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."

23 of 738 comments (clear)

  1. The usual response by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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 /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    1. Re:The usual response by Nos. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FTA:

      • Just like many people who have been drinking, the cell phone users did not believe themselves to be affected, the researchers found.
      • They studied 40 volunteers who used a driving simulator four times--while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level
      • Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly more slowly, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, and varied their speed more than undistracted drivers.
      • "Driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk,"

      Everytime this comes up, people always say that they use hands-free. That's not the point. This isn't about having two hands on the wheel. This is about paying attention to what you are doing. Talking on a phone is an added distraction. Its that simple. You can argue to what degree that distraction is, but you cannot deny that it is a distraction.

      Then people always talk about how they can drop the phone, or stop the conversation if a situation that requires their complete attention arises. Ever think that situation may not have risen if you hadn't been on the phone in the first place?

    2. Re:The usual response by ahsile · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...So we tell everyone it's ok to drink and drive as long as you don't kill anybody? You've got some serious issues. As stated by the grandparent, you are delusional... and a serious risk to yourself and others. I hope I'm nowhere near you on the road. Ever. I don't care if you're sober or not talking on your phone. You obviously think you are not affected by this problem while everyone else is.

    3. Re:The usual response by Paladin128 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So any time any one does any thing that modifies the risk of a situation, we should pass a law? Sorry, I don't want my entire life ruled by obscure laws that no living being can bother to know.

      I hate the fact that I can't replace the carpet in my basement without a permit. Or the fact that if my business grows to more than 10 people I have to start making sure I hire someone of a different ethnicity even if there's no one qualified. Or the fact that I can't write a piece of software that can play a DVD without paying $10,000 to the DVD-CCA to liscence the CSS encryption scheme. Or get a concealed carry permit in my state.

      Add stiff deterrant penalties and charge people for it after they get in an accident. I hate the fact that innattentive and wreckless drivers that cause accidents get off with just insurance surcharges -- and possibly not even that in no-fault states -- while someone who uses a cell phone without a handsfree or drives with a 0.08 BAC can get jail time. That's seriously messed up.

      --
      Lex orandi, lex credendi.
    4. Re:The usual response by hazem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the real problem is that people don't pay attention to their driving and to themselves when they are driving.

      I don't think I'm any kind of uber-driver, but I pay attention to what's going on and how I'm reacting. I know that if the traffic situation is tense I almost automatically turn down the radio and cut out other distractions. It's the same when I'm on a cellphone while driving. If I'm getting more tense from the driving condition, I quickly tell the person I'll call them back and I pay attention. Driving doesn't always require 100% attention.

      There's no reason a responsible person shouldn't be able to use their cellphone while driving to a) pass time on boring stretches of roads, b) call ahead for take-out, c) call home to see if anything is needed, d) call ahead to let them know you'll be late, e) call and ask for directions, and f) call 9-11 because you just saw an accident or drunk driver.

      This is all about a group of whiny people who want to control what other people do. Punish people for what they do that actually harms others, not what could possibly harm others.

    5. Re:The usual response by GreyPoopon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Most people on the road cant not avoid rearending the car in front of them if they were wide awake and paying attention perfectly simply because of poor driving skills.

      But that doesn't make it OK to impair the bad drivers and make them even MORE likely to rear-end the car in front of them. The study showed that the same sample group fared significantly better when not distracted.

      For some reason race car drivers can talk to their pit crew often and not get into crashes and they are doing it at much higher speeds and the same 3 inch spacing from the car in front of them.

      The difference here being that race car drivers talk only in short phrases necessary to get and relay information, and the topic is always on their driving and the situation around them. They aren't having a conversation.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    6. Re:The usual response by vanman2004 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the distraction originates from merely having a conversation, what is the difference between talking on a cell phone and talking to the person next to you?

      --
      -Siggy!
    7. Re:The usual response by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People who think they can "handle their liquor" are quite dangerous indeed, right up there with people who think a cup of coffee or a shower will "sober them right up". Once your BAC approachs 0.1%, your rflexes and judgement both are terrible. If you're used to drinking, you simply don't feel tipsy: your reflexes and judgement are still screwed, but you no longer have the warning signs of staggering around.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:The usual response by homer_ca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's different because a passenger is in the car. So either from watching the road or watching for non-verbal cues from the driver, he'll see when the driver needs to pay more attention to something and pause the conversation. Try having a conversation with a passenger who talks on and on with no regard to the driver or the road. It's much more distracting.

    9. Re:The usual response by hazem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Boring road: I can handle it. I've driven a lot and in a lot of conditions. I'm a good judge of when I need to pay full attention and when I can drive on "autopilot". If you can't be distracted by radios, cellphones and hamburgers, it's good that you know that.

      Before you leave: a typical trip may take anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours. It's not always appropriate to make that call before I leave. What's the point of calling for takeout 3 hours before I need it? I know I'm a good judge on whether the traffic is safe to call in. When it's not safe, I don't call. I see no problem with being at a stand-still in traffic and calling ahead to say I'm going to be late. For god's sake, nobody is even moving.

      9-11: Maybe it's on the other side of the freeway. Maybe there's a gang beating up somoeone and I don't feel safe stopping? And as for helping before the EMT's get there, I'm not going to risk that lawsuit. Sure, there are good samaritan laws, but those are only as good as the lawyers you can afford to defend yourself.

      What it all boils down to the fact that I'm an adult who is responsible for what I do. I make decisions every day that can impact other people. If I make a bad decision then I end up paying for it somehow. I know, that with many years experience, I know when I can talk on the phone and when I shouldn't.

      Your experience teaches you that you can't handle it at all. That's just fine. In fact, I'm glad you know your limits. But don't go trying to limit me based on what you can't handle. Too many stupid laws come out of thinking like that.

    10. Re:The usual response by vanyel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this scaremongering were true, accident rates would be skyrocketing along with cell phone use. The fact is, that while it may impair driving a little, it's not doing it enough to affect accident rates, so it's just one more bandwagon for people to get on without thinking. There are a lot of bad drivers out there; it's no surprise that more of them are talking on cell phones when they crash because more people are talking on cell phones, so they're more likely to be doing so when they do something stupid. And it's a rather visible activity, so it's easy for people to latch onto it. What's worse is that people seem to like to latch on to one or two instances, when if you actually watch, there are a lot of people talking and driving and doing just fine. The majority of them.

      I've been talking and driving for 30 accident free years, well over 10 of them with a cell phone. If someone can't talk and drive at the same time, they should be banned from driving, not banned from cell phone use.

    11. Re:The usual response by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think a salient point would be that those using a cell phone in the experiment were probably not allowed to choose to hang up

      The guy who ran into the back of my car last month could have chosen to hang up at any time. He didn't hang up because he was concentrating on his phone call instead of noticing I was turning into a carpark 50 metres in front of him.

      By the time he noticed there was an almost stationary car in front of him, he was less than 20m away and travelling too fast to stop. He may have tried to hang up at that point, but even if he didn't, the call would have been terminated when his phone hit the windscreen of his car and shattered.

      He may have been more likely to run into a virtual car, but by choosing to be an arsehole and put other people's lives and property at risk, he ran into mine instead.

      He'll be prosecuted, and doubtless fined, and his insurance will pay for repairs, but that won't give me back the week of walking around in pain from the bruised hip. It won't return my MGF to pristine condition. It'll always be an accident-damaged car, and will be worth less when I sell it.

      I don't care how interesting his phone call was to him, he had no right to involve me in it, and that was the choice he made when he tried to operate a car and a phone at the same time.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  2. Incomplete study... by gasmonso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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/
    1. Re:Incomplete study... by Wdi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They pay low insurance rates *because* they have less accidents. Insurance companies make no gifts. They do math. Very precise mathon large sample sizes.

  3. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  4. Sure... .but by warrior_s · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Sure... .but by quokkapox · · Score: 4, Insightful
      how bad is it when we talk to other people in the vehicle while driving?

      It's a different thing entirely to converse with a passenger in the same car. There's a lower drain on your cognitive resources, the person next to you responds to the same environmental cues as you do, and will shut up and/or scream if you're heading for trouble.

      An alert passenger in your front passenger seat improves your ability to drive safely, even if you're deep in conversation. It's another set of eyes watching the road. A remote voice on the other end of a cellphone has the opposite effect.

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  5. multi-taskers by Loconut1389 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:multi-taskers by cain · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...without even thinking about it, my mouth stops and I'm 100% tuned into the road

      I call BS. How do you know there were not other times when you were oblivious to danger? You'd be oblivious so you would not even be aware that there was danger.

  6. Well, they don't quite show that. by Onan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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_.

  7. Re:Yeah, you're awesome, I love you man... by Loconut1389 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny, in one sentence it says it will prevent you from calling anyone if you're drunk and in the next says you should call a cab if you're drunk. How does that work again?

  8. Obvious BS. by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  9. We always treat the symptoms not the problem.... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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