Topic: Cell Phone Use Slows Drives Down......

[Trainman]

...... by a whopping 19 seconds over 15 kms      Oh my, what I am going to do about those missing 19 seconds of my life?

And sounds like the researcher has a chip on his shoulder about cell phone use, or why else call them SOB's?

I agree though that cell phone use while driving is not good, but this just seems to be silly research in my opinion.


Cellphone talkers clog car traffic, researchers say
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 | 12:03 PM ET
CBC News

Talking on a cellphone while driving slows down traffic, University of Utah researchers reported Wednesday.

"That SOB on the cellphone is slowing you down and making you late," psychology professor Dave Strayer said in a news release. "At the end of the day, the average person’s commute is longer because of that person who is on the cellphone right in front of them."

    Drivers talking on cellphones are less likely to change lanes to pass a slow car, a new study suggests.Drivers talking on cellphones are less likely to change lanes to pass a slow car, a new study suggests.
    (CBC)

Using a computer simulation, where 36 students "drove" a car on a section of highway where conditions mimicked those on a major Salt Lake City route, the researchers found that the students talking on a hands-free cellphone took 15 to 19 seconds more for the 15-kilometre trip and were less likely to change lanes to overtake a dawdling driver.

"We designed the study so that traffic would periodically slow in one lane and the other lane would periodically free up," said researcher Joel Cooper, a doctoral student in psychology. "It created a situation where progress down the road was clearly impeded by slower moving vehicles, and a driver would benefit by moving to the faster lane, whether it was right or left."

The time differences between drivers on phones and those not on phones during the simulated car trip were relatively small.

But researcher and engineering graduate student Ivana Vladisavljevic ran simulations to see how changing the proportion of drivers talking on phones affected traffic flow.

"We saw an increase in delays for all cars in a system, and the delays increased as the percentage of drivers on cellphones increased" from zero to 25 per cent, she said.

Citing statistics from other sources, the university release said that there are an estimated 240 million U.S. cellphone subscribers and nearly three-quarters of them use their phones while driving. Another study estimated that at any given time in the day, 10 per cent of U.S. drivers are on their cellphone.

Strayer's previous research showed that cellphone drivers are more likely to have an accident, their reaction times are slower and talking on a cellphone impairs drivers as much as having a 0.08 per cent blood alcohol level, which defines drivers as drunk in many jurisdictions.

But that prior research did not look at how traffic flow was affected. Strayer worked with engineering professor Peter Martin, director of the University of Utah traffic lab, to study the traffic effects.

Cooper is set to present the research on Jan. 16 at the annual meeting of the U.S. Transportation Research Board.

[Jay31]

A law banning cell phone use while driving is long overdue... I think any article that points in this direction is a good thing.

[mmret]

A law banning cell phone use while driving is long overdue... I think any article that points in this direction is a good thing.

A law banning handheld cell phone use might be long overdue, but the fact that people are 1 to 1.3 sec / km slower while yapping away is almost childishly irrelevant.

I wonder what his statistical margin of error is....

[Jay31]

A law banning cell phone use while driving is long overdue... I think any article that points in this direction is a good thing.

A law banning handheld cell phone use might be long overdue, but the fact that people are 1 to 1.3 sec / km slower while yapping away is almost childishly irrelevant.

I wonder what his statistical margin of error is....

Yeah....I agree, but I think this is a law that is seriously in need... it seems almost every time I go out for a drive I see someone either not looking where there going, driving slower than the pace of traffic causing a bottle-neck or doing something else otherwise careless, and most of the time they have a phone in one hand.  Even if this particular study is flawed, I think the evidence of the dangers of driving while holding a phone is pretty conclusive. Mythbusters, for example, even showed that drivers performed worse while on a phone than drunk...though I'm sure there are more conclusive studies out there.

[The Mighty Duck]

A law banning handheld cell phone use might be long overdue, but the fact that people are 1 to 1.3 sec / km slower while yapping away is almost childishly irrelevant.

I wonder what his statistical margin of error is....

Most of the research indicates that cell phone use - handheld or otherwise - creates a more dangerous driving environment, does it not?  I'm in favour of some kind of cell phone jammer that is operational whenever the vehicle is in gear.  If you want to talk, pull over and put it in park.

[mmret]

Most of the research indicates that cell phone use - handheld or otherwise - creates a more dangerous driving environment, does it not? 

So does speeding, talking to passengers, adjusting the radio, using iDrive, not having winter tires, drinking, etc.
Should we ban all those too?

Handheld phone ban would, imo, make talking via Bluetooth or safer than asking the passenger what radio station he/she wants to listen to. Flat out banning cell phone use in cars would be rather excessive.

I'm in favour of some kind of cell phone jammer that is operational whenever the vehicle is in gear.  If you want to talk, pull over and put it in park.

That is a horrible idea from engineering, economic, and practical perspectives.

[RunsinLight]

I would think there will always be ways around things like this. Just make it a $20,000 dallar fine  and your vehicle impounded for life and it will end. lol

I'm in favour of some kind of cell phone jammer that is operational whenever the vehicle is in gear.  If you want to talk, pull over and put it in park.

[Brigitte]

I would think there will always be ways around things like this. Just make it a $20,000 dallar fine  and your vehicle impounded for life and it will end. lol

Yeah, 'coz that really works on drunk drivers. 

Seriously, if people aren't worried about drinking over the limit and getting behind the wheel, what in the FACK makes you think that they'll stop talking and driving? 

[The Mighty Duck]

So does speeding, talking to passengers, adjusting the radio, using iDrive, not having winter tires, drinking, etc.
Should we ban all those too?

Two of those are already against the law (three in Quebec ).  And the others can be considered driving without due care if they're proven to be factors in a crash.  The key difference between hands-free and a passenger is that a passenger can see the road and knows when to shut up, not to mention serves as another set of eyes.  The distraction of talking on a cell phone is not holding the phone - with an automatic transmission, driving with one hand is very easy - it's being absorbed in a conversation with the other party clueless as to what is going on around you.

Flat out banning cell phone use in cars would be rather excessive..  That is a horrible idea from engineering, economic, and practical perspectives.

If we can put a man on the moon, I'm quite sure we can jam cell phone signals in cars.  I don't see how it would be an engineering problem.  We have DVD players that only operate in Park, a cell phone jammer should be similarly simple.  Economically, sure, that businessman can't drive to his meeting and talk to his associate at the same time.  But many businessman take the subway to work, and cell phone signals aren't available on the train, either.  In any event, the loss of productivity of not being able to be on the phone during your commute would be offset by the lives saved by having drivers pay more attention.  Practically: it's unacceptable to endanger the lives of other people on the road for the sake of convenience.  Next?

[CyberNick]

Making the car jam a cell phones while it's in gear would also prevent passengers from using a cell phone. What about emegencies, etc... thankfully, I think this jammer thing will never happen...

[mmret]

Two of those are already against the law (three in Quebec ).  And the others can be considered driving without due care if they're proven to be factors in a crash.  The key difference between hands-free and a passenger is that a passenger can see the road and knows when to shut up, not to mention serves as another set of eyes.  The distraction of talking on a cell phone is not holding the phone - with an automatic transmission, driving with one hand is very easy - it's being absorbed in a conversation with the other party clueless as to what is going on around you.

I agree that its the absorbed in conversation thing but that just gets into the "mind was elsewhere" deal. It can happen to anyone. Someone is hungry and thinking about food while driving home. Someone just had a bad breakup and is on the road to see a friend. Hey look at that shiny Porsche! Etc. To ban cell phone usage of all types on the basis that a conversation is a distraction is starting to push it, imo, because there are a hundred other things that are as distracting or moreso.

That said I still strongly believe that holding the actual phone requires considerably more mental power than one would believe. Also, I would have to disagree with the assertion that the passenger is another set of eyes, as in my experience the other people are just not paying enough attention to be of any use. Haven't you ever driven around with a set of university friends in the back? Sometimes they don't even notice if you went in the wrong direction.


If we can put a man on the moon, I'm quite sure we can jam cell phone signals in cars.  I don't see how it would be an engineering problem.  We have DVD players that only operate in Park, a cell phone jammer should be similarly simple.  Economically, sure, that businessman can't drive to his meeting and talk to his associate at the same time.  But many businessman take the subway to work, and cell phone signals aren't available on the train, either.  In any event, the loss of productivity of not being able to be on the phone during your commute would be offset by the lives saved by having drivers pay more attention.  Practically: it's unacceptable to endanger the lives of other people on the road for the sake of convenience.  Next?

A jammer is simple. A jammer that stays local to your car all the time is not so simple.

1. Two cell phone providers are issuing coverage in a city. Needless to say they do not share all the exact same tower locations, coverage cell areas, etc etc. Now, two guys, one to each Telco, are sitting in the parking lot. One happens to be fairly close to his provider's tower, while the other is rather far away. Thus, driver A has a much higher SNR at his phone than driver B. Driver A starts his car and puts it in gear. To muck up this high SNR signal, you would need a reasonable amount of power output from the jammer. Driver B who is putting groceries in the trunk suddenly loses his cell phone signal as the noise floor suddenly jumps up 40db and kills his call. Yes, the power received decreases as the cube of distance to the jammer, blah blah, that also applies to the tower.

2. Some guy breaks down at the side of the road. Car in park. Tries to call the CAA. Can't, because people keep driving by.

3. I am not entirely certain if this one would actually manifest itself, but I suspect that such a device would cause problems with handoffs, particularly for CDMA as I think they need to maintain multiple tower connections simultaneously...they can't do the insta-switch and retune like GSM.

Economics: I was not intending to refer to the suit who can't chat while driving. Instead this links back to point #1...I suspect someone may come up with a fancy way of a car-localized jammer that does not fail nor cause any other issues. However I do not suspect that this would come cheaply. So you spend tons of money to save a few lives...doesn't work. People have an economic value. If the cost of this "fix" is greater than that value of the lives saved, then its not worth it. C'est la vie.
Besides, nobody wants to pay more money for cars (and more money for cell phone service perhaps?).

Practicality: A family of 4 is driving along in the minivan. The passenger would like to make a phone call to tell someone that he/she will be slightly late, using their own cell phone. Oh wait! Need to pull over first.

Putting a guy on the moon was only possible because there weren't 60 million other people trying to land at the exact same spot at the exact same time.

[RunsinLight]

Your comparing a drunk persons decision making to a sober's one?

I would think there will always be ways around things like this. Just make it a $20,000 dallar fine  and your vehicle impounded for life and it will end. lol

Yeah, 'coz that really works on drunk drivers. 

Seriously, if people aren't worried about drinking over the limit and getting behind the wheel, what in the FACK makes you think that they'll stop talking and driving? 

[CyberNick]

Your comparing a drunk persons decision making to a sober's one?

The decision MUST be made before the drinking starts, as in "How will I get home if I drink tonight?"

[RunsinLight]

You can ask yourself whatever you want before hand. You still have to ask yourself the same question after you've drank.

[The Mighty Duck]

You can ask yourself whatever you want before hand. You still have to ask yourself the same question after you've drank.

True.  But if you ask yourself before hand and then plan accordingly, you're less likely to drive, I think.  For example, if you don't drive to begin with, you certainly won't drink and drive (and if you do, you have bigger problems...  like Grand Theft Auto ).

I agree that its the absorbed in conversation thing but that just gets into the "mind was elsewhere" deal. It can happen to anyone. Someone is hungry and thinking about food while driving home. Someone just had a bad breakup and is on the road to see a friend. Hey look at that shiny Porsche! Etc. To ban cell phone usage of all types on the basis that a conversation is a distraction is starting to push it, imo, because there are a hundred other things that are as distracting or moreso.

But it's not simply a matter of "my mind was elsewhere".  It's a matter of trying to be actively engaged in two complex activities: driving and holding a conversation.  Both require a significant amount of mental exertion to do, and overlapping them results in decreased reaction times to one or the other or both.  Obviously someone daydreaming behind the wheel is also bad, but I'll wager it's less dangerous than a cell phone - your examples strike me as passive thought processes, not active engagements.  Further, saying "there are other distractions in a car anyway" is a poor argument.  If we eliminate one, and one which is by all means a bad one, then we should.

That said I still strongly believe that holding the actual phone requires considerably more mental power than one would believe. Also, I would have to disagree with the assertion that the passenger is another set of eyes, as in my experience the other people are just not paying enough attention to be of any use. Haven't you ever driven around with a set of university friends in the back? Sometimes they don't even notice if you went in the wrong direction.

  You're free to disagree, but that does not change the fact that talking on a cell phone is a distraction, whether its hands free or not.  Because a conversation is an active process, you have to divert some of your attention from the road to the call to do both.  Holding a handset to your ear is not the problem - shifting a MT is a much more difficult physical process, but I've never seen it argued as a cause of collisions the way cell phone use is.  Hence the problem is with the call, not with the act of holding a phone.

Passengers are, compared to a caller on the other end of a phone line, a far better resource.  Yes, sometimes your passengers will be clueless.  But the person on the other end of the call will always be clueless - they cannot see what is happening on the road.  That is very different from a passenger who can see but is not paying attention.

A jammer is simple. A jammer that stays local to your car all the time is not so simple.

I simply do not know enough about the science behind cell phone networks to comment on whether a local jammer would be feasible.  But I'm sure if someone put their mind to it, it could be made to work.

Economics: I was not intending to refer to the suit who can't chat while driving. Instead this links back to point #1...I suspect someone may come up with a fancy way of a car-localized jammer that does not fail nor cause any other issues. However I do not suspect that this would come cheaply. So you spend tons of money to save a few lives...doesn't work. People have an economic value. If the cost of this "fix" is greater than that value of the lives saved, then its not worth it. C'est la vie.

The same has been said of airbags, ABS brakes, and probably every other safety feature ever devised.  If it were made law (especially in the USA or EU), the cost of development would be diluted over so many sales as to make it irrelevant.  And if it were mandated by law, the cost of every car would (in theory) rise in step, and so the relative price of cars would not change.

Practicality: A family of 4 is driving along in the minivan. The passenger would like to make a phone call to tell someone that he/she will be slightly late, using their own cell phone. Oh wait! Need to pull over first.

And?  The safety of other people on the road trumps the inconvenience of having to pull over to make a call.  If it's a quick like you describe, then it should be no problem to pull to the side to make it.  If it's not, it can probably wait - there aren't very many things that are so important that you have to discuss them RIGHT NOW and be driving.

The only practical problem I can think of off hand would be that drivers would be less likely to report accidents and other crimes, since it would mean pulling over.  Of course, there might be less accidents without cell phones, so...

[mmret]

Obviously someone daydreaming behind the wheel is also bad, but I'll wager it's less dangerous than a cell phone - your examples strike me as passive thought processes, not active engagements. 

Wager all you want. Pure speculation. Level of distraction is totally subjective. "Passive thought process?" "Active engagement?" Is a "passive thought process" not distracting, or do you think people don't put any active thought into what's happening when they're under duress?

Further, saying "there are other distractions in a car anyway" is a poor argument. 

I have known those who would respond to such a comment with a far more blunt, and even less clear "You're a poor argument." Still, I will merely say that cell phones are just one small aspect of a much larger problem, and this (larger) problem can be attacked through other methods prior to this one with greater effect and less annoyance, imo.

If we eliminate one, and one which is by all means a bad one, then we should.

Sure, so put a ban on handheld phones for the driver. I support that. Would that not solve 95% of the problem with only 5% of the annoyance of a "localized cell phone jammer?"
And while we're on the topic of eliminating one thing at a time, we should get rid of radios and put a soundproof shield between the driver and everyone else in the car.

Huh  You're free to disagree, but that does not change the fact that talking on a cell phone is a distraction, whether its hands free or not.  Because a conversation is an active process, you have to divert some of your attention from the road to the call to do both.

I was disagreeing with the assertion of the effectiveness of passengers. Although, I suspect you might have just put your "You're free to disagree" comment in the wrong paragraph.

I agree that talking on a cell is a distraction, handsfree or not. This bit about "active process" vs. "passive process" is bollocks though. Yes, you have to divert some concentration. Holding the phone while looking around is harder than you think. At least for me, I find driving with the phone in my hand rather distracting, while using the Bluetooth is quite "meh". Bluetooth requires no real physical interaction. You don't need to take your hands off the wheel nor your eyes off the road. That is a huge difference. If it were not, nobody would care about Bluetooth or headsets, etc.

MT drivers don't drive with their hand on the shift knob 100% of the time, do they? Besides which, it is well practised, and a part of driving. Cell phones are not a part of driving. Thus, the physical act of shifting should have no effect, for a practised MT driver, on their ability to actually drive. Thus, it cannot be argued, using this example, that using only one hand to drive does not affect ones driving performance.

Passengers are, compared to a caller on the other end of a phone line, a far better resource.  Yes, sometimes your passengers will be clueless.  But the person on the other end of the call will always be clueless - they cannot see what is happening on the road.  That is very different from a passenger who can see but is not paying attention.

Granted, in-car passengers are better. Still, neither form is very good.

I will say, however, that some (Bluetooth assisted) phone calls while driving on the 401 have helped to keep me alert, as has lowering the temperature.

I simply do not know enough about the science behind cell phone networks to comment on whether a local jammer would be feasible.  But I'm sure if someone put their mind to it, it could be made to work.

Oh?

I don't see how it would be an engineering problem.  We have DVD players that only operate in Park, a cell phone jammer should be similarly simple.

The same has been said of airbags, ABS brakes, and probably every other safety feature ever devised.  If it were made law (especially in the USA or EU), the cost of development would be diluted over so many sales as to make it irrelevant.  And if it were mandated by law, the cost of every car would (in theory) rise in step, and so the relative price of cars would not change.

Haha. Perhaps it would be cheaper in time. Still, I suspect it would be simpler and cheaper to put a Faraday cage around everyone's car instead.

Note also, that in the case of airbags and ABS, the solution was (reasonably) straightforward, self contained, and did not really have any interactions outside their little sandbox of operation. More importantly, they didn't annoy people, like a cell phone jammer would annoy people.

In fact, I imagine it would annoy people to the extent that they would simply go to their local car audio shop and have the thing disabled for $50. Check and mate.

And just because all cars cost more doesn't mean that its economically "okay." If that were the case nobody would complain about Canada vs. US pricing.

And?  The safety of other people on the road trumps the inconvenience of having to pull over to make a call.  If it's a quick like you describe, then it should be no problem to pull to the side to make it.  If it's not, it can probably wait - there aren't very many things that are so important that you have to discuss them RIGHT NOW and be driving.

Rather narrow. There are certainly times when its hard to pull over, and not everything can wait. Sure, most things can, but most cell phone calls made while in a car don't actually result in an accident either.

---------------

The bottom line, is that compared with a rather simple ban on handheld cell phone use by the driver, going to all the trouble of inventing some kind of contrived cell phone jamming system mandated on all cars that also prevents your passengers from making cell phone calls, and possibly people in the mall parking lot, this is what I would call "overkill". Saying that saving one life is worth it is just a bleeding heart argument that holds no water.

If you want to spend a ton of money to save lives on the road, devise some kind of equally contrived, but less annoying system that somehow magically (and I can't think of any good ways to do it) prevents you from driving if you're drunk. And make sure it doesn't shut the car off if some guy in the back seat has had one wobblypop too many.

I will say nothing else on the topic. Too hypothetical. Too draconian. I am tired.

[The Mighty Duck]

The bottom line, is that compared with a rather simple ban on handheld cell phone use by the driver, going to all the trouble of inventing some kind of contrived cell phone jamming system mandated on all cars that also prevents your passengers from making cell phone calls, and possibly people in the mall parking lot, this is what I would call "overkill".

  Speeding is banned.  People still do it.  Likewise drinking and driving.  A legislative ban on cell phone use by drivers would be a great start, but anyone who believes it's that easy to solve the problem is fooling themselves.

A jamming mechanism eliminates the problem.

The argument that it's inconvenient for some only confuses me, as does your assertion that "Saying that saving one life is worth it is just a bleeding heart argument that holds no water".  Do you honestly believe that your convenience is worth more than someone's life?  People got along just fine for many years without cell phones, but now they're so important that you need to be able to use it in the car, perhaps putting someone's life at risk?  The research points to cell phones being a distraction, handheld or not.

I think that inconveniencing a few drivers is worth reducing automobile accidents, saving thousands of dollars in insurance payouts for cell-phone related collisions, and saving lives.  I don't care if you can't make a call in a mall parking lot if it means I'll be safer on the driver home.  Is that selfish?  Sure.  But I think most people will agree that a human life is worth more than the ability to make a phone call...

[safristi]

,,Wot if that call was to SAVE A LIFE...............    this reductio ad absurdum arguments used  also for Winter Tyres......air bags...ABS.....No Tasers  etc is just that ABSURD & DUMB..........

[davidm]

www.aegismobility.com

Jammers are illegal and I know (from experience) finding an RF engineer to work on one for you is very hard, and very expensive.  You don't need jammers, just mobile services with insurance incentives.

Strayer and Drews from Utah are the most highly respected and published academics on driver distraction and cell phone use as it relates to driving.  They have done the most thorough, academically-correct (control arms, watching for statistical biases, etc.) of anyone (since the IIHS and NHSTA have done little research so far).  They have also done similar research on drunk driving.

The point of this recent stuff is not that YOU the individual loses 1.9 seconds, it's the LA freeway-effect of everyone driving slower, in a more distracted and thus less efficient manner, leads to significantly larger traffic jams.  Same way a guy who drives fast, them slams the brakes, in a line of slow moving cars causes a huge ripple effect problem instead of simply cruising at the 10-20 kph traffic is going.

I suggest you read the actual literature on the study before hammering it.

Yes, there are lots of other tasks that distract from driving, this one happens to be more realistic to do something about (please tell me no one here thinks its okay to do makeup, eat a burger, read the paper while driving).

[Schmengie]

This is a behavioral problem, not a technical one. The solution is simple - make the penalties for causing crashes while using a cellphone prohibitive by revoking licences, impounding vehicles, huge fines, even jail - whatever it takes. Making cellphone use while driving socially unacceptable and expensive is the best way to deal with a proven dangerous behavior, not cellphone jamming. Technical roadblocks only encourage people to find a way around them.