Hands-free Mobile Whilst Driving

[Silk]

A scenario for you: -

You're driving home on an unlit dual-carriageway at night in moderate traffic. You're going to be late home and you want to call ahead to say you will be another couple of hours, do you...

a) Pull over at the next layby, make the call, then rejoin the carriageway?

b) Press a button the the steering wheel to call home via bluetooth without stopping?

Sorry, but it's b) every time for me.

I'll argue that, as well as being the quickest and most convenient option, it's also the safest.

[dombooth]

B, every time.

Dom

[jameslb101]

c) Make the call where there is a safe place to stop, so either before you get on the unlit DC or once you're off it.

It's not the act of holding a phone that makes it unsafe (although that part does to a lesser extent) but the fact your mind is on the call and off the road. I'm hoping for using any phone, handsfree or otherwise, while driving to be made illegal. Not that I have a huge amount of faith in the effectiveness of legislation when not coupled with proper enforcement, but it's a start.

[driverpete]

Option (a) every time. As James points out it's not holding the phone that's the problem, it's the distraction of the call.

Imagine you are a passenger in a car having a conversation with the driver. Something happens on the road ahead and because you can see it you'll tend to keep quiet while the driver deals with it. Now put yourself at the other end of a phone conversation with the driver; you can't see what he can see so if something happens ahead you'll happily keep on talking while the driver tries to deal with it. Need I say more?

[jont]

Most salutary tale about hands-free distraction was from a friend. He was travelling with a colleague - both do lots of business miles per year. The colleague was driving, making a hands free call. He ran a red light on a level crossing just before the barriers came down. A couple of weeks later, he was sent a photo from a camera that had caught him. He had no memory of this at all and asked the friend for confirmation that he'd actually done it

If you're missing big red flashing lights, what else would you be missing?

/as for why the friend said nothing, I guess because outside of AD circles you generally don't comment on someone elses driving, even if you think they're doing something stupid.

[Silk]

c) Make the call where there is a safe place to stop, so either before you get on the unlit DC or once you're off it.

It's not the act of holding a phone that makes it unsafe (although that part does to a lesser extent) but the fact your mind is on the call and off the road. I'm hoping for using any phone, handsfree or otherwise, while driving to be made illegal. Not that I have a huge amount of faith in the effectiveness of legislation when not coupled with proper enforcement, but it's a start.

I disagree; which is why I started the thread in the first place.

I worry that if we are told something often enough, it becomes fact (totalitarian regimes have been using this technique since the dawn of time). I always like to challenge things as "evidence" is easy to manipulate.

For a start, I simply don't agree that laboratory tests tell a true story. It's very easy to get someone to concentrate well for a short time while they complete a test in a simulator where they are tested to the limit. Of course introducing something that will impair their ability only a fraction will cause a noticible drop in ability to spot a series of "hazards".

In reality, driving is pretty bland and it's impossible to concentrate fully all of the time - most of the time we're not on an ADUK driving day If you can achieve 50%, I suggest you're doing quite well. I regularly drive 1,000 miles a week on business, and I can assure you it's impossible to devote all of my concentration to driving all of the time- the brain simple doesn't work that way; it needs stimulation.

For calls such as I've described, I don't have a problem with using a hands-free phone.

I'll also throw something else in. I had my first car phone in 1989 when they were very rare things. These days there are more mobile phones in use than people and yet, until fairly recently, there has been a steady decline in road casualties. There's not really any hard evidence to suggest that there is a large increse in accidents caused through the exponential growth in mobile phone use. Even if "common sense" would tend to say it should be - wich is actually quite surprising.

[trashbat]

(a) - I'm well aware of my cognitive limitations, and for me, trying to have a conversation that involves any kind of thought means I can't appropriately concentrate on whatever else I'm doing. This is different to talking to a passenger because the other party has no understanding of why I've stopped talking.

[driverpete]

In reality, driving is pretty bland and it's impossible to concentrate fully all of the time - most of the time we're not on an ADUK driving day If you can achieve 50%, I suggest you're doing quite well.

All the more reason to reduce the distractions to a minimum.

[Horse]

I disagree; which is why I started the thread in the first place.

You're obviously free to disagree. Doesn't make you right, though

I worry that if we are told something often enough, it becomes fact (totalitarian regimes have been using this technique since the dawn of time). I always like to challenge things as "evidence" is easy to manipulate.

There is an element of truth in this belief. There have been plenty of studies showing this; one I read about recently was where average golfers became better putters when using the same brand of golf club as used by a famous pro.

No harm in challenge, like you've done now. The challenge is actually for you, whether you'll listen?

I simply don't agree that laboratory tests tell a true story. It's very easy to get someone to concentrate well for a short time . . .

Ah. now, I happen to know how some simulator tests are done, and they often include leaving drivers long enough in a 'boring' road environment so they mentally switch-off being extra-vigilant and revert to type.

In reality, driving is pretty bland and it's impossible to concentrate fully all of the time . . .

Yup. How's that relate to this? Can you always predict when a hazard will appear, when an emergency will happen?

There's not really any hard evidence to suggest that there is a large increse in accidents caused through the exponential growth in mobile phone use. Even if "common sense" would tend to say it should be - wich is actually quite surprising.

Ok, here's the challenge for you: How much hard evidence do you need? One study or many?

One study:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8545779/ns/ ... ely-crash/

Drivers using cell phones more likely to crash
New study also finds using a hands-free device won't necessarily help
updated 7/12/2005 12:03:41 AM ET 2005-07-12T04:03:41

WASHINGTON — Drivers using cellular phones are four times as likely to get into a crash that can cause injuries serious enough to send them to the hospital, said an insurance study released Tuesday.

Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggests that using a hands-free device instead of a hand-held phone while behind the wheel will not necessarily improve safety.

The institute said it was the first attempt to estimate whether phone use increases the risk of an injury crash in automobiles.

“You’d think using a hands-free phone would be less distracting, so it wouldn’t increase crash risk as much as using a hand-held phone. But we found that either phone type increased the risk,” said Anne McCartt, one of the study’s authors and the institute’s vice president for research.

The study, published in the British Medical Journal, found that male and female drivers had the same increase in risk from using a phone, along with drivers who are older and younger than age 30.

With more motorists dialing and driving than ever, lawmakers have tried to find ways of reducing driver distraction.

New York, New Jersey and the District of Columbia prohibit talking on hand-held cell phones while driving. In Connecticut, drivers will have to use hands-free devices beginning on Oct. 1. Some cities, such as Chicago, Santa Fe, N.M., and Brookline, Mass., require hands-free devices in automobiles.

But eight states — Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma and Oregon — prevent local governments from restricting cell phone use in motor vehicles, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The study found an overall fourfold increase in injury crashes when drivers were using cell phones. Researchers said there were substantially more drivers who were using their phones when they crashed compared with other similar periods of driving.

The researchers used cell phone records to compare phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash with cell use by the same driver during the previous week.

It examined 456 drivers in Perth, Western Australia, who owned or used mobile phones and were in a crash that put them in a hospital emergency room between April 2002 and July 2004.

Each driver’s cell phone usage during a 10-minute interval prior to the accident was compared to use during at least one earlier period when no accident occurred. Each driver, in effect, served as his or her own control group in the study.

The institute had tried to conduct the study in the United States but could not get access to records from phone companies. The phone records were available in Western Australia, where hand-held phone use has been banned while driving since 2001.

More than nine out of 10 suffered at least one injury and nearly half had two or more, with the majority of the injuries being mild to moderate in severity.

Weather was not an issue in the crashes, with nearly 75 percent occurring during clear conditions. About nine out of 10 crashes involved other vehicles and more than half of the injured drivers said their crashes happened within 10 minutes of the start of the trip.

Many studies examining cell phone use in vehicles have been based on police reports, but critics say the records are unreliable because it is difficult to corroborate whether a driver was using a phone.

A survey released earlier this year by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that 8 percent of drivers, or 1.2 million people, were using cell phones during daylight hours last year. It represented a 50 percent increase since 2002.

Jim Champagne, chairman of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said the study reinforced the need for driver education. His organization urges state lawmakers to refrain from enacting hand-held cell phone bans because they “incorrectly send the message to drivers that as long as they are hands-free, they are safe.”




Many:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16854702

Cell phones and driving: review of research.
McCartt AT, Hellinga LA, Bratiman KA.
SourceInsurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia 22201, USA. amccartt@iihs.org

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The research literature on drivers' use of cell phones was reviewed to identify trends in drivers' phone use and to determine the state of knowledge about the safety consequences of such use.

METHODS: Approximately 125 studies were reviewed with regard to the research questions, type and rigor of the methods, and findings. Reviewed studies included surveys of drivers, experiments, naturalistic studies (continuous recording of everyday driving by drivers in instrumented vehicles), studies of crash risk, and evaluations of laws limiting drivers' phone use.

RESULTS: Observational surveys indicate drivers commonly use cell phones and that such use is increasing. Drivers report they usually use hand-held phones. Experimental studies have found that simulated or instrumented driving tasks, or driving while being observed, are compromised by tasks intended to replicate phone conversations, whether using hand-held or hands-free phones, and may be further compromised by the physical distraction of handling phones. Effects of phone use on driving performance when drivers are in their own vehicles are unknown. With representative samples of adequate size, naturalistic studies in the future may provide the means to document the patterns and circumstances of drivers' phone use and their effects on real-world driving. Currently, the best studies of crash risk used cell phone company billing records to verify phone use by crash-involved drivers. Two such studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use; increased risk was similar for males and females, younger and older drivers, and hands-free and hand-held phones. A number of jurisdictions in the United States and around the world have made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held phones. Studies of these laws show only limited compliance and unclear effects on safety.

CONCLUSIONS: Even if total compliance with bans on drivers' hand-held cell phone use can be achieved, crash risk will remain to the extent that drivers continue to use or switch to hands-free phones. Although the enactment of laws limiting drivers' use of all phones is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced. At least in the short term, it appears that drivers' phone use will continue to increase, despite the growing evidence of the risk it creates. More effective countermeasures are needed but are not known at this time.

There's not really any hard evidence to suggest that there is a large increse in accidents caused through the exponential growth in mobile phone use. Even if "common sense" would tend to say it should be - wich is actually quite surprising.

I don't claim to be a scientist, but haven't you made a basic flaw with this ^ claim? Unless drivers are on the phone almost constantly whilst driving, surely your 'exponential' phone use isn't reflected similarly in driver behaviour?

There may well be an increase in phone use while driving, but not every phone user is always phoning while driving, all the time. Common sense will, surely, tell you that's not the case?

Perhaps you're also avoiding a couple of other factors, such as the gradual long-term increase in road safety, where 'losses' [eg phone-related crashes] are offset by other 'savings'. Plus, I doubt that 'phone involvement' is fully accurately reported, whether by police investigating crashes or by drivers submitting insurance claims (would you?), so the true scale can't be known.

Which is where the importance of behavioural research comes in, identifying in a safe, controlled environment of a simulator of how driving deteriorates when on the phone.

[TripleS]

.

[TripleS]

.

[Horse]

In my view the current driving/mobile phone law is a load of cobblers and it should never have been introduced. It seems to be generally accepted that the problem is not the matter of holding the phone, and therefore having only one hand available for the driving task, it is having a driver's concentration diminished by the act of carrying on a conversation with a person who is not in the car. To have a situation whereby hands-free phone use remains legal, and hand-held phone use is not, is therefore quite illogical.

Unfortunately, the beief has been passed to drivers because of the current law that 'hands free is OK',; as the man said:

I worry that if we are told something often enough, it becomes fact (totalitarian regimes have been using this technique since the dawn of time). I always like to challenge things as "evidence" is easy to manipulate.

[jameslb101]

c) Make the call where there is a safe place to stop, so either before you get on the unlit DC or once you're off it.

It's not the act of holding a phone that makes it unsafe (although that part does to a lesser extent) but the fact your mind is on the call and off the road. I'm hoping for using any phone, handsfree or otherwise, while driving to be made illegal. Not that I have a huge amount of faith in the effectiveness of legislation when not coupled with proper enforcement, but it's a start.

I disagree; which is why I started the thread in the first place.

For a start, I simply don't agree that laboratory tests tell a true story. It's very easy to get someone to concentrate well for a short time while they complete a test in a simulator where they are tested to the limit. Of course introducing something that will impair their ability only a fraction will cause a noticible drop in ability to spot a series of "hazards".

I'm not basing my opinion on what I've read in tests, I'm basing it on when I've personally (and extensively) witnessed first hand. I've been driven by countless drivers who've used a handsfree phone while driving. In all instances, concentration has diminished significantly.

Furthermore, I've used my phone on speaker "in my youth" (hehe!) and realised that my concentration on driving has all but disappeared while I'm doing so - that's why I made the decision not to use it again while driving, handsfree or otherwise.

I'll also throw something else in. I had my first car phone in 1989 when they were very rare things. These days there are more mobile phones in use than people and yet, until fairly recently, there has been a steady decline in road casualties.

[jameslb101]

(a) - I'm well aware of my cognitive limitations, and for me, trying to have a conversation that involves any kind of thought means I can't appropriately concentrate on whatever else I'm doing. This is different to talking to a passenger because the other party has no understanding of why I've stopped talking.

In my experience most passengers do not stop talking when a driver is approaching a difficult situation. Passengers who are genuinely interested in driving tend to do so, but normal passengers don't......or at least that's what I've found.

Even if they don't stop talking (and IME most do stop) in demanding situations, they can always understand if you "tune out" from them for a few seconds, and ask then to repeat. People on the end of the phone can't and don't.

[TripleS]

.