Hands-free Mobile Whilst Driving

[Horse]

The entrenched position against the use of mobile phones seems to think that the distraction of all phone calls is the same; there's a world of difference between calling to say you're still driving and will be arriving late compared to having an in-depth conversation that requires the driver to interpret and respond to abstract concepts.

I'd say the former is more akin to listening to weather or traffic information on the radio and trying to work out whether what the broadcaster is relating is likely to mean your journey will be affected.

Indeed. And there have been times when driving that I've realised that because of concentrating on driving at that moment I've mentally 'blanked-out' the traffic info I'd been waiting for!

Just to clarify: there may well be times when the overall workload reduces to a point where some distracting activity can be balanced. I'll admit to, on long journeys, taking a swig of water or eating a biscuit. But . . . it will have been passed to me and I have the attitude that I won't eat anything that I don't mind dropping in my lap!

However . . . blanket assertions that it's 'obvious' that there's be no rise in crashes where phone use is a contributory factor are frankly ridiculous.

And that statement from someone who is distracted enough by normal in-car conversation that he misses junctions . . .

[Ancient]

In 'Psychology of Driving', Graham Hole includes a chapter on 'Effect of in-car distractions', in which there are a number of pages devoted to mobile phone use. He includes in these pages Recarte and Nunes (2000) who "did not explicitly set out to examine mobile phone use while driving" but set tasks "similar to those used" in mobile-phone studies; these included "verbal and spatial imagery spatial tasks while driving on a variety of types of road" for example, 30 seconds thinking of words beginning with a certain letter (sounds like games we used to play in the car when I was a kid, to relieve the boredom of long journeys) imagining each letter of the alphabet and answering questions on what it looked like rotated etc.
Driver's eye fixation was measured - they spent measurably less time looking around (their eyes 'froze' whilst imagining images). These results are similar to those seen in "mobile phone" studies (although reaction times are not quoted).
Other tasks given during 'mobile phone studies' include such things as being given two, 9-digit numbers and then asked to add them up, something most people would have trouble with when not driving; however since the subjects of these tests are usually (although not exclusively) students and are always interested in the subject (being volunteers) the results are doubtless skewed to some extent. Dr Hole includes a chapter on these difficulties too. Dr Hole concludes with the now standard conclusion that any mobile phone use is a distraction but in-car conversations are not (despite quoting Recarte and Nunes), again with the standard and unproven assertion that this is because passengers (who may or may not understand how to drive) will magically stop conversing if the driver is busy. I wonder how much of his conclusion is weighted by the potential for losing grants if he came to any other.
If your mobile phone conversations are of a nature to cause you to hold visual images in your head or perform complex memory tasks (some of which are the same as those in an 'aptitude test' for programming, which I took years ago) then your phone conversation is apt to distract you from driving. OTOH if your in-car conversations with a passenger are of such a type, then (as illustrated by Recarte and Nunes) they are likely to lead you to be less observant (and therefore more potentially dangerous). Passengers do not, in my own experience, tend to avoid particular conversation types (or shut up when the driving task gets 'busy'). It is the understanding of what taxes your attention which has the potential to make us a better or worse drive amidst distractions of all sorts. Apparently listening to a radio broadcast 'of their own choice' does not distract significantly: One wonders whether those participating in that experiment deliberately 'chose' a non-distracting broadcast and whether they'd do the same whilst driving!

[Gareth]

It is the understanding of what taxes your attention which has the potential to make us a better or worse drive amidst distractions of all sorts.

Absolutely agree.

Apparently listening to a radio broadcast 'of their own choice' does not distract significantly

I found that listening to a 'serious' speech program on Radio 4 to be more distracting than listening to music. While listening to descriptions of, say, new medical procedures I tend to elevate my attention to the listening task. When listening to music I often find that I zone out during a track to focus on the driving task, only to realise later that I've missed listening to most of it.

[Ancient]

I found that listening to a 'serious' speech program on Radio 4 to be more distracting than listening to music. While listening to descriptions of, say, new medical procedures I tend to elevate my attention to the listening task. When listening to music I often find that I zone out during a track to focus on the driving task, only to realise later that I've missed listening to most of it.

Indeed, you are probably forming mental images of the procedure whilst you listen; Which (apparently) uses the same part of the brain as is used for processing images of the 'real' world in front of your eyes . The potential for interference is obvious (and the real point of those 'imagine a letter C, now if it rotates through 180 degrees, is the opening on the left or right?' experiments).

[TripleS]

The thing that does worry me is the increase in people using social networking such as Facebook and Twitter whilst driving. This is a relatively new thing and I would be surprised if we didn't start to see some evidence of related accidents. Unlike a phone call, sending a message requires your full attention, leaving nothing left for driving.

Ah now then, to me that's a whole new ball game. I don't have anything to do with the likes of Facebook or Twitter; in fact I've only recently started to get the hang of composing and sending text messages, that's how far behind the times I am!

Anyhow the thing is this: I am quite happy about making or receiving a telephone call while driving, so long as it is done while the driving work load is low and I have spare capacity, and the conversation is brief and simple, i.e. not involving complex matters or arguments. To me that is not a problem, and I think it is the sort of thing that any competent driver should be able to manage without having an adverse effect on safety.

Having said that, I do feel that the amount of attention required to compose and send a text message is too great to be sensibly combined with the process of driving. Certainly I wouldn't attempt it, and I'm a bit doubtful about it being done by any driver, unless perhaps they were driving at low speed on a very long and straight road with nobody else in the vicinity.

As for these other electronic toys that one might play with, I don't know what these amount to but I can't see their use being compatible with safe driving.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

The entrenched position against the use of mobile phones seems to think that the distraction of all phone calls is the same; there's a world of difference between calling to say you're still driving and will be arriving late compared to having an in-depth conversation that requires the driver to interpret and respond to abstract concepts.

I'd say the former is more akin to listening to weather or traffic information on the radio and trying to work out whether what the broadcaster is relating is likely to mean your journey will be affected.

Exactly. Well said, Gareth.

What's needed here is a bit of sensible judgement, and we're not getting it from everybody.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[martine]

The entrenched position against the use of mobile phones seems to think that the distraction of all phone calls is the same; there's a world of difference between calling to say you're still driving and will be arriving late compared to having an in-depth conversation that requires the driver to interpret and respond to abstract concepts.

I'd say the former is more akin to listening to weather or traffic information on the radio and trying to work out whether what the broadcaster is relating is likely to mean your journey will be affected.

Exactly. Well said, Gareth.

What's needed here is a bit of sensible judgement, and we're not getting it from everybody.

Judgement is great...if it's used.

I'd argue that the majority of people who use their phones even handsfree, don't just restrict it to making a 20 second call home to say they are going to be late. Even that call can quickly become a 'What do you want for tea?' or 'Can you pick the kids up from their friends?' or 'You'll never guess what happended today?' conversation. It's difficult not to get involved.

I think it's better to be absolutely clear and not to use a phone when driving (genuine emergencies excepted). Voicemail and texts are great and mean you can pickup the message when it's safe, legal and convenient.

[Ancient]

Judgement is great...if it's used.

I'd argue that the majority of people who use their phones even handsfree, don't just restrict it to making a 20 second call home to say they are going to be late. Even that call can quickly become a 'What do you want for tea?' or 'Can you pick the kids up from their friends?' or 'You'll never guess what happended today?' conversation. It's difficult not to get involved.

I think it's better to be absolutely clear and not to use a phone when driving (genuine emergencies excepted). Voicemail and texts are great and mean you can pickup the message when it's safe, legal and convenient.

I agree with the first points, but not once you get to the bit I've highlighted with italics.
Most people experience occasional use of the mobile phone (especially hands free - I doubt very much BTW if those experiments which conclude hand-held and hands free are equal, have people steering with their knees, as so many drivers seem to) and find no problem; but because they are told that it is 'the mobile phone' that is 'dangerous', they conclude that they must have special powers which allow them to use it unaffected.
If instead the message was that conversations (whether on a mobile phone or with a passenger) that distract you from concentrating on controlling a ton plus of motorised metal, are dangerous (perhaps the sort of ads used IIRC in Australia, showing chatting people ending up dead), then the correct message might be got over to at least a significant number of drivers.
As it is, we have the worst of both worlds: A large (and apparently increasing) proportion of drivers ignore 'mobile phone' legislation, and remain unaware of the dangers of becoming distracted. Meanwhile calls are made (and listened to) for increasingly restrictive legislation, which will have little effect (other than perhaps to increase the number of fines, if anyone is left to police the new laws) because people will not obey a law they have no respect for because they are aware (even if subconsciously it only applies to them), that 'mobile phones' are not the problem, they are just not educated as to what the real problems are.

[martine]

I agree of course, effective education is always better than points/fines but sometimes you need to show it's a serious problem and transgressors can expect a stiff penalty. It focusses the mind and while you'll always get the people who choose to ignore any law, the majority do abide by the current mobile law either because they realise the dangers or just don't want the points.

I'm not arguing necessarily for stiffer penalties just a recognition that often...even usually...hands-held mobile use is almost as dangerous as hand-free.

[jont]

I agree of course, effective education is always better than points/fines but sometimes you need to show it's a serious problem and transgressors can expect a stiff penalty. It focusses the mind and while you'll always get the people who choose to ignore any law, the majority do abide by the current mobile law either because they realise the dangers or just don't want the points.

See my point previously - harsh punishment is ineffective if perpetrators don't think they'll get caught. I'd suggest that the lack of trafpol means that most driving offences are endemic and habitual because many drivers think the only think to worry about compliance with is the speed limit.

[Ancient]

I agree of course, effective education is always better than points/fines but sometimes you need to show it's a serious problem and transgressors can expect a stiff penalty. It focusses the mind and while you'll always get the people who choose to ignore any law, the majority do abide by the current mobile law either because they realise the dangers or just don't want the points.

I'm not arguing necessarily for stiffer penalties just a recognition that often...even usually...hands-held mobile use is almost as dangerous as hand-free.

But neither the object nor its use are a serious problem, although that is what we are being told the problem is. What is a serious problem (and we are not being told this - in fact quite the opposite with the unproven assertion, even in books on driving psychology that "in-car conversations don't have the same effect because the passengers can react to increased driver workload"*) is drivers allowing themselves to be distracted from the main driving task.
*I wonder whether this is because it would be difficult to tax - sorry fine in-car conversations, but easy to fine mobile phone usage.

[TripleS]

I agree of course, effective education is always better than points/fines but sometimes you need to show it's a serious problem and transgressors can expect a stiff penalty. It focusses the mind and while you'll always get the people who choose to ignore any law, the majority do abide by the current mobile law either because they realise the dangers or just don't want the points.

I'm not arguing necessarily for stiffer penalties just a recognition that often...even usually...hands-held mobile use is almost as dangerous as hand-free.

Oh, in that case maybe I'm better off with my hand-held after all......

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[MGF]

I am not convinced that the indignation caused by blanket bans on excess speed should not apply, equally to using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Why are people so vociferous in their condemnation of blanket bans on excess speed but not the blanket ban on mobile phone use?

People can't be trusted to use their phone safely in the same way as they cannot be trusted to choose an appropriate maximum speed.

[Silk]

If mobile phones were as dangerous as we're told, we would expect to see a massive and very obvious increase in road casualties. The reality is, road deaths have actually fallen over the last 20 years. At least in the UK.

Serious question, as this is the third time you've used this argument, but do you understand the difference between a correlation and a causal link? Or are you choosing to ignore this to suit your (flawed) argument?

I've simply phrased it differently in reply to different people. As I haven't been counting, I'll take your word for it that it's three times.

So far, I haven't really had a satisfactory answer to the question as to why we haven't seen an exponential increase in mobile phone related crashes to match the exponential rise in mobile phone ownership. Believe me, if we had, we wouldn't need any statistical mumbo-jumbo to see it.

[Silk]

stuff

OK, have it your own way.

I'll give trolls the time of day just in case someone else gets the wrong impression from their activities, but there's little point continuing now.

Hmm, interesting reply.

I realise I may not have addressed all of your points in the manner you expected and I can be a little argumentative, but the accusation of trolling seems a bit strong.

No matter, I've been called called worse.