Unless you're a fictional misanthrope who also happens to be the best medical diagnostician on the planet, telling people they're idiots isn't the best way to get ahead. How then do we get the message across to those stubborn folk who insist upon talking on their cell phone while driving? And it's not a few stubborn individuals ;;;;; every second car and truck on the road seems to be driven by someone whose attention is measurably distracted by wireless telephony.
And it's not as if they haven't heard that it's dangerous. Studies attesting to the significant causal relationship between driving while talking on the phone and accident rates pop up on the news every few months. Typical results show that chatting on the phone while driving increases your chance of hitting something by about 300 percent. And hands-free devices make no difference
The latest study, "A Decrease in Brain Activation Associated With Driving When Listening to Someone Speak," tries to get at the neurophysiology behind the problem, including the lack of difference between the distractive effects of handheld and hands-free phones. Here's the core result of the Carnegie Mellon study, which is in press at Brain Research,
... the parietal lobe activation associated with spatial processing in the undisturbed
driving task decreased by 37% when participants concurrently listened to sentences. The
findings show that language comprehension performed concurrently with driving draws mental
resources away from the driving and produces deterioration in driving performance, even when
it does not require holding or dialing a phone.
This makes sense to me, because I tend to be much worse at navigating when I'm actively engaged in conversations with passengers while I drive. I can't count the number of exits and turns I've missed while debating the merits of proportional representation over the existing Canadian electoral system, for example. I can only image how bad I would be if I was using a phone.
I acknowledge the reality people love the ability to conduct business and make productive use of otherwise wasted time behind the wheel. I know they love to catch up on gossip or just plain chat about nothing of consequence. I also know most people, especially younger types, like to believe they are capable of multi-tasking. These people include some of my best friends and members of my family. I love them, but that's doesn't mean they're right. They're wrong, and I'm hoping that none of them become dead wrong because of it.
Just et al reference 25 previous attempts to quantify the problem, all of which conclude that you really can't do more than one thing at at time perfectly well, especially when one of those things requires split-second decisions that put the lives of others in your hands. As lead author Marcel Just put it in a USA Today interview: "Certain activities in life are inherently multitasking, but driving and cellphone use isn't something Mother Nature thought about when she was designing our brains."
Again, I think most people are aware that they are endangering themselves ;;;;; and more importantly, me and my family ;;;;; by engaging in this selfish habit, but they are most likely indulging in a little cognitive dissonance, and I want it to stop. I'd also like to see car manufacturers stop pushing blue-tooth phone systems on us. It's like they want buyers to get into a crash. If I was in charge, it would be illegal to install hands-free phone technology in automobiles.
So, here's a message to y'all: I promise not to call you an idiot to your face. You're not an idiot. You're just behaving in a very human, but very irresponsible manner. Please show some respect for the lives of those who have no choice but to share the road with you. I know you think that call might be critically important, but it's not. And you're not. The world will not end in the next five minutes. The voice mail will be waiting for you at the next exit.
- Log in to post comments
So, are you implying that talking while driving is generally a problem, or just talking on the phone? Are people idiots if they listen to a passenger, or perhaps even talk radio while they are driving? What about eating a snack, drinking coffee, or chewing gum?
Some people are just oblivious period, while others are fully capable of multitasking while being very aware and responsive to their environment. Which of these types is more idiotic? I don't think this is something that can be generalized or legislated. It is unfortunate that every day we all let other people with unknown intellect and capabilities drive their SUVs at us in a jousting configuration. Maybe we should all walk or ride bikes. Seems like this would solve some other problems at the same time (pollution, obesity, laziness). --tongue in cheek, FYI.
I wouldn't put it exactly the same way Ryan does, but the real issue is whether there is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking on a hands-free cellphone to someone who is not present.
I also have a hard time with the idea that a hands-free device makes no difference. I have seen people talking with the phone held up to their ears, and I simply do not believe that they can drive as well as someone who has both hands on the wheel. I do not believe it, and I strongly suspect that studies that are said to indicate that are flawed in some way. If it is true, then it indicates that it is no more dangerous to drive with one hand (with the other jammed up to the ear and the head tilted to the side) than it is to drive with someone in the passenger seat talking to you.
I might add that if it is true that 1) cell phones with our without hands-free set are equally dangerous, and 2) talking on cell phone and talking to a passenger are equally dangerous, then laws prohibiting cell phone use in cars are misguided, or should be extended to prohibiting speaking to a passenger while driving.
Think of it as natural selection in action- A. McIntire
In general I agree with you. One can clearly observe poor driving by cell phone users. Just how does one get the turn signal on while driving with one hand and maintaining a grip on the steering wheel anyway?
One issue I have is that not all people are wired the same and the study only reflects averages. I have a tendency to drive too fast and take more risk when I have nothing else in my attention. I also have Asperger's and ADHD. I drive better when listening to interesting spoken word (Podcasts, Audio Fiction, Business Conference calls, etc.) as I'm able to feel comfortable driving slower and safer.
I cannot lead or highly participate in a conversation while driving. I often have trouble doing that while under any high sensory stimulation, such as eye contact. I know that and don't drive and try to carry on much of a conversation.
I know I'm not the norm, but that's my point. The diversity in this area is rather high and until our cars are smart enough to track our driving ability, there is probably nothing much we should do.
There have been a number of studies now (no, I don't have the refs. to hand, but they exist and can be found) which demonstrate that, YES, there IS a distinct difference between talking on a phone and talking to a passenger in the car. This difference hinges around the fact that a passenger in the car is or can be made immediately aware of situations which require urgent driver attention, and in general, drivers are far less reluctant just to shout "Quiet!" at people who are in the car with them. Counterintuitively, instinctively, and against all good sense, drivers seem to value politeness to people who are on the phone with them more, and will not simply drop the phone or tell people to be quiet, or even divert attention away from them to deal with an immediate situation -- they just listen on the phone.
So, yes, talking on a phone is worse than talking to a passenger in terms of distracting the driver, in general -- although anyone who has had quarreling small children in the back seat is probably equally distracted. The issue, however, is what risks one can realistically eliminate. There is absolutely no way that we could ever dictate that people shouldn't cart small children around in cars, and even less so can anyone make small children not whine and fight. However, not talking on a cell phone while driving is absolutely doable.
The argument that because there is a diversity of driver response we shouldn't do anything, is wrong. Compare it to drunk driving. Not everyone who drives drunk has an accident. There even may be someone out there who genuinely *is* a better driver when slightly tipsy (as opposed to just THINKS he is). However, the general response is one of slower reflexes and poorer situational assessment, and statistically, drunk drivers are involved in way more accidents than sober ones -- and kill more innocent people, too. So, QUITE RIGHTLY, we now legislate against driving drunk, and punish people who do regardless of whether or not they have caused an accident yet, in order to drive down the risk they pose. How can you argue that talking on cell phones, which causes slower reflexes and poorer situational assessment in general, statistically, demonstrably, is any different?
Mark P: There was a large and fairly definitive study done in the Netherlands around 2000 which demonstrated conclusively that drivers devote more of their attention to cell phones than they do to passengers, and that their driving skills suffer far more (ironically, they performed worst at low speeds, where they evidently felt they could take even more of their attention off the road) -- and that there was no appreciable difference between using handheld or hands-free phones. This was replicated in the UK in 2002, and in the US more recently:
http://www.cnet.com.au/mobilephones/0,239025893,339286823,00.htm
The issue is attentional.
"...demonstrated conclusively..."
I doubt that. And I absolutely do not believe that a person can drive as well with one hand as with both hands. Sorry, but if a study indicated that to be true, there is something wrong with the study. There may well be factors common to both situations when using a cell phone, but there are other aspects that are not common, and I do not believe that they have no effect on driving safety.
Mark P: Have you made any attempt to find and read the study? I'm guessing not; so without seeing the study, you feel you can just discard the study conclusions, on the basis of...what? Argument from incredulity? The fact you "do not believe" it? With all respect due, that's stupid. Haven't you figured out by now that "gut feeling" is a piss-poor indicator of reality, as counter-intuitive as reality often is?
Anyway, although some effects differ between handheld and hands-free, multiple studies HAVE replicated the detrimental effects of cell phone use on driving -- including handsfree. Here:
The contribution of passengers versus mobile phone use to motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance by the driver
See esp. section 3.2:
Hands-free mobile phone speech while driving degrades coordination and control
Look, you may be in love with the convenience of a phone while you're in the car, but multiple studies have shown it puts likelihood of accidents right up there with being drunk...even with handsfree. Your quibble is with reality, not with me.
Anyway, if you want more studies, I can post them. I have a whole stack of references now. Here, have another link just for fun:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570222
One thing to consider is compensatory driving. When people are using handheld phones, the simple fact that they have one hand engaged may force them to re-evaluate risks, slow down, and drive (relatively, sortof) more carefully. When they have both hands on the wheel, this may well lead to the same [over]confidence regarding their level of control that you display here, leading them to NOT slow down, and with reactions delayed because of attentional deficit, that leads to just as many accidents.
Well Luna, thanks for the input. No, I have not read the study. But as a scientist I can tell you that it is extremely rare for any one study to "conclusively demonstrate" something, as you say. And perhaps you can tell me if there is a study that conclusively demonstrates that it is as safe to drive with one hand as with two. Calling on your vast knowledge of this subject, surely you can point me to such a study.
As to your suggestion of "compensatory driving", that is as good an ad hoc explanation for your supposition (that it is as safe to drive with one hand as with two) as any, I suppose. Perhaps it is right. Perhaps it is wrong. Perhaps you are obsessive on the subject. It is certain that you are not very polite. I am not sure whether that makes you stupid, but it certainly makes it less likely that I would pay any attention to anything you say.
And, by the way, I am not arguing that cell phone usage is not distracting and does not contribute to car wrecks. You are the one who had a knee-jerk reaction and assumed that, based on my skepticism about the studies in question. My whole point is that it is more than counterintuitive that driving with one hand is as safe as driving with two hands. It may be that driving while talking on a hands-free device is as dangerous as talking on a cell phone without a hands free device, but I would argue in that case that, given the additional risk factor of driving with one hand and limited head motion, that makes the risk contribution of using a hands-free device even greater than talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device. Yes, that is counterintuitive, and I would have to see some explanation for that before I believe it. Ad hoc explanations need not apply.
Let me clarify one sentence: It is more than counterintuitive to be skeptical that driving with one hand is as safe as driving with two hands.
And here are a few quibbles with the studies. First, in the Australian study, were the users actually on the phone at the time of the crash? They were described as having used the cell phone within five minutes of the crash. Were they dialing or speaking? Or are cell phone users in general more likely to have an accident whether actually using the phone or not? Second, how does driving in a simulator compare to driving in the real world? Are there differences? Could we perhaps come up with some ad-hoc explanations for differences between lab conditions and real-world driving? Like, in the lab (or on a closed-circuit test track), are drivers aware that they have no real risk and are therefore more likely to ignore the simulated risks? I'm there are other issues you could identify. If you can't answer questions like these, then all you can say is that they provide evidence of a phenomenon; they do not conclusively demonstrate anything.
Poor baby, I was rude to you, so now you get to ignore the information I offer? That's the old crank tactic of "you called me a name, now I don't have to answer your logic!" You don't really want to fall back on that, now do you?
Anyway, meh. I offered information, and you dismissed it out of hand, on the basis of no more than "gut feeling". What part of that should I respect? Much of how the real world really works IS counterintuitive and counter-"gut feeling" both; that's not an "ad hoc" explanation, this is something apparent in many fields on observation. "As a scientist", you haven't observed this? Pardon me my own moment of skepticism, here.
And seriously, you might work to become aware of the role of "compensatory behavior" in driving. It's not rocket science, nor do you have to be an "expert" to become aware of the work in the field. On the other hand, becoming aware of work in the field before you decide that your opinion is right, dammit, might be a good idea.
Also, I never claimed that driving with one hand is as safe as driving with two hands; that is a subtle twisting, but nevertheless a twisting, of what I said -- which is that driving with handsfree is substantially just as risky as driving with a handheld. The difference is, your statement makes it sound as if I am addressing all one hand/two hand driving situations, regardless of other distraction. I am not. I am addressing a very specific situation, which is that of ongoing mental distraction, in which case the issue of one hand or two hands on the wheel is swamped by the issue of what the brain is doing.
There are some studies out there that indicate also that, as an action, fiddling with the radio is riskier than speaking on a cell phone in the car, in terms of driver distraction; the difference, however, is that most people choose when to fiddle with the radio, and choose to do it in relatively "safe" driving areas, whereas people on cell phones will make and answer calls regardless of the other situations on and around the road...which means that talking on cell phones contributes to, overall, more accidents. What I am trying to get across to you here (and which I don't think you've quite picked up on yet) is that the brain & behavior component of the human reaction is the biggest part of the risk, and you do not get any feeling for this by merely examining a set of simple physical actions.
This sums up one of the issues I have with these studies:
http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2008/03/facts_and_theories.php
If something seems wrong, I want a good explanation of why it's true. Simply saying, "This study showed it," is not good enough.
Well, Luna (I assume that is your first name), you seem quite emotionally invested in this issue, so much so that it seems hard for you to consider things rationally. Were you injured by a driver using a cell phone? Or have you participated in such a study and feel personally attacked?
Instead of jumping on the dump-on-the-cell-phone-user bandwagon, I raised some quibbles with the studies, and I think they are valid. These questions do not demonstrate conclusively anything, but they are issues that bear on how the results should be interpreted. As you may know, many studies are made that are not designed properly and do not answer the questions they intend to. In some cases they do not control for factors which might bear on the results. In other cases the experiment itself has an effect on the results. I don't know for sure whether these have any such problems, since I read only the abstracts. But they are the type of study that runs the risk of claiming more than the data show. And unless certain questions can be answered, they can be cited, certainly, but it would be risky to claim that they show anything conclusively.
I also point you to the link in my previous post, which discusses the importance of theory relative to facts. Until results can be explained, they have little meaning in themselves. And that is why I want to know how the two cases (hands-free and not hands-free) can show the same results. Based on the studies, cases with two risk factors (cell phone use and driving with one hand) and cases with one risk factor (hands-free cell phone use) have the same results. How can that be? Until that question is answered (and I don't mean explained away by hand waving), I am forced to withhold judgment on the conclusions of these studies.
I think you will find that intuition is a function of experience, and as such it can certainly be relied upon to help identify studies with problems. Ever heard of cold fusion? My intuition said that the P&F study had problems. But it was a study, so I guess I should have accepted it rather than rely on my bad old intuition.
I doubt that anything productive will come from this discussion, but if you are so inclined, you might consider rereading my comments to see exactly what I say and what I do not say. You seem to have trouble telling the difference.
Here's a suggestion: why don't you read the damn studies?
Your entire defense so far consists of handwaving, blowing things off, and accusing me of being too "emotionally invested" to deal with it rationally, all the while speaking from a position of ignorance. Basically, you are being too lazy to read the damn studies and engage in any substantive discussion of real points; you seem to be, dare I say it, very emotionally invested in defending cell phone use while driving.
Here's a suggestion: why don't you read my damn comments? You will see that I do no defend driving while talking with a cell phone. Nothing I have said is a defense; everything I have said is a criticism of your interpretation of some very limited studies. Oh, wait! Now I see. You're a not a Tick, you're a Troll.
Ignoring the spat above and responding to the post.
I find that if I am in heavy traffic or trying to find my way around a new area I have to turn off the radio and tell my passengers to shut up. I rarely, if ever, use my phone in my car. I imagine that it would be an additional distraction.
I did read in New Scientist a few years ago that people with dyslexia, of which I am one, are more easily confused by busy road signage.
Mark P: Have read your comments, found very little substantive to work with. Forgive me if I misinterpreted your comments about handsfree not possibly being as dangerous as handheld being a defense of in-car phone use. Would like to agree that "intuition is a function of experience", as you put it, and point out once again that you are clearly speaking from a point of view of complete ignorance of the field, given that you are apparently unaware of the widely-documented issue of compensatory behavior, and all you've even read of the studies is the abstracts, by your own admission; thus, why we should take your "intuition" about driving seriously is beyond me.
You claim to practice science. I do not know your field, but can only hope that, if you are serious about this, that you practice the basic principles somewhat better than you have demonstrated here. Also, I hope you have a thicker skin that you have demonstrated here, given that your entire snit-fit seems to stem from my saying "that's stupid".
Thanks for the amusement, anyway; although I am left unsure that *you* weren't just trolling.
First, yes, I sometimes use a cell phone in the car. Yes, I believe that cell phone use is a risk factor in automobile wrecks. I do not know whether the risks are the same for hands-free and non-hands-free cell phone use. I have issues with the summations of the studies that have been given, and with what I can tell about the studies from the abstracts. That is what I think, and that is all I have said in any of my comments.
Now, as to the issues: why is there apparently the same wreck rate for a case with one risk factor (hands-free cell phone use) and for a case with two risk factors (cell phone use and one-hand driving)?
Here are some other questions:How does driving in a test environment with no risk (closed circuit course and simulator) compare to driving in a real-world situation with real risks? Is there different behavior? I have specific questions about at least one of the Australian studies. They cite accidents in which the driver was using a cell phone within 10 minutes of the wreck. They are apparently relying on the responses of a survey or some kind of personal reporting. How reliable is that? Does it mean that they used the cell phone 10 minutes ago, disconnected and had a wreck nine minutes later? Or does it mean they had a wreck while actually using the phone? Talking or dialing? Looking at the phone to see the identity of an incoming call? Driving with both hands on the wheel but speaking through a hands-free device? What about the age distribution of drivers? What about the presence of other people in the car while using the cell phone? Is there a difference in time distributions; that is, more accidents in the morning or some other time? Where do the wrecks occur, city streets or main highways? What about the known unreliability of people to remember things like how many minutes before an accident they were on the phone?
Maybe all of these questions and more are answered in the full article, but it is behind a pay wall. I don't intend to pay for the privilege of arguing with you, so I guess I'll have to rely on the abstracts. Unless you want to pay for them.
You make many assumptions in your responses to me that are not justified on the basis of the evidence available to you. Have the authors made similar assumptions?
And I guess I can take a little personal attack. Maybe you can help me out by explaining how a personal attack instead of addressing the questions furthers the debate.