Slashdot Mirror


Study Confirms Mobile Phones Distract Drivers

An anonymous reader notes a Reuters report of a study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, confirming that Mobile phone calls distract drivers far more than even the chattiest passenger, causing drivers to follow too closely and miss exits. California's ban on using a handheld cell phone while driving, which went into effect last summer, is looking less than fully effective. A handful of other states have instituted similar bans, but none has forbidden driving while talking on a cell phone at all. "Using a hands-free device does not make things better and the researchers believe they know why — passengers act as a second set of eyes, shutting up or sometimes even helping when they see the driver needs to make a maneuver."

32 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. This just in. by stei7766 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sleeping at the wheel found to correspond to an increase in accidents.

  2. talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by liraz · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a ton of supporting evidence that talking on your mobile while driving is dangerous. The legal situation has more to do with convention and historical artifacts than anything of substance.

    In fact, not only is talking on your mobile more dangerous than talking to passengers, but talking on your mobile while driving can be as dangerous as driving intoxicated, at least according Mythbusters which did a cellphone vs drunk driving experiment on season 3 ("Killer Brace Position")

    The two hosts arranged an obstacle course into four parts: accelerating to 30mph and then stopping at a stop sign, parallel parking, seeing how long it would take to do 15mph through the whole course, and while going 30mph, being told to switch left, right or center lane. Each part was graded by an instructor.

    During a sober run of the course, both test drivers passed. However, during the cell phone run, Hyneman asked the drivers three questions in which they had to either think about the answer, repeat a sentence, figure out a verbal puzzle and list five things. Both drivers failed the obstacle course.

    1. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by holophrastic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, Adam's conclusion is the most important. The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.

      So maybe drivers need to be taught how to refocus their attention when necessary. You know, instead of being told that tehy should expect everything to be perfect all the time with no distractions.

    2. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by stei7766 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I've always wondered is if the increased distraction a cell phone brings vs. a passenger has something to do with the brain activity of talking on a cell vs. in person.

      I'm no neurologist but I've noticed that while talking on a phone I have a tendency to imagine that person and their expressions, reactions, etc. Perhaps this results in the use of more brain "power" to use a cell than talk to a person?

      Anyone know of any studies using fMRI or the like which suggest such a thing?

    3. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anyone know of any studies using fMRI or the like which suggest such a thing?

      I suspect any study would confirm that driving whilst undergoing an fMRI scan is extremely dangerous and distracting.

      How are you supposed to check your wing mirrors and blind spots before changing lanes if you can't move your head?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Funny

      Prioritizing the driving is a simple as ignoring the conversation when required.

      So you're saying married men are better phoning drivers?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by LandDolphin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All of that drama could be avoided if you just said "hold on a sec, I'm merging" and then ignore anything that come safter that until your done then come back and say, "Sorry, I was merging"

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    6. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by stei7766 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Basically all of these "compared to passengers" arguments are null and void when it comes to children in the backseat. Should we ban driving with children in the car? They won't help with directions or know not to distract the driver.

      Nope. Just require them to ride in the trunk.

    7. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The phone is not as dangerous as the intoxication -- because you can put down the phone.

      I'm not sure that's entirely true.

      People don't believe they are impaired when driving while talking on a cell phone. "Sure, some people may have a problem," they'll say. "But not me. I'm a great driver. I've never had an accident and I use my cell phone all the time."

      I've heard similar arguments from people talking about how they have no problems driving while legally impaired (say, 0.08 BAC). And the only thing that keeps them from driving while impaired in the threat of losing their license or jail time.

    8. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Passengers generally know it is in their interest not to distract the driver. The person on the other end of the phone conversation is not at risk so they talk about anything at all.

      Basically all of these "compared to passengers" arguments are null and void when it comes to children in the backseat. Should we ban driving with children in the car? They won't help with directions or know not to distract the driver.

      A very young baby will either sleep or need attention which requires the vehicle to be stopped. A two or three year old will spend their time commenting on cars, trees, people etc. My son (now six) just wants to play 24/7 on his DS.

      On the whole I find children less distracting than adults.

    9. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All of that drama could be avoided if you just said "hold on a sec, I'm merging" and then ignore anything that come safter that until your done then come back and say, "Sorry, I was merging"

      If people were that good at quickly shifting their attention to and from the phone as the need arises, cell phones wouldn't be that big a deal to begin with. An accident can happen while you're saying those six words.

      Anyway, the correct response, the one I use in those rare times that I would pick up the phone at all, is "I'm driving, I'll call you back."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      I pray to god you don't work in the medical industry.

    11. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would you ever pick up the phone to say that? If you are not going ot talk to the person, let them get the voice mail.

      Because the call might be important enough that I would pull over and talk to them. I answer the phone, I find out, and either use Correct Response #1 and hang up, or use Correct Response #2 and pull over. If I have no reason to expect an important call, I probably don't answer at all.

      The Correct Response is never to announce your intention to pay attention to driving for a few seconds, then resume talking when the need for attention to driving diminishes. The whole point is that talking distracts you so you don't notice these situations fast enough to react, much less politely inform the person you are talking to.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm still amazed at the idea that any phone call needs to be answered *now*, and not in 15 minutes. Whatever it is, 15 minutes won't matter that much. People have conditioned themselves to treat a phone call as a higher priority than their own survival. Society really did funtion just fine before cell phones!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:talking on mobile as dangerous as drunk driving by Martin+Blank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In California, no person under the age of 18 may use a cell phone while driving for any purpose (other than calling 911). There are no exceptions for hands-free devices. If they're not calling 911, they have to pull off the road to make the call. I can see some logic in requiring this also for those who are 18 or older but have their driver's license for less than, say, two years.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  3. As bluetooth headset manufacturers rake it in... by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in California, where it now looks like an army of cyborgs has invaded. Everyone walks around with one of those damn bluetooth headsets on since it became law to use a hands-free device while driving. Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?

    I sure wish I was in the bluetooth headset business.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  4. Any bet takers? by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    How long until the first news of an iPhone/Blackberry using driver who, upon a collision, is killed when the airbag drives the smartphone through their brain? Has it already happened?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Any bet takers? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would require the driver in question to have a brain in the first place. I've noticed most (not all) self-important Crackberry-toting snobs do not.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  5. Insurance by Samschnooks · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Several years ago (2001), I caused a crash. There were others in the car all taking. It distracted me - I cannot multi task at all. I can't even listen to the radio when I'm driving in heavy traffic. Anyway, when I talked to the insurance company the first thing they asked me was "Were you on a cell phone?" (I didn't own one.) And "Was the other driver on a cell phone?"

    I think the insurance companies have known this all along but never shared the data.

  6. Re:As bluetooth headset manufacturers rake it in.. by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To make matters worse here in CA, only talking on the phone is illegal. Texting is perfectly ok - what were they thinking?

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  7. Cost of Convenience? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How dangerous do cell phones have to be in order to be outlawed for drivers? If they result in 3 accidents and 1 death per year per 100,000 drivers, is that acceptable risk? What if the number of deaths goes up to 10, or 100?

    Before you scoff, consider that speed limits are set in this manner. Raising limits adds convenience at the cost of higher rates of accidents and deaths.

    However, I am inclined to view the convenience of cell phones much more harshly, because cell phone use is not an essential part of the driving process. If you want the privilege of using public roads and putting others at risk, you should take the responsibility of devoting your full attention to driving well. I would be glad to see cell phones outlawed on the road entirely.

    1. Re:Cost of Convenience? by prockcore · · Score: 4, Informative

      Raising limits adds convenience at the cost of higher rates of accidents and deaths.

      Except that's not true. When the limits were raised from 65 to 75, the accident rate dropped.

    2. Re:Cost of Convenience? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cite proof. I keep hearing the speeding advocates toute this but they never EVER reference anything that shows this supposed trend.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Cost of Convenience? by aaronl · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/960439

      It costs money, though the brief is still useful.

      Basically the leading cause of accidents would seem to be bad road design. Additionally most accidents happen on roads with lower-than-highway limits. Also, the German autobahns, with no speed limits, have consistently been safer than US low limit roads.

      "Speed limits were found to have minimal effect on the traffic accidents. "

    4. Re:Cost of Convenience? by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Having been on both German autobahns and Irish and British motorways and US highways, I can safely say the biggest difference of all is that far less people drive like morons on German roads. I don't need any studies to explain why the Irish situation is so bad either when we have so many people on the roads who haven't sat a test ("provisional licence" supposed to be for learning to drive, and people who got "free" licences in 1980 or so last time there was a testing backlog). That's for starters (there are a host of other reasons that need little analysis to see their contribution to traffic mayhem).

      In the US I didn't feel particularly safe on the highways, and there was a much bigger emphasis on "the bigger the vehicle the more I can act as if I am crash-proof" - the trucks in particular were road-hogs. The 55 mph limit is stupidly low of course, meaning that there is a lot of problems caused between faster drivers and slower ones (still no excuse for the maniacs driving in excess of 70mph or so).

      Germany we encountered only two people trying to get everyone killed in half a week of driving well over 1000km, whereas on a single 100km trip on Irish motorways you will meet at least a dozen people trying to get everyone killed (tailgating and crazy lane-switches are exceedingly common).

      A side note about German Autobahns though - it's disturbing how the hyper-fast travel distorts perceptions. At 180km/h it eventually feels just like the normal Irish limit of 120km/h. You slow down on an exit and think you are down to 50km/h for the curve (the Autobahn junctions often were pretty compact), and realise you're still 100km/h!

      I think 120km/h limit as in Ireland is reasonable for two lane motorway. Where there are three lanes, it would perhaps be possible to allow the outer lane (next the median) to have 150km/h or so (don't know about elsewhere, but our new motorways in Ireland have a design speed of 160km/h). Two lane unrestricted autobahn sections in Germany were a bit hairy between the 80km/h trucks/buses, the 120 km/h normal drivers, and the people wanting to make full use of the lack of speed limits. Talk about lane changing!!!

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  8. Time to hang up the phone by Smuttley · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because at least then I have a free hand to hold the steering wheel whilst I'm smoking a cigarette/eating some food/applying my makeup.

  9. So do by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    small children, nagging adults, cigarettes, women in the next car topless, the CD you need just out of reach in the back seat, your MP3 player that's needs to be plugged into that &$*%$ lighter before it dies in the middle of that cool song, trying to figure out just how is that lady in the next car doing 75 on the I10 tying her shoe?

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  10. Weird take on why passengers are good... by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The difference between a cell phone conversation and passenger conversation is due to the fact that the passenger is in the vehicle and knows what the traffic conditions are like, and they help the driver by reminding them of where to take an exit and pointing out hazards"

    Passengers do probably have a small assistant role in the car like "hey would you change the cd?" ect... but that doesn't fully explain the deficit.

    Reaction times and ability to stay in the lane are altered, something the passenger has little to do with. The big reason there is less of an affect on driving ability from passengers is that social rules of phone conversations and in person conversations place a different demand on the drivers.

    Next time you are talking on the phone, try not talking for maybe 10 seconds. Now try it in the car with a passenger. Notice that in the phone conversation the silence is very awkward and jarring? While in person it feels more or less normal. This illustrates that the different social demands of different types of conversation. It's not that they help by actively doing much, it's that they can shut up and let you drive because they are also aware of the need to perform the task at hand!

  11. Results not supposed causes by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When driving on an interstate in good weather, using a headset, my talking on a phone is barely any distraction at all. However, when driving in bad weather or in city traffic, my using a phone in most situations is distracting to my driving, more so than most other things, which is why I won't use or answer it. The key is that I am aware of my *OWN* limitations.

    But for SOME people, using a phone is overly distracting under any circumstances. People are different, conditions are different there is no one golden "rule" that is going to make any sense or be fairly applied to everyone or even most everyone. People need to be trained to NOT distract themselves and pay attention to their attention spans.

    You can't legislate stupidity away. After phone use is made illegal in cars- what's next? GPS? Music? Food? Kids? Cold medication? Pets? Enforce laws about the RESULTS of poor behaviours, not the supposed causes. It doesn't matter why someone is weaving, following too closely, drifting, not using turn signals, not checking blind spots, etc... they should be ticketed just the same. Combined with education and public service messages, perhaps not everyone has to suffer for the lowest common denominator.

  12. Re:This is a load of dung by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If there's a blizzard out, and you do not have to drive, then you shouldn't. If you do have to drive, well, it's not like you can make it stop snowing, which is why that's legal. Hopefully enough other people were able to stay home that it's safe.

    There is no reason why you must talk on a cell phone while driving. If the call is that important that you can't miss it, pull over. If your time is so valuable that you can neither skip the call nor stop driving, then you need to hire a driver. Can't afford a driver? Then your time isn't that valuable. Pull over or call them back.

    Hands-free vs hands-on has nothing to do with your available limbs, and everything to do with using those limbs for a completely separate task. I drive a manual, shifting is simply part of the task of driving that I'm focusing on, not a distraction. Fiddling with a cell phone is a distraction, a completely orthogonal task of coordination. It's the difference between a drummer using all their limbs to perform, and using 3 of their limbs to perform and one to juggle. Not that hands-free headsets have been shown to substantially reduce the risk posed by driving while on the phone, because you're already more than distracted enough to cause problems just by talking to someone who isn't present.

    Also, it's already been established that talking on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than driving while at a 0.08% BAC, the legal limit. Which is why you shouldn't do it, no matter how sober or how good a driver you incorrectly think you are. Even if both a 0.08% BAC or talking on a cell phone, by themselves, aren't as dangerous as driving in a blizzard.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  13. Exactly why ther should be no by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "using cell phones while driving" laws.

    If someone is driving recklessly, give them a ticket for driving recklessly.

    I've seen people sue cell phones, read a paper, put on make up, shave and get a hummer while driving. DO we need an explicit law against each on of those?
    No, just use reckless driving laws to cite them.

    No excuse me, I have to bring up porn and masterbate while I drive home... Since there is no law, what's the harm?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. just say "stand by" by mr_death · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Spot on. Pilots are told by instructors that you "don't drop the airplane to fly the microphone". It is entirely proper to say "stand by" to a controller when you're busy with an aircraft control task.

    If only driving instructors taught the same thing ...

    --
    It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.