Cell Users As Bad As Drunk Drivers

An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports on a cell-phone use study which confirms that talking on your cell is as bad as being drunk, when it comes to driving skill. The researchers studied 40 volunteers in a driving simulator." From the article: "[The subjects were observed] while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level--the average legal level of impairment in the United States--after drinking vodka and orange juice. Three study participants rear-ended the simulated car in front of them. All were talking on cell phones and none was drunk, the researchers said."

Old

[cosmotron]

This was already on MythBusters...

heh

[hamburger lady]

not nearly as bad as this dude [cbs4.com] tho.

its been done

[pilgrim23]

Mythbusters all READY did the study, only they didn't get a grant to waste doing it...

Re:Sure... .but

[RapmasterT]

according to accident statistics, talking to other people in the car is the #2 cause of driver distraction accidents. Second only to rubbernecking at stuff outside the car.

cell phones barely make the list. According to anecdotal evidence, they're the #1 cause of "almost had an accident", but for real accidents they barely make the list.

Re:Sure... .but

[Carnildo]

So lets propse another study... how bad is it when we talk to other people in the vehicle while driving? Is it same as talking on cellphone or not?

The study's been done, and the answer is "no": the passenger usually has the sense to shut up in dangerous situations.

Re:The usual response

[pedestrian crossing]

I always use my hands-free set...

If you read the fucking article, you would know that their results were the same, hands-free or not.

Re:hmm

[Carnildo]

40 people? thats not that many.
its just as likely that they got the really good drivers drunk and all the shiat drivers were handed cell phones.

not that i doubt the conclusion, or anything. i hate cellphone-talking drivers. i'm just saying that 40 is kind of a small sample size for something being touted so much by the anti-cellphone-while-driving peoples.

If you look at the study methodology, it's quite large enough. They didn't divide it up into several smaller groups, they tested each participant under four different conditions: undistracted, talking on a hand-held phone, talking on a hands-free phone, and drunk.

Um, yes of course they *are* bad drivers

[Colin Smith]

Talking on the phone while driving is bad driving.

There's been research round for a few years now that talking to someone on the phone to take their eyes and attention off the road as they think and respond to the person talking. It's worse than talking to someone in the passenger seat or listening to the radio because you are required to respond to someone who has no idea what situation you're in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm [bbc.co.uk]

 

Flawed methodology

[vanillaspice]

So the researchers at the University of Utah determined that using your phone is worse than having a BAC of 0.08, the equivalent of one drink, not the equivalent of being drunk. How does the rubric stand up to two drinks? Four? As it is, the data don't suggest much. And don't be fooled by the "alcohol is involved in 40 percent of the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities" statistic, either. Most states derive that number from whenever any party, regardless of fault, has a BAC of 0.01 or more. In other words, you could eat a cherry cordial and a sober person could plow right through you and the state would consider your death an alcohol-related traffic fatality.

Mythbusters confirmed this

[HappyDrgn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_2 )#Cell_Phones_vs._Drunk_Driving [wikipedia.org]

Adam and Kari drove normally, then while talking on a cell phone and also while drunk. They had officers taking breathalyzer tests to get their BAC. In the show they determined that they where equally bad at driving using a cell phone as they where while drunk. Scores where done by a driving instructor in the car with them during all the tests.

Re:What about

[Greyfox]

I dunno about the screaming kids. Ideally you'd pull over and stop before belting them into quietude. Talking to a passenger does not offer the same level of distraction because they're there with you, can see road conditions and will STFU when things start to get hairy. If a passenger demands that you pay attention to them, they should be ejected from the vehicle. Stopping to do so is optional.

Fiddling with the radio in any significant way really does make a noticable difference in how much attention I pay to traffic. If the radio's pissing me off and traffic's kind of bad I'll just reach out and turn the damn thing offf rather than try to locate a channel that doesn't suck.

Re:The usual response

[Goblez]

So while we're studying things, how about the people driving and talking to passengers? I bet they suck too.

The pesimist in me wonders if they outlaw talking on a cellphone and driving, how far behind it will be not talking to passengers while driving?

Maybe Homer had it right with his car!

Re:The usual response

[Lumpy]

I was reareneded 5 times by a guy in a BMW behind me on a hill at a light. I let out the clutch rolled back and nailed his hood with the Pintel hitch. This happened at every light up the hill. when the guy got around us to flag us down (we had no idea, big truck = cant feel anything.) and pull over the cop gave him the ticket for beign too close to us. we not only caved in the front of the hood but ripped the metal from the repeated impacts.

There is a law that you must allow roll back room for the car in front of you, too bad most people are too stupid to understand those laws or learn to stay away from the truck in front of them after the first few times they get hit. (we rolled back 6 -12 inches.)

He did not have a cellphone in his ear, just a lack of IQ.

Re:Incomplete study...

[boingo82]

It's not that old people get in fewer accidents, they get in cheaper, less fatal accidents.

Old people tend to get into slow crashes. Parking lot crashes are a biggie, and they get into many more accidents while making left turns than do younger drivers.

How do crashes involving older drivers differ from those of other drivers? Compared with younger drivers, senior drivers are overinvolved in certain types of collisions -- angle crashes, overtaking or merging crashes, and especially intersection crashes. The most common error made by seniors is failure to yield the right-of-way. Seniors are cited for this error more often than younger drivers.15

From the IIHS's facts on old people page.. [iihs.org]

Teenagers, on the other hand, tend to get in single-vehicle, higher-speed collisions. They're more susceptible to distractions, such as passengers and cell phones.

How do crashes involving teenagers differ from those of other drivers? Teenagers have higher crash rates than older drivers, and their crashes differ. Analyses of fatal crash data indicate that teenage drivers are more likely to be at fault in their crashes. Teenagers' crashes and violations are more likely to involve speeding than those of older drivers, and teenagers are more likely than drivers of other ages to be in single-vehicle fatal crashes. Plus teenagers do more of their driving in small and older cars3 and at night, compared with adults. In 2004, 18 percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred between 9 pm and midnight, and 22 percent occurred between midnight and 6 am. Fifty-four percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. For 16 year-olds, all these problems are heightened. The combination of inexperience behind the wheel and immaturity produces a pattern of fatal crashes among 16 year-olds that includes the highest percentage of crashes involving speeding, the highest percentage of single-vehicle crashes, and the highest percentage of crashes with driver error.

(From the IIHS's teenagers fact page. [iihs.org]

Re:The usual response

[david.given]

There is a law that you must allow roll back room for the car in front of you, too bad most people are too stupid to understand those laws or learn to stay away from the truck in front of them after the first few times they get hit. (we rolled back 6 -12 inches.)

Uh... roll back room? I'm a bit confused; here in the UK, one of the standard driving test procedures is the hill start; if you roll back at all, you fail. (At least when I took it. They might have changed things.)

Unless this is something to do with automatics, but you said you drive a truck, and they tend to use manual gearboxes...

Re:The usual response

[MrShaggy]

I disagree.. the conversation will take your focus. Even if its only a bit. The radio is enough of a distraction, why tempt it more ?

Re:The usual response

[Anne Thwacks]

I have a UK HGV licence, and you definitely would definitely fail your test (HGV or otherwise) if you roll back. I would imagine you would be charged with dangerous driving if you rolled back and hit a car with a truck here, even if no damage was caused.

GP is correct you would not feel it if you hit a BMW- you could probably crush it flat and not feel it - hence the need to not roll back.

This does not eliminate the need to stop suficciently far behind the vehicle in front that you can pull past it if the driver stalls (or runs out of fuel waiting at the lights - it happens!)

Re:The usual response

[AHarrison]

The basic premise of the "roll back room" law in the US actually has nothing to do with rolling back. If a person rearends another person for any reason other than something such as a drastic lane change, it is considered follow too close. If, for example, I got rearended myself and hit the car in front of me from the momentum, the second accident is my fault because I was "following too closely". The rule of thumb in the US (California, at least) is you should be able to see the bottom of the person's tires in front of you when you come to a stop. This generally gives about half a carlength which is more than enough for rollback or a low velocity collision. Or at least, that is what I have been told.

Re:Incomplete study...

[T.E.D.]

More like; they have fewer accidents because they drive less. This is the same reason that women get lower rates; they drive less than men. Probably this is because a lot of us men insist on doing the driving when we are together. Check out the gender makeup of the cars in traffic that have passengers some time and you'll see what I mean.

  An insurance company gets paid per year (or per month), not per mile that you drive, so people who drive less are a deal for them.

Re:Incomplete study...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even have a car, but I still feel that someone should point this out.
Busses don't run everywhere, in the US at least this concept of "public transportation" is reserved for a small percentage of places someone might want to go. If you live outside of a major city chances are there are no busses at all, much less one that requires fewer than 3 exchanges and 2 hours of riding to reach your intended destination that was only an hours walk to begin with.

Hell, last summer in pittsburgh I had an hours walk to work, the bus only beat my walking time by 15 minutes (my solution of course was a 20 minute bike ride). I'd also like to say that I've almost been hit by a car while walking and reading. So kids, don't read and walk or you might DIIIE!

Now, on that note, reading and driving is pretty fucking stupid... just saying.

Re:We always treat the symptoms not the problem...

[Barnoid]

I disagree. It's not so much the equipment and training, but the content and length of the discussion.

If you exchange only military-style, short informational messages by cell phone the impact on your driving would probably not that big. However, listening to your friend complaining about his boss for like 30 minutes is going to be a problem. Not only will you encounter some situations that require undiverted attention to the situation on the road, but simple 'X, where are you now? Over' - 'I'm in Y. Over' conversations do not require as much attention.

Re:The usual response

[gowen]

Hold the weight of the vehicle on the gears by slipping the clutch to the bite-point, then release the parking brake. No need to use the footbrake at all.
People who learn to drive cars with manual gearboxes learn to do this by second nature.