Driven to Distraction

[godfry n. glad]

I love it....

One the front page, above the fold on the Portland Tribune:

Driven to Distraction. (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=123741277164306500)

Fun. I see another academic cognitive psychologist has piped up, too. Good.

[biochemgirl]

Has anyone really argued that it's not a distraction? My issue is that there are lots of other behaviors, as mentioned in the article, that are equally distracting. Are we going to have legislation against those also?

[godfry n. glad]

No...Not 'equally distracting'. The incidence of cell phone use in one study was shown to be four times higher than the next most abused distraction, changing the music, and outdistancing it fast.

So...You're against criminalizing drunk driving, then, too? That's the major distraction with which legislators started, ages ago.

[erimir]

The stuff in that article is true, but it doesn't apply to me because I'm a better driver, more careful and smarter than all those chumps!

[ChuckF]

My chimp drives for me when I'm too drunk.

[godfry n. glad]

Has anybody argued that it's not a distraction? Yes.

The whole point of the article is the discussion of the fact that cellphone users have an optimistic bias and refuse to acknowledge that using them causes a degradation of their driving skills. Research subjects and interviewees constantly comment about how using a cell phone does not distract them. This is a false impression and a full-blown denial of the evidence.

[godfry n. glad]

My chimp drives for me when I'm too drunk.

I wondered what GWB was doing these days. Does he work for blow jobs?

[ChuckF]

GWB is too drunk to drive. And Laura killed a guy with her car. These stupid legislators just want to ban use of handsfree sets while driving. They should just put a velocity-linked tax on it. Somebody should get right up in their face and bug the shit out of them until they do.

[ChuckF]

The stuff in that article is true, but it doesn't apply to me because I'm a better driver, more careful and smarter than all those chumps!

OMG SO U SUPPORT HOMICIDE OMGUS

[Naru]

This thread is highly interesting, both to me and the FF populace at large.

[godfry n. glad]

Say ChuckF?

I think it's great how you show up to show off what a fuckhead you are.

I'm looking forward to the schadenfreude when you or one of yours is killed or injured by some laughing shit-for-brains on the phone while driving.

That'll be all LULZ and all.

[Naru]

Yeah, ChuckF, you fuckhead.

[ChuckF]

That's cool godfry. You left out the part of the post where you make up some crazy position that I didn't even remotely advance and then attribute it to me, but other than that, good show. Oh wait, you kind of did but not quite. (BTW, welcome to the club bcg :wave:)

For the record, I think driving and using a cell phone is dangerous and should be illegal, unless one is under the supervision of a licensed (lol) chiropractor.

:dontclick: Ha I love buttons.

[godfry n. glad]

Suggesting that cellphone use be banned while operating a motor vehicle is not some kind of crazy position. You'll note that increasing restrictions continue throughout the country. If you can't learn from the evidence provided, I guess you'll have to learn the hard, stupid way. It's too bad that some other, innocent victim may die as a result of your shit-for-brains.

I hope you mouth off to some officer who has pulled you over and you get to meet the pavement up close and personal while he snaps the cuffs on. They don't tend to have much of a sense of humor about the laws governing the roads. And, hey...while you're waiting for the bailbondsman, don't stoop over to pick anything up. k?

[Naru]

And, hey...while you're waiting for the bailbondsman, don't stoop over to pick anything up. k?

Someone might rape you with a rusty crowbar! :runsies:

[ChuckF]

Suggesting that cellphone use be banned while operating a motor vehicle is not some kind of crazy position. You'll note that increasing restrictions continue throughout the country.
Hey, that's why I support those restrictions, just like I said. But definitely don't let that stop you from making up some crazy position that I didn't even remotely advance and then attributing it to me. I don't want to cramp your style.
I hope you mouth off to some officer who has pulled you over and you get to meet the pavement up close and personal while he snaps the cuffs on. They don't tend to have much of a sense of humor about the laws governing the roads. And, hey...while you're waiting for the bailbondsman, don't stoop over to pick anything up. k?

I'm looking forward to the schadenfreude when you or one of yours is killed or injured by some laughing shit-for-brains on the phone while driving.

Yeah I'm such a fuckhead.

[godfry n. glad]

Y'know, Chuck...I've had enough of you.

You're not even amusing any more. You're just one recycled pile of shit over and over, again.

Ta.

[ChuckF]

:sadcheer: But now who will make up crazy ideas that I don't even remotely advance and then attribute them to me?

Oh I'm sure someone new will come along.

[Naru]

Y'know, Chuck...I've had enough of you.

You're not even amusing any more. You're just one recycled pile of shit over and over, again.

Ta.

:plonk: ?

[ChuckF]

green dude needs about ten billion times more blind rage.

[Naru]

:powershakefist: ?

[Dingfod]

Chuck probably lit up some cars in France (using his cellphone to ignite the petrol, of course) just to watch them burn, fuckhead that he is.

[Deadlokd]

What the fuck was that godfry? You're going berserk over this. Calm down man.

[Dingfod]

The only thing worse than a driver talking on a cellphone is a allopathic medical surgeon operating while doing the same. And the only thing worse than that is those damn pesky kids with those loud radios in their cars.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm fine, Deadlokd. I just don't have the time, nor inclination, to read the kind of puerile crap ChuckF and his cohorts on the denial team post up. It's a waste of time and thought. I'm just expanding my ignore list with some long overdue additions.

And Ding...A surgeon using a cellphone would drop it in the patient and then sew it up inside. Try out this term: Iatrogenic illness. It's the third largest source of deaths in the US. Medical practitioners, the traditional ones, make up the bulk of the sources.

[Dingfod]

I knew I could get you off the cellphone rage.

[godfry n. glad]

Like presenting evidence is rage.

You haven't seen rage from me in quite some time, Ding.

Culling the waste from the useful is hardly rage. I find it ironic that the same assholes who chant about 'evidence-based medicine' don't know what the fuck it really is, and, when provided with evidence which contradicts what they happen to believe without evidence, they just dismiss out of hand, anyway. That's like going through all the trouble to actually produce medical evidence, only to have the physicians ignore it because it doesn't fit what they were taught....a sad situation that is all too common.

[Dingfod]

I'm not going to get into it with you, it's just not worth it.

[godfry n. glad]

You bet. ChuckF certainly ain't 'worth it'.

[ChuckF]

What the fuck was that godfry? You're going berserk over this. Calm down man.
OH SO YOU SUPPORT MURDER.

That kind of talk puts you on the denial team my friend.

[biochemgirl]

No...Not 'equally distracting'. The incidence of cell phone use in one study was shown to be four times higher than the next most abused distraction, changing the music, and outdistancing it fast.


I think that's common sense that cell phone use would be more distracting then changing the music. I was referring to the other behaviors such as applying makeup, reading and eating while driving. You can't seriously tell me those aren't equally distracting.


So...You're against criminalizing drunk driving, then, too? That's the major distraction with which legislators started, ages ago.

Seriously? C'mon. Yes I'm against criminalizing drunk driving because then I can't binge drink and chain smoke while driving. Shit, I forgot I'm pregnant now. I'll have to save the drinking and smoking until I'm in park.

No, I don't think hands free cell phone use while driving should be criminalized.

[Naru]

I knew I could get you off

:bunnythrust:

[Shelli]

I don't need to be driven to distraction, but if you need directions, I'll be happy to give you directions.


:walk: :traffic: :distract:

[Adam]

Has anybody argued that it's not a distraction? Yes.

Assuming you mean someone at :ff:, do you have a link to support this claim?

[erimir]

Driven to Distraction. (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=123741277164306500)To be honest, I'm probably going to cut down on the cell use and avoid distractions more now (altho as I've mentioned before, I already avoided the most dangerous kind of cell phone use - long and emotionally involved conversations on the phone while driving - since I don't generally have long and emotionally involved telephone conversations in the first place). And I think restrictions on cell phone use while driving would be a good idea.

But you know what I like about that article? He supports his position without being an :asshat:
Try out this term: Iatrogenic illness. It's the third largest source of deaths in the US. Medical practitioners, the traditional ones, make up the bulk of the sources.That would be completely expected, given that I'm relatively sure that there are far more operations/treatments/etc. given by traditional medical practitioners each year than by alternative practitioners.

The real evidence needed is how many operations and treatments given by the various disciplines each year, how many of those result in serious and avoidable complications and how many people actually get better because of their treatments (i.e. "curing" a cold with homeopathy shouldn't count since most colds clear up in a few days anyway). Homeopaths probably have one of the best records as far as not personally killing their patients, but one of the worst for curing their patients.

The question is, given that I have an illness, what has the best chance of curing me? There might be a risk of iatrogenic illness, but that doesn't mean that it's "also a sham" if it's also my best chance of fixing my original problem. Not that I'm saying that malpractice and so forth aren't real problems, or that doctors don't follow faddish treatments (or may be biased towards prescribing certain drugs because of gifts from the pharma companies, for example) rather than always looking at good, unbiased efficacy studies.

But just saying that iatrogenic illness is most often caused by the sort of treatments that are also the most often sought isn't really saying much.

[ChuckF]

So...You support MRSA then, too?!

SLAM DUNK :dunk:

[Naru]

So...You support MRSA then, too?!

SLAM DUNK :dunk:

Erimir, I can't believe you support the Metrolina Regional Scholars' Academy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolina_Regional_Scholars%27_Academy) :glare:

[ChuckF]

yeh thos guys r queers

[godfry n. glad]

No...Not 'equally distracting'. The incidence of cell phone use in one study was shown to be four times higher than the next most abused distraction, changing the music, and outdistancing it fast.


I think that's common sense that cell phone use would be more distracting then changing the music. I was referring to the other behaviors such as applying makeup, reading and eating while driving. You can't seriously tell me those aren't equally distracting.

Look up the definition of incidence.

:facepalm:


So...You're against criminalizing drunk driving, then, too? That's the major distraction with which legislators started, ages ago.

Seriously? C'mon. Yes I'm against criminalizing drunk driving because then I can't binge drink and chain smoke while driving. Shit, I forgot I'm pregnant now. I'll have to save the drinking and smoking until I'm in park.

No, I don't think hands free cell phone use while driving should be criminalized.

You don't think something which has been compared to driving drunk should be criminalized. Repeated research has upheld that comparison with drunk driving.

Yeah...right. You think that is just fine.

Smart.

You effectively support drunk driving.

[Adam]

So, hey, did you ever find that link to someone saying that thing you claimed they said? Or do you support RAPING PUPPIES?

[Angakuk]

You don't think something which has been compared to driving drunk should be criminalized. Repeated research has upheld that comparison with drunk driving.

Yeah...right. You think that is just fine.

Smart.

You effectively support drunk driving.

Wrong.

P1: You oppose A,
P2: A is as dangerous as B,
C: Therefore, you oppose B.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

[biochemgirl]

No...Not 'equally distracting'. The incidence of cell phone use in one study was shown to be four times higher than the next most abused distraction, changing the music, and outdistancing it fast.


I think that's common sense that cell phone use would be more distracting then changing the music. I was referring to the other behaviors such as applying makeup, reading and eating while driving. You can't seriously tell me those aren't equally distracting.

Look up the definition of incidence.

:facepalm:



AND? Those other behaviors still exist as I've witnessed them many times. Or are you saying that those aren't dangerous even though at a low occurence they can still cause accidents and possibly deaths?

OMG, you support drunk driving!

[Clutch Munny]

You don't think something which has been compared to driving drunk should be criminalized. Repeated research has upheld that comparison with drunk driving.

Yeah...right. You think that is just fine.

Smart.

You effectively support drunk driving.

Wrong.

P1: You oppose A,
P2: A is as dangerous as B,
C: Therefore, you oppose B.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

It's worse than that by far, actually, due to the gaps between opposing X and favoring the criminalization of X, and between both not opposing X and not favoring the criminalization of X on one hand, and supporting anything, on the other hand.

"You effectively support drunk driving" is, in this context, incandescently stupid.

"Given that the evidence suggests that cellphone use is as debilitating as being drunk -- for at least some values of 'drunk' -- what do you take to be the principled grounds for criminalizing drunk driving, but not criminalizing cellphone use while driving?" would be a reasonable enough question, on the other hand. Certainly it's a question that might generate detailed replies from people who didn't think that any demurral from the criminalization view would subject them to a strawmanning false dichotomy that would make George W[ith us or with the terrorists] Bush blush.

[godfry n. glad]

No...Not 'equally distracting'. The incidence of cell phone use in one study was shown to be four times higher than the next most abused distraction, changing the music, and outdistancing it fast.


I think that's common sense that cell phone use would be more distracting then changing the music. I was referring to the other behaviors such as applying makeup, reading and eating while driving. You can't seriously tell me those aren't equally distracting.

Look up the definition of incidence.

:facepalm:



AND? Those other behaviors still exist as I've witnessed them many times. Or are you saying that those aren't dangerous even though at a low occurence they can still cause accidents and possibly deaths?

OMG, you support drunk driving!

Actually...As I've stated before, I support legislation to 'criminalize' distracted driving. However, the emphasis seems to be upon cell phone use because it is, far and away, the major source of distraction for drivers at this point. The other distractions you list should also be illegal. I understand that the state police do not think it necessary to insert special language into the legislation to cover them because they are so obviously citable as 'reckless driving', whereas cell phone use is presently ambiguous and most of the public thinks that it is completely legal, no matter how it effects one's driving. The scientific evidences produced over the past fifteen years has countered claims that it was NOT an impediment to one's driving ability if used when operating a motor vehicle.

Every step, from the point at which critics pointed out that driving a motor vehicle and operating a cell phone was not wise, user abusers have been in full denial. First they demanded evidence. It was provided. Then they claimed that the evidence was insufficient and unique. When multiple sources came to support the initial evidences, and include hands-free units as a potentially more dangerous source of distracted drivers on the road, people like you are still saying that use of such should not be banned.

You are supporting what is the equivalent of allowing people to drive drunk on the roads. I think this is not wise; not supportable. Yet, you and others do support it, and, from what I can discern, for the purpose of convenience. You seem to me to be willing to jettison personal safety for yourself and anonymous others to be able to use a cell phone while driving.

There exists a safety problem on roads in many places in the US. That problem is distracted driving. It comes in many forms, but the greatest, in terms of sheer number of daily incidents (and the typical length of time of the incidents is greater, as well), is use of cell phones. It needs to be addressed legally to make it clear to an unclear and unwilling public to do something for themselves and road safety. Rather like seat belt legislation. In the clear absence of the ability to self-control on the part of cell phone users to refrain from using them while driving, it is time to step up the restrictions and their enforcement (past time, actually). The evidence demanded is there. It is sufficient. And it most explicitly includes hands-free units....the problem is inattention, not hand to eye coordination. Hands-free units are just as bad, IF NOT WORSE, than handheld cell phone units. And using handheld cell phone units while driving has been repeatedly been shown to be the equivalent of driving while drunk.

[biochemgirl]

How are the hands free units possibly worse? You're equating the handheld cell phone units to drunk driving, which if you notice I never disagreed with you about. I assume by your responses to me you have specific statistics to prove hands free cell phone use is comparable to drunk driving? I'm not being snarky, that's an honest question.

[godfry n. glad]

How are the hands free units possibly worse? You're equating the handheld cell phone units to drunk driving, which if you notice I never disagreed with you about. I assume by your responses to me you have specific statistics to prove hands free cell phone use is comparable to drunk driving? I'm not being snarky, that's an honest question.

Yes.

I even have the early research that showed that hands-free users took greater risks and demonstrated worse driving skills because they assumed that the problem with using a cell phone, hands being free to hold the wheel, had been addressed. This was because the problem, inattention and attention overload, which creates a kind of 'tunnel vision', specifically degrading peripheral vision and attention, is not addressed by the hands-free units. I believe the source was the British Transport Institute, a private transportation research firm working for a British auto insurer....I believe that the University of Utah Applied Cognitive Psychology Laboratory has replicated those results....as have the Transportation Safety Labs of the Highway Safety Administration.

The incidence of use information comes from the California State Patrol information compiled on accidents.

[ceptimus]

Do you have any links where we can see the conclusions of that research?

I don't doubt, by the way, that hands free cell phones are a distraction, but they're still legal here in the UK (while hand-held are not) and I'm wondering why the government would legislate against one form of a device if the other form were even more dangerous. :chin:

My own opinion is that hands-free is safer than hand-held but probably not by much. :shrug:

[godfry n. glad]

Do you have any links where we can see the conclusions of that research?

I don't doubt, by the way, that hands free cell phones are a distraction, but they're still legal here in the UK (while hand-held are not) and I'm wondering why the government would legislate against one form of a device if the other form were even more dangerous. :chin:

My own opinion is that hands-free is safer than hand-held but probably not by much. :shrug:


The bulk of the studies show them to be equally as distracting. I would think that keying numbers would be a major distraction issue and the voice commands would remove a lot of the dangers there...but it's the conversation that distracts the driver from what they should be doing.

I'll try to identify a good, fairly recent literature review that covers more recent studies. I don't about links, but I can provide literature cites. Is that acceptable? I'm hoping the British Transport study is finally out online, where one needn't pay to get a copy by ordering online. Direct Line owns the study, I believe. I'll look around, but most of it's at the office. I'm something of a Lead Pencil Society type, so I don't have ready electronic files ready to whip out.

I do have a print out of 120 article abstracts from Medline doing a search on cell phones. A goodly number of them are sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I'll see what I can find.

[godfry n. glad]

Accident Analysis & Prevention
Volume 40, Issue 4, July 2008, Pages 1282-1293

"A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance"

Jeff K. Cairda, Chelsea R. Willnessb, Piers Steelc and Chip Scialfab

Cognitive Ergonomics Research Laboratory, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada

Received 11 September 2007;
revised 2 January 2008;
accepted 30 January 2008.
Available online 25 February 2008.

Abstract

The empirical basis for legislation to limit cell phones while driving is addressed. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driving performance was performed. A total of 33 studies collected through 2007 that met inclusion criteria yielded 94 effect size estimates, with a total sample size of approximately 2000 participants. The dependent variables of reaction time, lateral vehicle control, headway and speed and the moderating variables of research setting (i.e., laboratory, simulator, on-road), conversation target (passenger, cell phone) and conversation type (cognitive task, naturalistic) were coded. Reaction time (RT) to events and stimuli while talking produced the largest performance decrements. Handheld and hands-free phones produced similar RT decrements. Overall, a mean increase in RT of .25 s was found to all types of phone-related tasks. Observed performance decrements probably underestimate the true behavior of drivers with mobile phones in their own vehicles. In addition, drivers using either phone type do not appreciably compensate by giving greater headway or reducing speed. Tests for moderator effects on RT and speed found no statistically significant effect size differences across laboratory, driving simulation and on-road research settings. The implications of the results for legislation and future research are considered.


Foremost, cell phone conversation while driving increases reaction time to events and stimuli. This result is unequivocal in this meta-analysis and is consistent with previous meta-analyses in this literature ([Caird et al., 2004] and [Horrey and Wickens, 2006]). The meta-analytic estimates for the effects on RT range from .460 to .546. The total mean increase in RT analysis was .25 s for all manipulations in the in-depth RT analysis. Further, the addition of either potentially excluded (i.e., file drawer) or future studies with null results is unlikely to change this result.

Handheld and hands-free phones produced similar mean RT effect sizes, such that the meta-analytic estimates for each type of phone were essentially the same (see Table 2). Common sense and urban legend suggest that hands-free phones may be safer to use while driving, but handheld and hands-free phones produced similar performance decrements. This result has important implications for legislative restrictions and vehicle and device manufacturers of hands-free in-vehicle systems.

Restrictions on cell phone use appear to be only loosely informed by science and have almost been exclusively directed at handheld mobile phones (Sundeen, 2005). However, hands-free and handheld phones produce comparable crash risks (McEvoy et al., 2005 S.P. McEvoy, M.R. Stevenson, A.T. McCartt, M. Woodward, C. Haworth, P. Palamara and R. Cercarelli, Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study, British Medical Journal 331 (2005), p. 428. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (44)McEvoy et al., 2005) and similar driver reaction time decrements (see Table 2 and Table 5). Extensions to existing legislation and broader new legislation that encompasses hands-free devices seems to logically follow from epidemiological and driver performance research. However, the pragmatic issue of how a police officer will observe hands-free use is problematic. Hands-free device use also has the potential to be confused with passenger conversation, which society regards as acceptable. Similar costs to RT were found for conversations over the phone and with passengers (see Table 4), and interactions with passengers are a primary category of distraction-related crashes ([Caird and Dewar, 2007], [Chen et al., 2000] and [Stutts et al., 2001]). That hands-free and passenger distractions represent a crash risk will be difficult to change from the prevailing societal view of acceptability.

No shit, Sherlock. Difficult ain't the half of it.

Anyway, will that suit your purposes? I think they've done a decent overview of the literature. If you want more complete cites on the articles they've cited, I can probably arrange that, given sufficient time.

Does that address your request, Ceptimus?

[ceptimus]

Thanks. So our UK government has banned only hand-held, mainly because that was easier to police and more acceptable to the public. I suppose that makes sense.

[godfry n. glad]

Here is a similar article which I cannot directly access:

Traffic Injury Prevention 7(2):89-106, 2006 Jun

McCartt, Anne T et al., "Cell phones and driving: review of research." [comment] [135 refs]

From their abstract, they have

RESULTS: Observational surveys indicate drivers commonly use cell phones and that such use is increasing. Drivers report they usually use hand-held phones. Experimental studies have found that simulated or instrumented driving tasks, or driving while being observed, are compromised by tasks intended to replicate phone conversations, whether using hand-held or hands-free phones, and may be further compromised by the physical distractions of handling phones. Effects of phone use on driving performance when drivers are in their own vehicles are unknown. With representative samples of adequate size, naturalistic studies in the furture may provide the means to document patterns and circumstances of drivers' phone use and their effects on real-world driving. Currently, the best students of crash risk used cell phone company billing records to verify phone use by crash-involved drivers. Two such studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use; increased risk was similar for males and females, younger and older drivers, and hands-free and hand-held phones. A number of juristictions in the United States and around the world have made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held phones. Studies of these laws show only limited compliance and unclear effects upon safety.

CONCLUSIONS: Even if total compliance with bans on drivers' hand-held cell phone use can be achieved, crash risk will remain to the extent that drivers continue to use or switch to hands-free phones. Although enactment of laws limiting drivers' use of all phone is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced. At least in the short term, it appears that drivers' phone use will continue to increase, despite the growing evidence of the risk it creates. More effective countermeasures are needed but are not known at this time.

Lots of references, too - 135.

[godfry n. glad]

Thanks. So our UK government has banned only hand-held, mainly because that was easier to police and more acceptable to the public. I suppose that makes sense.

Yeah?

Around here, there's a lot of laughing up their sleeves being done by communications types about how the state legislature is being logrolled with a rusty crowbar to market new hands-free mobile phone units. "You can't use hand-held in your car now, get a hands-free unit. One in each car! One for each user! One in each ear!"

:borg:

It's stimulus for the economy! (Of where-ever they make those gizmos.)

Resistance is futile!

Excuse me...my hyperbole overtook me, but you get the idea.

I'd like to see the whole ball of wax, including 'in-dash video display units' outlawed.

And...Lest any musical type be nose-bent about that:

Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(4):495-500, 2003 Jul

Consiglio, William, et al.
"Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response."

Results indicated that conversation, whether conducted in-person or via a cellular phone caused RT to slow, where listening to music on the radio did not.

"Sweetheart, be safe," can now really mean, "shut the fuck up and turn up the music."

[godfry n. glad]

More effective countermeasures? - Roadside disrupters? There would have to be an undisruptable emergency band.

Of course, never travelling with passengers would be good, too. Bigger carbon footprint, though.

[Clutch Munny]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

[biochemgirl]

Anyway, will that suit your purposes? I think they've done a decent overview of the literature. If you want more complete cites on the articles they've cited, I can probably arrange that, given sufficient time.

Does that address your request, Ceptimus?

Thanks. My natural inclination was to assume hands free would be safer but obviously that's not necessarily the case. It is interesting that a conversation causes delayed reaction times regardless of if the other participant is there or not. That's what I had been talking about in another thread, a heated conversation with a passenger can also be a distraction.
As Clutch said I'm sure it would be much hard to enforce a ban on hands free devices.

[Watser?]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Hand-held phones are banned for cars here too. You still see people on bikes using their phones though, which is amazingly dangerous.

[godfry n. glad]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Hand-held phones are banned for cars here too. You still see people on bikes using their phones though, which is amazingly dangerous.

Yeah...That can be seen here, too.

One of the articles in the bundle I have notes the danger to pedestrians who use cell phones while walking. The inattention generated leads them to step into traffic and risk life and limb when they would not, if not distracted by their cell phone conversations.

[godfry n. glad]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Here, pedestrians have the default right of way. The problem, as is often noted, is that being right all too often means the pedestrian ends up being dead right.

Bicyclists, on the other hand, are 'vehicles' and are usually required to follow all laws that pertain to vehicles, with minor alterations.

One research did note that with the impediment imposed upon peripheral vision by cell phone use, that most accidents involving cell phone using drivers were of the nature of failure to see peripheral risks, like other cars, pedestrians an bicyclists. Bicyclists, usually alloted the right side of the roadway, shared with motor vehicle drivers, are placed at the greatest risk.

[Clutch Munny]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Hand-held phones are banned for cars here too. You still see people on bikes using their phones though, which is amazingly dangerous.

It sure is. And I'd go beyond godfry's insinuated exception for music, in the case of cyclists: I think that riding a bike with headphones on should be ticketable. Being able to hear what's going on around you with pedestrians, cars, other bikes, and for that matter your own bike, is all crucial to riding safely.

[godfry n. glad]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Hand-held phones are banned for cars here too. You still see people on bikes using their phones though, which is amazingly dangerous.

It sure is. And I'd go beyond godfry's insinuated exception for music, in the case of cyclists: I think that riding a bike with headphones on should be ticketable. Being able to hear what's going on around you with pedestrians, cars, other bikes, and for that matter your own bike, is all crucial to riding safely.

Y'know...Back in the day...

When I was learning to drive, it was illegal to use a transister earplug while driving. The rationale was that it would interfere with the driver hearing emergency vehicle sirens approaching. I don't know what happened to that law...

[Corona688]

What the fuck was that godfry? You're going berserk over this. Calm down man. 'going'?

[godfry n. glad]

How are the hands free units possibly worse? You're equating the handheld cell phone units to drunk driving, which if you notice I never disagreed with you about. I assume by your responses to me you have specific statistics to prove hands free cell phone use is comparable to drunk driving? I'm not being snarky, that's an honest question.


Here's a site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm) reporting on the comparison of cell phone use while driving and drunk driving. Although the Transport Research Laboratories are not the researchers who measured worse outcomes for hands-free (the opposite), they do seem to be one of the major researchers which has made the explicit comparison to driving drunk.

I find it very curious that this information, and all the corroborating research that has been done prior to and since, seems to just disappear from the consciousness of Americans. It's all there, but most folks who use cellphones at all are unaware of this research. Perfectly well informed people seem to think that hands-free cellphone use behind the vehicle wheel is just jimdandy; that the problem has been solved. It hasn't, and these kinds of attitudes are just a set-up for worse to come. Some safety researchers are concerned about the exceedingly misguided attitudes which young new users, particularly those reaching or having recently reached driving age, have about cell phone use.

Here's one (http://www.satirewire.com/news/0007/satire-cellsafety.shtml) for ChuckHead and the mockingturds. That ought to keep them busy for some time, trying to figure it out.

[ChuckF]

OH SHI- that name burn really burned! I'm going to have to use my landline to call my chiropractor and ask him to prescribe a Very Effective Remedy.

Also the author of the handsfree n. glad name burn should report to this thread for thanks.

[Clutch Munny]

Consider it possible, godfry, that the issue between you and your critics is not whether telephone use while driving is dangerous, but whether your rhetoric and posting patterns on the topic are remotely sensible.

For example, someone mocked for claiming that those who deny the reality of global warming actually support Islamic terrorism would not address the criticism by linking to evidence of global warming.

[Watser?]

Speaking especially as a cyclist, I'd be happy to see a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car.

Hands-free may be just as bad, but harder to enforce a ban there.

Mind you, I'd also like to see traffic laws that give default right of way to cyclists and pedestrians.

Hand-held phones are banned for cars here too. You still see people on bikes using their phones though, which is amazingly dangerous.

It sure is. And I'd go beyond godfry's insinuated exception for music, in the case of cyclists: I think that riding a bike with headphones on should be ticketable. Being able to hear what's going on around you with pedestrians, cars, other bikes, and for that matter your own bike, is all crucial to riding safely.

Yeah, I agree, you can't afford to miss one of the senses when riding your bike, it takes up all your concentration (at least in the city it does).

[godfry n. glad]

Consider it possible, godfry, that the issue between you and your critics is not whether telephone use while driving is dangerous, but whether your rhetoric and posting patterns on the topic are remotely sensible.

Aw, gee...You, biochemgirl and Watser? have all been able to carry on a perfectly sensible conversation.

For example, someone mocked for claiming that those who deny the reality of global warming actually support Islamic terrorism would not address the criticism by linking to evidence of global warming.

I tend to think what I like and say what I think. Imagine that. Some people can deal with it, others can't. Luckily, here we have the means to ignore it. ChuckHead and the mockingturds can't seem to master that for some reason, so they come off as shithead trolls. Meh...

Some comments don't deserve sensible responses. Of late, most of his don't. Besides, I was under the impression that "it's all for the LULZ", anyway. That's what ChuckHead keeps repeating. Anything which ChuckHead posts is worthless to begin with...it's all just pomo posturing. There is no reason to even respond at all, other than to engage in pomo posturing oneself. That's probably why FF is so much better without that intellectual static, anyway. I should have done that quite some time back. Now, he and mickthinks and the rest of the mockingturds can piss on each other in "ignore"....where they belong.

[biochemgirl]

Along those same lines, you shouldn't wear headphones when you are on or near a road running or walking. I'd love to wear headphones when I am on our gravel road jogging but not being able to hear approaching traffic, however infrequent it may be, makes me far too paranoid.

[ChuckF]

lulz
:shit:

It's almost as if getting right up in somebody's face and bugging the shit out of them doesn't do a very good job of changing their behavior. Sorry, I don't want the intellectual static to drown out godfry looking forward to me and/or my family dying.

[Clutch Munny]

Consider it possible, godfry, that the issue between you and your critics is not whether telephone use while driving is dangerous, but whether your rhetoric and posting patterns on the topic are remotely sensible.

Aw, gee...You, biochemgirl and Watser? have all been able to carry on a perfectly sensible conversation.

That has everything to do with bcg and W?, and not the intelligibility of your approach. Your hysterical charge that bcg supports drunk driving, for example.

[godfry n. glad]

Consider it possible, godfry, that the issue between you and your critics is not whether telephone use while driving is dangerous, but whether your rhetoric and posting patterns on the topic are remotely sensible.

Aw, gee...You, biochemgirl and Watser? have all been able to carry on a perfectly sensible conversation.

That has everything to do with bcg and W?, and not the intelligibility of your approach. Your hysterical charge that bcg supports drunk driving, for example.

Hysterical? Given the research I've shown you, do you deny that using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle is equivalent to driving while drunk?

Can you tell me what the significant difference is between driving drunk and driving while conversing on a cell phone?

They are equivalent. That has been repeatedly shown. There is no significant difference with not opposing cell phone use while driving and not opposing drinking and driving. They are equivalent. She might as well have been supporting drunk driving. That is not hysterical. Your claim of it being hysterical is hysterical.

[Dingfod]

I'm just curious about the statistics. I've seen the studies that show cellphone use impairs a driver much like drugs or alcohol. Hell, I've observed any number of drivers who just can't drive and talk on a cellphone at the same time. But, still, there's something that bugs me about the claims of some great hazard to the public at large.

Cellphones are a relatively new phenomenon, a very low percentage owned one in the early 90s. But by 2000, about 50% of adults in the U.S. owned a cellphone. That number is probably approaching 90% or more now. However, traffic accident rates have gone down overall. In 2007, there were 6.024 million traffic accidents in the United States, down 5.8% since 2000, there were 1.711 million injuries in traffic accidents, down 17.3% since 2000. And, at 37,248, there was a slight decline in fatalities, a little less than 1% since 2000. Traffic accidents that involved property damage only has been virtually flat since 2000, showing a little less than a 0.2% increase from 2006 to 2007. This, while the miles traveled increased from 2.737 billion miles to 3.030 billion miles and cellphone ownership has nearly doubled. Cellphone use has probably gone up at least twice the rate of ownership in that same time period, a number difficult to find.

I think a few inferences can be drawn from these interesting diametrically opposed statistics and studies.
[1]Cellphone usage has not contributed to any increase in accident rates because there hasn't been any increase in accident rates.
[2]Since non-alcohol related crashes haven't gone up in numbers or rate, then the distraction of cellphone usage as a cause of traffic accidents has merely displaced other distractions, such as fast food, children, reading, etc. and/or inattentive and fatigued driving as a cause of accidents, but at a slighter lower rate.
[3]~OR~ Cellphones are not as dangerous as some would tout them to be, for at least whatever reason. Perhaps, as soon as a situation comes up requiring closer attention a cellphone user drops the phone or at least the conversation to take care of the emergency situation or maneuver. Unlike drunk or drowsy drivers who remain drunk or drowsy even if aware a situation is presenting itself, a cellphone user is usually sober and able to make the sort of snap decisions required in most situations.


I choose to believe it's not as big of deal as imagined, not even as I have imagined, despite the studies showing the impairment.


NHTSA 2007 Report (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/2007/TSF2007FE.pdf)

2008 numbers are even lower than 2007 (http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Safety-Accident-Management/News/Story/2009/02/2008-Traffic-Deaths-Hit-Record-Low-Says-National-Safety-Council.aspx?interstitial=1), total fatalities and accident rates are down about 4% for more reason than fewer miles driven. Stupid cellphone users messing up the statistics.

[godfry n. glad]

2008 numbers are even lower than 2007 (http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Safety-Accident-Management/News/Story/2009/02/2008-Traffic-Deaths-Hit-Record-Low-Says-National-Safety-Council.aspx?interstitial=1), total fatalities and accident rates are down about 4% for more reason than fewer miles driven. Stupid cellphone users messing up the statistics.


Yeah...curious statistics. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it could be attributed to concerted education and enforcement nationwide of seatbelt and motorcyclist helmet laws.

That's because the very same organization which released the above, the National Safety Council, also reiterated it's call for banning cell phone use by drivers (http://www.nsc.org/news/cellphone_ban.aspx) nationwide, just two months ago. Perhaps they aren't providing you the information because they don't have it. They are relying upon the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis to provide an estimate "that cell phone use while driving contributes to 6 percent of crashes, which equates to 636,000 crashes, 330,000 injuries, 12,000 serious injuries and 2,600 deaths each year. The study also put the annual financial toll of cell phone-related crashes at $43 billion." Again, this was released after the stats you cited....so, either they are ignoring their own statistics, or there are other rationales being considered.

You might want to drop them a line to see why they are being so opaque.

The NHTSA is still hitting the whole issue hard, as well. Their standing policy with regards cell phone use while driving (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.54757ba83ef160af9a7ccf10dba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=d01bab6383f62010VgnVCM1000002c567798RCRD&overrideViewName=Article) has not changed with the declines in fatalities and injuries. They do note that "[r]esearch shows that driving while using a cell phone can pose a serious cognitive distraction and degrade driver performance. The data are insufficient to quantify crashes caused by cell phone use specifically, but NHTSA estimates that driver distraction from all sources contributes to 25 percent of all police-reported traffic crashes."

Again, you might want to query the NHTSA about your concern.

Statistics on cell phone use while driving are very scarce, because there has not been any consistant collection of such statistics until very recently. The reports coming in from the California State Patrol, which started collecting such statistics regarding accidents in 2007, is that they are a signficant factor in accidents and that they are quite sure that cell phone statistics are considerably underreported. The accident reconstruction specialists had this (http://www.accidentreconstruction.com/newsletter/sep04/cellphone.asp) to say about the topic. Although I can't seem to find the 2007 CSP stats, I believe the estimated figures reported to the CA assembly in 2002 were borne out by the those 2007 stats.

I guess these folks are just ignoring the gross statistics, or there is more that is not yet being fully explained in the statistics reports.

[Dingfod]

Seatbelt usage and motorcycle helmet laws I concede have something to do with some changes in the rate of death and serious injuries reported over that period. Seat belt usage has increased about 10% and motorcycle helmet usage has declined by about that percentage as well. Still, what does either of those have to do with a reduction in the total number of accidents? Nothing. More lives could be spared and the number of serious injuries reduced more if they outlawed motorcycles and scooters instead of cellphones. Imagine them doing that.

Think how many lives could be saved if they just outlawed automobiles and trucks completely. Then people could get back to nature and living the life people lived before that evil automobile was invented, back before telephones and modern medicine, back when a person could get cocaine at the apothecary's shop (great for headaches, so I'm told). Just think of the number of human lives that could be saved just so they could die other ways.

[Angakuk]

2008 numbers are even lower than 2007 (http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Safety-Accident-Management/News/Story/2009/02/2008-Traffic-Deaths-Hit-Record-Low-Says-National-Safety-Council.aspx?interstitial=1), total fatalities and accident rates are down about 4% for more reason than fewer miles driven. Stupid cellphone users messing up the statistics.


Yeah...curious statistics. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it could be attributed to concerted education and enforcement nationwide of seatbelt and motorcyclist helmet laws.


While that could, conceivably, account for the decline in total fatalities, I don't see how it could have an impact on the accident rate. I have yet to hear of either seatbelts or helmets preventing an accident.

ETA: Crossposted with Dingfod.

[Dingfod]

Actually, in certain circumstances, seatbelts keep a person in a car, in front of the controls of the car, and may possibly prevent an accident. And a helmet-wearing motorcycle operator that hit a bird or a large insect with their head could probably shrug off the impact rather than run off the road because they lost consciousness.

I can personally attest as to the accident potential of a large grasshopper hitting a motorcycle operator in the face at 60 mph. I got lucky and got the bike shut down and off the side of the road without incident. However, this was in north-central Oklahoma where one can go on a 400 mile motorcycle tour and only turn four corners.

[godfry n. glad]

I dunno. Mebbe the existing bans, put into place over that same period have had stupendous success where they have been enacted and enforced? HALLELUJAH! It works! Just think about the strides that could be made banning other distractants!

It's a good question. I dropped the NSC a line with your question. We may hear back.

ETA: We did hear back.... Here's the answer provided:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful letter. You are indeed correct that injury and fatality rates are going down in the U.S. There are many reasons for this, including stronger laws and enforcement of impaired driving, better Graduated Driver Licensing laws for teens, and better vehicle structures that reduce serious injuries and fatalities. In 2008, a major contributor to the record low fatalities was the simple fact that people drove far fewer miles due to the slow economy and high gas prices. When people drive fewer miles, there are fewer crashes.

Cell phone use is one of the factors that is working against all these other factors that are serving to reduce injuries and fatalities. We estimate 2,600 people die each year from cell-phone related crashes. Fortunately, far more people than that have been saved from death by one of the other factors. If cell phone-related crashes and deaths were decreased, the number of lives that we would save would be even more.

We cannot look at the macro national data and derive inferences about any individual element. The increases in crashes related to cell phone use are being masked in the overall national data by the significant improvements in certain laws and enforcement, and in vehicle engineering that reduces serious injuries and fatalities. That is why we must measure the effectiveness of individual programs through well-controlled scientific studies that control for confounding factors. There are simply too many other factors that are working to increase and decrease the national numbers at the same time. Here are a few: For example, many jurisdictions are laying off police officers or not replacing officers that have retired. In many cases, enforcement of traffic laws will be decreased with the reduced staff. That could serve to increase speeding (people speed because the know they can and their chances of being caught are low). More speeding will lead to more speed-related crashes. Another example is the economy. When the economy picks back up and people again begin to drive more miles, I would expect crashes, injury and deaths to also increase. When that occurs, we cannot draw an inference that all the safety programs are no longer working. It will simply mean that the increase in exposure is a larger factor than the safety-related programs are producing.

Thanks for your interest in the issue and for taking the time to write.


John Ulczycki
Group Vice President
Research, Communication & Advocacy
National Safety Council

[godfry n. glad]

I have sent the following back to Mr. Ulczycki:

Thank you, Mr. Ulczycki,

Since my correspondent was relying upon 2007 and 2008 data, I wonder whether some of the places where driving and using cellphones have been banned have actually been able to affect these statistics by the increase of awareness due to the ongoing public discussions and the legislative acts illegalizing the distraction. Would those show in really recent statistics, particularly since they represent two exceedingly large population centers which have put legal limits in place, like California and New York?

I know that there have been various claims about the reduction of use being beyond what was expected. If this is the case, could it be part of the reduction in traffic accident rates?

Lastly, I know that the California Highway Patrol has been keeping statistics on actual causes of accidents on California roads. It is my understanding that the 2007 statistics gave even extra support to the 2002 estimation that up to 25% of traffic accidents in the state could be at least partially attributed to inattention generated by cell phone use? Are the 2008 CHP statistics out yet? If so, can you direct me to where I can find either of them online?

[erimir]

More evidence of the evils of cell phone use:

Don't iron and use your cell phone at the same time! YouTube - Ironing Fail
I even have the early research that showed that hands-free users took greater risks and demonstrated worse driving skills because they assumed that the problem with using a cell phone, hands being free to hold the wheel, had been addressed.I will just note here that on this particular subject, when it is suggested that maybe hands-free cell phones are somewhat safer, you deny this because people assume that they've taken care of the problem and thus take more risks. What that doesn't address however, is that some people (such as the people reading this thread) will not make that assumption.

Just a note. I'd be interested to know how they compare among people who are more informed about the dangers of hands-free cell phone use.

And no, I'm not denying that there's any problem with hands-free cell phones while driving.

[Chris Porter]

:sadcheer: But now who will make up crazy ideas that I don't even remotely advance and then attribute them to me?

Oh I'm sure someone new will come along.

Ta da!

[ChuckF]

:lol:

[Adam]

I'm still waiting for that link to whomever is supposedly arguing that cell phones are not distracting...

[Angakuk]

Give him time. He has been distracted.

[Dingfod]

This morning, when dropping Caesar off at the house he shares with three or four other Mexicans, I encountered a school bus driving down the middle of a relatively narrow residential street, the driver was ... wait for it ... talking on a cellphone. While driving a school bus filled with Kindergarteners. Aaarrrgghh!!! In her defense, she was probably reporting them to the police.

[godfry n. glad]

But Ding...it's not illegal. In your state.

Besides, all the kindergarteners just want to fuck ChuckF's mother, anyway.

[ChuckF]

This morning, when dropping Caesar off at the house he shares with three or four other Mexicans, I encountered a school bus driving down the middle of a relatively narrow residential street, the driver was ... wait for it ... talking on a cellphone. While driving a school bus filled with Kindergarteners. Aaarrrgghh!!! In her defense, she was probably reporting them to the police.
No worries! In the event of an accident, injured children will be transported directly to the local chiropractor for emergency treatment.

Also I love godfry's rage burns. They almost have a zen-like quality to them, in that they don't quite make sense but you can see the effort churning underneath the raw rage. Almost.