The dangers of the road

Now start JAILING these people just like drunks..

Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers.

"We found that people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit" of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states, says study co-author Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology. "If legislators really want to address driver distraction, then they should consider outlawing cell phone use while driving."

Psychology Professor David Strayer, the study's lead author, adds: "Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive. The level of impairment is very similar."

"Clearly the safest course of action is to not use a cell phone while driving," concludes the study by Strayer, Drews and Dennis Crouch, a research associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology. The study was set for publication June 29 in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The study reinforced earlier research by Strayer and Drews showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones because the conversation itself - not just manipulation of a handheld phone - distracts drivers from road conditions.

Human Factors Editor Nancy J. Cooke praised the study: "Although we all have our suspicions about the dangers of cell phone use while driving, human factors research on driver safety helps us move beyond mere suspicions to scientific observations of driver behavior."

The study first gained public notice after Strayer presented preliminary results in July 2003 in Park City, Utah, during the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. It took until now for the study to be completed, undergo review by other researchers and finally be published.

Key Findings: Different Driving Styles, Similar Impairment

Each of the study's 40 participants "drove" a PatrolSim driving simulator four times: once each while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to the

0.08 percent blood-alcohol level after drinking vodka and orange juice. Participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.

Both handheld and hands-free cell phones impaired driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. That "calls into question driving regulations that prohibited handheld cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones," the researchers write.

The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:

-- Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.

-- Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively., yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. "Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly" from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.

"Impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk," they conclude.

Are Drunken Drivers Really Less Accident-Prone than Cell Phone Users?

Drews says the lack of accidents among the study's drunken drivers was surprising. He and Strayer speculate that because simulated drives were conducted during mornings, participants who got drunk were well-rested and in the "up" phase of intoxication. In reality, 80 percent of all fatal alcohol-related accidents occur between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. when drunken drivers tend to be fatigued. Average blood-alcohol levels in those accidents are twice 0.08 percent. Forty percent of the roughly

42,000 annual U.S. traffic fatalities involve alcohol.

While none of the study's intoxicated drivers crashed, their hard, late braking is "predictive of increased accident rates over the long run," the researchers wrote.

One statistical analysis of the new and previous Utah studies showed cell phone users were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level.

Strayer says he expects criticism "suggesting that we are trivializing drunken-driving impairment, but it is anything but the case. We don't think people should drive while drunk, nor should they talk on their cell phone while driving."

Drews says he and Strayer compared the impairment of motorists using cell phones to drivers with a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level because they wanted to determine if the risk of driving while phoning was comparable to the drunken driving risk considered unacceptable.

"This study does not mean people should start driving drunk," says Drews. "It means that driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society."

University of Utah Cell Phone Research

Previous research by Strayer, Drews and colleagues include:

-- A 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones.

-- A 2003 study showing that the reason is "inattention blindness," in which motorists look directly at road conditions but don't really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. And such drivers aren't aware they are impaired.

-- A 2005 study suggesting that when teenagers and young adults talk on cell phones while driving, their reaction times are as slow as those of elderly drivers.

The University of Utah psychologists conducted the alcohol study because a 1997 study by other researchers evaluated the cell phone records of 699 people involved in motor vehicle accidents and found one-fourth of them had used their phone in the 10 minutes before their accident - a four-fold increase in accidents compared with undistracted motorists.

Those researchers speculated there was a comparable risk from drunken driving and cell phone use while driving. So Strayer and Drews conducted a controlled laboratory study.

The study included 25 men and 15 women ages 22 to 34 who were social drinkers (three to five drinks per week) recruited via newspaper advertisements. Two-thirds used a cell phone while driving. Each participant was paid $100 for 10 hours in the study.

The driving simulator has a steering wheel, dashboard instruments and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan. The driver is surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes. Each simulated daylight freeway drive lasted 15 minutes. The pace car intermittently braked to mimic stop-and-go traffic. Drivers who fail to hit their brakes eventually rear-end the pace car. Other simulated vehicles occasionally passed in the left lane, giving the impression of steady traffic flow.

Each study participant drove the simulator during three sessions - undistracted, drunk or talking to a research assistant on a cell phone

- each on a different day.

The simulator recorded driving speed, following distance, braking time and how long it would take to collide with the pace car if brakes were not used.

The study was funded by a $25,000 grant from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Driving while Distracted: A Growing Problem

The researchers cited figures from the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association indicating that more than 100 million U.S. motorists use cell phones while driving. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration estimates that at any given moment during daylight hours, 8 percent of all drivers are talking on a cell phone.

"Fortunately, the percentage of drunk drivers at any time is much lower," Drews says. "So it means the risk of talking on a cell phone and driving is probably much higher than driving intoxicated because more people are talking on cell phones while driving than are driving drunk." The main reason there are not more accidents is that "92 percent of drivers are not on a cell phone and are compensating for drivers on cell phones," he adds.

Cell phone use is far from the only distraction for motorists. The researchers cite talking to passengers, eating, drinking, lighting cigarettes, applying makeup and listening to the radio as the "old standards" of driver distraction.

"However, over the last decade many new electronic devices have been developed, and they are making their way into the vehicle," the researchers write. "Drivers can now surf the Internet, send and receive e-mail or faxes, communicate via a cellular device and even watch television. There is good reason to believe that some of these new multitasking activities may be substantially more distracting than the old standards because they are more cognitively engaging and because they are performed over longer periods of time."

Source: University of Utah

Reply to
rander3127
Loading thread data ...

You have it all wrong. They will fine these people and let them go so they can keep on fining them indefinitely. Nothing like a lucrative new revenue stream to make the government get all giddy with themselves and start passing laws to screw with us on a daily basis.

Hell, why stop there, nail the people eating French fries, sipping a Pepsi, listening to the radio, smoking a cigarette, or talking to a passenger in their car. Pretty soon there will be a regulation for how many squares of toilet paper I can use per ass wiping session.

How far do we need to go with this crap? I'll prefer to retain my freedom to talk on a cell phone while driving and live with the added risk. There is no guarantee that when you wake up in the morning you will live through the day to do it again tomorrow. Anyone that is that paranoid about others using cell phones while driving should be taking mass transit to work or just stay home all day.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Perhaps you have not read the studies that say people who talk to a passenger while driving are as distracted as those on a cell phone.

Reply to
WindsorFox

Not to mention those with children in the car, and if that is't bad enough, then the children become unhappy at some point and there goes all focus.

So... how would they know if you were talking on a hands free cell phone or singing along with the radio?

Maybe the regulation should be that cell phones must be carried in a separate LOCKED container away from the driver, just like an open container or a firearm.

It's understandable that they want to curb the use of cell phones, but there is no real way to enforce it.

K.

Reply to
Big Iron

I think everyone is missing the real point behind this "ban the cell phone" movement. It is revenue driven. They will be passing out tickets like candy, just like with the photo radar at traffic lights and speed traps. Local governments see this as the next cash cow to walking across their path.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Then how come I can't speed to my heart's content, since the same kind of risk is involved? Oh that's right! Canada is about to make street racing a felony. I love driving fast, but I can't reasonably justify it since I knowingly put others in danger by doing it. How important is that cell phone call? Not very, unless you are a 13 year old girl....

Reply to
rander3127

Actually I am in favor of cameras to catch redlight runners. It has become a dangerous and annoying epidemic here.

Reply to
WindsorFox

Trouble is they cause more accidents at the stops lights than before they were installed. Especially rear end collisions. Look at these links:

formatting link

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Okay well that's just stupid. Stupid people slamming their breaks on at the hint of a yellow when in mid-crossing. The problem I have is with the asses who blatantly blow through a light after the yellow has gone red having had more than ample time to stop. Truly I would rather see cops catch them and no cameras, cameras are a slippery slope, but it's gotten bad here especially after the hurricane incident. People running lights has become a major cause of accidents.

Reply to
WindsorFox

WindsorFox wrote in news:cX2pg.93719$IZ2.35922@dukeread07:

Whether they stop short or blow through, it all comes down to personal stupidity. There are simply too many idiots on the road.

Reply to
Joe

Yeah, instead of a fine(money for them)why not make the phone co. suspend their service for a month, of put a hidden signal scrambling device on their car.

In SoCal.(OC)went bankrupt so the ticketing for carpool violations went through the roof(min. $271.00)

Here in Oregon some kid was hit by a car in a school zone. The money grubs made the school zones 20mph 24/7! And violations are doubled! Even the dumbest saw that disguise. It's back to "when children are present" or during school hours.

Reply to
GILL

Initially they justified the reason for the cameras was to reduce accidents. Now we know they increase accidents, so what are their purpose? I can tell you their real purpose, they generate huge amounts of revenue for local governments. That is why they are installed and why it takes an act of God to remove them. I know Virginia and West Virginia has banned their use because they cause more accidents than before they were installed. At least there are some politicians out there that occasionally listen to the public outcry.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

The article probably left out that most drivers involved in accidents at these intersections were on their cell phones.

Reply to
Ace

You have a good point. If they really care about stopping cell phone use while driving then installing a signal scrambler on your car for a period of time instead of a fine would be much more effective. We both know why that will never happen..... gotta keep that revenue stream flowing.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote

*snip*

Local governments see this as the next cash cow to walking

It might be time for a good BBQ then.

Kate

Reply to
Kate

The one thing politicians like more than money is votes. If they know something like cell phone bans will loose them an election then it will never materialize.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

Some cameras were tried in my area but it turns out that there are some youths with BB guns that have chosen to snipe these as well as the radar trailers that post your speed along the road.

As far as impaired driving goes, I was in a Seven Eleven the other day and there was a woman mixing her morning brew of coffee/creamer/sugar and she was oblivious to what was going on in the store around her. When I excused myself for reaching around her to get a lid for my drink she said..... "Oh I'm sorry, I can't function at all until I have my morning coffee." And I'm thinking, Then what the heck are you doing driving around in traffic? I have actually seen people leave bars less impaired than she was.

Reply to
/\rtful ])odger

There are plenty of people that think the government is responsible for their well being to the extreme. Cell phone use is no more a threat than driving tired, with a cup of coffee in hand, eating a Big Mac, having a conversation with a passenger or jamming out to music just to name a few. The government is using cell phones as the latest reason to initiate another revenue grab from us.

Plus they already have laws on the books to cover this problem. If they see an impaired driver then they can pull them over and ticket or arrest them on the spot. They don't need another law to do it. They would rather assume every person using a cell phone is as impaired as a drunk driver. Now if this were true, considering the number of people using cell phones in vehicles on a daily basis, don't you think there would be accidents occurring on a massive scale? Think about it. IMO, it just doesn't add up from a common sense perspective. I see this as no more than the latest opportunity the government has to increase local government revenue and make it sound like we all want it and actually demand it to happen.

Reply to
Michael Johnson, PE

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:16:37 -0500, "Big Iron" puked:

I imagine they could jam the cellular phone frequencies with a device built into the car's computer or something...

-- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

Reply to
lab~rat >:-)

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:01:41 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" puked:

Not that it matters, but I typed out my phone-jamming post before I read this post. ;)

I seldom use a phone when I drive because it interferes with steering and shifting and whatnot, but I see people careening toward me yakking away a mile a minute and it drives me nuts.

I wonder if cel phone records have ever been entered as evidence as to who is to blame for a crash.

It's the same way I feel about the elderly drivers that run people off the road and carry on their merry way ten miles below the speed limit. I swear I'll insist the cops test them for imparement if they ever cause a wreck with me...

-- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

Reply to
lab~rat >:-)

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.