Slashdot Mirror


Why Cell Phone Bans Don't Work

sciencehabit writes "You can take the driver away from the cell phone, but you can't take the risky behavior away from the driver. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers who are nearly as prone to crash with or without the device. The findings may explain why laws banning cell phone use in motor vehicles have had little impact on accident rates."

8 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Mounting evidence - of hype. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Other countries use stricter limits: Sweden's 0.2 is actually technically close to good one (that's where changes occur); but most other countries at least use 0.5 (as opposed to use 0.8 or higher).

    It's possible you have your decimal off, but the US's legal limits are only 0.08, which is a damn sight lower than 0.2 (or 0.5)....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. Not terribly surprising by markdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

    >"new study, which finds that people who talk on their phones while driving may already be unsafe drivers who are nearly as prone to crash with or without the device."

    That partially doesn't surprise me. Typically, the same people that would allow themselves to be distracted by a phone or texting are going to be the same people that will allow themselves to be distracted by the radio, GPS, passenger, makeup, food, random thoughts, whatever. Conversely, there are people who tend to not allow distractions or are better able to ignore or cope with them. They might RELUCTANTLY use a phone while driving but don't allow the phone to be the primary focus and are FAR less distracted than others.

    Just my observation, but it certainly looks like younger generations are growing up with less and less ability to focus, almost like ADD is rampant. Could be a side effect of having instant everything in their life and have no tolerance for having to work at something, concentrate on something, or be "disconnected" from others.

    All that aside, I am not sure the methodology of the cited study is very scientific. For example- just ASKING people how often they use a phone while driving- yeah, that will be accurate. Anyway, there is no simple solution to the problem of distracted driving. Just banning phone use is not the answer. I don't know what the answer is, or if there is one... but it is certainly not going to be one thing.

  3. Re:Mounting evidence - of hype. by icebike · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you could text while driving by never touching the device, and not having to look at it, it may well prove that it isn't that dangerous.
    Those systems are just now coming into common manufacture and usage, as Voice Recognition technology is just now becoming up to the task.
    Even initiating a voice recognition text message on modern cell phones requires at least one hand, and both eyes. Some in-dash systems in cars
    can send a text strictly with voice input, often not even requiring looking at the in-dash display.

    So the jury is out on that.

    The present studies all are based on manual manipulation of a hand held device which requires both hand and eye be focused on the device in order to send a text message. Touch screens almost necessarily require two hands and two eyes to send a text message.

    Mental focus shifts in milliseconds. In fact people can do more than on thing at a time. Often concentration and performance is improved by having a mostly autonomous background task happening at the same time. So I don't agree with your assertion that mental focus is harder to shift. The research doesn't support that fact.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. Re:Mounting evidence - of hype. by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most countries count alcohol content in blood in permilles, not percents.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  5. Oh, yes, and one more thing... by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    In spite of this, in a fit of political correctness, the author feels compelled in the last paragraph of the story to print a quote from someone who has done no specific research on phoning while driving, but he still fees competent to weigh in suggesting bans be followed by stiffer enforcement.

    The person being quoted is D. L. Strayer, who a quick google scholar search reveals has done a proverbial shitload of distracted driving research, much of it focused on phone use.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Oh, yes, and one more thing... by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      His work is mostly speculative, and artificial in nature, and his assertions haven't been born out on the road.

      Citations?

      In fact his studies are some of the exact ones proven to have defects that icebike mentioned in his first linked article.

      As far as I can see none of DL Strayer's papers are cited by Dr. Young's paper (doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31823b5efc -- perhaps I've got the wrong one), referred to in the link above.

      First there was icebike's claim that DL Strayer has never done any distracted driving studies. That about as wrong as wrong can be. Then there is your claim that the paper linked to by icebike specifically debunks several of DL Strayer's papers. I thought this was curious. If that were so, then why would icebike think that DL Strayer hasn't done any distracted driving studies? So I checked, and apparently Dr. Young's paper doesn't cite any of DL Strayer's publications. If that is so, then you must be mistaken.

      I'll assume for now you guys mixed different studies up and simply didn't bother to check, but you can see how it would be forgivable for someone to come away with the impression you guys are just making stuff up.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:Mounting evidence - of hype. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually most of the world does. You're thinking about rural USA.

  7. Re:Mounting evidence - of hype. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try having a few beer and then playing your favourite fps.

    I tried that some years back with Unreal Tournament in instagib mode. I joined a game of sober people after a few beers and sat at the top of the scoreboard for an hour. When we played again the next day, I returned to my more traditional position near the bottom.

    Think of it as a science experiment

    Science requires more than a single data point, sadly...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News