Slashdot Mirror
Cell Users As Bad As Drunk Drivers
An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports on a cell-phone use study which confirms that talking on your cell is as bad as being drunk, when it comes to driving skill. The researchers studied 40 volunteers in a driving simulator." From the article: "[The subjects were observed] while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level--the average legal level of impairment in the United States--after drinking vodka and orange juice. Three study participants rear-ended the simulated car in front of them. All were talking on cell phones and none was drunk, the researchers said."
"But I can put my phone down, I can't stop being drunk." Except that people don't put the phone down, they crash.
Finding other idiots on
how about the idiots trying to use wireless email behind the wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Get your torrents...
Maybe they're just bad drivers.
Just like many people who have been drinking, the cell phone users did not believe themselves to be affected, the researchers found.
... I wasn't really talking on the phone ... I just hold it by my head to keep warm.
Honestly officer
This is old news. The Mythbusters already handled this one. Who needs a "study" when we have a great episode of Mythbusters, anyways?
What about drunk dialing someone from your cell phone?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
This was already on MythBusters...
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
I would like to see a few more test groups added to this. How about the average pot smoking teenager, the girl putting makeup on, and my personal favorite that I saw recently... a woman brushing her teeth!
http://religiousfreaks.com/Man, no wonder I said that I would never buy a cell phone... then again, a lot of things that I said I wouldn't buy, I end up buying, including my cell phone. I cannot even hear my cell phone's loud speaker if I'm driving. I might as well hang up the whole cell phone thing. Ah well, life without phones... what is that like?
jagossel
What about drunk drivers who are also on their cellphones?
Hmm..
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
What about just having a passenger to talk to? what about screaming kids in the back seat? What about trying to fish that CD out from behind the seat so you can change your music? How drunk does doing these things make you drive?
but does it drives linux ?
talking on your cell is as bad as being drunk So lets propse another study... how bad is it when we talk to other people in the vehicle while driving? Is it same as talking on cellphone or not?
not nearly as bad as this dude tho.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
like eating, smoking, talking on cell phones, and putting makeup on all at the same time. I volunteer my wife for the study.
You mean I might have a chance with the hot babe at the party whose sober but chatting on her cell phone?
Mythbusters all READY did the study, only they didn't get a grant to waste doing it...
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
40 people? thats not that many.
its just as likely that they got the really good drivers drunk and all the shiat drivers were handed cell phones.
not that i doubt the conclusion, or anything. i hate cellphone-talking drivers. i'm just saying that 40 is kind of a small sample size for something being touted so much by the anti-cellphone-while-driving peoples.
Did an episode on this, and found that it is TRUE...
This study was done in our very own University of Utah (or the primary study was done here)...
Good stuff...USE A HEADPIECE, USE HANDS FREE...
--E--
So by this new information, we've just shown that it's safer to drive drunk than to change radio stations.
the 90s called, they want their obvious news back. slow day for posts?
I know a lot of states are passing harsher punishments. for people who were on a cell phone at the time of an accident or other traffic violation. As I understand it, in Illinois it's double the fine for traffic violations if the offender was talking on a cell phone at the time.
Personally I think it should just be downright illegal. It's illegal to wear headphones while driving, and those are hands-free and only require that you listen. Why should it be legal to use a cell phone while driving? If the call is that important, pull your damn car over, or use the speakerphone option (if you've got it). Do something, but don't put yourself and others at risk.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Are you implying that wardriving from the driver's seat is unsafe?
Im not going to say that cell phones dont cause distractions while driving. But where is the line of concern drawn? I need to take my eyes of the road in order to change my CDs or the radio station. Or how about the nice people with stereo systems so loud it shakes the windows of your house. There is a small noise ordinance rule for that, but nothing major. Girls putting on make up, combing hair, getting ready, etc. Its unfair to just point out cell phone users and accidents. A line needs to be drawn somewhere if you are going to make that argument.
One night years ago when I lived south of Houston, I was driving over to a fast food place to get something to take home for supper.
There was a van in front of me that was driving all over the road. It almost went into the ditch on each side of the road at least once.
When we go to a four lane highway, the van spent part of the time taking up both lanes going our direction and some of the time in the oncoming lanes.
I was surprised to see the van turn in ahead of me at the fast food joint and pull up to the drive through.
Being the nice guy/asshole that I am, I thought I'd do a good deed and suggest that the driver wait for someone sober to drive him home. I stood about 5 feet from the window when I made my suggestion.
It turned out to be a woman who had the foulest mouth of any woman I ever met. She was screaming unbelievably loud that she wasn't drunk, that she was only using her cell phone, and that how she drove was her business and noone elses.
So I got back in my car.
When I finally got around front, everyone inside was laughing. I guess everyone in the place, employee and customer alike, heard her tirade over the speaker system.
I told a local cop about it later. He wasn't amused at all about it.
some people are naturally adept multi-taskers- professional drivers (especially school bus drivers) are trained and in the regular practice of having extremely distracting activities going on and still being good drivers.
Personally, whenever I've been on the phone (not too often, I avoid it if possible) and something has gone on, without even thinking about it, my mouth stops and I'm 100% tuned into the road, I don't even notice I was talking to someone until things settle down. I'm used to having a bus full of drunk adults (bachelor parties) and rowdy kids.
I think they should test the subjects general multi-tasking ability and come up with a statistic that correlates multi-taskability (or inability) to accident+phone rates.
According to TFA, they compared phone users to drivers who were at the legal blood-alcohol limit, not those above it. So they have, at most, demonstrated that driving while using a phone is more dangerous than other driving that we consider legal. Obviously there's some level of drunkenness that would be more impairing than phone use; finding out where that point is would be considerably more interesting than what this study actually did examine.
I'd also love to hear more detail about the "hand-free" devices that they used for the test. Were these earpieces, or something more speakerphoneish? I seem to recall another study finding that the problem with driving while using a phone is not having your hands occupied, it's the mental isolation that happens as your brain divides resources between your conversational world and your driving world. And that earpieces did not change this, but that speakerphones _did_.
They keep changing the definition of legally intoxicated.
Dunno about the rest of you lot, but I could drink 3 beers and then go jogging. Maybe the reason why we keep seeing "cell phone use"=="intoxication" is because we've set the bar pretty low for the definition of drunk.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
They must have seen me driving or trying to drive while dialing a number on my new UT Starcom 6700 device's soft phone. Honest to god, I know I am driving worse than a drunk guy, trying to fit my fat fingers into the soft keypad buttons on the touch screen to dial a conference call number while driving.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
I think we should just take all those who talk on the cell phone & drive and put them on a mythbuster porta potty
Not to mention the ever-present $soccermom in $suv with $num_kids scream and yelling in the back w/out the use of $turn_signals || $mirror while using the cell phone. Talk about a recipie for disaster!
I'm not fat, just big boned...
you are really asking for trouble!
"Yeah, babe, I've been thinking about you"
"Noooo, I haven't been drinking! I'm close to your place, can I come over? I miss you..."
Never ends well.
Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
I think I've heard about a similar report where driving with and without handsfree was compared. The conclusion was that it's not the fact that your holding a phone thats the biggest issue. It's the fact that you're concentrating on something else than driving that causes reactions to take longer.
Zere vere zwei peanuts valking down der Straße, and von vas assaulted...peanut
I have a feeling impairment due to alcohol consumption goes up significantly once the blood alcohol level goes beyond 0.08. Don't forget, not too long ago 0.08 was legal in most states. It's not like "drunk driving" is some magic switch triggered by that 3rd drink.
I'm hoping they do a study of this next, so they will have scientific data to back up law against wives nagging their husbands while driving. On the other hand, I know I would make a lot more road trips if such a law existed, so it might not be good for traffic and the environment. :)
This shows that the Blood/Alcohol level should be raised to compete with similar distractions. I'm think they should go from 0.08 to 0.15 at least. That's usually when I'm in trouble.
Using the Freedom of Speech while I still have it.
FTFA in your link
... you're an NBA player making millions of dollars a year ... buy a girlfriend!
he was watching pornography in a DVD player mounted on the dashboard of his Cadillac
he was masturbating himself going down that street.
Dude
This will continue to be more and more true as they keep changing the definition of "drunk" to be closer to "sober". Next time MADD wins one of their new-prohibition battles, don't be surprised to find out that having a passenger in the car is as dangerous as driving "drunk".
If it's so bad then why haven't we seen major increases in traffic accident rates?
and Taxi drivers...) and Pilots, for goodness sake...
On Radios?
There is a long history of mobile radio use; Is a cell phone different ?
If so Why?
Catch ya on the Flip-flop Good Buddy!
73
{dit dit}
SK
I talk on my cell phone while driving, but I also play ultra twitch, fast action 3D games to compensate. They bring my reaction time back up:P
Seriously, I wonder if driving with a hands-free set is really safer than a regular cell phone. If you are using a regular cell phone, sometimes people behind or beside you can see that you are driving impaired and will give you more of a space cushion. Hell maybe people talking on cell phones should swerve ridiculously within their own lanes or turn on special warning lights to give other drivers the heads up.
My accident didn't occur when I was talking on my cell phone, but when I was pissed off at my girlfriend, and she wasn't in the car.
One time I drove several blocks behind a woman who was applying makeup; both sun visors(?) were down (limits visibility, wasn't really sunny that day), and she used the mirror in the one in front of her to meticulously apply mascara.
After a while I got pissed since she was driving relatively slow; I passed her on the right, and while doing so, I noticed that she had her kid in the child seat in the back.
I used to think that women are better drivers, but now I know that it all comes to one simple fact -- stupidity does not discriminate.
If three out of every 40 people who talked on cell phones were going to get in an accident, the highways would be a blood bath. A one in 14 chance of an accident? Come now. Nobody that spends a minute thinking about it is going to believe that.
Of course if they do, then they have to also look at the fact that 0. That's right 0 drunk drivers had an accident in the study. That means that the study proves drunk driving is perfectly safe right?
1. Find rich person driving expensive car talking on cellphone.
2. Pull in front, slow down, encourage tailgating, then brake suddenly.
3. ????
4. Profit!
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
... between talking on a hand's free set, and talking to passengers in your car?
Can someone please do a study about how distracting passengers are, and then outlaw passengers.
023AD01("Child", "Evil");
Talking on the phone while driving is bad driving.
There's been research round for a few years now that talking to someone on the phone to take their eyes and attention off the road as they think and respond to the person talking. It's worse than talking to someone in the passenger seat or listening to the radio because you are required to respond to someone who has no idea what situation you're in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm
Deleted
This study must not be very realistic if they had 3 rear enders out of 40 drivers. If it was anything like that bad in real life, there would be so many bodies on the road there would be no need for an experiment like this. Not that I think driving while talking is a good idea.
I'll stop talking on my cell while driving when truck drivers aren't allowed to use CB radios while driving. If I wreck I cause a lot less damage than an 18 wheeler.
nothing
So the researchers at the University of Utah determined that using your phone is worse than having a BAC of 0.08, the equivalent of one drink, not the equivalent of being drunk. How does the rubric stand up to two drinks? Four? As it is, the data don't suggest much. And don't be fooled by the "alcohol is involved in 40 percent of the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities" statistic, either. Most states derive that number from whenever any party, regardless of fault, has a BAC of 0.01 or more. In other words, you could eat a cherry cordial and a sober person could plow right through you and the state would consider your death an alcohol-related traffic fatality.
US fatalities, per 100 million vehicle miles, have fallen steadily ever since cell phones started becoming common. According to this table, the rate has fallen from 1.73 in 1994 to 1.44 in 2004, and the rate either fell or stayed the same every year (despite economic variations, etc.).
If cell phones are such a menace, why aren't more people dying in auto accidents?
Have you read my blog lately?
It would have been nice if they had included another test where the driver was talking to a passenger sitting physically right beside them.
They just changed this law in the past 5 years or so. Is .08% blood alcohl really drunk? I mean really. Where are the studies that show that at .08 - .1 alcohl has a signficatly higher accident rate than 0 - .08?
I would also like to see a study that compares Cell Phone and Driving to be the same as .1%.
Here in DC, talking on your cell phone while driving is illegal unless you use an earpiece or speaker phone. From other studies I've read, they're just as distracting as holding the phone to your ear. It would have been interesting to see how they performed in a study like this.
To all those saying that other things in the car are distracting - that's quite true, and if you got into an accident while changing your CD player, you might get in trouble with the law.
How long till MACD and SACD lobby congress to raise the cell phone age to 21?
More seriously, I would have little problem with laws outlawing cell phones while operating the car. If they are more impairing than three screwdrivers, isn't that a good reason to ban them? Would you drive after drinking that much?
beware the jabberwock, my son! the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
While simulators are good to give people experience and help develop skills such as reflexes and hand-eye coordination and such, they are not replacements for the real thing.
I could argue that a person taking on a cellphone while driving a simulator will not consider the driving part as important as if they were in real life. That is, their mind will lose focus more quickly because there isn't any perceived threat for loosing focus. Its like other studies I have read about concerning losing concentration and focus while on a cell phone. One study had people talking on a cellphone while watching something on TV, then they were asked to remember details of the TV show. When the result showed a staggering failure to remember details, the it was stated that driving while talking on a cellphone was dangerous because it seriously impacts your ability to remember and pay attention to details, yeah, except that watching TV and driving are two completely different task, one that imposes the necessity of concentration for safety.
I am not defending driving while impaired for any reason, just that I tire of these kinds of grandstanding statements about the impairment of one particular devices while driving in a car, especially when the results are inconclusive because they are from a flawed study.
Why not put the people in a real car on a test track and repeat the study. Even then, the fact that people are aware on a test track will impact on how their brains will not perceive a real thread to their safety because of being in a closed environment.
Rather then trying to find the proof that cellphones are dangerous, I propose that the laws simply give the police power for pulling over people and fining them if they suspect that they are driving erratically, FOR WHATEVER REASON. If you weaving in traffic and a cop sees your on a cellphone, fine you for that reason, but if your weaving because your putting on makeup, or folding a map, or reading a newspaper, or any other countless stupid things people do in their car instead of paying attention to the road, fine them for those reasons! If these people cause an accident for obviously not paying attention, then fine them double or triple, or suspend their licence.
We don't need to vilify cellphones in cars, we need to vilify the people that opt not to use common sense while driving, for any reason. Stop wasting time and money tring to prove that cellphones in cars are dangerous. Cellphones are the tip of the iceberg for in-car distractions that cause ignorant people to lose focus of what they should be concentrating on while driving, and that is the act of driving.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
...maybe 0.08% doesn't really constitute "drunk"? It'd be interesting to see the same study at 0.1%, 0.15%, and 0.2% (much higher than that gets pretty dangerous to the subjects).
The study's conclusion that cell phone driving is worse than drunk driving hinges on its definition of "drunk driving," which in this case they're using a legislated value for. It's still interesting, but it's not clear whether they've proven that talking on a cell phone is worse than being drunk, or whether the current standards for "drunk" are out of whack with reality.
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
It might be true that cell phone use is just as impairing as drunkenness.
But PLEASE don't let laws be made because of this research when there are plenty of other variables that need to be tested to see how they impair driving:
1. adjusting the radio
2. singing along with the radio
3. eating fast food
4. lighting a cigarette
5. dealing with misbehaving child(ren)
6. arguing with spouse in passenger seat
Until a study shows otherwise, I don't believe talking on a cell phone while driving is any more impairing than any other interaction with humans while driving. Maybe silence while driving will be required by law; then we'll see how much being dead bored impairs driving.
Personally, I think acquiring a drivers license should be much more difficult. It should certainly require testing under distracting conditions, and require complete retesting every few years.
.... This report was brought to you by the proud makers of Budweiser. The King of Beers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_2 )#Cell_Phones_vs._Drunk_Driving
Adam and Kari drove normally, then while talking on a cell phone and also while drunk. They had officers taking breathalyzer tests to get their BAC. In the show they determined that they where equally bad at driving using a cell phone as they where while drunk. Scores where done by a driving instructor in the car with them during all the tests.
people don't put the phone down, they crash.
They put down the phone after they crash.
This is such an offensive stereotype and misconceived stereotype. Who says pot smokers have no motivation? If you want to see motivation, just wait till they get the munchies they'll be at 7-11 in no time flat. Or after their post-feeding frenzy ciesta, the'll be ready to go out and score more buds at the drop of a hat.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
They tested 2 people ( small focus group ) and first test was driving and talking on a cell phone, the second was drinking and driving. They used a closed course and the police were there as well as medical personal, in case something happened.
The conclusion was that you are about as good a driver if you were drunk as if you were on the cell phone.
I think the real solution is for insurance companies to jack up peoples insurance if they get into an accident and they are on the phone when it happens. Oh you were in an accident, we need to see the time that it occured and your cell phone records. If you were on the phone, your rates should double. Maybe that would stop some people from talking while driving.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Funny results. Smoking a whole joint impairs you about as much as one drink. As one might expect, smoking a joint and drinking one drink impair you more, as far as reaction times go. However, people who smoke and drink are less likely to get in an actual accident, becuase they feel more impaired than they actually are and drive more carefully.
The worst I've seen, I kid you not: a guy reading a frickin' newspaper while driving.
The worst I've done, personally: gotten head while driving. I wouldn't recommend it. Unless she's really, really good.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That one is easy enough to counteract - just tune out her voice and ignore it... There, end of problem.
OUCH! Sorry honey! OW! I didn't mean it! Damn, quit hitting me woman!!!
I already get drunk and play video games might as well help out the world while doing it.
... that typing out an email on a blackberry while driving would the equivalent of driving while on thorazine?
RFC2119
Hang up the phone, put down the CD case, wait to eat, put away the makeup, shave at home before you leave...
Every day I deal with someone who can't go the speed limit, wants to go way beyond the speed limit and ride my ass (especially when it's a single lane, or traffic is heavy and I've nowhere to go at that very moment (because FSM forbid I not get out of his/her way right...NOW!), not signal when changing lanes, won't get out of the passing lane (and it is the passing lane, not the damn "fast lane"), closing gaps when they realize I need to merge, not looking before changing lanes, running stop signs, not yielding when they should, can't deal with a simple, low volume traffic circle, insists on the "floor the gas pedal-slam on the brakes" method of stop and go driving...and that's pretty much just one day.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
If you have a cat, sooner or later you're going to get toxoplasmosis. Toxoplasmosis (even the non-acute or "latent" form) affects reaction time. Time to ban cat-owners from driving cars. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/2/11
Several studies have shown that people don't multitask well.
I would believe that the bus driver is better at focusing on the driving task, while tuning the others out.
just go completely overboard? http://cbs13.com/topstories/topstories_story_18017 4619.html
cell + smokes + coffee + stereo
and more often than not
+ female(s) { esh its sexist but it stands true in MY experiences... }
I the last week I have seen my life flash before my eyes with this combination
in some form coming at me in the form of: No look lane change, oncoming traffic,
traffic following behind me, or traffic acting like it's Saturday at your local
NASCAR drafting circuit.
Last month my wife and I called in an apparent "drunk driver" and as we passed
to put some distance between what was soon to be a wreck we saw something
resembling a driver (head was so low to the dash/window you couldn't tell) and
the nice blue glow of a cellphone. Person could not keep a decent speed or hold
it in the lane for shht.
I hope Wisconsin bans phone usage while operating a motor vehicle soon.
raise the legal limit! Vodka and Orange Juice for everyone!
Of course! You aren't supposed to be playing with a ps3 while driving! ... oh, not that kind of cell... nm
You can't always prove that the hit-n-run driver was drunk at that particular moment, but for $50 you can always get an Internet search firm to pull the woman's cellphone records.
I may have been drunk at the time.... but didn't Mythbusters do this like a year ago? Oh wait, they tested it with beer, not screwdrivers.
Do you really own/use a trailer?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
I honestly was about to suggest this article to slashdot.
I personally have become fed-up with teen/early 20's female drivers that have 0 awareness of their surroundings due to talking on the cell phones. I have only been in one accident in my life and I was rear ended by a person on a cell phone when the traffic went from 55 to 0. I have many many near collision experiances due to cell phone users merging into my lane causing me to swerve onto the shoulder and slam on my brakes because the phone is blocking their left hand vision. In Europe (at least some countries) it is already I believe a 100 euro fine for talking on the Cell phone. In the US I would like to see the fine higher and also a DUI thrown in. This would quickly eliminate this huge danger to drivers who actually have to pay more attention because of the lack of attention these cell phone users exhibit.
The problem is not cell phone use in and of itself causing crashes. That is just a symptom of a bigger problem: people are not trained to use cell phones properly while driving and usually don't have the correct equipment to do so.
When I was in the military I drove tracked vehicles while communicating on a radio net, and also talking on an internal intercom system with a TC and squad leader. Getting in an accident would have been far more catastrophic given the weight and size of the equipment I was operating.
Similarly, Pilots also have to communicate while controlling an expensive piece of equipment - and I've also done that.
In both cases I never had an accident. I can't imagine the military or aviation systems working without radio communications. Similarly the efficiency of using the Cell phone has provided amazing and equally important impacts to the civilian world.
The number one key is to have the right equipment for 'hands free' operation. For cell phones this means buying and using the voice-dial features available on most phones now, and getting a headset for hands free operation in your vehicle.
Secondly you must learn to modify your driving habits so that if the conversation moves to a point of needing to take your eyes off the road (e.g. to search for or record information), that you then pull off the road and carry on the conversation without impacting your driving ability. You should never manually dial a number into your phone while driving, and never attempt to write something down, or search for some item in your briefcase or purse, for that matter.
Banning the use of Cellphones in cars is not the solution; proper training and equipment is the right answer.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
... since so very many Slashdotters don't actually read the linked articles, this may be a futile gesture. But, be that as it may, here's a link to the actual study (PDF format), as published in the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
I agree, look at the turnout for Bonaroo this year. 80,000+ people (minus the guy who walked in front of Ricky Skaggs bus). They got off the couch. They camped. They roughed it for a couple of days.
After driving through a red light once and another time wondering wether I had even been looking at the traffic lights, I decided to throw out my handsfree set. It's just too dangerous.
-- Cheers!
Seriously, are there statistics that clearly point to an increase in accidents due directly to someone using their phone? My guess is no. Still doesn't make Dialin' 'n Drivin' a good thing to do.
A story such as this appears the day after I saw a man "operating" a motorcycle with an attractive lady on the back, both of them obviously far too hip to wear helmets, and he was USING A FREAKING CELLPHONE IN HEAVY TRAFFIC..
I say, stop these "studies" immediately, otherwise we may not have as many interesting darwin award inductees.
at .08 most people are not significantly impaired. A few years ago, that wouldn't even be illegal most places.
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
...between talking on a cell phone versus talking to another passenger/eating/changing the radio station/etc. is that the cell phone mentally takes you somewhere outside of the car.
Literally everyone on the road is talking on their cellphone when they drive and for the most part traffic on the freeways moves along nicely.
This study would lead one to believe that we are unfairly punishing drivers who are under the influence.
My drinkin' hand isn't the same as my talkin' hand ...
"If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving," said Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah who worked on the study.
... well, of *everything* in this study that it's completely without merit. Not that that matters to the "legislators" who exist only to aggrandize themselves and get reelected, or "researchers" who really only want more money from the same legislators, or the great unwashed who go "DAMN RIGHT!" and vote and pay taxes and keep the whole corrupt mess moving along.
No doubt, an excellent driver who never talked on the phone while driving. The truth is that this study establishes that drunk drivers are capable of driving as well as a stone-cold sober person who's talking on a cellphone.
And what the hell - how drunk is drunk? Were the talkers talking or dialing, scrolling through a contact list, or buying a ringtone? There's so many different levels of
Hell, I could have told you that. If there is an asshole holding up traffic, driving twenty miles under the speed limit and weaving back and forth, when I pass I will invariably see him jabbering away like an excited chipmonk on some cell phone. I see it every day at 5:00.
At clemson there is a driving simulator. I don't know the results, but we've done the same studies with the same results. Guess what: Don't drive with your cell phone. Hands free is just as bad. Don't do it. It's stupid. I do it anyway (erm..that is, when I don't think my advisor, who runs the simulator, will find out), but I try not to, and if things get even slightly dicey on the road I hang up immediately, unlike some people.
Don't do it, it isn't smart. It could cost you your life, and unlike driving drunk, where you tend to be unhurt due to being relaxed, you are actually more likely to be hurt.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
The only thing that this study "proves" is that the test they used doesn't appear to be a valid measure of accident avoidance.
Over the past fifteen years, cellphone use while driving has increased from nonexistent to ubiquitous. During the same period, the fatality rates and accident rates per passenger mile have fallen to historic lows. Road design, increased use of seat belts, and an apparent reduction in drunk driving have all contributed. (see NHTSA statistics for details)
If cellphone use made any significant difference, you would see the effect in the numbers. There are just too many cellphone users for it to be hidden. If cellphone users really were as bad as drunk drivers, there would be blood in the gutters.
This is not to say that cellphone users are good drivers, or that you're not a better driver if you're not talking on the phone. I'm just pointing out the obvious, which is that driving is a low-risk activity with a large margin for error, and talking on a cellphone, or talking to your passenger, or yelling at your kids, or the million other distractions that drivers endure every day, aren't by themselves enough to use up all that margin.
They probably do statistically increase the chance of an accident, but by the clear and obvious real-world numbers, the degree of increase (or even the fact of increase) is small and quite hard to measure.
One morning as I was driving to work in a heavy fog, I noticed a semi truck in front of me weaving back and forth. I assumed he was having as much trouble as I was seeing the road. He began driving so erratic, I thought it prudent to pass him. As I passed on his left, I saw that he was reading a magazine perched on his steering wheel. I nearly shit a brick.
If you intentionally cut in front of another driver and brake to induce a rear-end collision and collect insurance money, that's insurance fraud. Be prepared to go directly to jail, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
Someone on slashdot got head... I don't believe it... Maybe YOU'VE been smoking the pot...
When I was a pot-smoking teen, I had a great motivation to get off the couch (and drive somewhere)... when my stash was almost ended!!!!
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You are missinterpreting the numbers. They are not stating that you have a 3 in 40 chance of getting into an accident if you are talking on a cell phone. They are stating that 3 in 40 did get into an accident in the situation provided by the simulator.
No, it means that drunk people (for low values of drunk), are more safe than people talking on a cell phone in the same driving situation.
Accidents are the usually the result of the combination of several things - someone runs a red light, causing the intersecting car to slam on his brakes, the person behind him who was tailgating and talking on the cellphone can't react in time and rear-ends him. If they were to expose the subjects of the test to driving situations whose distribution was representitive of how often the actually occur in the real world, this study would have taken decades. Instead, they exposed the drivers to the types of situations where a quick reponse rate was important.
The purpose of the study was not to find absolute numbers on how often someone on a cellphone will get into an accident, but relative numbers on how often they get into an accident compared to other situations. It would be BS to quote the numbers as such, but the study doesn't do so.
Or the species of the female involved.
3 out of the 40 participants were women
she has to stop calling me while she's driving.
At least she isn't putting on makeup, talking in a cellphone, and being distracted by thoughts of me.
I figure she can cope with only the distracting thoughts of me, but I don't want to see any studies on that one.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...or the annual burning man festival, where the unwashed, topless masses gather in the desert to huddle together and utter a collective, impassioned cry of "...meh..."
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
"And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober when I hang up."
Did the people in the experiment dial the phones too, or just talk on them? In my experience, dialing the phone is the most dangerous part as it requires your eyes and at least one hand.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
This reminds me of a story I heard about an elderly lady.
Now she swears she was on her brakes the whole time.
While in a parking lot, she managed to go THROUGH A WALL of a movie theatre and went in far enough to demolish a few seats.
Closest her relatives could figure, she paniced and accidentally floored the GAS instead of the brake, and hit the wall at about 30MPH.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, what were you saying now?
...noone was hurt, fortunately. Somehow she managed to keep her license too. Her car was totaled, as you could imagine.
This was on an episode of mythbusters about a year or so ago. I think this is just another one of slashdot's publicity things. RRG.
It's not -1 Flamebait! It's +5 Funny. You just didn't get the joke...
Not everybody here watches every god damn episode of your favorite TV show.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
One day a few years ago I was crusing down I-70 outside of Denver going eastbound in the left most lane, I was doing around 70MPH early in the morning. A guy in a Geo Metro, or some other ultra-small, car *passes me* in the middle lane, playing no less than a goddamned recorder! You know, the flute like thing with holes that you cover with your finger--the plastic thing they let 2nd graders blow on and make a cacophony? Bingo. He was playing the recorder and driving with his knees. He even had a piece of sheet music propped up on the steering column. No shit.
We could take all of the stories about women doing their makeup, guys shaving, and all that sort of stuff, and combine them... But it'll still never be as good as my story. Seriously, the only thing that can beat it is if someone spots a musical driver playing an oboe, a sax, a chello, a trumpet, a tuba or a trombone, snare drum or some other instrument that is larger than a stupid recorder...
I'd be most impressed if someone spotted a tympani player, like on a bus or something.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
...that cell phones belong with the passenger side airbag.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
If I printed out this article and mailed it to the police station here, the local cops would stop playing on their phones when their driving. I have seen some really bad driving from them lately, and in the past two months, only 2 cops driving didnt have a phone in there hand (no pastries either).
[The subjects were observed] using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level... Three study participants rear-ended the simulated car in front of them.
I'd say that's a good thing if only 3 participants rear-ended a car while talking on a cell phone AND using a hands free cell at the same time. All with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level!
I don't think it's "cell users drive as bad as drunk drivers" so much as it is the quality of driving is going downhill, with or without cell phones.
In the simulation:
Did cars randomly turn left from the right hand lane, and vice versa?
Did cars randomly stop at green lights, moving no further, until it completely went red?
Did the volunteers drive on one way streets? Were there cars coming at them from the other direction, going the wrong way on the one way street?
Were there cars driving in two lanes, for no discernable reason?
If not, the simulation was flawed. Now, the people who get my respect are the ones who figure out why those above questions happen for people who are not on their cell phones nor drunk, will be a truly great person.
Oh yeah, and dupe? From last year wasn't it?
There are many other categories of people and activities that are likely as bad or worse as a 30 year old cell phone user. For example:
-- mothers with young children in the car (I was almost killed by one)
-- beverages and/or food in the car
-- putting on makeup in the car
-- drivers over 70 (the only two accidents I have ever been in were caused by seniors not paying attention aiming straight for my car; that was even more frustrating because I saw them coming up ever so slowly, but they had me cornered, crafty bastards)
Come on, let's get creative in identifying categories of drivers that are likely too distracted to drive safely and turn them all into criminals.
Personally, I think a better choice is to do what we can do already: when an accident occurs, then guilt and penalties are determined by what drivers were doing at the time. And a mother that causes an accident because she was arm-wrestling her 7 year old brat should have the book thrown at her just as much as the high powered lawyer that's yakking away on his cell phone and not paying attention to the road.
I agree with the initial post on this -- I've always wanted to see real data about old v. young, controlling for miles driven, not number of licensed drivers.
While I understand that insurance companies use Math and Science to determine rates... ("oooo... math! science!") I don't buy the business==objective line sold by capitalists/libertarians, and I don't agree that they all, automatically, fix themselves a low profit margin and minimize charges to their insureds. All companies charge teens out the wazoooo because "teens are dangerous" and "old people are safe and experienced" and every other company is charging out the wazoooo... and barriers to entry on insurance are likely high enough to prevent an upstart, "hey, we charge _rational_ rates!" attemt from making enough money to take on the industry.
Insurance wouldn't be the first industry that charged high because it could. (*cough*bigoil*cough*)
I say this as a driver who, as a teen, was rear-ended by a drunk _and_ hit by an elderly man. But never had an at-fault and only got one "because you're a punk" from the local nothin'-better-to-do constabulary (30 in a 25, wrote me up for 40!)
I'm approaching the, "Get off my lawn!!" age now, and _still_ don't believe that 25 == Horrible Driver.
As far as I can tell, none of the ``drunk'' drivers were given a sobriety test. Assuming that everyone with a given BAC is drunk to the point of impairment is a serious methodological flaw. A far more interesting study, IMO, would be to have people with various BAC levels perform the old fashioned sobriety tests and compare the results to people on cell phones taking the same tests.
I sometimes observe folks on the phone... and many times they a waaaaayyyy into the conversation, Head Gestures, Hand Gestures, Pointing fingers, all the things they would be doing if they were sitting across the table from the other person... and they think they are not distracted ... come on!
...is some kind of FUD about the PS3, right?
As a society, are we putting too much power in the hands of reckless youngsters? Should we license and track Cell users to make sure they don't become as bad as drunk drivers?
IMPEACH XENU
They may shut up in dangerous situations, but they don't forget you were the one driving when the dangerous situation arose.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And to my wife: Honey, if you read this, of COURSE I don't mean you !
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
After you get done with the cell phone conversation can you remember what happened during your drive? for example what car you followed, what car(s) followed behind you, if you stopped for that traffic light on first street, the pedestrian trying to cross the street, the car trying to pull out of the driveway
See, the real issue here isn't about talking on a cell phone; it's about whether or not talking on a cell phone distracts you from what's going on during your drive, and even this ascerbic, self-righteous Anonymous Coward admits it with the above question.
Do cell phones contribute to accidents due to added distraction while driving? Certainly. But driving a stick shift as opposed to an automatic also contributes to accidents...when you take into account the general coordination and skill level of the driver. I'm certain there are a myriad of factors that also relate to how dangerous a given person becomes while talking on a cell phone.
This study is interesting, and potentially useful, but everyone should take a step back, get their personal feelings about people on cell phones out of the equation, and actually think about what's being said. I honestly expected a less emotional response from /. readers although in hindsight, I couldn't tell you what led me to that reality disconnect. ;)
drunk dialing from a car. especially if you're over 80.
go get it
I did a rewrite of a similar study back in January 2002 for the American Statistical Association. [PDF version. Google's HTML cache.]
It found, essentially, the same thing. That study looked at accident records and found that the effect of cell phone usage was similar to borderline legal intoxication, but less than the level of impairment suffered by the typical person busted for DWI.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
"vodka and orange juice," indeed! that's the control group for using a ham radio in contact with borneo while driving.
;)
cell phone drivers' control group should be beer drinkers.
I sorta got to prefer mai tais a year ago, I hate to think what study that would put me into
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
There was a successful AHS demonstration I believe in the 1930's, and most recently a successful demonstration in 1998. (another report)
Congress thought the successful experiment was kind of neat, but shut it down, basically saying: "Nobody's really asking for this. People seem to be pretty excited about driving, actually." (paraphrasing.)
Businesses have wanted AHS for a very long time- for many decades, they've been working on the technology, and trying to get it sorted out. (Think: highway trucking.)
What's this have to do with Cell Phones?
People are starting to value their time more. In particular, they're starting to view that car trip as useable time. Whether people really do have access to that time or not, people are taking that time, by force, with their cell phone. And the result is: crashes, accidents.
So this may be a data point towards AHS.
i'd have gone with "drunk drivers as safe as cell users"
the glass is half full, people.
It's not like Mythbusters hasn't already proved this...
So talking to someone next to you is the same as using a hands-free right? So we can't have passengers???????????????????
I think some people just can't drive!
"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain.
Except on a highway where the driver in front goes slower than the posted minimum speed.
They concluded that it didn't matter if you used a hands-free phone, or a hand-held phone, that it was simply the distraction that was causing the problems. As has been noted in this forum there are lots of other potential distractions: putting on make-up or shaving in the rear view mirror (I've seen both); fooling with the radio or CD player; looking at a map or reading your Google, MapQuest, Yahoo, Rand McNally, driving directions; talking to someone else in the car; turning around to see the status of your child in the back seat; looking at other stuff outside your vehicle; lots of other stuff.
Before we go outlawing cell phone use while driving, some real studies should be done to see if we should outlaw our wives (or husbands) talking to us while we are driving, or to see if CD players should be outlawed, or ... you get the idea.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that the conclusions of this study only apply to everyone else, but not *you*...
Insurance wouldn't be the first industry that charged high because it could.
If, as you say, they're ignoring the math and just trying to maximize profit-- why wouldn't they charge middle-aged people more money as well? You could use equally valid-seeming but invalid logic like "People with families are likely to have more expensive and frequent accidents due to having more people (more distractions, more people to be injured) in their cars and making more frequent short trips to drop kids off, and everybody knows that short trips near home are where most accidents occur."
take that Playstation 3!
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
I've got a hands-free kit for my cellphone, but when the batteries need recharging in it (it's a remote speakerphone type of gadget that clips on the visor), I've had to take calls holding my flip-phone while driving.
I know for sure I feel "distracted" when I have to do this, vs. being able to have a conversation with both hands on the wheel.
In fact, trying to take a call on a cellphone before I had a hands-free kit used to really bother me while driving. I *knew* it was making me a less attentive driver, trying to hold onto the phone with one hand the whole time - plus the psychological factors at work. (You get so accustomed to the idea of concentrating on a caller when a phone is held to your ear that it's hard to change habits for a cell used in the car.) With a hands-free kit, I really don't think it interferes at all.... I just quit talking/listening for a minute if something dangerous is happening in front of me.
That is the problem with kids today. They fail to plan ahead. If you are going to be smoking pot make sure you have everything you need BEFORE you start. Driving while under the influence is bad bad bad.
Frickin' hillbilly.
Old people don't pay lower insurance because they get in FEWER accidents.
They pay lower insurance because they get in LESS SEVERE accidents. A slow-driving old person will not cause nearly as much damage as a quick-driving teenager or drunk.
Teenagers, especially males, pay high insurance because they are far, far, far more likely to get into CATASTROPHICALLY EXPENSIVE accidents where they are grossly exceeding the speed limit, crash into something, and kill people, or cause severe, lifelong, debilitating injuries.
I agree that old people are shitty drivers, but they're just annoyingly shitty, not 'my fuckup will kill you' shitty.
paintball
Sure, distraction is bad when you are driving. However, this study seems pretty strange. I mean, first off, 40 people isn't a large sample size. Also, the types of people who are driving and using the cell phone matter. If you have some bimbo girl riding about at 100 mph talking to her friends (even faster then she drives) about her new purse she is going to be a little more likely to crash then oh... a 40 year old saying goodnight to his/her spouse on a business trip. Futhermore, cause and effect are not clear here. I think that the factors that go in to the "cause" of an accident are a little more complex then: "She was talking on her cell!" The difference between this and drunk driving is the ability to measure the impairment. When you are drunk your level of impairment can be scientifically quantified. Your vision has decreased by X, and you r reaction time by Y, ect... When you talk on the phone this isn't the case, because some people are more easily distracted then others. In reality, if you are talking with a hands free set then you are just as impaired if you are talking to a person sitting next to you. So, by that logic, if you are going to make hands free sets illegal you should make talking in the car illegal.
The problem with this study is that it defines drunk as 0.08 BAC. 0.08 BAC is a minor level of impairment. Most people equate 'driving drunk' to behavior associated with 0.12+ BAC. Someone driving with 0.08 BAC is likely going to pass al your field sobriety tests and not exhibit any symptoms of being drunk beyond smelling for alcohol if they get pulled over for some other reason.
So this study is really saying "Cell phones are as bad as barely being impaired at all!".
If the study compared driving while talking on a cell phone to driving while *DRUNK*, they'd discover the obvious: being DRUNK (0.12+) is much worse.
Another poster mentioned that most people who drive drunk don't feel impaired. That's because at the LEGAL DEFINITION of intoxicated, most people are only very slightly impaired - they'd be more impaired if they hadn't been sleeping well, if it was 5 AM and they just got up, or, as this study indicates, they were distracted by any of a number of activities people commonly do in their car.
paintball
"undistracted, talking on a hand-held phone, talking on a hands-free phone, and drunk."
:)
So by the time they did the test drunk they had had plenty of practise in the same situation?
(then again maby they randomised the order among the participants
FRA: STFU GTFO
The researchers studied 40 volunteers in a driving simulator. Only 40 volunteers? That seems like a fairly small sample size... Also, in a driving simulator, the subjects probably don't care as much about driving safely and such. In addition, how good was the simulation of driving?
"A witty saying proves nothing." -- Voltaire
Man, people on cell phones can barely WALK, let alone DRIVE. I can't even count the number of times people talking on their phones have bumped into me, or stopped short right in front of me, or cut me off when I'm walking somewhere. Especially in a subway station. It's like they completely forget about what's going on around them. Argh! Pet pieve.
People who can't drive safely while talking on a cell phone are bad drivers.
People trained to communicate while driving do not have this problem.
People driving recklessly should be pulled over, regardless of why they are driving recklessly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I would say that your statement is only partially accurate. While there may be a lower cognitive drain (I will agree with you only for a lack of evidence to the contrary) on the driver, consider the tendency of people, when engaged in conversation, to make eye contact. This might not be manifested as fully in a driving situtation as compared to a conversation in a home, but it will still occur with glances from the corner of the eye, a slight turn of the head, or a full gaze at their face as they explain some horrific part from their past involving a drunken father, a monk, and a llama. Similarly, on the topic of visual distractions from passengers, many of them have this tendency to move. If their butt is sore, they might shift. If they want to grab a CD, they might reach for a storage compartment. Really, they bring about an additional set of distracting environmental variables.
As to them responding to the same stimuli in the environment, I have rarely found a driver to see the same things that I do, let alone anything that I cannot that might be useful to my awareness. Yes, they may occasionally see a deer off to the side of the road. Let us think about that, though - they are looking OFF the road. One of the joys of being a passenger is having the ability to enjoy the scenery. How often have you had a passenger ask you to look at something or "check that out!" while you were driving? While you might argue that it is their duty as a responsible passenger to keep their eyes on the road, they rarely do it to a great extent.
And, finally, my favorite example of passengers being a distraction and not paying attention to the road (or the impact of their actions) - one of my ex-girlfriends was in the car with me as I made an entirely legal U-turn on a green arrow, with no visible obstacles or dangers. 3/4 of the way through the turn I hear this horrific scream. I, of course, assume that I had failed to see a semi run a red light or something, and veer onto the sidewalk to avoid whatever impending doom is approacing from the periphery.
The source of distress? A common house fly had flown towards her eye, and she panicked.
Not a distraction, not a negative influence on driving skills or response at all.
All were talking on cell phones and none was drunk...
Drinking should be mandatory as a safety measure. It might make the highways safe enough that we could get away with using our cell phones too.
Being distracted effects you concentration. News at 11!
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Mythbusters already showed that people driving while talking on their cell phones are probably more hazardous than drunk drivers.
If this is true, I might as well down a forty for breakfast (Eggs, Bacon, & Colt 45...yummy) as I'll be just as safe on the road (with my cell phone off instead).
Here today, gone tomorrow.
Ok, I dont think than anyone can claim talking on a cell phone does not impair driving. But so does glare from the sun or that sweet looking ride in the next lane. Were do you draw the line? I find it more distracting to be talking to a person sitting next to me than on a cell since I always have the habit of turning my head to look at them every so often. I have also worked a job that pretty much required both talkingon the cell and using a pda while driving, along with reading maps continiously. Some may say this should be done while parked but it would be impossible to meet quota since it would make your day take half as much longer.
I also have talked on other various means of comunication for years, yet there is no mention about limiting thier use. And they are specifically designed for car use, like CB's and also mobile ham radio. I have been a ham for years and typicaly only transmit when behind the wheel. I know this effects my driving slightly but I consider myself much better driver than most even while talking on my ham radio.
A Drunk Driver generally pays MORE attention to the road, simply because they know they're impaired (this is the average drunk driver using the legal definition of drunk, not the one so far gone that they can't control the vehicle).
A Cell Phone user does NOT pay attention to the road.
We can also add the drivers that are watching movies nowadays, like the one who got into an accident while watching a porno (though it should be noted he didn't have either hand on the wheel and cell phone users sometimes have one hand on the wheel).
They just cancel each other! :)
Not that I advocate killing people but simulators are an inaccurate method of predicting life and death reactions. First off all cars react differently than the simulated one, not that big of a deal but still. Second and vastly more important is the human instict reactions that come with facing impending death or injury. If a simulated car is about to crash into my simulated protected left turn I am not going to fling my cell phone, step on the brakes, and yell my (insert favorite road rage term here).
I could be wrong maybe the simulator sends 1.21 jiggawatts through you ever time you make a mistake. Honestly driving while talking either on your phone to someone in the vehicle is distracting. So is the radio and billboards and good looking women, but I for one am not willing to give up the right to drive unless some one can provide some real world stats showing a marked increase in serious automobile accidents.
Although I see enough substandard driving due to people talking on the phone, the standard of driving on the roads today is absolutely atrocious.
People in charge of vehicles ought to be trained to a high standard, and they should treat it like the responsibility it is. People happily put lives at risk to avoid slowing down by a few mph for a few seconds.
I think the right to drive should be restricted to those with the skills to do so responsibly and safely. This would have the added bonus of reducing the traffic on our roads drastically because most people don't have the ability.
I know it will never happen but I can dream can't I?
Forget being in a car. You don't have the same degree of concentration and focus when talking to someone sitting in your office, that you do when having the *same* conversation, with the *same* person, on a telephone. At least I don't, nor do many people I observe doing this. Don't know why - body language, visual cues, whatever... it's not the same for the large majority of people.
KeS
A couple of years ago I read some medical research stating the part of the brain used to speak is the exactly the *same* part of the brain we use to think. Unfortunately, that part of the brain does not do both at the same time. In short, thinking and talking are mutually exclusive temporally.
When speaking, you pause sometimes. Why? To think. Ever do any *good* dictation? It is hard (impossible?). Multiple teenagers in a car at the same time is not always a good idea and you can see why. Also, hands-off equipment is a Feel Good solution, but effective? No.
I saw this study 3-5 years ago and failed to keep a copy. If anyone knows of it and can provide a reference, it would be appreciated. Thanks.
You can have fun with this too. Whenever you see a person in continuous talk mode, you *know* they are not thinking. ...and that includes Politicians. ;-)
.08 is not "drunk"
.08, and you would be hard pressed to notice someone who was .08 was intoxicated at all.
The majority of drunk driving accidents far exceed
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
This survey, like most, is spun to support the motive of whoever funded it. 0.08 is a joke. They probably used it because it is what the government considers "legally intoxicated" in most states, but what is 0.08, like one beer if you've eaten and are of average weight? No one is going to get in an accident because they've got 0.08% alcohol in their veins. This study would be legitimate if it used an alcohol-blood level that actually impaired someone's senses. Staticians should stop wasting their time on surveys like this and go back to finding ingredients in cigarettes that are also ingredients found in "rat poison", or twist and skew the wording in hopes that kids won't understand the scientific terms and will be too afraid to smoke: "truth".
The number one key is to have the right equipment for 'hands free' operation. For cell phones this means buying and using the voice-dial features available on most phones now, and getting a headset for hands free operation in your vehicle.
Myth. The effect of having handsfree cell phones vs handheld cell phone is nearly always statistically insignificant. This same U of Utah group did another study showing this in simulated driving conditions, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety did a study in Perth, AU that found type of phone (hands free or not) did not effect the injury crash risk. Studies generally suggest that it is an attention deficit that causes accidents, and that deficit is due to the cell phone conversation, not the equipment.
Secondly you must learn to modify your driving habits so that if the conversation moves to a point of needing to take your eyes off the road
Again, it isn't just eyes off the road that is the problem. Its a general cognitive deficit while performing a cognitively difficult task (driving). While it is absolutely the better thing to pull of the side of the road when you are going to be even more incapacitated, that doesnt mean driving while on the phone is ok the rest of the time.
Banning the use of Cellphones in cars is not the solution; proper training and equipment is the right answer.
I disagree, banning cellphones in cars is the best solution available. Proper training is difficult/impossible to achieve, and equipment has been shown to be the least of the problems.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
we shouldn't have laws against drinking and driving. You can add driving while old, stuipid, mental, postal, etc to the list...
On the impact of driving while receiving oral sex!
The study's been done, and the answer is "no": the passenger usually has the sense to shut up in dangerous situations.
Someone in the same car can see oncoming dangers that the driver might not notice, especially if the passenger is looking out one of the side windows while the driver is watching forward. A simple "look out!" could prevent many, many accidents.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I think this means we need to up the legal intoxication limit :).
What would you rather have close to hand? A beer, or a cell phone?
Hmm, another tough decision.
However, if one would consider outlawing cell phones while driving, what about car steroes and so forth? For that matter, why not owtlaw those big flashy ads on the roadside (aka billboards)? I live in the OC, and some of the electric LCD animated billboards are so distracting, I might as well be driving in Vegas (which is a whole other bag of distractions altogether).
Point is, it's up to the driver to control and deal with distractions (as opposed to another "big brother" law). If a driver is incapable of doing so, perhaps they shouldn't drive. Driving is a privalege after all - you have to earn your license, they don't just hand them out (although somteimes I have to wonder about that...).
Another study:
6 009,00.html
"PhD candidate Stephen Murray spent $61,000 over three years conducting hundreds of experiments to prove that people are worse at crossing the road - and more likely to be hit by a vehicle - if they are talking on a cellphone at the same time."
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/0,2106,3717695a
Happy moony
If anything cell phone drivers drive slower. Much slower. If you want to find someone AS AN ENTIRE CLASS YOU CAN LEGALLY HATE, then let's go after the soccermoms in their 6000lb land arks who will literally T-Bone you rather than yield - because hey! They're special as shit and they have places to go. Why don't we go after EVERY SINGLE WHITE BUICK which is driven by some fucking fossil who can't get out of his own damn way. And while we're at it let's go after all the black women between the ages of 21-38 driving Nissans or Hondas because they clearly are the most aggressive drivers on the road. Hey bitch - are you TRYING to park your car in my ashtray???
C'mon, it's a simulator. They probably paid participants to talk on their phone. I bet at least half the people just said, "Hey, I get five bucks to talk on my phone while I play a video game! Sweet!" It doesn't take much imagination to think that the results would be different than in real life. Then again, they posted some watered down crap and not the actual research article with big scientific words that scare everyone but me. Because I'm a real man.
I mean, come on, I know most of you are college educated.....
You all know nothing more after reading this article than you knew before reading it. If the sample size was > 30 it would start to mean something, and greater than 300 it would mean something.
As for anecdotes, all I can tell you is that if I have a passenger that I want to talk to my driving decays dramatically. Oh, and screaming kids.....
With practice, however, I am sure it would improve for all of those..... None of them are as dangerous as me on snow....
Hans
"Officer, you can't arrest me: I'm driving as well as a totally sober person using a cell-phone."
Ha - man you have issues. Thanks for the laugh, though.
XML causes global warming.
Well aren't you a huge badass, having talked to people on radio while driving, in the military even! wow. Your anecdotal evidence surely therefore outweighs the research study results. you are different and have special cognitive capabilities and perceive things that others don't. Thanks for your insights.
duh.
I disagree. It's not so much the equipment and training, but the content and length of the discussion.
If you exchange only military-style, short informational messages by cell phone the impact on your driving would probably not that big. However, listening to your friend complaining about his boss for like 30 minutes is going to be a problem. Not only will you encounter some situations that require undiverted attention to the situation on the road, but simple 'X, where are you now? Over' - 'I'm in Y. Over' conversations do not require as much attention.
Worse, actually. I saw a number of drivers watching for non-verbal cues from the passenger. So instead of looking at the road driver keeps on turning his head to the passenger (either to see the reaction or to reply to one's face). Which is not the case with hands free with the cellphone. :) )
Plus, when situation gets worse passenger usually can't produce anything more useful than "AAH! LOOK OUT!", which only adds to driver's panic braking, even if acceleration would help instead(I suppose there are individuals that will say calmly "car on the left changes lanes" instead of something useless and alarming but I haven't seen any
That's why many buses have that little sign that says "Do not distract driver". But while it's easy to stop and fine someone for having a cellphone in one's hand it's way more difficult to fine and shut up a passenger.
So, instead of solving the real problem, a "seemingly logical" solution is applied, that in reality is not going nearly enough.
Hyperom.com
As a (fellow?) general aviation pilot, I can tell you that the reason that aircraft radios help safety while cell phones hinder it is because the conversation on the CTAF is directly related to flying the airplane.
Typical CTAF (at a non-towered airport) convarsation:
Typical automotive cell phone conversation:
I'm sure that the astute readers of Slashdot can immediately tell why the former increases safety while the latter decreases it. For those challenged by the English language, the first conversation is ON THE FUCKING TOPIC. If the cell phone users were discussing traffic in their immediate vicinity, cell phones would be as valuable as aircraft radios. But, alas, it isn't the case -- so I occasionally have to stand my motorcycle on its front wheel to avoid hitting someone who has no business being on the road.
I do agree with the parent poster that it doesn't matter that it's a cell phone. What matters that people are encouraging themselves to be distracted -- while performing tasks where life, death, and maiming hang in the balance.
I'm approaching that age and I disagree because I remember that I and all my friends were horrible drivers. Drink, drugs, speeding and just plain youthful impetuousness combined with a belief in our own indestructibility made for a potent mix. Most of us survived the experience and fortunately no-one I knew killed any innocent third-parties.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
...what happens when the drivers are both drunk and talking on a cellphone? Are the effects twice as bad as either one alone or do they effectively cancel each other out? Or, perhaps, are the effects approximately 1.61803 times as bad?
The trick is not correctly estimating yourself and your own driving prowess, but to not overestimate the people around you. Treat everyone else on the road like a complete idiot; as if they are going to make the stupidest move possible at all given times, and you will be fine.
I've driven in every situation from heavy snowfall with moderate traffic, that long boring strip between VA and PA on the interstate that hypnotizes you due to lack of changing scenery, jam-packed traffic hauling ass 15 mph over the speed limit, to pure gridlock NYC traffic.
I know what I'm capable of, and I am by no means a CART or NASCAR driver. I do realize that focusing my attention on a phone call DOES negatively affect my reactions in a given scenario. That's why if I need to make a phone call for whatever reason I keep it short, use a hands-free device - normally an earbud, I only give what bit of attention I can safely afford, and I create extra maneuvering space (cushion, as I like to call it) just in case something does happen and I need to react.
Worst case scenario: I pull off the road and finish my call before I start driving again. Accidents will happen, but if we're a little smarter about things we can minimize risk.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
I am a professional criminologist, and I can tell you that the decision to make 0.08 the legal limit was not determined by any scientific research, it was determined by politicians seeking reelection by seeing who could better protect the public from the dangers of crime. In the instance of drunken driving, they rely on unsound measures, such as lowering the blood alcohol levels to absurdly low points rather than actually since it is a test that is easy to administer and hard to contest in court rather than trying to actually determine whether a person is actually to drunk to drive a vehicle. 0.08 is usually not even two beers for the average person.
Some people's bodies can withstand a very high blood alcohol level before anyone would guess they are drunk, while a single beer would cause others to passout. The idea that some breathalyzer test can determine drunkeness is more a convience than a fact.
There is one fundamental problem with what you propose: Most people just want to spend fifteen to twenty minutes taking their driving test and be able to hop into a car and drive. They don't have any desire for specialized training. They view driving as an inconvenient necessity of life, not a skill that needs to be nurtured until mastery.
.1 should not drive, despite the fact that there are many people out there who can still drive well with even more alcohol in their blood. In such cases, it's not about the information, it's about the person and the situation. Sometimes, it's about luck too. Still, I guess every bit helps.
There are a number of things that might be able to provide the necessary incentives to foster this kind of training. For examle, insurance companies can lower rates as people become more qualified, not unlike having taken a defensive driving course. States can issue multi-tiered licenses, where certain licenses have less restrictions (like speed limit, following distance, etc.). However, all have their problems that prevent them from being practical. Insurance companies are more likely to raise rates of higher-skilled drivers, merely because those drivers are more likely to take chances, or put themselves in more dangerous situations. Tiered license systems simply don't work, as it'd be impossible for a police officer to know drivers' qualifications for what without stopping every driver not following the most restrictive set of rules.
In the end, it is up to the individual drivers to have a suitable perspective on driving.
Though, they could always put this kind of information into the handbooks and written tests. But that just gives people information, not the guarantee of experience that would be ideal. It's like saying that someone with a BAC of
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Anyway, he was playing with it, clicked out about an inch of lead, and then announced "I broke your pencil." I called out "give me that thing", in one swipe grabbed it, with one hand worked the clicker and stuffed the lead back in, and stuck the pencil in my pocket. I thought he was being an idiot, but on reflection I was worried that I was rude with the FAA guy.
I read later that the FAA examiner is supposed to create a distraction in the cockpit to see if you, well, get distracted by it and let the plane split-S into a corn field while you are fiddling with the distraction. I guess I sort of passed the test by exercising my authority as Pilot-in-Command, ordering my passenger to give back the pencil, and maintaining control over both the plane as well as the pencil I used for copying instructions. But I still feel bad that I was rude to the FAA guy.
WHen the call ends, driving returns to normal. Being Drunk, well that lasts a little longer than 2 minutes.
What kind of car simulator was this? I remember (a long time ago), they used to use 'Test Drive' to run these types of tests. Do you think the physics engine was very accurate? I can drive a car, but I'm not very adept at playing video games. Ironically, games probably require more coordination than driving. Maturity is another issue all together. Assuming this game required more coordination than driving and the drivers were given very little alcohol, I think you make a claim the study was rigged.
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
remember this?
might be a bit before some current Slashdotters time...
given how much more common people yapping on their cell phones appears even than drunk driving, I'd say we do have a problem here. I am not anxiously awaiting a teenager drilling into me because they were too busy on their cell phone to pay attention to the road. I fear what they may do when I'm on my bicycle. But that's part of the challenge, and the thrill when you survive it.
-- haaz.
Lots of people are suggesting, "Hey, I drive safely while talking on my cell phone, why regulate me?" Great! You're fine. But what about the other people on the road? Let's be honest, there is a small but not insignificant number of absolute idiots of the road. You've seen them. They weave across lanes while arguing with someone in their backseat. They block through a red light while fiddling with the radio. A cell phone isn't as safe as arguing with someone in the car; the person in the car can at least shout "Stop!" when something goes wrong. A cell phone takes more attention and for longer than fiddling with a radio. Do you trust these idiots with phones? I sure as hell don't. So while I have absolute faith in your ability to talk and drive (And I trust you have just as much faith in me), how about we agree there are other idiots on the road we can't trust. And since they're behind the wheel of cars and can kill other people, maybe we need to regulate those idiotics to protect ourselves. This is hardly a civil right we're regulating; (almost) everyone still gets to drive, and everyone gets to use their cell phone, just not at the same time. We lose a minor freedom, but idiots who would abuse that freedom lose the legal right to put us at risk.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
What I don't get, is if we wreck while we're on the phone the first thing we say is "OMG I just got in a wreck, let me call you back !"
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#Driving_ controversy
Any action that distracts the driver from driving as much as drunk driving really should be outlawed to the same degree that drunk driving is.
Pilots are constantly talking to people using their "hands-free" headsets. Are we supposed to believe now that every single pilot who flies is constantly being dangerously distracted on every single flight & its just as bad as if they were drunk?
Or is it just that with proper education a person can learn to properly balance several tasks simultaneously?
The trick is to prioritize, or as they say in groundschool "aviate, navigate, communicate" in that order.
There are so many people driving, many without any regard for the safety of others (or even themselves) it is inevitable that there will be many accidents. In our modern age where noone has any personal responsibility, people will blame anything at hand (except for themselves) everybody carries a cellphone now, so its obvious where that blame is going to be placed.
"It could cost you your life, and unlike driving drunk, where you tend to be unhurt due to being relaxed, you are actually more likely to be hurt."
What a bunch of hooey. Blunt force trauma doesn't care if you're relaxed or not.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
here here. I second that.
Ever try talking on the phone while watching a movie or tv show? Can't really do them both. You're either focusing on one thing or the other. I've had many a fight with a woman over such a scenario. Somehow I don't have the same problem driving, but there are plenty of people out there who can't drive with even a radio on, so I'd believe it.
You're nothing; like me.
About a year and a half ago, actually. Both articles talk about the same University of Utah study. Somehow it's still news, apparently.
---
In most EU countries you get stiff fines (like 180) when caught calling handheld and driving at the same time. In Sweden smoking while driving is also strictly forbidden, afaik. That'll be in the whole EU next.
I think you're correct, to a point. Hands-free is good. Yes, I think one should have it. And, yes, you should pull off the road if the conversation moves to that off-topic point.
May I suggest that the reason pilots and heavy-equipment movers such as yourself have little-to-no trouble is because a lot of the conversation is about the trip? Granted, not all of the conversation is about the trip, but much of it is. Pilots communicate airspeed and altitude, for instance. Also, in many of those cases, there is a passenger who keeps a second-set of eyes on the road. In the air, some of the conversation between pilot and co-pilot are directly related to the aircraft and trip. Indeed, as I'm sure you know, there are strict regulations regarding the type of conversation that can happen during the critical phases of a flight.
Nothing really stops a professional from having a cellphone conversation with their friend about what Barbara really meant when she said, "just friends," but most professionals just don't. They know it's a bad idea. That's training, as you say, but it would have to come down to teaching regular drivers about cellphone responsibility and enforcing that responsibility and then there's also that point of personal accountability.
As a professional, you know the real danger that awaits you if you lose the shipment or crash the airplane. You are directly responsible to someone in a very real and personally-damaging way if you screw up. Regular folks? They just don't feel that accountable, it seems to me. And when they tap someone's bumper hard -- which happens often, and a cop WOULD stop both parties had he seen the bump, even though there is no physical damage -- they both shrug and move along.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Old news. Didn't you see this on Myth Busters? Zonk, you need to get out more. Or least start watching a little TV.
Insurance companies are businesses, and businesses exist to maximize profit. For a given group of people they will charge whatever will make them the most profit.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. It doesn't make sense for insurance companies to ever undercut their rates. We're not talking about people buying toasters here -- by selling you insurance, the insurance company is assuming future liability up to a certain amount. If they sell insurance to older drivers at a "discounted" rate, the math dictates they will eventually lose money on them and actually were better off not taking their money to begin with.
Competition in the insurance industry doesn't result in simply lowering prices across the board. Beyond things like reducing overhead, insurance companies attract new drivers by finding pockets of low risk and offering those drivers a lower rate. Watch the insurance company ads -- they promote this stuff all the time. Discounts for good grades, discounts for multiple vehicles, discounts for driver training... But even with the discount, they're still charging you enough money to make a profit.
-- Old Man Kensey
This has been done before. Heck, turn on the TV and put it on Mythbusters some time. I'm unsatisfied sometimes because sometimes they tend to forget to follow enough of the principles of the scientific method to properly test things (like the time they tested SUV fuel efficiency of air conditioner versus windows rolled down, and in each case they tested the absolute most extreme without testing the real life in-betweens plus forgot to eliminate variables like the color of the vehicle since the darker one may have had a bit more heat to deal with.) However, in this case I'd say they tested pretty well. They did a dry run where they went through a course designed for testing to get a license, they did a cell phone run in which they tested different ways ranging from something simple where you could focus more on the road to something requiring you to focus on the phone conversation, and finally they drank until they were just under the legal drinking limit. The cell phone driving actually came out overall the worst (but this is bearing in mind that a drunk is past the legal limit) and so bad that they utterly failed the license test while talking on the phone.
People and "studies" have been making this claim for years, why is this one so newsworthy?
I sure hope that they didn't spend $100 million to figure out cell phone yakkers are some of the worst drivers on the road.
I could have told them that for free.
Is that a SCSI connector or are you just glad to see me?
Drunk driving impairs motor skills but not so much judgement and awareness. Cell phone use impairs judgement and awareness, but not so much motor skills.
Guess which one proves to be more dangerous in the long run?
another reason: fenders are made of plastic those days. This is not only to protect the pedestrians (but it works! number of broken legs in low-speed car-hits-pedestrians accidents fell down to near 0), but the occupants of both vehicles (flexible plastic absorbs part of the impact, even in a high-speed crash... but the absortion is less than half if one of the cars has a hitch -- think neck injuries etc). The old "fender bender" bends the things, but they get right back in place... except when a guy that uses a trailer hitch (normally without ever tolling a trailer in the car's lifetime) and then the fscking thing breaks (or dents) and leaves you with a $500 bill to foot. My city has a quite caotic traffic, and I have been in three or four fender-benders... with no damage done to either car.
IOW: trailer hitches are BAD. Have one in your car if you toll a trailer, say, at least 10% of the time; otherwise, you are inviting injuries to others and to yourself.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
When I was in the military I drove tracked vehicles while communicating on a radio net, and also talking on an internal intercom system with a TC and squad leader. Getting in an accident would have been far more catastrophic given the weight and size of the equipment I was operating.
Similarly, Pilots also have to communicate while controlling an expensive piece of equipment - and I've also done that.
There are a number of major, major differences between these examples and everyday driving and cell phone use. As others have pointed out, the structure and content of the conversation are both radically different.
You point out that training is an issue, but it's vehicle training--not cell phone training--that makes the difference. The training given to military, police, and commercial freight drivers, as well as pilots, is orders of magnitude more intense than high school driver's ed, and the testing is much stricter. When you take your test, you're going to be putting your absolute best effort into it. So if you just barely pass your ordinary driving test, all it means is that your absolute best is just barely good enough. Pilots and professional drivers are expected to be perfect to pass their tests. An impairment that leads to a small increase in risk for a well-trained driver means a total risk still far less than an unimpaired barely-trained driver.
The biggest difference, though, is proximity to other vehicles. Driving a military vehicle, you're likely to be pretty isolated, and when you're not, it is mandatory for other vehicles to get out of your way. And aircraft maintain a huge minimum distance from each other, while the widest lanes on roads are only about twice the width of a car. There are actions that can be taken perfectly safely in an aircraft or by a military driver, but would cause a hundred-car pileup with a dozen fatalities on a freeway at rush hour.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
+5: Awesome. :)
-BK
Chemical Blog
Who says pot smokers have no motivation?
You're right - most pot smokers lead mnormal lives doing things that you might not expect - software development, legal crap, VP of some random department at WeBuildThings.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"