Cell Users As Bad As Drunk Drivers 738
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."
The usual response (Score:5, Insightful)
Incomplete study... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to see a few more test groups added to this. How about the average pot smoking teenager, the girl putting makeup on, and my personal favorite that I saw recently... a woman brushing her teeth!
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]What about (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure... .but (Score:3, Insightful)
hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
multi-taskers (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, whenever I've been on the phone (not too often, I avoid it if possible) and something has gone on, without even thinking about it, my mouth stops and I'm 100% tuned into the road, I don't even notice I was talking to someone until things settle down. I'm used to having a bus full of drunk adults (bachelor parties) and rowdy kids.
I think they should test the subjects general multi-tasking ability and come up with a statistic that correlates multi-taskability (or inability) to accident+phone rates.
Well, they don't quite show that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd also love to hear more detail about the "hand-free" devices that they used for the test. Were these earpieces, or something more speakerphoneish? I seem to recall another study finding that the problem with driving while using a phone is not having your hands occupied, it's the mental isolation that happens as your brain divides resources between your conversational world and your driving world. And that earpieces did not change this, but that speakerphones _did_.
Re:Incomplete study... (Score:1, Insightful)
NBA Player & Pron in CAR = Accident (Score:3, Insightful)
he was watching pornography in a DVD player mounted on the dashboard of his Cadillac
he was masturbating himself going down that street.
Dude
Re:Sure... .but (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a different thing entirely to converse with a passenger in the same car. There's a lower drain on your cognitive resources, the person next to you responds to the same environmental cues as you do, and will shut up and/or scream if you're heading for trouble.
An alert passenger in your front passenger seat improves your ability to drive safely, even if you're deep in conversation. It's another set of eyes watching the road. A remote voice on the other end of a cellphone has the opposite effect.
Re:Yeah, you're awesome, I love you man... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
Everytime this comes up, people always say that they use hands-free. That's not the point. This isn't about having two hands on the wheel. This is about paying attention to what you are doing. Talking on a phone is an added distraction. Its that simple. You can argue to what degree that distraction is, but you cannot deny that it is a distraction.
Then people always talk about how they can drop the phone, or stop the conversation if a situation that requires their complete attention arises. Ever think that situation may not have risen if you hadn't been on the phone in the first place?
What about Cops (and Firefighters ... (Score:2, Insightful)
On Radios?
There is a long history of mobile radio use; Is a cell phone different ?
If so Why?
Catch ya on the Flip-flop Good Buddy!
73
{dit dit}
SK
Obvious BS. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course if they do, then they have to also look at the fact that 0. That's right 0 drunk drivers had an accident in the study. That means that the study proves drunk driving is perfectly safe right?
Re:Incomplete study... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say about 90% of the time that I actually notice that someone's on a cellphone - and I do look at other drivers very carefully, because you never know who you might see - it's because they're driving like a fucking idiot. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I think you're wrong about this.
Personally, I use the headset, and like you, I ignore people if driving requires my attention. I don't have such high regard for my conversation that I will let it distract me, at least not any more than when I'm talking to a passenger. That is also often a frustrating experience for my passenger, because I never look at them and I often have long pauses while concentrating.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Incomplete study... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:multi-taskers (Score:4, Insightful)
I call BS. How do you know there were not other times when you were oblivious to danger? You'd be oblivious so you would not even be aware that there was danger.
Re:Incomplete study... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
We always treat the symptoms not the problem.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in the military I drove tracked vehicles while communicating on a radio net, and also talking on an internal intercom system with a TC and squad leader. Getting in an accident would have been far more catastrophic given the weight and size of the equipment I was operating.
Similarly, Pilots also have to communicate while controlling an expensive piece of equipment - and I've also done that.
In both cases I never had an accident. I can't imagine the military or aviation systems working without radio communications. Similarly the efficiency of using the Cell phone has provided amazing and equally important impacts to the civilian world.
The number one key is to have the right equipment for 'hands free' operation. For cell phones this means buying and using the voice-dial features available on most phones now, and getting a headset for hands free operation in your vehicle.
Secondly you must learn to modify your driving habits so that if the conversation moves to a point of needing to take your eyes off the road (e.g. to search for or record information), that you then pull off the road and carry on the conversation without impacting your driving ability. You should never manually dial a number into your phone while driving, and never attempt to write something down, or search for some item in your briefcase or purse, for that matter.
Banning the use of Cellphones in cars is not the solution; proper training and equipment is the right answer.
Kick out the handsfree set (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
"As for the distraction argument, talking to someone who is in the car is a distraction, as is listening to the radio."
And the available evidence indicates they are not nearly as much of a distraction as talking on a cellphone.
"And my argument was based on the principal that the law should punish those who actually do something wrong, not do something that might lead to doing something wrong. This is why I vote libertarian."
If I decide I'd like to drive 90 miles per hour down the sidewalk with my eyes closed, the law shouldn't stop me until I actually plow into a crowd, killing dozens? Sorry, but I'm going to go with it being a question of where you draw the line. Some activities recklessly endanger others to such a degree that they ought to be banned pre-emptively. The question is whether driving while using a cell phone is in that category.
You think no, and despite your outraged denials, I still get the impression it's because you mistakenly think the imparement they are reporting couldn't possibly impact you, just like drunk drivers do. I think yes, but I'll freely admit I'm biased because I seldom use a cell phone, and almost never drive. But every damn driver who almost runs me over on my bike is yacking away. I'm sure they all think they are perfectly safe drivers, because I'm paying enough attention to not let them hit me, so they never realize they would have.
Anyway, while this study seems to support me and not you, it's obviously still debateable. But the "Libertarian" principle of letting people do whatever they want then only punishing the ones who get unlucky when it's too late and they've killed people is just stupid.
From the 'other' university with a driving sim (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't do it, it isn't smart. It could cost you your life, and unlike driving drunk, where you tend to be unhurt due to being relaxed, you are actually more likely to be hurt.
Re:The usual response (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate the fact that I can't replace the carpet in my basement without a permit. Or the fact that if my business grows to more than 10 people I have to start making sure I hire someone of a different ethnicity even if there's no one qualified. Or the fact that I can't write a piece of software that can play a DVD without paying $10,000 to the DVD-CCA to liscence the CSS encryption scheme. Or get a concealed carry permit in my state.
Add stiff deterrant penalties and charge people for it after they get in an accident. I hate the fact that innattentive and wreckless drivers that cause accidents get off with just insurance surcharges -- and possibly not even that in no-fault states -- while someone who uses a cell phone without a handsfree or drives with a 0.08 BAC can get jail time. That's seriously messed up.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time road conditions change even the slightest bit, I instantly say "Hold on" and chuck my phone on the passenger seat. That includes coming toward a hill, seeing brake lights on the highway... anything.
I drove 30,000 miles last year without a single accident. However, two close calls were 100% the fault of jackasses on cellphones. One was doing 40 MPH bellow the speed of traffic in the fast lane, the other swerved in front of me to get on to an offramp, well after the ramp had split off from the highway.
Point being, some of us can handle cellphones responsibly. Some can't.
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think I'm any kind of uber-driver, but I pay attention to what's going on and how I'm reacting. I know that if the traffic situation is tense I almost automatically turn down the radio and cut out other distractions. It's the same when I'm on a cellphone while driving. If I'm getting more tense from the driving condition, I quickly tell the person I'll call them back and I pay attention. Driving doesn't always require 100% attention.
There's no reason a responsible person shouldn't be able to use their cellphone while driving to a) pass time on boring stretches of roads, b) call ahead for take-out, c) call home to see if anything is needed, d) call ahead to let them know you'll be late, e) call and ask for directions, and f) call 9-11 because you just saw an accident or drunk driver.
This is all about a group of whiny people who want to control what other people do. Punish people for what they do that actually harms others, not what could possibly harm others.
Re:Obvious BS. (Score:3, Insightful)
you dont drive in metro detroit. 96 and 696 are pretty much that bad. I can tell you that I see regularly from 20-30 rearenders on the 30 mile stretch I travel every morning and evening. and every single one of them are multiple car 3-5 cars all smash each other.
It's not the callphones, It's that most drivers really really suck at driving.
Re:Mythbusters (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps even living is a privilege. Maybe not being tortured is a privilege. This driving is a privilege argument is very old and tired.
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't make it OK to impair the bad drivers and make them even MORE likely to rear-end the car in front of them. The study showed that the same sample group fared significantly better when not distracted.
The difference here being that race car drivers talk only in short phrases necessary to get and relay information, and the topic is always on their driving and the situation around them. They aren't having a conversation.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
The license gives you the privilege as long as you obey the laws and what not. It's not a right. It's not in the constitution. Your privilege can be revoked very easily if an officer sees you doing something that is dangerous.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:its been done (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if you take this argument to the extreme, you have government control of just about everything. And the opposite extreme (usually embodied by Libertarianism) is potentially just as bad.
The underlying philosophical question is: what are the limits (if any) of personal freedom? Do what thou wilt if it harm none? Then what are the mechanisms to insure that ones actions harm no one? Should we prevent actions that are likely to cause harm to others (or even to ourselves) or merely punish them in the event that they do?
There is a huge grey area (and many many fine lines and slippery slopes!) here. While my attitudes and beliefs tend to be conservative (at least in the fiscal and economic sense), I am by no means a libertarian (either small l or Big L). So while I believe that requiring no-hands systems for phone use by a car driver is a good idea, the outright banning might not be good. (Let's see some more studies and conclusive evidence. A sample group of 40 is almost anecdotal.) While there should be some limits on personal freedom, there should also be limits on government control. A nanny government isn't a government I want to live under.
Re:The usual response (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but what about drunk cell phone users?? (Score:3, Insightful)
They concluded that it didn't matter if you used a hands-free phone, or a hand-held phone, that it was simply the distraction that was causing the problems. As has been noted in this forum there are lots of other potential distractions: putting on make-up or shaving in the rear view mirror (I've seen both); fooling with the radio or CD player; looking at a map or reading your Google, MapQuest, Yahoo, Rand McNally, driving directions; talking to someone else in the car; turning around to see the status of your child in the back seat; looking at other stuff outside your vehicle; lots of other stuff.
Before we go outlawing cell phone use while driving, some real studies should be done to see if we should outlaw our wives (or husbands) talking to us while we are driving, or to see if CD players should be outlawed, or ... you get the idea.
Oh yeah, I'm sure that the conclusions of this study only apply to everyone else, but not *you*...
Re:The usual response (Score:2, Insightful)
1. 0.8 isn't really all that drunk.
2. Did they instruct the people to continously talk. In real life I pause my conversations when approaching situations where I don't have complete 100% visual information.
Also (ok 3 things) remember this was a driving "simulation" the brain doens't place the level of importance on simulated driving as it does the real thing. You crash much more frequently in a simulator no matter how accurate than you do in real life.
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
Before you leave: a typical trip may take anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours. It's not always appropriate to make that call before I leave. What's the point of calling for takeout 3 hours before I need it? I know I'm a good judge on whether the traffic is safe to call in. When it's not safe, I don't call. I see no problem with being at a stand-still in traffic and calling ahead to say I'm going to be late. For god's sake, nobody is even moving.
9-11: Maybe it's on the other side of the freeway. Maybe there's a gang beating up somoeone and I don't feel safe stopping? And as for helping before the EMT's get there, I'm not going to risk that lawsuit. Sure, there are good samaritan laws, but those are only as good as the lawyers you can afford to defend yourself.
What it all boils down to the fact that I'm an adult who is responsible for what I do. I make decisions every day that can impact other people. If I make a bad decision then I end up paying for it somehow. I know, that with many years experience, I know when I can talk on the phone and when I shouldn't.
Your experience teaches you that you can't handle it at all. That's just fine. In fact, I'm glad you know your limits. But don't go trying to limit me based on what you can't handle. Too many stupid laws come out of thinking like that.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
What if talking on a phone makes you a more dangerous driver even if you don't weave all over the place? What if it doesn't make any discernable difference in your driving until you need to notice and procees the fact that that's a bike lane crossing the right turn lane you are about to pull into, so you need to look over and see if there is a cyclist there that you are merging into at high speed? This is not hypothetical, it happens to me about once a week. These drivers are not doing anything out of the ordinary; they are "perfectly safe" right up until the moment they would run me over if I weren't more attentive than them. Public policy ought to be based on real scientific data, but my own anecdotal impression is that this behaviour is overwhelmingly exhibited by cell phone users.
Based on my personal experience, and what scientific evidence I've heard of, I think driving while talking on a cell phone is reckless in and of itself.
"..if there are a group of people who can drive safely while on the phone..."
I'm not convinced there is such a group. There is certainly a large group who think they can, but are wrong. Surveys consistently show that almost everyone thinks that they are an excellent driver, but that the average driver isn't. Heck, I think that, I'm sure you think that. Which is why we should not rely on drivers own opinions on whether they are safe, but on valid experimental studies. Which seem to indicate that talking on a cellphone while driving is reckless driving.
Re:The usual response (Score:2, Insightful)
A car hitting a pedestrian has a lot of force behind it. in fact, the pedestrian has virtually no chance here. The point being that opperation of any large vehicle should be done in as safe a way as is reasonably possible. I think it's perfectly reasonable to require drivers (and drivers only) to hang up the cell phone before they drive, just as it's perfectly reasonable to require drivers to be sober before they get behind the wheel. Driving puts you behind the wheel of a vehicle that used improperly can easily kill or maim other people. That's why it's reasonable to ask that preventable impairments to safe driving be made illegal.
Another thing -- there is no "right to drive". Driving is a liscenced activity in the same vein as motorcyles and airplanes -- I need to show competence to opperate the vehicle safely before the government gives me permission to do so. If I can't satisfy the state that I can handle a big rig, I won't be given a commercial truck liscence. That means it's illegal for me to drive a Mack truck down interstate 44.
2000lbs * 45mph (855,360,000 ft/second) = 1710720000000 (ft*lbs/s)
(not sure I got the force exactly right.)
Re:The usual response (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been talking and driving for 30 accident free years, well over 10 of them with a cell phone. If someone can't talk and drive at the same time, they should be banned from driving, not banned from cell phone use.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
No, just the aspects of life that involve potential harm to others (hitting someone because you were distracted by a cell phone can hurt others). We highly regulate acitivies related to motor vehicle use due to the fact that unregulated, they can be very dangerous to innocent bystanders.
"And the opposite extreme (usually embodied by Libertarianism) is potentially just as bad."
Actually anarchists are the opposite extreme. Libertarians (capital L) is a political party advocating greater limits to government control than generally accepted by the general population. They are not mainstream, but not really extremists.
"The underlying philosophical question is: what are the limits (if any) of personal freedom?"
Running someone over is beyond your personal freedom, even if you really wanted to take that call. Preventing someone from doing that is not being a 'nanny' government, in fact preventing harm to others is one of the key purposes for the government's existence.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. People who are in the car are in the same situation as the driver, therefor, the driver's mind is, still, spacially, thinking about the area surrounding the car. When you talk on your phone, your mind subconciously tries to make sense of the space in which you are talking to the other person. THIS is one of the main causes of distraction. Also, a person in a car is easier to tell, "hold on, I need to concentrate on driving" just by body language or by them noticing your shift in concentration, and unless they're autistic, they'll probably get the hint even before you have to say anything. When you're talking on the phone, you actually have to say, "hold on, I need to concentrate on driving", and, well, accidents happen much faster than that. Thus, just by the nature of the interchange, it will take the brain longer to shift from one subject (the conversation) to the other (driving).
As for radio/cd/iPod listening, actually listening to music in a car has shown to actually HELP drivers concentrate on driving. It keeps their brain from wondering to something completely unrelated to the place in which they're in, which IT WILL DO if you're driving for any length of time, whether or not you're a "good driver" or not. So go ahead, pop in that CD.
I'm going to believe what studies show, not what individual people's experiences are. As this study says, even the people in the study flat-out deny that they were affected, where-as the evidence clearly shows that they're full of shit.
As for laws, I'm all for outlawing cell-phone use in cars. Not only will it make the roads safer, it will reduce insurence rates, highway maintence funding, and possibly keep businesses from making a habit of feeling like they can call their employees at any goddamn time! Any federal laws can be effective overnight, as it's much easier to spot someone on a cell phone than if they've had a little too much to drink. Passangers using handheld phones (not on speaker phones) is totally kosher, but as of today, I'm gonna make a deal with myself to always pull off before talking on the phone, or if I can't, just let voicemail pick it up, even if it's an irrate client, make 'em wait.
Remember via /. what a drunk driver did to me (Score:3, Insightful)
might be a bit before some current Slashdotters time...
given how much more common people yapping on their cell phones appears even than drunk driving, I'd say we do have a problem here. I am not anxiously awaiting a teenager drilling into me because they were too busy on their cell phone to pay attention to the road. I fear what they may do when I'm on my bicycle. But that's part of the challenge, and the thrill when you survive it.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't I just play with a loaded gun around you? As long as you do not get killed, I have done nothing wrong and you have no right to complain. If I kill you we can talk about punishment.
Personally, I'd like to see a total ban on cell phones in the car. I commute on a motorcycle and am keenly aware of what the vehicle drivers (cagers) are doing. If I see a cell phone, I need to get away from that vehicle or risk injury. The problem is most people are on their phone now and there is no place to go on the road.
I just wish someone would introduce a cosmetic ban in cars, too. I've been nearly creamed more than once by a woman applying makeup at 80mph on the 5 freeway.
Re:The usual response (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy who ran into the back of my car last month could have chosen to hang up at any time. He didn't hang up because he was concentrating on his phone call instead of noticing I was turning into a carpark 50 metres in front of him.
By the time he noticed there was an almost stationary car in front of him, he was less than 20m away and travelling too fast to stop. He may have tried to hang up at that point, but even if he didn't, the call would have been terminated when his phone hit the windscreen of his car and shattered.
He may have been more likely to run into a virtual car, but by choosing to be an arsehole and put other people's lives and property at risk, he ran into mine instead.
He'll be prosecuted, and doubtless fined, and his insurance will pay for repairs, but that won't give me back the week of walking around in pain from the bruised hip. It won't return my MGF to pristine condition. It'll always be an accident-damaged car, and will be worth less when I sell it.
I don't care how interesting his phone call was to him, he had no right to involve me in it, and that was the choice he made when he tried to operate a car and a phone at the same time.
Re:The usual response (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
Not crashing while using a phone != good driving while using a phone.
There is enough to concentrate on while driving on crowded roads these days without taking 1 hand and half your brain away while you're doing it.
And yes, I am a qualified, professional driver.
The sooner all cars are fully automatic - ie. the driver has no control whatsoever - then the sooner the roads will be safe for the rest of us. You're only interested in talking on the phone, doing a bit of paperwork, playing video games, eating, listening to your stereo, and other non-driving related activities. All of that while navigating a piece of iron weighing around 1.5 tons through crowded streets !
I fucking hate car drivers !
Re:We always treat the symptoms not the problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're correct, to a point. Hands-free is good. Yes, I think one should have it. And, yes, you should pull off the road if the conversation moves to that off-topic point.
May I suggest that the reason pilots and heavy-equipment movers such as yourself have little-to-no trouble is because a lot of the conversation is about the trip? Granted, not all of the conversation is about the trip, but much of it is. Pilots communicate airspeed and altitude, for instance. Also, in many of those cases, there is a passenger who keeps a second-set of eyes on the road. In the air, some of the conversation between pilot and co-pilot are directly related to the aircraft and trip. Indeed, as I'm sure you know, there are strict regulations regarding the type of conversation that can happen during the critical phases of a flight.
Nothing really stops a professional from having a cellphone conversation with their friend about what Barbara really meant when she said, "just friends," but most professionals just don't. They know it's a bad idea. That's training, as you say, but it would have to come down to teaching regular drivers about cellphone responsibility and enforcing that responsibility and then there's also that point of personal accountability.
As a professional, you know the real danger that awaits you if you lose the shipment or crash the airplane. You are directly responsible to someone in a very real and personally-damaging way if you screw up. Regular folks? They just don't feel that accountable, it seems to me. And when they tap someone's bumper hard -- which happens often, and a cop WOULD stop both parties had he seen the bump, even though there is no physical damage -- they both shrug and move along.
Re:The usual response (Score:3, Insightful)
"Everybody on the road is an idiot except me."
"I make decisions every day that can impact other people. If I make a bad decision then I end up paying for it somehow."
The problem here is that "impact" is meant in the literal sense and that, with cars, other people will end up "paying" for your mistakes as well, often more than you. Will saying "whoops, my bad" make hitting a pedestrian all better?
How much of your "I know my limits" reasoning based on the fact that you have yet to find them, have yet to make a mistake to teach you that you really can't handle something?
"But don't go trying to limit me based on what you can't handle."
You may trust your judgment, but I do not trust your judgment, and when it comes to driving, your judgment can affect, say, my ability to move my legs again. And as such, I'm going to impose rules on you for using the road that I helped pay for.
Besides, you're discounting and scoffing at a proper scientific study on the effects of cell phone use on people, with little more than anecdotes and hypotheticals. How good can your judgment on other subjects really be?