests with cell phones and race car drivers like Michael Schumacher.
Live forever, or die trying.
I'm afraid he has the science behind him, not you. Go read the studies. Conversations over the phone degrade driving ability more than conversations with someone in the same car.
He made the assertion; it is his responsibility to provide data to support his assertion. He did not do so, and neither did you. I could tell you to go read the studies that confirm that humans descended from parakeets and it would carry as much weight as what you said.
This is a basic critical thinking concept: if you make an assertion, it is your job to provide evidence to back that assertion. Otherwise you are just expressing your opinion.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I believe that is .08% which would be .0008
.0003 higher level than Belgium allows. But us Americans tend to hold out liquer better than you Belgiums.... ;)
Or
Im drvnig riht now, an posting to salsgdot though my wirless servic. i dont oarticulaly see the diifficulty. mabe otjers just dopnt have good drving skils.
In all seriousness, though, this simply comes down to personal responsiblity. When I'm driving and I have to take a call, I let the person on the other end of the phone know that they're only going to get the attention of the small part of my mind that isn't focused on driving. If I'm in a heavy traffic situation, I tell the person on the other end I'm going to have to call them back. In other words: take some fscking personal accountability for your actions or stop complaining that we live in a nanny state.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Wow, I drive like a pro when talking on my cellphone! That must mean I'm pretty good after taking down half a fifth of Jack Daniel's too! Sweet!
A drunk can't drop the phone or hang up and suddenly have his BAC drop back to normal if a situation starts to arise. It's rare that an accident is sudden, usually multiple things have to go wrong ahead of time for it to happen. Even on a cell phone you can notice this if you're not a complete retard. The drunk is impaired no matter what. He can't react to a stimulus and shed his impairment in a matter of seconds.
Why not drop all these nonsense and give reckless driving tickets to those who are driving recklessly. If someone elderly/on a cell phone/looking for an address/etc. is swerving or being troublesome then cite them for what they did wrong. If they can handle themselves in these situations then they're not harming anyone.
Funny how preemptive war is automatically bad, but preemtive limitations of our rights are a-ok.
Actually, the NY subways started out as private companies. The city took them over when they went bankrupt. The state re-organized NYCTA into MTA when the city was unable to fund them by itself.
In addition to fares, the system gets funds from a percentage of certain bridge tolls and some state/city general revenue.
...carrier dead.....
David Strayer has been kind enough to provide an index of papers and articles he's authored or co-authored on this subject (no few - while I would never suggest any kind of bias, he really seems to have it out for cellphones.):
_ 2001.pdf
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/
From that index may I point out an item that appears to suggest that merely carry on a conversation even absent the mechanical problems associated with a cell phone/earbud etc. will cause impairment:
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/ViV
This would seem to support the use of HOV lanes not as a reward for environmental sensitivity but as a safety measure for the rest of us singletons just trying to get to work in one piece; HOV need to be partitioned from the rest of traffic to protect us, heh. And what if the passenger is wearing a skimpy dress(!)while yaking about the absolute DEAL they got at Nordstroms.
Never mind the distraction factor from changing the radio station/CD, eating, makeup, picking nose, etc. Surely tasks that involve the motor regions would be even more troublesome than simply speaking...
In another item from the DoT, all autos will now be refitted with passenger gags.
I agree that it is no consolation to say "he is responsible for his actions." And I truly feel sorry for those who lose people to careless drivers. The fact remains that you cannot outlaw everything that is a distraction. DUI is not a distraction, it's a physical impairment.
Look, my point was you can't just outlaw everything tha'ts a distraction. There's a general law against driving recklessly. If someone is talking on a cell phone, and because of this, driving recklessly, they should be pulled over for driving recklessly. That's all.
It boggles my mind that the same community who gets outraged at every tiny little law that's passed that infringes on your right to be completely anonymous, no matter what the reason for that law, at the same time fights for these ridiculous limitations on our daily lives on a whim. It's hypocritical beyond belief.
In a free society, you are supposed to be allowed to do whatever you want UNTIL IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER. The mere act of talking on a cell phone DOES NOT DO THIS. Driving recklessly does, and that is the crime.
I really do see where you're coming from. And honestly I find it hard to say this while saying that DUI should be illegal, which it obviously should, but I think tehre is a significant difference between being physically impaired, and engaging in an action which has been shown to cause "distraction." Because next comes you can't listen to the radio while driving. And then you can't smoke a cigarette while driving. And then you can't speak to passengers. And if you believe that all of those rights should be taken away, I will fight you to my bloody death.
Availability of family makes a HUGE difference. My mom never got a car because we used to live close to decent shopping, and by the time most of the shops closed, I had a car. I live about 5 minutes from her and drive her where she needs to go. If I wasn't nearby, it would be a lot harder for her to get by without a car.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
is that a 0.08 BAC level is not very dangerous at all. Prettymuch anything is more dangerous then that, including actualy drinking, a regular beverage.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
A better example would be another motor activity combined with a cell phone conversation. Talking while cooking, talking while walking, talking while chewing gum (well, maybe not that one). While it is more distracting, it's not as onerous a task as you're making it out to be. You may miss reading some street signs, but the designers of those were smart enough to make the important ones recognizable even if you can't read.
It used to be you'd see people reading, brushing their teeth, checking their hair or even dancing. Now all the drunk looking drivers are on cell phones, except the very rare very extreme alcoholics (I hope they die alone).
I drive a long distance on a nasty interstate, through a couple of major cities, so I've seen all kind of driving styles (even seen a drunk hit someone) and cell phone problems are getting worse and worse. I don't think this problem will solve itself without some kind of government involvement. I wish we had a hand signal for "hang up and drive, you look drunk."
I admit I have my own problem, but I've finally convinced my wife that just because she wants to have a fight over the cell phone and I hang up, it isn't personal, since if she wants me to live long enough to fight again, I need to hang up and drive. I've exaggerating, I've never really had a girlfriend.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Any distraction can impair driving.
I can think of lots of things just as distracting as cell phones:
* actively listening to the radio
* actively carrying on a deep conversation
* monitoring the kids in the back seat
* changing the radio station or CD track
* trying to remember the name of the next exit
* going over the meeting you will have with your client in 15 minutes
And the list goes on.
Some people can multitask well, others can't. Others can only on familiar roads.
Cell phones aren't the problem. People trying to multitask in situations that require full concentration is the problem.
The bottom line:
Don't ban or restrict cellphones for most users. DO restrict them for new drivers including teenagers. DO restrict them for drivers who have a recent history of careless driving which resulted in a ticket or accident. DO allow phone use to be considered in civil cases after an accident, but do NOT make it a presumption of fault: Give the cell-phone user a chance to show the court he can drive and talk at the same time.
If you do ban cell phones, ban kids in the car, radios, and anything else that might be a distraction to the driver.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't know if a 20 year old driver is less scary than a 70 year old. They both have poor driving vision and reflexes; the main difference is that the 20 year old drives faster. Why didn't they talk about good drivers, like middle-aged longtime commuters?
If you're driving along, talking to a person sitting next to you, and get distracted, the passenger has the ability to say "Whoah! Look out, before you hit that guy!"
If you are talking to that person on your cell phone, the other talker has no visual feedback, and therefore no way to help you avoid being road-kill.
IMHO, that is a bigger part of why people on cell phones drive worse. If it was the talking part, than EVERYONE talking in their car would be flying off the road.
Am I fundamentally wrong?
Lets just ban having any passengers in the vehicle too as they also require me to be 'part of a conversation'. Also - we need to ban stereos in cars too, as they are going to take your attention away too.
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
I'm a little dubious of this finding because even though cell phone use has increased dramatically, actual accidents and injuries have fallen over the same period.
Since drunk driving is a major driver of accidents, IIRC something like 50%, it would seem that anything that had the same effect as drunk driving would drive up accident rates significantly. Especially, since a far higher percentage of population drives and talks than ever drive drunk.
I think it this study, or at least the summary of it, exaggerates the danger.
I've seen this argument a lot. Well, maybe not "drive like drunk", exactly, but there are piles of articles like this about how drivers using cell phones, even with hands-free setups, are worse drivers overally.
But what I don't see much difference in, and wish to be corrected if I'm wrong, is having a hands-free cell phone conversation while driving and having a conversation with someone in the car while driving.
carry a flyswatter in the front seat.. so you don't have to reach so far to swat the screaming kids.. trust me you only have to do this once.. (i'm not a kid but i used to be one)
Suchetha
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad