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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Aug 29, 2009 7:03 pm) Nah, it got me into graduate school, and that got me the job I wanted. I have no bone to pick with them. I feel (undergraduate) was my parent's money well spent  and graduate school was an indentured servitude arrangement where I researched driver distraction topics. Did they teach you the meaning of words like "specious" and "tenuous" in engineering school? No, I learned those in AP English in HS so I could do well on my SATs to get into college in the first place. Others can get funding to develop a weak argument that lacks any type of face validity. Correlations are easy. You can show a correlation between pineapple juice and cancer, but causation, that is somewhat more challenging. 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? There are 3 parts to a phone call: 1. initiation (dialing, or accepting a call depending on the situation), 2. the conversation, and 3. terminating the call. The hands free part basically affects the beginning and the end, and it depends on if the car was initiated by the driver or accepted/rejected by the driver. The conversation is still being studied, because Utah used emotionally charged topics and Univ of Illinois didn't. Assuming the people doing the study understood statistic methods at least as well as you do, 30% is a huge differential. How much is tuning the radio? Changing the CD (a two handed operation in most cases)? Programming a portable nav system? As said by Katherine Mangu-Ward, a senior editor at Reason magazine: In 1995, 13 percent of the U.S. population owned a cellphone. Today, cellphone ownership rates are well over 80 percent. In those 14 years, the annual number of motor vehicle deaths has remained eerily constant, hovering around 40,000. With more vehicles on the road and more miles traveled per vehicle, rates about the same or dropping slightly. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Aug 29, 2009 7:03 pm) I feel like we have anecdotal evidence from one group. Another group does studies that don't represent the actual driving task or the actual secondary task (from both sides, either the driving is too easy with too little traffic or the driving is too challenging to where most people wouldn't talk anyway, or the task is a surrogate to just push a button instead of talking on the phone, or the conversation is about something ridiculous that is too demanding, like if I were driving and having this conversation...). A third group goes straight for headlines - worse than drunk driving etc. That just means you have no statistics. All these studies use surrogate measures (lane departures, reaction times, etc, since you can't have crashes in the simulators, and I think the IRB would be pissed if you had them in real driving). I personally am a big fan of secondary enforcement. If a driver can make responsible decisions about when and when not to use a phone, let them be, but if a driver seems like they have trouble with that decision (and my guess is their driving record shows a history of some bad decision making), then cook them. |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 29, 2009 9:07 pm) With drivers involved in electronic device usage, they avoid accidents due to other drivers paying attention to the road being able to avoid them. Unless of course one is texting and misses the train in front of you, or runs down pedestrians in a cross walk etc. While one could make a case and cite relevant case studies that may show a relationship between ear scratching and accidents, there is simply no common sense way that a thinking person would believe cell phone usage is a harmless vehicular activity. With the exception of driving with a postive BAC, which the government says is ok to some degree, cell phone using drivers are a menace to the people around them. And most manage not to kill themselves due to other drivers paying attention. |
|
|
"The Governors Highway Safety Association on Monday said it has enacted a new policy encouraging every state to ban texting behind the wheel. The action came just ahead of a summit on distracted driving to be held by the U.S. Department of Transportation starting September 30." Pressure Mounts for Nationwide Ban on Texting While Driving (AutoObserver) 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Aug 31, 2009 9:54 pm) |
|
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
