Mobile phones and driving safety

Mobile phones and driving safety,.

Mobile phone use while driving is common, but dangerous. Because of this, some jurisdictions have made the use of a cell phone while driving illegal. Others have enacted laws to ban handheld mobile phone use, but allow use of a handsfree device. In some cases restrictions are only directed to minors or those who are newly qualified license holders.

Increased risk

September of 2010 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a report on Distracted driving fatalities for 2009. The NHTSA considers distracted driving to include some of the following as distraction. Other occupants in the car, eating, drinking, smoking, adjusting radio, adjusting environmental control, reaching for object in car, and cell phone use. In 2009 there was a reported 5,474 people killed by distracted drivers. Of those 995 were considered to be killed by drivers distract by cell phones. 

The Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ) conducted a study in 2003. Questionnaires were sent to 175,000 drivers and analysis was done on the 36,078 who responded. The questionnaire asked about driving habits, risk exposure, collisions over the past 24 months, socio-demographic information, and cell phone use. Questionnaires were supported with data from cell phone companies and police crash records. The study found that the overall relative risk (RR) of having an accident for cell phone users when compared to non-cell phone users averaged 1.38 across all groups. When adjusted for kilometers driven per year and other crash risk exposures, RR was 1.11 for men and 1.21 for women. They also found that increased cell phone use correlated with an increase in RR. When the same data were reanalyzed using a Bayesian approach, the calculated RR of 0.78 for those making less than 1 call/day and 2.27 for those with more than 7 calls/day was similar to cohort analysis.

When the data were reanalyzed using case-crossover analysis, RR was calculated at a much higher 5.13. The authors expressed concern that misclassification of phone calls due to reporting errors of the exact time of the collisions was a major source of bias with all case-crossover analysis of this issue.

Simulation study comparisons with alcohol

Means and standard errors (in parentheses) for the Alcohol, Base line, and Cell-Phone conditions

A 2003 study by the University of Utah psychology department measured response time, following distance, and driving speed of a control group, subjects at the legal BAC limit of 0.08%, and subjects involved in cell phone conversations. Data from the report are listed to the right.

It should be noted that the data of this study was adjusted to reflect socially accepted results. As the study notes; "... this is the third in a series of studies that we have conducted evaluating the effects of cell phone use on driving using the car following procedure (see also Strayer & Drews, 2004; and Strayer et al., 2003). Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. When results of this study are taken at face value it suggests that it is actually safer to drive drunk than sober.

From the report:

Forty adults (25 men, 15 women), recruited via advertisements in local newspapers, participated in the Institutional Review Board approved study.

Of the 40 participants, 78% owned a cell phone, and 87% of the cell phone owners reported that they have used a cell phone while driving.

The experiment lasted approximately 10 hr (across the three days of the study)

A PatrolSim high-fidelity driving simulator, ... manufactured by GEISIM, was used in the study.

The cell phone was manufactured by LG Electronics Inc. (Model TP1100). For hands-free conditions, a Plantronics M135 headset (with earpiece and boom microphone) was attached to the cell phone.

... the participant’s task was to follow the intermittently braking pace car driving in the right-hand lane of the highway.

Initially both the participant’s car and the pace car were driving at about 62 miles/hr (mph) with a following distance of 40 m

In the alcohol session, participants drank a mixture of orange juice and vodka (40% alcohol by volume) calculated to achieve a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% wt/vol.

Participants drove in the 15-min car-following scenario while legally intoxicated. Average blood alcohol concentration before driving was 0.081% wt/vol and after driving was 0.078% wt/vol.

In the cell phone session, three counterbalanced conditions, each 15 min in duration, were included: single-task baseline driving, driving while conversing on a handheld cell phone, and driving while conversing on a hands-free cell phone.

In both cell phone conditions, the participant and a research assistant engaged in naturalistic conversations

We used a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) followed by planned contrasts to provide an overall assessment of driver performance in each of the experimental conditions.

We performed an initial comparison of participants driving while using a handheld cell phone versus a hands-free cell phone. Both handheld and hands-free cell phone conversations impaired driving. However, there were no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two modes of cellular communication

Drivers in the cell-phone condition exhibited a sluggish behavior (i.e., slower reactions) which they attempted to compensate for by increasing their following distance. Drivers in the alcohol condition exhibited a more aggressive driving style, in which they followed closer, necessitating braking with greater force.

By contrast, when participants were intoxicated, neither accident rates, nor reaction time to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly from baseline. Overall, drivers in the alcohol condition exhibited a more aggressive driving style.

Most importantly, our study found that accident rates in the alcohol condition did not differ from baseline; however, the increase in hard braking and the increased frequency of TTC values below 4 s are predictive of increased accident rates over the long run

No accidents were observed in the alcohol sessions of our study. Nevertheless, alcohol clearly increases the risk of accidents in real-world settings.

Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions

One factor that may have contributed to the absence of accidents in the alcohol condition of our study is that the alcohol and driving portion of the study was conducted during the daytime (between 9:00 a.m. and noon).

We compared the cell phone driver with the drunk driver for two reasons. First, there are now clear societal norms associated with intoxicated driving, and laws in the United States expressly prohibit driving with a blood alcohol level at or above 0.08%. Logical consistency would seem to dictate that any activity that leads to impairments in driving equal to or greater than the drunk driving standard should be avoided

Support for this study was provided through a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration.

After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers.

Meta-analysis

A 2005 review by the Hawaiian legislature entitled "Cell Phone Use and Motor Vehicle Collisions: A Review of the Studies" contains an analysis of studies on cell phone/motor vehicle accident causality.

Meta-analysis by the Canadian Automobile Association and the University of Illinois found that response time while using both hands-free and hand-held phones was approximately 0.5 standard deviations higher than normal driving (i.e., an average driver, while talking on a cell phone, has response times of a driver in roughly the 40th percentile).

Arguments from increase in mobile subscription

In the US, the number of cell phone subscribers has increased by 1,262.4% between the years 1985-2008. In approximately the same period the number of crashes has fallen by 0.9% (1995–2009) and the number of fatal crashes fallen by 6.2%. It has been argued that these statistics contradict the claims that mobile use impairs driving performance.Similarly, a 2010 study from the Highway Loss Data Institute published in February 2010 reviewed auto claims from three key states along with Washington D.C. prior to cell phone bans while driving and then after. The study found no reduction in crashes, despite a 41% to 76% reduction in the use of cell phones while driving after the ban was enacted. 

These statistics, while compelling, ignore other salient factors. For example, many mobile phone subscribers will not drive or be eligible to drive, and mobile ownership may have increased while usage at the wheel has declined. It should also be remembered that correlation does not imply causation. In addition, improvements in car design during the same period almost certainly have reduced the chances of a crash proving fatal.

As a percentage of distraction-related accidents

Driver inattention is estimated to be a factor in between 20 to 50 percent of all police-reported crashes. Driver distraction, a sub-category of inattention, has been estimated to be a contributing factor in 8 to 13 percent of all crashes. Of distraction-related accidents, cell phone use may range from 1.5 to 5 percent of contributing factors. However, large percentages of unknowns in each of those categories may cause inaccuracies in these estimations. A 2001 study sponsored by The American Automobile Association recorded "Unknown Driver Attention Status" for 41.5 percent of crashes, and "Unknown Distraction" in 8.6 percent of all distraction related accidents.According to NHTSA, "There is clearly inadequate reporting of crashes".

Currently, "Outside person, object, event" (commonly known as rubbernecking) is the most reported cause of distraction-related accidents, followed by "Adjusting radio/cassette/CD". "Using/dialing cell phone" is eighth.

Handsfree device

Hands-free car kit,.

Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies. epidemiological, simulation, and meta-analysis. The increased "cognitive workload" involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.One notable exception to that conclusion is a study by headset manufacturer Plantronics, which found 71 percent of the test subjects steered more accurately, 100 percent had faster brake reaction times, and 92 percent maintained a more consistent speed when using a headset versus handheld.

The consistency of increased crash risk between hands-free and hand held cell phone use is at odds with legislation in many locations that prohibits hand held cell phone use but allows hands-free. Nevertheless, dialing a cell phone is more distracting than talking on a cell phone,and hands-free devices that offer voice-dialing may reduce or eliminate that increased risk.

Comparisons with passenger conversation

The scientific literature is mixed on the dangers of talking on a cell phone versus those of talking with a passenger. The common conception is that passengers are able to better regulate conversation based on the perceived level of danger, therefore the risk is negligible. A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening. Measurement of attention levels showed that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening. The Accident Research Unit at the University of Nottingham found that the number of utterances was usually higher for mobile calls when compared to blindfolded and non-blindfolded passengers across various driving conditions. The number of questions asked averaged slightly higher for mobile phone conversations, although results were not constant across road types and largely influenced by a large number of questions on the urban roads.

A 2004 University of Utah simulation study that compared passenger and cell-phone conversations concluded that the driver performs better when conversing with a passenger because the traffic and driving task become part of the conversation. Drivers holding conversations on cell phones were four times more likely to miss the highway exit than those with passengers, and drivers conversing with passengers showed no statistically significant difference from lone drivers in the simulator. A study led by Andrew Parkes at the Transport Research Laboratory, also with a driving simulator, concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than other common in-vehicle distractions such as passenger conversations.

In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones. AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones. A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the traffic. It concluded that drivers' training should address the hazards of both mobile phone and passenger conversations.

Texting

Texting while driving

The scientific literature on the dangers of driving while sending a text message from a mobile phone, or texting while driving, is limited. A simulation study at the Monash University Accident Research Centre has provided strong evidence that both retrieving and, in particular, sending text messages has a detrimental effect on a number of critical driving tasks. Specifically, negative effects were seen in detecting and responding correctly to road signs, detecting hazards, time spent with eyes off the road, and (only for sending text messages) lateral position. Surprisingly, mean speed, speed variability, lateral position when receiving text messages, and following distance showed no difference. A separate, yet unreleased simulation study at the University of Utah found a sixfold increase in distraction-related accidents when texting.

The low number of scientific studies may be indicative of a general assumption that if talking on a mobile phone increases risk, then texting also increases risk, and probably more so. Market research by Pinger, a company selling a voice-based alternative to texting reported that 89% of U.S. adults think that text messaging while driving is "distracting, dangerous and should be outlawed." The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released polling data that show that 87% of people consider texting and e-mailing while driving a "very serious" safety threat, almost equivalent to the 90% of those polled who consider drunk driving a threat. Despite the acknowledgement of the dangers of texting behind the wheel, about half of drivers 16 to 24 say they have texted while driving, compared with 22 percent of drivers 35 to 44.

Texting while driving received greater attention in the late 2000s, corresponding to a rise in the number of text messages being sent. Over a year approximately 2,000 teens die from texting while driving. The 2008 Will Smith movie Seven Pounds deals with Smith's character committing suicide in order to donate his organs to help save the lives of seven people to make up for the seven people he killed in a car accident because he was receiving a text message while he was driving. Texting while driving attracted interest in the media after several highly publicized car crashes were caused by texting drivers, including a May 2009 incident involving a Boston trolley car driver who crashed while texting his girlfriend. Texting was blamed in the 2008 Chatsworth train collision which killed 25 passengers. Investigations revealed that the engineer of that train had sent 45 text messages while operating.

On July 27, 2009, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute released preliminary findings of their study of driver distraction in commercial vehicles. Two studies, comprising about 200 long-haul trucks driving 3 million combined miles, used video cameras to observe the drivers and road; researchers observed "4,452 safety-critical events, which includes crashes, near crashes, crash-relevant conflicts, and unintended lane deviations." 81% of the safety critical events had some type of driver distraction. Text messaging had the greatest relative risk, with drivers being 23 times more likely to experience a safety-critical event when texting. The study also found that drivers typically take their eyes off the forward roadway for an average of four out of six seconds when texting, and an average of 4.6 out of the six seconds surrounding safety-critical events.

Legislation

A sign along Bellaire Boulevard in Southside Place, Texas states that using mobile phones while driving is prohibited from 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM and from 2:00 PM to 4:15 PM

Accidents involving a driver being distracted by talking on a mobile phone have begun to be prosecuted as negligence similar to driving while intoxicated. In the United Kingdom, from 27 February 2007, motorists who are caught using a hand-held mobile phone while driving will have three penalty points added to their license in addition to the fine of £60. This increase was introduced to try to stem the increase in drivers ignoring the law. Israel, Japan, Portugal and Singapore prohibit all mobile phone use while driving, including use of hands-free devices. New Zealand bans hand held cellphone use from 1 November 2009. Many states in the United States have banned texting on cell phones while driving. Illinois became the 17th American state to enforce this law. As of July 2010, 30 states had banned texting while driving, with Kentucky becoming the most recent addition on July 15.

List of countries with bans

Hand-held and hands-free

Countries where using either a hand-held or hands-free phone while driving is illegal:

Israel

Japan

Singapore

United States — No ban for adult drivers of non-commercial vehicles, but about 30 states have bans that apply to some or all young drivers, usually those under 18. Some of the states that have such bans are:

Indiana — only youth under 18

Kentucky

All drivers under 18 are covered by the ban, even if they have unrestricted licenses.

In addition to the emergency exception, use of GPS features is allowed, although data entry by a driver under 18 is illegal if the vehicle is in motion.

New Jersey — only for drivers under 21 with permits or probationary licenses, except in emergencies (see Kyleigh's Law)

Texas — only for the following:

School bus drivers while children are being transported and the bus is in motion; no exception for emergencies

Drivers under age 18 with restricted licenses, except in emergencies

Hand-held only

Countries where using a hand-held phone while driving is illegal:

Australia

Austria

Bahrain

Belgium

Brazil

Bulgaria

Canada—Illegal in all provinces except:

New Brunswick

Also legal in Canada's three territories — Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Yukon

Chile

People's Republic of China

Colombia

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Egypt

Ethiopia

Finland

Estonia

France

Germany

Greece

Hong Kong

Hungary

India—Only in:

Andhra Pradesh

Chennai

New Delhi

Kerala

Mumbai[40]

Iran—Only in:

Tehran

Ireland

Isle of Man

Italy

Jersey

Jordan

Kenya

Kuwait as of May 1, 2008

Lithuania

Malaysia

Mexico—Only in:

Mexico City

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Oman

Pakistan—Only in:

Islamabad

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Russia

Saudi Arabia

Serbia

Slovakia

Slovenia

South Africa

South Korea

Spain

Sri Lanka

Switzerland

Republic of China (Taiwan)

Thailand

Turkey

Turkmenistan

Ukraine

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

United States—Only in:

The city of Fort Smith, Arkansas

California

Connecticut

District of Columbia

Hawaii

Illinois (the city of Chicago had a preexisting ban)

Maryland

The city of Detroit, Michigan

New Jersey

The cities of Las Cruces, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico

New York

North Carolina (for drivers under 18)

The city of Brooklyn, Ohio

Oregon (As of January 1, 2010 - exception for use "in the scope of the person's employment if operation of the motor vehicle is necessary for the person's job.")

The cities of Philadelphia, Allentown, Bethlehem, Erie, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Texas—In all school zones at times when children are normally present. Note that this ban applies even on days that school is not in session, unless explicitly posted on the required signs.

Washington

All United States Department of Defense Installations

Zimbabwe

Zambia

(source:wikipedia)