Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
3688 messages, Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Note: foxnews is only reporting on the story... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535021,00.html?test=latestnews |
|
|
Time Magazine August 24 issue page 45, 46, has an article on texting, cell phone use by drivers. Article says that Prof Strayer at Univ of Utah conducted tests and found that DUI drivers at .08 level had better reaction time than a sober driver on a cell phone. Article also said that Steven Yantis, Prof of psychological and brain sciences at John Hopkins said: When a cell phone driver is listening to cell conversation, they are slower to respond to things they are looking at. It requires the driver to select one thing at the cost of being less able to respond to other things. Article also said the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) recently uncovered a buried NHTSA Study in 2003 that identified cell phone use by drivers as serious safety hazard. CAS is filing a petition that would require all new vehicles to only allow cell calls with the transmission in Park mode. Emergency calls would be allowed while moving. Mr Ditlow, executive director of CAS, said his org's goal is to make cell phone talking and driving as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: xrunner2 (Aug 17, 2009 7:59 am) Wow after the New York Times gets blasted so badly for misrepresenting data that they have to drop the series, Time comes out with an article...I see why newspapers and news weeklys are getting replaced by online media. Article says that Prof Strayer at Univ of Utah conducted tests and found that DUI drivers at .08 level had better reaction time than a sober driver on a cell phone. That is very interesting because in a Driver Distraction Study presented to an HFES panel today by Joel Cooper (Strayer's grad student), he found that cell phone drivers have a shorter reaction time than those in the just drive task. Additionally, in Strayer's studies, the phone conversation centers around a religious, political, moral, or philosophical point engineered to set up an emotional response. Article also said that Steven Yantis, Prof of psychological and brain sciences at John Hopkins said: When a cell phone driver is listening to cell conversation, they are slower to respond to things they are looking at. It requires the driver to select one thing at the cost of being less able to respond to other things. Yup, I totally agree. For all the unified cognitive models that exist, there is always a black box in there that implies single order processing. What, exactly, is the cost of that switching time? Is it significant? Can you walk and chew gum? Pat your head and rub your tummy? Article also said the Center for Auto Safety (CAS) recently uncovered a buried NHTSA Study in 2003 that identified cell phone use by drivers as serious safety hazard. CAS is filing a petition that would require all new vehicles to only allow cell calls with the transmission in Park mode. Emergency calls would be allowed while moving. Mr Ditlow, executive director of CAS, said his org's goal is to make cell phone talking and driving as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving. Yup good luck with that. So quick recap: Cell phone use in last 10 years increases by >900% Number of highway fatalities continues to be at record or near record lows Crashes continue to be at record or near record lows Actual on road data from 100 car naturalistic driving study: * Dialing a cell phone made the risk of crash or near-crash event 2.8 times as high as non-distracted driving; * Talking or listening to a cell phone made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.3 times as high as non-distracted driving; and * Reaching for an object such as an electronic device made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.4 times as high as non-distracted driving. So in real life driving, talking on or listening to a cell phone increased the risk factor by 1.3, which may or may not be a statistically significant difference over not using the phone at all. It is less risky than reaching for an iPod or box of cigarettes. Now back to our usual banter of people creating epidemics where they don't exist. 
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 17, 2009 5:31 pm) I work near an airport with it's attendant rental car terminals and tourist traffic - people that in general seem to have no idea where they are going. Almost weekly, there's a near miss or pileup as someone exiting the area being is coached on the cell as to where they have to go. They find out they are in the wrong lane (usually it's the left most one), and either 1) yanks the wheel and cuts across 3 lanes of 60 mph traffic, or 2) comes to a near standstill in the left hand lane waiting until they can "safely" make the aforementioned move. Just yesterday on the way home I come across some low life  in the left hand lane doing ~50 mph. This is on a 60 mph road. Yep, you guessed it (or maybe you didn't ) - yakking away on the cell, seemingly oblivious to everything going on around him. These kinds of situation I don't think were modeled or measured by those studies.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 17, 2009 5:31 pm) * Talking or listening to a cell phone made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.3 times as high as non-distracted driving; and * Reaching for an object such as an electronic device made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.4 times as high as non-distracted driving. I hope you didn't waste too much money on that engineering degree because any dishwasher or busboy could tell you that that 2.8 times the risk is significant. If you think a 30% increase in risk doesn't amount to much, consider how you'd feel about getting a 30% raise in salary. Better yet, think about how you'd feel about a 30% pay cut--would that be significant? By the way, the last I heard, a cell phone is an electronic device. In fact, it's probably the one most drivers are reaching for while they're crashing...
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Aug 25, 2009 8:16 pm) One of the things I got out of that engineering degree was critical reading skills, something that apparently is lacking for most Americans. Let's review: Dialing a cell phone made the risk of crash or near-crash event 2.8 times as high as non-distracted driving; So if you are dialing a cell phone, where are your hands...hmm thats right, on the cell phone. That would imply that its not "hands free," since your hands are on the phone. Interesting how that works out. Now I am not talking about those lame things that go in your ear, I am talking about an integrated hands free solution. If you think a 30% increase in risk doesn't amount to much, consider how you'd feel about getting a 30% raise in salary. Better yet, think about how you'd feel about a 30% pay cut--would that be significant? Since apparently your career as a dishwasher or busboy didn't include a class in basic statistics. So the way this works is you measure a hypothesis (cell phones are the devil, cause crashes, etc against chance, or the null hypothesis). Then you determine if the difference between the hypothesis and the null can be explained by correlation or chance. For 1.3x, that might be one or the other. Reaching for an object such as an electronic device made the risk of crash or near-crash event 1.4 times as high as non-distracted driving. By the way, the last I heard, a cell phone is an electronic device. In fact, it's probably the one most drivers are reaching for while they're crashing... So again, lets revisit those critical reading skills. It says "reaching for an object," which would typically include, well, objects. Looking in my coworker's car, that could include CDs, tapes, an iPod, cigarettes, cell phone, water bottle, cap for said water bottle, Pepsi can, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Aug 25, 2009 6:14 am) Actually, it depends who's study you are reviewing. Utah uses highly controversial conversation topics such as politics, religion, and abortion so they can bring in an emotional component to the conversation. Virginia Tech didn't introduce anything, they were basically voyeurs watching what people normally do (hence the "naturalistic" driving study). Utah uses a simulator lab, VT usually does on-road studies. I am not dissing the simulated driving, its just a different environment and is mostly comparable as an index to other simulator based studies. In some studies, they introduce motivation one way or the other (we will give you an extra $5 if you don't leave your lane without signaling, or it might be something like if you always answer the phone by the second ring...which might not be necessary since most are conditioned to do that already). I work near an airport with it's attendant rental car terminals and tourist traffic - people that in general seem to have no idea where they are going. Almost weekly, there's a near miss or pileup as someone exiting the area being is coached on the cell as to where they have to go. They find out they are in the wrong lane (usually it's the left most one), and either 1) yanks the wheel and cuts across 3 lanes of 60 mph traffic, or 2) comes to a near standstill in the left hand lane waiting until they can "safely" make the aforementioned move. So this gets into that hypothesis thing again...your implied hypothesis is that people are driving poorly because they are distracted by on a cell phone. Some alternative hypothesis might include: people are distracted because they are in an unfamiliar vehicle, people are distracted because they are programming a portable navigation system, people are distracted because they are in an unfamiliar location, people are distracted because they are reading a paper map, or that some people just aren't very good drivers. Just yesterday on the way home I come across some low life in the left hand lane doing ~50 mph. This is on a 60 mph road. Yep, you guessed it (or maybe you didn't ) - yakking away on the cell, seemingly oblivious to everything going on around him. So do we know how this guy drives when he isn't on the phone? Could he just be one of the Prius drivers trying to save gas? Could he just not know what the speed limit was? Could he have been driving slower to give more of a gap because someone was tailgating him?
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 28, 2009 5:35 am) Yep! Some alternative hypothesis might include: people are distracted because they are in an unfamiliar vehicle, people are distracted because they are programming a portable navigation system, people are distracted because they are in an unfamiliar location, people are distracted because they are reading a paper map, or that some people just aren't very good drivers. Good points. My observations were, obviously, anecdotal to some extent. However, I have been working at the same place for over 40 years. You can do the math and figure out that most of my driving, along the same road (that leads to the airport), predated the cell phone. So I have to some extent, a before and after cell phone comparison to base my observations on. And yes, the problem is worse now than it was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Maps haven't changed. The percentage of drivers in unfamiliar cars probably hasn't changed. More people are just bad drivers? Maybe. But what definitely has changed in that time period is the use of cell phones by drivers.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 28, 2009 5:20 am) So if you are dialing a cell phone, where are your hands...hmm thats right, on the cell phone. That would imply that its not "hands free," since your hands are on the phone. I missed the point where "hands free" became the focus of the argument. The discussion here is about talking on a cell phone. It doesn't say anything about where one's hands are in the process. Are hands-free, voice-activated systems safer than manually-dialed, hold-it-to-your-ear systems? Of course, but talking on the best hands-free system is still more dangerous than actually paying attention to driving while driving (about 1.3 times as dangerous according to the study you cited). Assuming the people doing the study understood statistic methods at least as well as you do, 30% is a huge differential.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: srs_49 (Aug 29, 2009 4:52 pm) That sounds like a longitudinal study...that is a bit different then anecdotal... You can do the math and figure out that most of my driving, along the same road (that leads to the airport), predated the cell phone. So I have to some extent, a before and after cell phone comparison to base my observations on. Yeah that doesn't seem so anecdotal if data supports it. And yes, the problem is worse now than it was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. Maps haven't changed. The percentage of drivers in unfamiliar cars probably hasn't changed. I think if you really wanted to be anal, you could look at what type of travelers are coming and if it changes over time...is it tourism, is it business, is it more international than it was in the past (although typically, Europeans are better drivers than Americans). But what definitely has changed in that time period is the use of cell phones by drivers. Portable navigation systems also went from being $500-600 to More people are just bad drivers? Maybe. I don't necessarily think of them as bad drivers, just inconsiderate/unenlightened drivers. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
