Cell Phones May Be Worse Than Alcohol for Driving

[Lemur]

New study of drivers, cell phones and alcohol. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060630-7176.html) I enjoyed the article, but they never touched on the scenario that I want to know about -- talking on a cell phone while both drunk and naked, while simultaneously receiving oral attention. And driving. Now that would be a study.

Orgite comments solicited, as always.

Is that other driver on the phone, or merely drunk?

6/30/2006 3:16:08 PM, by Peter Pollack

A new study (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2006-06-29T224541Z_01_N29294149_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-CELLPHONES-DC.XML) conducted at the University of Utah and published in the journal Human Factors (subscription required) reveals some interesting points of comparison between those who use mobile phones while driving and drivers impaired by alcohol.

The study used 40 subjects, each of whom was tested under four different sets of conditions: undistracted, hand-held mobile phone, hands-free mobile phone, and intoxicated to a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent (a common legal threshold in many states). Participants were placed in driving simulators and asked to follow a pace car around a specified course.

Three accidents occurred during the testing, all of which involved cell phone users rear-ending the pace car. Phone users were also slow to brake, displaying reaction times 9 percent lower than unimpaired drivers, and slow to accelerate, with a 19 percent decrease in returning to speed after braking. This is viewed by the researchers as especially significant (http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/06/29/hscout533489.html), since it has implications regarding traffic flow in high-density areas. In contrast, alcohol-impaired drivers tended to drive more slowly, yet more aggressively than other drivers.

Contrary to the opinions of lawmakers who have legislated against the use of hand-held phones while driving, little distinction was noted between drivers no matter what style of phone they were using. That suggests that it is the conversation itself—as opposed to the device—which is responsible for the distraction. This seems to jibe with the results of a study (http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2006/Feb06/r021306) released in February, which tracked drivers' habits over a period of months, and found that conversing with fellow passengers in automobiles is just as distracting as using a cell phone.

Both intoxicated drivers and those with mobile phones shared the common trait of believing themselves to be unimpaired while behind the wheel. Additionally, cell phone users and intoxicated drivers tended to be less perceptive of changes in their environment. This result was almost certainly anticipated in the case of alcohol users, since the effects of that substance have been well-studied. It would be instructive to see how mobile phone users fare on a future version of the ape test.

Frank Drews, an assistant professor who worked on the project, suggests legislators may wish to consider outlawing cell-phone use in automobiles. He may be jumping the gun: a small study using 40 subjects and which appears to lack a double-blind environment can hardly be considered definitive. Although one might find reason to take issue with the exact degree of the study's results, it looks like it has been proven once again that driving distracted is a bad idea. Perhaps the most important aspect to come out of the Utah study is an apparent lack of distinction between using different types of phones from a distraction point-of-view. As a cell-phone-using driver myself, I'd certainly hate to see the devices outlawed completely.

[Don Corleone]

Volunteering as a test study subject, are we big guy? And what would Mrs. Lemur have to say when she learned of your participation "for science's sake" :no: Obviously, she can't be the one providing the attention...too dangerous, and there's a risk the little Lemurs would be left orphans. Something tells me Mama Lemur would be warming up her rolling pin just reading this thread. :skull:

[Lemur]

She wouldn't need the rolling pin. Lemur was foolish enough to marry a woman who has extensive training in Thai Kickboxing. Ugly stuff.

My, um, suggestion ... yeah, that was for the sake of science. That's it. They should start out with space monkeys and only move to human tests later. That's what I mean to say.

[doc_bean]

Talking on a cell phone (except when it's hands free) while driving is illegal here...

YES WE HATE FREEDOM

[Csargo]

I saw something about this on MythBusters they tested this but I don't remember the outcome.

[Aenlic]

Even though it isn't illegal in Texas to drive while talking on a cell phone (apparently use of turn signals has become optional because of cell phones :furious3: ), I've made it very clear to my 17-year old daughter, and she even agrees, that the cell phone is to be turned off while the car is in motion.

I can relate a personal story on it. A friend of mine was working as a rural mail carrier. At the time, the USPS was having rural carriers drive those ice cream van-like aluminum vehicles called LLVs rather than their personal cars to save money on mileage reimbursements. So there she was, doing her job. She was on a 4 lane state highway with just a double yellow stripe for a divider and no turn lanes. She signalled her stop to turn left, and while waiting for opposing traffic to pass, she was rear-ended by the driver of a local car dealership parts van. The driver of the parts van, who had only minor bruises thanks to his air bag, later stated that he was looking down to dial a number in his cell phone and didn't see her slow down and signal and then stop. He slammed into her flimsy aluminum vehicle at over 60 miles per hour with no braking evident, according to the highway patrol. My friend's vehicle was propelled into the air and sent sailing over 50 feet across the road to the opposite side. At some point after the impact, but before touching down, it also burst into flames. The autopsy report said she died of smoke inhalation and burns before the bloodloss could kill her.

I'm still not in favor of laws to stop them from doing it. But that's just because I'm a libertarian socialist. If only there were a way to ensure that those who do these stupid things were the only ones to pay for their idiocy. A sort of technological natural selection, a la the Darwin Awards. Sadly, they usually manage to take out innocent people at the same time. Like gun owners who leave their loaded weapons where kids can find them. Natural selection in action; but sometimes the innocent get hurt too. Eventually, I believe the dumbest ones will remove themselves from the gene pool; but it's such a terribly long process, and innocents suffer in the meantime. The only other option is to punish the innocent along with the criminals. That just won't do.

Oh, oh! You thought I was a liberal, didn't you? Tsk. Not a conservative either, as my stance on economics and capitalism shows. As I try to make clear, I got off the political spectrum bus and lost my bus pass. Can't get back on.

[Fragony]

It's illegal here as well, costs you 140 pleuro's. A friend of min once drived with a tin of sardines in tomatoesause at his ear just to annoy them. It was hilarious.

[ZombieFriedNuts]

We know that already that’s why its illegal to talk on the mobile while driving in Briton

[Divinus Arma]

I have been a Traffic Accident Investigator for the last three years, with the latter half of that time as a Reconstructionist. All I do is work motor vehicle collisions. I determine cause from start to finish, and have done so on roughly 300 collisions ranging from minor to fatal.


This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of. Yes I get my share of cell-phone-as-distraction collisions, but no where near the severity or frequency as alcohol related collisions.


Cell phones are a minor problem, consider:

The use of a hand-held cell phone is the lesser equivalent of eating while talking to someone else in the vehicle as you are driving. Or changing a music station. Or changing CDs. Etc.

The use of a hands-free device is the equivalent of talking to a passenger while driving.

The most dangerous component of cell-phone driving is dialing a number. But how many drivers look at a map, or watch the GPS, or look back at their misbehaving children in the backseat?

It is an additional distraction, but no greater than anything else we already do.

[Lemur]

Thanks for jumping in, Div ... I mean, Eclectic. It's nice to have someone with a relevant background barging into the discussion.

Questions:


Since the study doesn't match your observed reality, why do you suppose they got their results? Statistical errors? Political agenda? Flawed experiment? Lack of empirical experience?
After 300+ traffic reconstructions, what strikes you as the most common cause of accident? (I'm guessing alcohol, but I'm wide open to hearing differently.)
It's been well-established that some people buy SUVs because they feel safer in them. Is this borne out by your experience? Does the mass of an SUV inrease safety margins, or is it just more mass that needs to crumple up somewhere? I've heard both sides of that argument, and I've never known what to think.

[Divinus Arma]

Since the study doesn't match your observed reality, why do you suppose they got their results? Statistical errors? Political agenda? Flawed experiment? Lack of empirical experience?

Here is your answer:


The study used 40 subjects, each of whom was tested under four different sets of conditions: undistracted, hand-held mobile phone, hands-free mobile phone, and intoxicated to a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent (a common legal threshold in many states). Participants were placed in driving simulators and asked to follow a pace car around a specified course.
What about eating? What about changing radio stations? Or talking to a passenger, yelling a fighting kids, putting on lipstick, looking at a map, etc?

This is a controlled study with predesignated points where percetion and reaction time are lengethened. Consider the following:

Speed in Feet per second is = S in MPH *1.467.
Percetion and reaction time is the time it takes a driver to perceive a danger and react to it by engaging in an evasive action. Studies by traffic engineers all refuse to acknowledge a true "average" P&R time since it differs from individual to individual, but 1.5 seconds is considered acceptable as a statistical mean for collision investigations. Other factors that we consider will alter this.

So with that information, I know that a driver traveling at 40 mph will take:
40 * 1.467 * 1.5 = 88ft just to see the danger and hit the brakes. The study designers are also aware of this. And they know that ANY distraction can lengthen this. Consider just 1/2 second of extra P&R time: 40 * 1.467 * 2 = 117 feet. That's a pretty significant difference.

The study authors can also determine the distance where someone can safely observe an object and react in time. By adding stopping distance and P&R distance, they can determine the exact point where a driver will view a danger and have enough time to react. This is how we determine speed limits, roadway designs, sign placement, etc.


After 300+ traffic reconstructions, what strikes you as the most common cause of accident? (I'm guessing alcohol, but I'm wide open to hearing differently.)
300 Investigations, not reconstructions. Reconstructions are insanely complex and take hundreds of hours to complete. I would be 'da man if I had that many recons. But to answer your question, the greatest primary collision factor that I see is speed unsafe for conditions. People simply driver faster than what is safe given the prevailing conditions. Anything can alter the safe speed: additional traffic, roadway curvature, rain, you name it. Second to that would be inattention and falling asleep as a tie. Third would be DUI.

Speed drastically increases a severity of a collision. Double your speed and you quadruple your kinetic energy. You reduce the distance and time that you have to react to danger, and this is why it is such a frequent factor in collisions. DUI drastically alters P&R time: over 3 seconds+ sometimes. Not wearing a seatbelt is almost always a ticket to a dirt nap. People think they will be "thrown free"; usually they get rolled over by the vehicle and crushed or cut in half. We had three guys in one accident who all got smashed together. We couldn't even tell how many people were in the blob at first until we counted an extra foot.


It's been well-established that some people buy SUVs because they feel safer in them. Is this borne out by your experience? Does the mass of an SUV inrease safety margins, or is it just more mass that needs to crumple up somewhere? I've heard both sides of that argument, and I've never known what to think.


Well, the size of a vehicle really does matter, but only when you are faced with vehicles of differing sizes. More SUVs on the road means more equal sized vehicles. It's all about momentum.

IIRC, A 3000 lb car would have to travel nearly 1.5 times faster to equal the momentum of a 6000 lb SUV. Weight transfer in smaller vehicle is also disproportionate because of the designed crush areas. Vehicles are designed to crush in order to slow the speed of the impact before it reached the driver. The velocity of the force is what contributes greater to blunt force trauma. A vehicle without crush, or a small vehicle, simply doesn't extend the deceleration time and reduce passenger absorbed velocity like an SUV.

[Lemur]

Thanks very much, Eclectic. Couldn't ask for a more thorough answer.

[Kralizec]

Well, the size of a vehicle really does matter, but only when you are faced with vehicles of differing sizes. More SUVs on the road means more equal sized vehicles. It's all about momentum.

Wouldn't that be an argument for discouraging SUV sales rather then increasing their number?

Especially because there are other reasons why SUV's are bad:
- fuel inefficiency (environmental damage and depletion of scarce recourses)
- increased fatality rates when pedestrians or motorcyclists are involved, something wich you didn't touch
- parking space

That's what I can think of now, but there might be others.

[Lemur]

Kraz, I have no issue with people driving SUVs if they really want to do so. What bothers me is that in the U.S. we have tax incentives that can make an SUV less costly to purchase than a sedan, thus skewing the market and distorting the cost of ownership. That's the sort of market interference that makes no sense, and creates all sorts of counter-productive incentives.

From a safety standpoint, the Lemur is a big fan of active safety. I like being able to brake, maneuver and/or accelerate out of Bad Situations, so I wind up in smaller, sportier cars. My current sedan has saved my bacon at least twice, both times because it allowed me to do emergency maneuvers and recover quickly. At least one of those times would have been a full-fledged accident if I had been in a heavier, less maneuverable vehicle. (Lady pulls out into oncoming traffic without looking, Lemur swerves around the nose of her car with about a foot of clearance. Lemur spends the next ten minutes sweating and cursing.)

Seatbelts are great. Airbags are great. Crush zones are great. But the best thing is being able to avoid an accident entirely.

[Lemur]

A little background on the SUV tax break: (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403a1.asp)

The furor all started a couple years ago when some sharp-eyed accountants and their professional clients discovered a glitch in the tax code that proved big enough to drive a Hummer through, tax free.

The tax provision's original intent back in the 1970s was to enable small farmers and self-employed workers to buy a truck or van without having to fork over the luxury car tax that was then in effect and has since expired. At the time, it made perfect sense to qualify the vehicles by weight because no luxury cars exceeded the 6,000-pound gross vehicle weight threshold.

Under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, Congress raised the deduction ceiling for these heavy-class vehicles from $25,000 to $100,000, bumped the "bonus deduction" from 30 percent to 50 percent, and left in place the accelerated five-year depreciation schedule. This, in effect, made virtually all three-ton, business-use SUVs fully deductible in the first year. More than 50 vehicles qualified for the tax break.

Sure enough, tax-savvy self-employed professionals such as doctors, dentists and yes, accountants, connected the weight of today's luxury SUVs with the obscure tax loophole and started sporting heavy iron in order to deduct the entire purchase price in the first year. Which might explain why traffic lanes have seemed a little narrower lately.

...

Congress reversed itself last fall with passage of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 and cinched back the SUV loophole from $100,000 to $25,000 while retaining both the 50-percent bonus deduction and the five-year depreciation schedule. The deduction is claimed as a Section 179 expense, meaning you must be in business, filing a Schedule C or corporate tax return, to claim it.

Will the lower expense ceiling stop the heavy-metal stampede? Not likely, says Ronnie Windham, a certified public accountant in Oxford, Miss.

"I don't think it's going to affect people's buying habits. Most people buying SUVs are paying $40,000 or $50,000, so by the time you take the 50 percent bonus deduction and the $25,000 depreciation expense, most of them are still going to write off the full amount."

[Kralizec]

That's...totally ridiculous. I don't support a ban of SUV's or anything that drastic, but enabling more people to buy them with tax breaks?

Another case of the US' congres proving their worth?

[Aenlic]

Yes, Kralizec. We are insane here. Bug-eyed, drooling insane. Closely examining any act passed through our Congress will reveal such incredible feats of faulty reasoning, bad faith, lack of judgement, and just plain sheer unadulterated greed that it is a wonder we haven't simply imploded under the weight of our inanity by now. It may be a clear sign of the Apocalypse, which is the only reason I can think of to explain the sheer number of "End Times" Christians prancing about inside the halls of government, while cheerfully bringing the end about by their action or inaction. It would be funny, if it weren't so jaw-droppingly scary.

[Tachikaze]

It's obvious that phoning while driving is very hazardous. It is yet another distraction to take people's attentions away from the most dangerous activity they do all day, maybe in their lives.

I can usually identify a cell phone user by just watching their car wandering back and forth in the lane. They often drift across the lines. I watch them make right turns too widely because they can't stear the car through a 90 degree turn with one hand.

All those other things that "Eclectic" mentioned are true, but phoning adds an additional distraction to radio dialing, CD selecting, etc.

I used to recieve phone calls in my car, but I could see how dangerous it was when I tried it. My vision was completely blocked to the left by my hand, and my overall awareness was greatly reduced. I wanted to end the phone conversation as quickly as possible.

All that said, I don't think phoning is as dangerous as all drunk driving; it depends on the amount of intoxication.

I do not think hands-free phoning is equivilent to a person-to-person conversation. It takes more concentration.

This is another example of how Americans value convenience over safety (in fact over almost everything).

[Duke John]

Talking on the phone is different than talking to another person in the same car. When you come across a difficult situation the other person will usually stop talking and will understand when you stop. When on the phone the other person will keep on rambling while the traffic does something surprising.

At least I become silent when concentration is needed (dense trafic, crossroads) others can of course keep on talking.