If you were to say, run the same tests as presented and came up with opposite results you may then have a valid refutation.
Why hang your hat on a test of 20 people conducted for an insurance company, when you have thousands of real accidents that you can study without the help of the Let's-Look-For-Any-Excuse-To-Raise-Your-Rates lobby?
I like to look at real-world data, since that's the best measure of what happens in the real world. So far, plenty of evidence that virtually no accidents include a phone as a contributory item.
Fess up, are you or your family in a cell-phone or a related business?
Nope, not at all. I just don't see a reason so far to blame them for bent sheet metal. For bad customer service, dropped calls and poor sound quality, yes, of course. But for poor driving behavior? No, not without good reason.
If you want to claim that the accidents are already happening, then show us where they are happening. According to those state legislators (who aren't part of Verizon), the rate is well under 1%
Too easy pch101. Even if the number you quote was irrefutable, it shows that if that one percent was removed, then the accident rate would have been one percent lower. Once the actual rate of cell-phone related accidents is better known, (and its coming fast due to economic factors which are the prime drivers in our society), you can subtract that rate from the declining accident rate and show an even better rate of decline if cell-phones use was restricted.
Why not disprove the apparent reality that the cell-phone use rate has actually caused a decline in the overall accident rate since they seem to be tracking each other, even though you have just conceded that 1% of accidents are caused by cell phones even as accident rates decline.
Even if the number you quote was irrefutable, it shows that if that one percent was removed, then the accident rate would have been one percent lower.
No, it doesn't actually mean that.
The data offers a measure of "contributing factors". That means that the event may have occurred, even without the phone as a specific contributing factor.
If an accident had, for example, three contributing factors, but still would have occurred had you removed one of those factors, then you don't place the entire weight of blame on that one factor. If a drunk driver happens to be drinking a latte and is talking on the phone while his kids yell in the back seat as he causes an accident, you don't break out the fireworks to celebrate your discovery of a "phone-related" accident.
In any case, no one is arguing that the phones are a ticket to paradise, but whether they pose a meaningful, significant hazard that requires their entire banning. I'm not seeing any good arguments about phone risk that couldn't be used to ban anything and everything used in the interiors of cars, aside from a single seat (no passengers allowed) and the six-point belt that we'll now be required to install. Good bye, cupholders, hello, roll cage...
Fintail is absolutely right. If you are going to advocate a position, it is your obligation to prove its validity.
Your job is to refute the evidence shown in the outcome of the test. There will doubtless be further testing, but where is your same test refutation? You remember cold fusion? It was refuted by running the same experiment multiple times and coming up with no similar results. It seems the same refutation would apply here; duplicate the test, (develop other tests) come up with opposite or no results and you have your refutation of the claim that cell-phone use does impair a drivers ability.
If someone told you that based on test humans can not exist in a vacuum, would you really demand "real word" evidence, or would you chance it?
Sometimes it is easy to ignore the real world evidence of driver distractions causing injuries and deaths. It has probably not gone unnoticed that you do not refer to humans, injuries, or deaths in these accidents, only sheet metal, collisions, superior attitudes and skills. Something missing in the equation here isn't there.
There will doubtless be further testing, but where is your same test refutation?
Why would anyone with a scientific bone in his body bother to replicate a 20-data-point test with the use of a simulator? The sample size is too small to be valid, and the "simulator" is not likely to do a very good job of simulating reality.
Have you ever played a driving video game? If you are an adult, it's pretty likely that you do a better job of driving your car than you ever will with driving that video game vehicle, while a pre-teen kid probably gets the opposite result. Let's not all start using our X-Box video games, or some faux-scientific equivalent, as a way of testing our real-world driving skills, particularly when we have real-world data coming out of our ears to study in detail.
The data offers a measure of "contributing factors". That means that the event may have occurred, even without the phone as a specific contributing factor.
Too careless; your statement then also means that the event mayalso have occurred as a single contributor since that possibility is not ruled out in the dated example you cite.
Your statement also avoids the concept of "threshold events" as in the "last straw" on the camels back. When that "last straw" is the cell phone, not all other straws are culpable.
It is culpability that is in play here, not contributing factors such as being born, living in an automotive society, learning to drive, or any others. In this case this "last straw", like drunk driving, is virtually always avoidable as a contributing, or only factor.
With the additional avoidable contributing, or single factors of cell phone use and again you have obviously, and by your own statement, an increased number of accidents in this segment, even as the overall rate of accidents declines. Remove/reduce this "real world" number of accidents and your overall accident rate has also been reduced unless you will now state that contributing factors do not really contribute to accident rates.
Remember, your question was how can it be possible that cell phone use has contributed to accident rates when overall accident rates are on the decline.
My next guess as to why you are adopting this pose is that you are a legislator preparing a presentation on cell phone use and are trying out all of the red herrings that will be thrown in.
Second guess is that you are an attorney attempting to establish, or refute culpability in a cell-phone related accident and need to see what can be gleaned from the blog.
Why would anyone with a scientific bone in his body bother to replicate a 20-data-point test with the use of a simulator? The sample size is too small to be valid, and the "simulator" is not likely to do a very good job of simulating reality.
And again, as you know, it is not the nexus of what was being stated. Your response, as always fails to address the salient points, and drifts into a planned and unavoidable obscurity.
Again, if you feel the simulator is inadequate, then design another, in your view, more realistic test and use that to refute the premise that cell-phone use impairs a drivers ability.
Or is it your position that the relative simplicity of the simulators produces counter intuitive results showing a greater difficulty in negotiating the simple simulator while managing a cell phone than would be produced in the far more complex "real world" of actually driving while using one?
As the "real world" stats begin to accumulate world wide the position that cell-phone use does not impair driver ability becomes less and less tenable.
-13/100ths of a second (taken from a meta-study that compiled the results of many studies together, not just one of 20 people on a machine paid for by an insurance company)
The metastudy was based on a bunch of different studies. It was presented to show the lack of difference between hands held and hands free conversations. The paper itself was looking at using data compiled from different studies using different protocols to collect data. From an experimental design standpoint, this isn't what I would use for the be-all end-all. The conversations had different levels (some easy, some hard), the drivers had different ages and skill levels, the experimenters were recording different information, etc. I would be more inclined to follow the results of a study that was designed to test what we are talking about directly. 20 people starts to get at a statistically valid sample size, although more is better.
This isn't even statistically true. Data from a controlled setting is often more valid than data from the real world especially when it even says in the report that they dont have the capability to track and record the data of interest.
And then all of Jonnie/Jannie's friends will hear what happened and how they are now serving consecutive life terms in prison and had to give every cent they ever made to the wrongful death suit and will be less likely to play with the real guns anymore.
Is this a suggested punishment of cell-phone drivers and others equally diminished? Can we sell tickets and watch the proceedings? Will it be televised? Will it bring back the already dead? Will it affect those believing in their "entitlement" leaving us with no way to prosecute without blood on the pavement?
Perhaps slightly too tongue in cheek and morbid, but I didn't start the comparison. I just carried forward the metaphor. This was originally about guns, not cell phone users. My point is, if a couple of people actually got prosecuted and it was made known what happened, that would also provide something of a deterrent. It obviously wont change the past, but may have an affect on the future behavior of individuals.
Why would anyone with a scientific bone in his body bother to replicate a 20-data-point test with the use of a simulator? The sample size is too small to be valid, and the "simulator" is not likely to do a very good job of simulating reality
Why do you ignore the other studies? You would like those reading this to believe our basis for wanting cell phone usage in vehicles banned is from on one small study. It is not. several studies have been presented, including 500 accidents in Australia that were cell phone related. The accident statistics you are using are only through 2004. We have added 50 million subscribers to the cellular networks in the USA since 2004. We have doubled the minutes of use since 2004. More people are being impaired in their driving as a result. To ignore all the facts is your choice. It is my place to continue to add data to the fire that surrounds this debate. I feel as passionate about this issue as fintail does the seatbelt laws. I want to protect others from drivers that are not paying attention to their driving. If that includes a myriad of distractions, I say add them to the list. It is obvious we are unwilling to use common sense in our driving. If we did there would be NO accidents. And no need for traffic laws.
The one area I am in agreement with you. I was trained to drive defensively. At Pacific Telephone in the 1960s if you had an accident, you WERE at least partially to blame and would more than likely lose your job. Being aware of what is going on around you 360 degrees was part of the training. That is tough to do if you are 50% impaired talking on a cell phone or 30% impaired when drunk.
Where does the 8% of drivers use cell phones number come from?
I see about 50% and sometimes 75% using cell phones. Even in the middle of Illinois driving back from St. Louis last Sunday morning the use was more than 8% (at of those going eastbound) and more may have been using hands free of some type.
Uh, with all due respect...you couldn't be more incorrect if you tried.
If you post a study with questionable data (a laughable 20 inputs, simulators, funding from insurance or cellphone companies, etc), it is your responsibility to defend your data if you plan to masquerade it as fact. One has no right to present junk as fact and not be called out to defend their numbers. It's not my job to prove you wrong...it's your job to prove yourself right. Take that accountability and go for it.
A 20 input study on simulators is about equal to your idea of "there can be no answer". Both claims have as much going for them.
I sincerely doubt you have the knowledge and credentials to give advice on "how it is done"...please lay off the ego.
Have you performed a driving study in a simulator? Have you performed a driving study on the road? Do you understand the different type of variables? The idea of an experiment is to control all the variables you can, while manipulating the variable of interest. This is MUCH easier to do in a simulator than on the road. My guess is also that you have never participated in a study in a research level driving simulator. The level of realism is fine, and it offers relative validity to driving in the real world (results from the simulator are scaled to results of real world driving). This is more than ample to look at tasks and draw reasonable conclusions.
Depending on the tasks, 20 people is more than enough to conform or debunk a null hypothesis at the .05 alpha level.
What is more important, although I doubt anyone is going to read this far, is the experimental protocol... that is how the tasks are designed and how the experimenter interacts with the participants. I don't have enough information about how the study in question was performed to know how I feel about it.
Its been interesting that the political agendas seem to be coming more from the member forums than any of the studies I have seen so far.
Simulators are used extensively in training airline pilots as well as our military pilots. I would hope they are able to discern a good pilot from a bad one before they get into a multi million dollar plane and fly it.
Again it was NOT just ONE study paid for by an entity with an agenda. You can discount the studies all you want. That does not change them. So far you have not presented any scientific or otherwise viable data that refutes the many studies or even would persuade an uneducated person that using a cell phone while driving is not a distraction.
How do we know the quality of the simulator? How do we know these weren't old drivers ed simulators (washing machines with speedometers)? Why do we blindly trust these results? Because they were given a website?
Unless we know how those 20 subjects were chosen, assembled, etc...the number is too small to be given blind deference.
You and others seem to think that it is OK to accept these results, but taboo to doubt them. If I was praising them (or blindly deferring as is today's patriotic way), would people gripe? It makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to target one distraction based on questionable information, while the other distractions will undoubtedly continue to be ignored.
Yeah, simulators are also used as a fundamental in drivers education. So? We're not talking about this single aspect of training. Training is the wrong context.
It's not my job to disprove...it's the job of the researchers (and their followers) to convince. In your authoritarian bent, you're failing to persuade.
Again, if you feel the simulator is inadequate, then design another, in your view, more realistic test
We have actual accident data that shows that the rate of accidents with phones as a "contributing factor" occur at a lower rate than is the overall usage of phones.
NHTSA tells us that 5-6% of drivers are using a handheld at any one time. Yet phones as a contributing factor to accidents is at a fraction of 1%.
If phones were such a big deal, they should be a component in well above 5-6% of the accidents, yet as it turns out, they aren't even close to parity, let alone exceeding it.
Thousands of real-world incidents obtained from official records, versus 20 simulated data points paid for by an insurance company. My choice on that one is clear (probably a lot clearer than is the reception on my phone.)
So far you have not presented any scientific or otherwise viable data that refutes the many studies
I take it that the 13/100ths of one second doesn't ring any bells?
Is anyone going to demonstrate here that this 13/100ths of a second is going to lead to the Apocalypse? Have the anti-phone folks considered how little time is involved in the passing of 13/100ths of a second?
The metastudy was based on a bunch of different studies. It was presented to show the lack of difference between hands held and hands free conversations.
That doesn't negate the fact that the mean measure of delayed reaction time was 13/100ths of a second.
And I notice that the subject of the variance continues to be avoided. How would you explain it?
The idea of an experiment is to control all the variables you can, while manipulating the variable of interest.
The real problem with this simulator-as-substitute-for-reality approach is just that -- it doesn't measure how people actually behave under real-world conditions, when not being directed into a specific behavior governed by the tester.
In the real world, a driver with good judgment can make a choice to tune out of a call, delay placing it, avoid answering it, hang up on it, etc. when appropriate. A researcher being funded by an insurance company to attempt to show otherwise is going to force me to behave differently than I normally would, all in the name of the conditions of his "controlled" study.
People do not drive in controlled environments, and those who drive well govern themselves accordingly in the uncontrolled environment of the real world. If anything, they probably have more control over their usage than they seem to over their kids. (We really are going to have to start outlawing back seats at this rate.)
I take it that the 13/100ths of one second doesn't ring any bells?
It was an arbitrary time that one group came up with to try and convince folks that cell phone usage while driving was just a little tiny distraction. Well it just does not wash with reality. Fortunately our legislature was not hoodwinked. A few posters here would like to pull the wool over our eyes concerning this serious problem. It just will not happen. Nothing you have put forth even remotely suggests that using a cell phone while driving is not a distraction. I am not so naive to think it is the only distraction. It may not be the worst distraction. It is a distraction and needs to be addressed as such. Along with the other distractions that cause accidents.
I think if you have any friends that you talk to other than on the phone you should ask them how they feel about the subject. I think you will find the overwhelming majority feel it is a problem. Even many that use cell phones in the car.
PS That does not include the ones that are already brain dead from too much RF.
Again, if you feel the simulator is inadequate, then design another, in your view, more realistic test
We have actual accident data that shows that the rate of accidents with phones as a "contributing factor" occur at a lower rate than is the overall usage of phones.
No, we don't. The study that was cited IN THE STUDY said they can't collect this type of information. If you need to blindly believe otherwise for a logical argument, please skip to the next argument.
The study that was cited IN THE STUDY said they can't collect this type of information.
No need to misquote things here. The statement was "Several states have explicitly acknowledged difficulties tracking cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes."
"Difficult" does not equate to "can't collect", any more than "13/100ths of a second" equals "Drunk Driving."
First off I do not see reaction time as important to the study as distraction time. If someone is sitting at a stop sign talking on the phone and does not go when it is their turn, reaction time has nothing to do with it. They are oblivious to their surroundings while talking on the phone. This was the conclusion of the two studies I presented. Not paying attention to your driving is not measured in milliseconds. It is measured in percentage of comprehension. Just what did you see over the last mile you were driving while engrossed in your cell phone conversation? Sorry officer I did not see the bicycle rider along side of me when I turned into McDonald's. I was taking an order for windows from an important client. There is no reaction if you do not see impending danger because you are distracted. By a cell call or a rowdy child.
For you business owners that expect your employees to be at your call. Look out you could pay for an accident.
California is just the latest state to pass "hands-free" legislation for cell phones in cars. If drivers work for companies that require or expect their employees to use cell phones as part of their jobs, then the employers may also be held responsible for the accidents as well.
In states in which hands-free legislation has been passed, or even suggested, drivers who cause accidents while using non-hands-free cell phones will likely be presumed liable for any injuries or damage that results. And if those drivers work for companies that require or expect their employees to use cell phones as part of their jobs, then the employers may also be held responsible for the accidents as well.
This is the principle of "vicarious liability." Under it, the employer generally is held liable for any loss or damage caused in the normal course and scope of the employee's work. The thinking is that if accidents are bound to happen if employees are just doing their jobs, then it is fairer for employers to be responsible for them because they are better able than employees to predict, prevent, and pay for work-related accidents.
First off I do not see reaction time as important to the study as distraction time.
Reaction time is one means by which you quantify the issue, to the extent that there is one. Presumably, if one cannot/ does not react in a timely fashion while driving, then problems result.
I don't fault the studies for attempting to measure reaction time, that's a fair goal. What I dispute is taking this data out of context by not translating it into something meaningful.
If the average delayed reaction time is 13/100ths of a second, then that does not seem like very much time. If I do a bit of math, and convert that into driving distance at various speeds, the result is the same -- at 75 mph, it's less than a car length, while at 25 mph, it's just a few feet.
Likewise, I don't see how this matches real world results. If the alternative for the average driver was to choose between driving at 100%, and driving with a phone, then the choice would be obvious.
But reality differs from this ideal world. Since the would-be phone user may very well switch his attentions to the kids in the back seat, his cigarette, coffee, girlwatching, reading the newspaper or just daydreaming, then the simulator is even less convincing, as it cannot measure what the driver is inclined to do in his everyday existence with a phone versus without. The average person is not going to drive for an hour across town in the same fashion that he would "drive" in a simulator for a few minutes, while knowingly being observed. You simply can't adequately "control" a study like this, which is why the results are only half-useful at best.
If it could be shown that drivers not on the phone would suddenly be driving with vastly improved performance, then I'd like to see it. I suspect that those who are incompetent phone users will suddenly find rapture in their Ipods, makeup kits and daydreams. It's not hard for a bad driver to find ways to be distracted.
Forty-two licensed drivers were tested in an experiment that required them to respond to an in-vehicle phone at the same time that they were faced with making a crucial stopping decision. Using test track facilities, we also examined the influence of driver gender and driver age on these dual-task response capacities. Each driver was given task practice and then performed a first block of 24 trials, where one trial represented one circuit of the test track. Half of the trials were control conditions in which neither the stop-light was activated nor was the in-vehicle phone triggered. Four trials required only stop-light response and a further four, phone response only. The remaining four trials required the driver to complete each task simultaneously. The order of presentation of specific trials was randomized and the whole sequencewas repeated in a second block giving 48 trials per driver. In-vehicle phone response also contained an embedded memory task that was evaluated at the end of each trial circuit. Results confirmed our previous observation that in the dual-task condition there was a slower response to the light change. To compensate for this slowed response, drivers subsequently brake more intensely. Most importantly, we recorded a critical 15% increase in non-response to the stop-light in the presence of the phone distraction task which equates with increased stop-light violations on the open road. These response patterns varied by driver age and driver gender. In particular, age had a large effect on task components that required speed of response to multiple, simultaneous demands. Since driving represents a highly complex and interactive environment, it is not possible to specify a simplistic relationship between these distraction effects and outcome crash patterns. However, we can conclude that such in-vehicle technologies erode performance safety margin and distract drivers from their critical primary task of vehicle control. As such it can be anticipated that a causal relation exists to collision events. This is a crucial concern for all in-vehicle device designers and for the many safety researchers and professionals seeking to reduce the adverse impacts of vehicle collisions.
I read these soundbites, and while they sound very sexy and make for good conversation, I see no real meat behind them. What is this "drunk driving" soundbite supposed to mean, exactly? Are they claiming that people using phones can't walk in a straight line, have bloodshot eyes and slur their speech?
We'll there's your problem right there. Read the article instead of the headline. It seems when the study doesn't support your viewpoint, you read the headline and call it a soundbite. Nice. :mad:
Most importantly, we recorded a critical 15% increase in non-response to the stop-light in the presence of the phone distraction task
So what does 15% translate into? Is that a consequential result, or not?
Before you answer that, let's see that those who authored the study don't even know the answer to that one. "(I)t is not possible to specify a simplistic relationship between these distraction effects and outcome crash patterns."
And what happens in the real world with these drivers when they aren't on the phone? Do they drive in the same fashion that they do while they are being tested?
I read past the headlines, and saw nothing substantive.
It's nice to use the analogy of the drunk driver, but why not translate that into something empirical. About half of accidents are caused by drunk drivers, are you claiming that phone users cause the other half?
The study that was cited IN THE STUDY said they can't collect this type of information.
No need to misquote things here. The statement was "Several states have explicitly acknowledged difficulties tracking cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes."
Actually you selectively missed the previous paragraph. I will repost it here for your benefit.
Even where states track cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes, the statistics are controversial. Although the existing state data seem to indicate that mobile phones are a factor in less than 1 percent of motor vehicle crashes, critics have argued that the published statistics are not truly indicative of the problem. Compared with other factors in motor vehicle crashes such as alcohol or seatbelts, wireless phone use is difficult to detect. Phones leave no physical indicators at the crash scene, and investigators often must rely on witness or self-reporting to determine whether a phone was in use at the time of the crash, thus jeopardizing the reliability of the data. This was also posted in its entirety in post #552.
How does that translate into, "Can't collect the data?"
You're exaggerating a wee bit when you claim that the data can't be collected. The collection methods leave room for a margin of error, but that does not mean that the data is impossible to collect.
It's not a matter of being political, but of demanding proof for your thesis. No reason to pass laws based upon a hunch.
It's not a matter of being political, but of demanding proof for your thesis. No reason to pass laws based upon a hunch.
I feel like I have provided enough data to show that someone is more compromised attentionally when talking on a phone than when they aren't, all other things being equal. They lack situational awareness and can be unresponsive to perceptual cues.
I also feel like there are many occasions when the driver doesn't need their full bandwidth to drive. If someone is driving at a moderate speed with light traffic on a straight highway in good weather, a phone might be a positive thing to keep them from being bored. I just don't know that I trust other drivers to make that decision.
I still think secondary enforcement is a good deterrent. It will just take 1 or 2 high profile cases with a media spectacle and everyone's awareness will be raised.
I feel like I have provided enough data to show that someone is more compromised attentionally when talking on a phone than when they aren't, all other things being equal.
There is little doubt that a phone can provide some sort of distraction, at least for some people.
But that's not the heart of the issue. The essential questions are: (1) Is the amount of the distraction meaningful, i.e. does it translate into real world fatalities and injuries? and (2) What would the distracted driver be doing in the real world (not in a simulator or on a test track for a few minutes) if not using a phone? That's where the real world data comes in, and it comes up short.
Since "hands-free" phone usage is still legal is this really that much of a problem? One can have his cake and eat it, so to speak.
I'm a old guy and I really need to concentrate all my energy on the act of driving so I can't imagine holding a cell phone and driving. Also I'm a purist and when I drive I like to focus on the act of driving itself and really enjoy it. And when I talk to someone I like to give them my full and undivided attention.
Frankly when I see someone making a left turn at a crowded intersection while talking on a hand held cell phone I question whether they are mature, responsible adults. Maybe they have the skill and coordination to do these multiple tasks but I believe they are taking risks at other people's expense.
Here's something to chew on. Mobile phones are approaching market saturation in the US, in fact the key point when those who can afford and want mobile phones had subscriptions occurred in 2004, when over 60% of the population had service, and Forbes reports this year that 71% of those aged 15-59 have a phone. Shouldn't there be an exploding carnage on the roads if yapping while driving is worse than being drunk? I swear, some days half the cars I see are driven by yappers...
I also see many people talking that do not cause me driving heart burn. It is the ones that make me miss the very short left green arrow near my home or the ones that wander into my lane while yapping that tick me off. I am rarely out on the roads anymore when the bars close, so I do not have to play dodgem with the drunks.
Here is something for you to think about. The carnage as you mention has not gone down very much in spite of the much tougher laws and enforcement of drunk driving. Cars are supposedly much safer and that has not made a big impact. So who is killing all these people on the highways?
Lastly, we may be nearing the saturation point on cell phone users. The cell carriers still added 24.9 million new subscribers in the 12 months ending in June 2006.
But that's not the heart of the issue. The essential questions are: (1) Is the amount of the distraction meaningful, i.e. does it translate into real world fatalities and injuries?
I think it does, I think the studies show that. I can keep citing studies but that will be of little value here. You don't feel the same way. We are at an impasse in that respect. I also thing by profession I am more familiar with the literature and the researchers, but is neither here nor there at this point.
(2) What would the distracted driver be doing in the real world (not in a simulator or on a test track for a few minutes) if not using a phone?
Studies are designed to control variables that cannot be controlled in the real world. This requires having robust testing protocols. In the real world, there are 7 of 50 US states that are attempting to collect cell-phone related crash statistics. In controlled environments, people can be asked to perform unsafe maneuvers, be purposely distracted (in the past we have used a cell phone dialing task to distract the driver so we could evaluate how they respond to a collision warning), or be put in threatening situations.
That's where the real world data comes in, and it comes up short.
I agree that it comes up short, because there is currently no good way to collect cell-phone incident information except by eye witness accounts. As the black boxes get more advanced in recording what is happening in the vehicle immediately prior to the crash, this will be addressed.
I guess this is why cell phone manufactures lobby political leaders and those leaders seek the advice of researchers and experts in a field.
In controlled environments, people can be asked to perform unsafe maneuvers, be purposely distracted (in the past we have used a cell phone dialing task to distract the driver so we could evaluate how they respond to a collision warning), or be put in threatening situations.
Right. But in the real world, we make conscious choices of when to perform these actions.
Let's move away from the phone for a moment and choose a different item in the car -- the CD player. (As it so happens, I have a multi-disc changer in the dashboard; many of you with late model cars may, too.) The act of putting in CD's takes quite a bit of effort: I have to make sure to hit a button to unload the disc, pull the disc out without scratching it, return it to a case or whereever else I'm storing it, get a replacement disc, hit the button again to load the player, wait for it to load, then hit some more buttons to choose the disc and track that I want. If I want to load the entire changer, you can take that routine, and multiply it by six times.
Now, if you think that it took awhile to read that description, imagine what it takes to actually perform that task. I'm not exactly sure how long it takes, but it takes some time, perhaps 45 seconds-1 minute per disc. It also involves keeping a hand off the wheel for awhile in order to make the switch.
Yet somehow, I manage to drive safely with one of these time-consuming monstrosities right in the front of the car. Why? Because I only load the thing when it is relatively safe to do so, and I refrain when it isn't.
Now, if a tester instructed me to do this on a test track while winding through cones or drinking a Big Gulp, then he could fairly conclude that these devices are the next Instrument of Death, and immediately lobby Congress and the UN for a worldwide ban on them. (Using one of these things takes a whole lot longer than 13/100ths of a second, and in my opinion, offers quite an opportunity to be rather distracted for very long periods of time.)
What the tester in the "controlled" test would have conveniently forgotten is that I'm not the type of driver to actually load a new disc while driving on a winding road or drinking 64 ounces of soda. (Actually, I never drink anything in the car, anyway.) So his conclusions, CD Players = Death, would be totally unfounded because he subjected me to conditions to which I would never subject myself.
The problem with these studies is that real-world behavior is so conveniently ignored that the conclusions can be completely disconnected from what the average person actually does from day to day. That's likely why that despite the growing use of phones over the last several years that we don't see carnage all over the highways. If the studies were accurate, we should see corresponding increases in overall accident, fatality and death rates, but we aren't.
Let's move away from the phone for a moment and choose a different item in the car -- the CD player. (As it so happens, I have a multi-disc changer in the dashboard; many of you with late model cars may, too.) The act of putting in CD's takes quite a bit of effort: I have to make sure to hit a button to unload the disc, pull the disc out without scratching it, return it to a case or whereever else I'm storing it, get a replacement disc, hit the button again to load the player, wait for it to load, then hit some more buttons to choose the disc and track that I want. If I want to load the entire changer, you can take that routine, and multiply it by six times.
I totally agree, I liked it much better when they were in the trunk. Either one had to stop to change CDs, or have really really long arms. Humor aside, your anecdotal reference to human behavior, while reassuring, doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.
Now, if a tester instructed me to do this on a test track while winding through cones or drinking a Big Gulp, then he could fairly conclude that these devices are the next Instrument of Death, and immediately lobby Congress and the UN for a worldwide ban on them.
About 2 years ago Dateline or 20/20 did a thing in distracted driving. They used the Liberty Mutual test track in OH. The researchers gave a report at a conference on what it was like to work with the media on something like that. It was pretty funny.
In real scientific circles, your protocol accounts for that. Typically, driving is assigned the primary task and the participants are compensated (paid extra) for being diligent with that task. Then they are assigned secondary tasks at different times to get a sense of how they perform at varying workloads. There is also a baseline to make sure they don't just suck at driving. I can post a couple of links to the full reports (not just the part that goes in a journal or magazine) if you want to learn more about how the protocols are developed.
I think your reference to how people drive is how you drive. It sounds like you are an excellent driver, which is where the flaw comes from. It also sounds like you are a considerate driver, which again puts you in the minority. Given the population of aggressive self centered drivers, I think secondary enforcement would be a useful deterrent.
Given the population of aggressive self centered drivers, I think secondary enforcement would be a useful deterrent.
I still like the system they use in Canada. "Report aggressive driving behavior 800-xxx-xxxx". It could be implemented with 3 calls from licensed drivers gets you a ticket. 3 more gets your licensed suspended. It could easily be expanded to distracted drivers whatever the distraction. I can tell you driving for a week in Victoria BC was a pleasant experience. I think it works. The likelihood of abuse is low if you have to give your license number to make a report. I think they enforce their speed limits up there. I did not see many people going over the 90 KMH limit, in the 1000+ KM we put on the rental car.
Then the people that drive safely using a cell phone would not be singled out.
But the carnage has not up even with the explosion of phone yappers. Yet we are told stories that yappers are worse behind the wheel than drunks, and they certainly outnumber drunks by a significant factor. Nobody is able to point to any significant amount of casualties shown to be caused by yappers, even as their numbers explode. What gives? Something isn't adding up here. I bet more crashes are caused by dropped cigs and dropped drinks than phones.
I don't see any noteworthy increase in targeting drunks, just more media coverage of drunk driving related incidents. A week doesn't go by that I see some kind of alcohol-related mess on local news.
At 60+, it's really hard to create a difference in safety, so the cars themselves can only do so much.
And is that 24.9M *new* subscribers in the industry, or 24.9M people who switched carriers, technically creating 24.9M activations? With number portability, there's not a lot of loyalty in that industry.
If you get up to Victoria you will see the bill boards touting that message. I think it could be a deterrent.
My data comes from CTIA, the association that all the major cellular companies in the world belong to. That is a net gain of 24.9 million US subscribers. 50 million new subscribers since the last accident data was reported in 2004.
You seem to think we are doing pretty well accident wise. I don't. We had fewer fatalities in the late 90s and through 2001 than 02 & 03. I cannot find any government data past that. Considering the cost of safety crap in a new car we are doing poorly on fatalities over the last few years. I see a lot of room for improvement. I have not seen any good ideas from the pro cell phone users here. Only trying to shoot holes in the ideas & studies that are presented.
How would you make the roads safer? You are pretty much the number one person here wanting no changes in the laws.
I liked it much better when they were in the trunk. Either one had to stop to change CDs, or have really really long arms.
I always hated this. Invariably, the discs in the changer were never anything that I wanted to listen to, I'm not quite sure why it always worked out this way...
Typically, driving is assigned the primary task and the participants are compensated (paid extra) for being diligent with that task. Then they are assigned secondary tasks at different times to get a sense of how they perform at varying workloads.
Actually, this exposes the problem with the studies. First, they actively encourage the subject to drive at 100%, even though many of them may not normally drive at 100% on a typical day. The subject is deliberately coaxed in order to create a "best case" scenario in his non-cellular state.
Then, the tasks are imposed at a time selected by the tester, rather than a driver. The driver is forced to suspend his good judgment so that the tester can lob a curve ball that may be intended to create a worst-case scenario.
That's precisely the criticism that I've been making all along. In the real world, the average driver isn't driving at 100%, but is behaving as they normally behave, whatever that may mean. They may have the technical skills to be perfectly good drivers, but in the real world, they may allow their hurry to get somewhere, big egos or lack of consideration to keep their behavior at something less than 100%.
Then, in the real world, I am my own boss behind the wheel. (OK, the girlfriend makes her feelings known, too, but I can veto her just so long as I'm willing to pay the price...) I choose when to use the phone, have a conversation or change a disc -- I've excluded food here because my car is not a mobile fast food restaurant -- and I moderate my behavior accordingly.
So let's say that there is a loss of reaction time of 15% due to phone usage, as compared to the optimal 100% driving condition. The spread between 100% and 85% may be a big difference in a theoretical study. But if that driver normally drives at 90%, and then moderates his phone usage to times when it is safest to do so, the spread may actually be 2-3%, or one-fifth of what was shown by the study. If that same driver would have been inclined to wrestle with the CD changer if he didn't have his phone to amuse himself, then the phone usage might actually be an improvement over his typical driving state.
Which gets to this point: If there is a 2-3% result in the real world (I just made that up for discussion's sake to illustrate a point, so don't quote it as fact, please), that percentage may not translate into anything meaningful. That could well explain why we can add millions of phones to our vehicles, and not see any changes in the accident rate, etc.
I think your reference to how people drive is how you drive.
I disagree with this. While it's good sport to point out how everyone else on the planet sucks behind the wheel (except for ourselves, of course) and it feels good to do so, the accident, fatality and injury rates tell us that most people are actually pretty good.
I like to complain about other drivers just as much as the next guy, but I have to admit that while I'm venting about the idiot with the Big Mac who cut me off, I conveniently forget all of the hundreds and thousands of others cars around me that were being piloted in a totally reasonable fashion.
Most drivers aren't employees of Al Qaeda, and therefore don't have a death wish that causes them to act so stupidly that they could hurt themselves, and therefore, me. Similarly, most of them have adequate technical skills that they aren't typically going to collide with others for lack of car control skills -- they may not be ready for the track, but they can handle normal highways most of the time. If the bad drivers weren't in the minority, you'd see a lot more accidents than you see today.
Billboards are only worth as much as the wood they are printed on. There's no evidence of this wacked-out "call people in" idea having any positive effect, or finding documentable implementation at all. Again, too much room for abuse, too much cost.
So all those new subscribers (with some duplicity for people with multiple SIM cards I am sure), and still no explosion in casualties as one would expect (as we are demanded to believe driving while yapping is actually worse than driving while intoxicated). I'm so shocked!
There's no way to "do pretty well" accident wise, but given the hilarious skill of the average person, the way so many vehicles are designed, and the state of roadways, indeed, things could be a lot worse. Safety crap doesn't impact much at really high speed. I wonder how many of those fatalities come from drunks during this supposed period of drunk driving enforcement, as well.
I see no good ideas from the anti-cellphone-ignore-everything-else crowd. If you want change, you need to prove your point and convince people that you are right. The burden of proof is on you.
I want no changes in laws? Where did I say that? You're again reading something that is not there. If we see changes, I want changes that are both justifiable and economically feasible. I have yet to see any presented.
Comments
Why hang your hat on a test of 20 people conducted for an insurance company, when you have thousands of real accidents that you can study without the help of the Let's-Look-For-Any-Excuse-To-Raise-Your-Rates lobby?
I like to look at real-world data, since that's the best measure of what happens in the real world. So far, plenty of evidence that virtually no accidents include a phone as a contributory item.
Fess up, are you or your family in a cell-phone or a related business?
Nope, not at all. I just don't see a reason so far to blame them for bent sheet metal. For bad customer service, dropped calls and poor sound quality, yes, of course. But for poor driving behavior? No, not without good reason.
Too easy pch101. Even if the number you quote was irrefutable, it shows that if that one percent was removed, then the accident rate would have been one percent lower. Once the actual rate of cell-phone related accidents is better known, (and its coming fast due to economic factors which are the prime drivers in our society), you can subtract that rate from the declining accident rate and show an even better rate of decline if cell-phones use was restricted.
Why not disprove the apparent reality that the cell-phone use rate has actually caused a decline in the overall accident rate since they seem to be tracking each other, even though you have just conceded that 1% of accidents are caused by cell phones even as accident rates decline.
I know you can do it pch.
No, it doesn't actually mean that.
The data offers a measure of "contributing factors". That means that the event may have occurred, even without the phone as a specific contributing factor.
If an accident had, for example, three contributing factors, but still would have occurred had you removed one of those factors, then you don't place the entire weight of blame on that one factor. If a drunk driver happens to be drinking a latte and is talking on the phone while his kids yell in the back seat as he causes an accident, you don't break out the fireworks to celebrate your discovery of a "phone-related" accident.
In any case, no one is arguing that the phones are a ticket to paradise, but whether they pose a meaningful, significant hazard that requires their entire banning. I'm not seeing any good arguments about phone risk that couldn't be used to ban anything and everything used in the interiors of cars, aside from a single seat (no passengers allowed) and the six-point belt that we'll now be required to install. Good bye, cupholders, hello, roll cage...
Your job is to refute the evidence shown in the outcome of the test. There will doubtless be further testing, but where is your same test refutation? You remember cold fusion? It was refuted by running the same experiment multiple times and coming up with no similar results. It seems the same refutation would apply here; duplicate the test, (develop other tests) come up with opposite or no results and you have your refutation of the claim that cell-phone use does impair a drivers ability.
If someone told you that based on test humans can not exist in a vacuum, would you really demand "real word" evidence, or would you chance it?
Sometimes it is easy to ignore the real world evidence of driver distractions causing injuries and deaths. It has probably not gone unnoticed that you do not refer to humans, injuries, or deaths in these accidents, only sheet metal, collisions, superior attitudes and skills. Something missing in the equation here isn't there.
Why would anyone with a scientific bone in his body bother to replicate a 20-data-point test with the use of a simulator? The sample size is too small to be valid, and the "simulator" is not likely to do a very good job of simulating reality.
Have you ever played a driving video game? If you are an adult, it's pretty likely that you do a better job of driving your car than you ever will with driving that video game vehicle, while a pre-teen kid probably gets the opposite result. Let's not all start using our X-Box video games, or some faux-scientific equivalent, as a way of testing our real-world driving skills, particularly when we have real-world data coming out of our ears to study in detail.
The data offers a measure of "contributing factors". That means that the event may have occurred, even without the phone as a specific contributing factor.
Too careless; your statement then also means that the event may also have occurred as a single contributor since that possibility is not ruled out in the dated example you cite.
Your statement also avoids the concept of "threshold events" as in the "last straw" on the camels back. When that "last straw" is the cell phone, not all other straws are culpable.
It is culpability that is in play here, not contributing factors such as being born, living in an automotive society, learning to drive, or any others. In this case this "last straw", like drunk driving, is virtually always avoidable as a contributing, or only factor.
With the additional avoidable contributing, or single factors of cell phone use and again you have obviously, and by your own statement, an increased number of accidents in this segment, even as the overall rate of accidents declines. Remove/reduce this "real world" number of accidents and your overall accident rate has also been reduced unless you will now state that contributing factors do not really contribute to accident rates.
Remember, your question was how can it be possible that cell phone use has contributed to accident rates when overall accident rates are on the decline.
My next guess as to why you are adopting this pose is that you are a legislator preparing a presentation on cell phone use and are trying out all of the red herrings that will be thrown in.
Second guess is that you are an attorney attempting to establish, or refute culpability in a cell-phone related accident and need to see what can be gleaned from the blog.
And again, as you know, it is not the nexus of what was being stated. Your response, as always fails to address the salient points, and drifts into a planned and unavoidable obscurity.
Again, if you feel the simulator is inadequate, then design another, in your view, more realistic test and use that to refute the premise that cell-phone use impairs a drivers ability.
Or is it your position that the relative simplicity of the simulators produces counter intuitive results showing a greater difficulty in negotiating the simple simulator while managing a cell phone than would be produced in the far more complex "real world" of actually driving while using one?
As the "real world" stats begin to accumulate world wide the position that cell-phone use does not impair driver ability becomes less and less tenable.
The metastudy was based on a bunch of different studies. It was presented to show the lack of difference between hands held and hands free conversations. The paper itself was looking at using data compiled from different studies using different protocols to collect data. From an experimental design standpoint, this isn't what I would use for the be-all end-all. The conversations had different levels (some easy, some hard), the drivers had different ages and skill levels, the experimenters were recording different information, etc. I would be more inclined to follow the results of a study that was designed to test what we are talking about directly. 20 people starts to get at a statistically valid sample size, although more is better.
-less than 1% (compiled from the results of thousands of accidents in multiple states, not just one of 20 people on a machine paid for by an insurance company)
Post #552 about why that data is not accurate (as cited IN the report specified
This isn't even statistically true. Data from a controlled setting is often more valid than data from the real world especially when it even says in the report that they dont have the capability to track and record the data of interest.
Is this a suggested punishment of cell-phone drivers and others equally diminished? Can we sell tickets and watch the proceedings? Will it be televised? Will it bring back the already dead? Will it affect those believing in their "entitlement" leaving us with no way to prosecute without blood on the pavement?
Perhaps slightly too tongue in cheek and morbid, but I didn't start the comparison. I just carried forward the metaphor. This was originally about guns, not cell phone users.
My point is, if a couple of people actually got prosecuted and it was made known what happened, that would also provide something of a deterrent. It obviously wont change the past, but may have an affect on the future behavior of individuals.
Why do you ignore the other studies? You would like those reading this to believe our basis for wanting cell phone usage in vehicles banned is from on one small study. It is not. several studies have been presented, including 500 accidents in Australia that were cell phone related. The accident statistics you are using are only through 2004. We have added 50 million subscribers to the cellular networks in the USA since 2004. We have doubled the minutes of use since 2004. More people are being impaired in their driving as a result. To ignore all the facts is your choice. It is my place to continue to add data to the fire that surrounds this debate. I feel as passionate about this issue as fintail does the seatbelt laws. I want to protect others from drivers that are not paying attention to their driving. If that includes a myriad of distractions, I say add them to the list. It is obvious we are unwilling to use common sense in our driving. If we did there would be NO accidents. And no need for traffic laws.
The one area I am in agreement with you. I was trained to drive defensively. At Pacific Telephone in the 1960s if you had an accident, you WERE at least partially to blame and would more than likely lose your job. Being aware of what is going on around you 360 degrees was part of the training. That is tough to do if you are 50% impaired talking on a cell phone or 30% impaired when drunk.
I see about 50% and sometimes 75% using cell phones. Even in the middle of Illinois driving back from St. Louis last Sunday morning the use was more than 8% (at of those going eastbound) and more may have been using hands free of some type.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you post a study with questionable data (a laughable 20 inputs, simulators, funding from insurance or cellphone companies, etc), it is your responsibility to defend your data if you plan to masquerade it as fact. One has no right to present junk as fact and not be called out to defend their numbers. It's not my job to prove you wrong...it's your job to prove yourself right. Take that accountability and go for it.
A 20 input study on simulators is about equal to your idea of "there can be no answer". Both claims have as much going for them.
I sincerely doubt you have the knowledge and credentials to give advice on "how it is done"...please lay off the ego.
Depending on the tasks, 20 people is more than enough to conform or debunk a null hypothesis at the .05 alpha level.
What is more important, although I doubt anyone is going to read this far, is the experimental protocol... that is how the tasks are designed and how the experimenter interacts with the participants. I don't have enough information about how the study in question was performed to know how I feel about it.
Its been interesting that the political agendas seem to be coming more from the member forums than any of the studies I have seen so far.
Again it was NOT just ONE study paid for by an entity with an agenda. You can discount the studies all you want. That does not change them. So far you have not presented any scientific or otherwise viable data that refutes the many studies or even would persuade an uneducated person that using a cell phone while driving is not a distraction.
Unless we know how those 20 subjects were chosen, assembled, etc...the number is too small to be given blind deference.
You and others seem to think that it is OK to accept these results, but taboo to doubt them. If I was praising them (or blindly deferring as is today's patriotic way), would people gripe? It makes no sense, just as it makes no sense to target one distraction based on questionable information, while the other distractions will undoubtedly continue to be ignored.
It's not my job to disprove...it's the job of the researchers (and their followers) to convince. In your authoritarian bent, you're failing to persuade.
We have actual accident data that shows that the rate of accidents with phones as a "contributing factor" occur at a lower rate than is the overall usage of phones.
NHTSA tells us that 5-6% of drivers are using a handheld at any one time. Yet phones as a contributing factor to accidents is at a fraction of 1%.
If phones were such a big deal, they should be a component in well above 5-6% of the accidents, yet as it turns out, they aren't even close to parity, let alone exceeding it.
Thousands of real-world incidents obtained from official records, versus 20 simulated data points paid for by an insurance company. My choice on that one is clear (probably a lot clearer than is the reception on my phone.)
I take it that the 13/100ths of one second doesn't ring any bells?
Is anyone going to demonstrate here that this 13/100ths of a second is going to lead to the Apocalypse? Have the anti-phone folks considered how little time is involved in the passing of 13/100ths of a second?
That doesn't negate the fact that the mean measure of delayed reaction time was 13/100ths of a second.
And I notice that the subject of the variance continues to be avoided. How would you explain it?
As you are failing to disuade!
The real problem with this simulator-as-substitute-for-reality approach is just that -- it doesn't measure how people actually behave under real-world conditions, when not being directed into a specific behavior governed by the tester.
In the real world, a driver with good judgment can make a choice to tune out of a call, delay placing it, avoid answering it, hang up on it, etc. when appropriate. A researcher being funded by an insurance company to attempt to show otherwise is going to force me to behave differently than I normally would, all in the name of the conditions of his "controlled" study.
People do not drive in controlled environments, and those who drive well govern themselves accordingly in the uncontrolled environment of the real world. If anything, they probably have more control over their usage than they seem to over their kids. (We really are going to have to start outlawing back seats at this rate.)
It was an arbitrary time that one group came up with to try and convince folks that cell phone usage while driving was just a little tiny distraction. Well it just does not wash with reality. Fortunately our legislature was not hoodwinked. A few posters here would like to pull the wool over our eyes concerning this serious problem. It just will not happen. Nothing you have put forth even remotely suggests that using a cell phone while driving is not a distraction. I am not so naive to think it is the only distraction. It may not be the worst distraction. It is a distraction and needs to be addressed as such. Along with the other distractions that cause accidents.
I think if you have any friends that you talk to other than on the phone you should ask them how they feel about the subject. I think you will find the overwhelming majority feel it is a problem. Even many that use cell phones in the car.
PS
That does not include the ones that are already brain dead from too much RF.
You apparently didn't read it. It was a meta-study, i.e. it aggregated the results of many studies, not just one.
I've read your links, and none of them I've seen actually quantifies the results as to how much of a delay there actually is. Why is that?
We have actual accident data that shows that the rate of accidents with phones as a "contributing factor" occur at a lower rate than is the overall usage of phones.
No, we don't. The study that was cited IN THE STUDY said they can't collect this type of information. If you need to blindly believe otherwise for a logical argument, please skip to the next argument.
No need to misquote things here. The statement was "Several states have explicitly acknowledged difficulties tracking cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes."
"Difficult" does not equate to "can't collect", any more than "13/100ths of a second" equals "Drunk Driving."
California is just the latest state to pass "hands-free" legislation for cell phones in cars. If drivers work for companies that require or expect their employees to use cell phones as part of their jobs, then the employers may also be held responsible for the accidents as well.
In states in which hands-free legislation has been passed, or even suggested, drivers who cause accidents while using non-hands-free cell phones will likely be presumed liable for any injuries or damage that results. And if those drivers work for companies that require or expect their employees to use cell phones as part of their jobs, then the employers may also be held responsible for the accidents as well.
This is the principle of "vicarious liability." Under it, the employer generally is held liable for any loss or damage caused in the normal course and scope of the employee's work. The thinking is that if accidents are bound to happen if employees are just doing their jobs, then it is fairer for employers to be responsible for them because they are better able than employees to predict, prevent, and pay for work-related accidents.
http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/24/55/31/index.html
Reaction time is one means by which you quantify the issue, to the extent that there is one. Presumably, if one cannot/ does not react in a timely fashion while driving, then problems result.
I don't fault the studies for attempting to measure reaction time, that's a fair goal. What I dispute is taking this data out of context by not translating it into something meaningful.
If the average delayed reaction time is 13/100ths of a second, then that does not seem like very much time. If I do a bit of math, and convert that into driving distance at various speeds, the result is the same -- at 75 mph, it's less than a car length, while at 25 mph, it's just a few feet.
Likewise, I don't see how this matches real world results. If the alternative for the average driver was to choose between driving at 100%, and driving with a phone, then the choice would be obvious.
But reality differs from this ideal world. Since the would-be phone user may very well switch his attentions to the kids in the back seat, his cigarette, coffee, girlwatching, reading the newspaper or just daydreaming, then the simulator is even less convincing, as it cannot measure what the driver is inclined to do in his everyday existence with a phone versus without. The average person is not going to drive for an hour across town in the same fashion that he would "drive" in a simulator for a few minutes, while knowingly being observed. You simply can't adequately "control" a study like this, which is why the results are only half-useful at best.
If it could be shown that drivers not on the phone would suddenly be driving with vastly improved performance, then I'd like to see it. I suspect that those who are incompetent phone users will suddenly find rapture in their Ipods, makeup kits and daydreams. It's not hard for a bad driver to find ways to be distracted.
http://www.mit.ucf.edu/Surface/Hancock_Lesch_Simmons_2003.pdf
What is this "drunk driving" soundbite supposed to mean, exactly? Are they claiming that people using phones can't walk in a straight line, have bloodshot eyes and slur their speech?
We'll there's your problem right there. Read the article instead of the headline. It seems when the study doesn't support your viewpoint, you read the headline and call it a soundbite. Nice. :mad:
So what does 15% translate into? Is that a consequential result, or not?
Before you answer that, let's see that those who authored the study don't even know the answer to that one. "(I)t is not possible to specify a simplistic relationship between these distraction effects and outcome crash patterns."
And what happens in the real world with these drivers when they aren't on the phone? Do they drive in the same fashion that they do while they are being tested?
It's nice to use the analogy of the drunk driver, but why not translate that into something empirical. About half of accidents are caused by drunk drivers, are you claiming that phone users cause the other half?
No need to misquote things here. The statement was "Several states have explicitly acknowledged difficulties tracking cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes."
Actually you selectively missed the previous paragraph. I will repost it here for your benefit.
Even where states track cell phone involvement in motor vehicle crashes, the statistics are controversial. Although the existing state data seem to indicate that mobile phones are a factor in less than 1 percent of motor vehicle crashes, critics have argued that the published statistics are not truly indicative of the problem. Compared with other factors in motor vehicle crashes such as alcohol or seatbelts, wireless phone use is difficult to detect. Phones leave no physical indicators at the crash scene, and investigators often must rely on witness or self-reporting to determine whether a phone was in use at the time of the crash, thus jeopardizing the reliability of the data.
This was also posted in its entirety in post #552.
Its amazing how political this is for some.
You're exaggerating a wee bit when you claim that the data can't be collected. The collection methods leave room for a margin of error, but that does not mean that the data is impossible to collect.
It's not a matter of being political, but of demanding proof for your thesis. No reason to pass laws based upon a hunch.
I feel like I have provided enough data to show that someone is more compromised attentionally when talking on a phone than when they aren't, all other things being equal. They lack situational awareness and can be unresponsive to perceptual cues.
I also feel like there are many occasions when the driver doesn't need their full bandwidth to drive. If someone is driving at a moderate speed with light traffic on a straight highway in good weather, a phone might be a positive thing to keep them from being bored. I just don't know that I trust other drivers to make that decision.
I still think secondary enforcement is a good deterrent. It will just take 1 or 2 high profile cases with a media spectacle and everyone's awareness will be raised.
There is little doubt that a phone can provide some sort of distraction, at least for some people.
But that's not the heart of the issue. The essential questions are: (1) Is the amount of the distraction meaningful, i.e. does it translate into real world fatalities and injuries? and (2) What would the distracted driver be doing in the real world (not in a simulator or on a test track for a few minutes) if not using a phone? That's where the real world data comes in, and it comes up short.
I'm a old guy and I really need to concentrate all my energy on the act of driving so I can't imagine holding a cell phone and driving. Also I'm a purist and when I drive I like to focus on the act of driving itself and really enjoy it. And when I talk to someone I like to give them my full and undivided attention.
Frankly when I see someone making a left turn at a crowded intersection while talking on a hand held cell phone I question whether they are mature, responsible adults. Maybe they have the skill and coordination to do these multiple tasks but I believe they are taking risks at other people's expense.
Here's something to chew on. Mobile phones are approaching market saturation in the US, in fact the key point when those who can afford and want mobile phones had subscriptions occurred in 2004, when over 60% of the population had service, and Forbes reports this year that 71% of those aged 15-59 have a phone. Shouldn't there be an exploding carnage on the roads if yapping while driving is worse than being drunk? I swear, some days half the cars I see are driven by yappers...
Here is something for you to think about. The carnage as you mention has not gone down very much in spite of the much tougher laws and enforcement of drunk driving. Cars are supposedly much safer and that has not made a big impact. So who is killing all these people on the highways?
Lastly, we may be nearing the saturation point on cell phone users. The cell carriers still added 24.9 million new subscribers in the 12 months ending in June 2006.
I think it does, I think the studies show that. I can keep citing studies but that will be of little value here. You don't feel the same way. We are at an impasse in that respect. I also thing by profession I am more familiar with the literature and the researchers, but is neither here nor there at this point.
(2) What would the distracted driver be doing in the real world (not in a simulator or on a test track for a few minutes) if not using a phone?
Studies are designed to control variables that cannot be controlled in the real world. This requires having robust testing protocols. In the real world, there are 7 of 50 US states that are attempting to collect cell-phone related crash statistics. In controlled environments, people can be asked to perform unsafe maneuvers, be purposely distracted (in the past we have used a cell phone dialing task to distract the driver so we could evaluate how they respond to a collision warning), or be put in threatening situations.
That's where the real world data comes in, and it comes up short.
I agree that it comes up short, because there is currently no good way to collect cell-phone incident information except by eye witness accounts. As the black boxes get more advanced in recording what is happening in the vehicle immediately prior to the crash, this will be addressed.
I guess this is why cell phone manufactures lobby political leaders and those leaders seek the advice of researchers and experts in a field.
Right. But in the real world, we make conscious choices of when to perform these actions.
Let's move away from the phone for a moment and choose a different item in the car -- the CD player. (As it so happens, I have a multi-disc changer in the dashboard; many of you with late model cars may, too.) The act of putting in CD's takes quite a bit of effort: I have to make sure to hit a button to unload the disc, pull the disc out without scratching it, return it to a case or whereever else I'm storing it, get a replacement disc, hit the button again to load the player, wait for it to load, then hit some more buttons to choose the disc and track that I want. If I want to load the entire changer, you can take that routine, and multiply it by six times.
Now, if you think that it took awhile to read that description, imagine what it takes to actually perform that task. I'm not exactly sure how long it takes, but it takes some time, perhaps 45 seconds-1 minute per disc. It also involves keeping a hand off the wheel for awhile in order to make the switch.
Yet somehow, I manage to drive safely with one of these time-consuming monstrosities right in the front of the car. Why? Because I only load the thing when it is relatively safe to do so, and I refrain when it isn't.
Now, if a tester instructed me to do this on a test track while winding through cones or drinking a Big Gulp, then he could fairly conclude that these devices are the next Instrument of Death, and immediately lobby Congress and the UN for a worldwide ban on them. (Using one of these things takes a whole lot longer than 13/100ths of a second, and in my opinion, offers quite an opportunity to be rather distracted for very long periods of time.)
What the tester in the "controlled" test would have conveniently forgotten is that I'm not the type of driver to actually load a new disc while driving on a winding road or drinking 64 ounces of soda. (Actually, I never drink anything in the car, anyway.) So his conclusions, CD Players = Death, would be totally unfounded because he subjected me to conditions to which I would never subject myself.
The problem with these studies is that real-world behavior is so conveniently ignored that the conclusions can be completely disconnected from what the average person actually does from day to day. That's likely why that despite the growing use of phones over the last several years that we don't see carnage all over the highways. If the studies were accurate, we should see corresponding increases in overall accident, fatality and death rates, but we aren't.
I totally agree, I liked it much better when they were in the trunk. Either one had to stop to change CDs, or have really really long arms. Humor aside, your anecdotal reference to human behavior, while reassuring, doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.
Now, if a tester instructed me to do this on a test track while winding through cones or drinking a Big Gulp, then he could fairly conclude that these devices are the next Instrument of Death, and immediately lobby Congress and the UN for a worldwide ban on them.
About 2 years ago Dateline or 20/20 did a thing in distracted driving. They used the Liberty Mutual test track in OH. The researchers gave a report at a conference on what it was like to work with the media on something like that. It was pretty funny.
In real scientific circles, your protocol accounts for that. Typically, driving is assigned the primary task and the participants are compensated (paid extra) for being diligent with that task. Then they are assigned secondary tasks at different times to get a sense of how they perform at varying workloads. There is also a baseline to make sure they don't just suck at driving. I can post a couple of links to the full reports (not just the part that goes in a journal or magazine) if you want to learn more about how the protocols are developed.
I think your reference to how people drive is how you drive. It sounds like you are an excellent driver, which is where the flaw comes from. It also sounds like you are a considerate driver, which again puts you in the minority. Given the population of aggressive self centered drivers, I think secondary enforcement would be a useful deterrent.
I still like the system they use in Canada. "Report aggressive driving behavior 800-xxx-xxxx". It could be implemented with 3 calls from licensed drivers gets you a ticket. 3 more gets your licensed suspended. It could easily be expanded to distracted drivers whatever the distraction. I can tell you driving for a week in Victoria BC was a pleasant experience. I think it works. The likelihood of abuse is low if you have to give your license number to make a report. I think they enforce their speed limits up there. I did not see many people going over the 90 KMH limit, in the 1000+ KM we put on the rental car.
Then the people that drive safely using a cell phone would not be singled out.
I don't see any noteworthy increase in targeting drunks, just more media coverage of drunk driving related incidents. A week doesn't go by that I see some kind of alcohol-related mess on local news.
At 60+, it's really hard to create a difference in safety, so the cars themselves can only do so much.
And is that 24.9M *new* subscribers in the industry, or 24.9M people who switched carriers, technically creating 24.9M activations? With number portability, there's not a lot of loyalty in that industry.
That's an idea so recklessly open for abuse, that I have to think you are joking. You can't be serious, can you?
I'd just have six people call you in, with made up numbers, and voila, you're off the road.
There'd be so many legal challenges to such an idea...the taxpayers would be brutalized. Insanity.
My data comes from CTIA, the association that all the major cellular companies in the world belong to. That is a net gain of 24.9 million US subscribers. 50 million new subscribers since the last accident data was reported in 2004.
http://files.ctia.org/img/survey/2006_midyear/slides/MidYear_4.jpg
How would you make the roads safer? You are pretty much the number one person here wanting no changes in the laws.
Death toll
I always hated this. Invariably, the discs in the changer were never anything that I wanted to listen to, I'm not quite sure why it always worked out this way...
Typically, driving is assigned the primary task and the participants are compensated (paid extra) for being diligent with that task. Then they are assigned secondary tasks at different times to get a sense of how they perform at varying workloads.
Actually, this exposes the problem with the studies. First, they actively encourage the subject to drive at 100%, even though many of them may not normally drive at 100% on a typical day. The subject is deliberately coaxed in order to create a "best case" scenario in his non-cellular state.
Then, the tasks are imposed at a time selected by the tester, rather than a driver. The driver is forced to suspend his good judgment so that the tester can lob a curve ball that may be intended to create a worst-case scenario.
That's precisely the criticism that I've been making all along. In the real world, the average driver isn't driving at 100%, but is behaving as they normally behave, whatever that may mean. They may have the technical skills to be perfectly good drivers, but in the real world, they may allow their hurry to get somewhere, big egos or lack of consideration to keep their behavior at something less than 100%.
Then, in the real world, I am my own boss behind the wheel. (OK, the girlfriend makes her feelings known, too, but I can veto her just so long as I'm willing to pay the price...) I choose when to use the phone, have a conversation or change a disc -- I've excluded food here because my car is not a mobile fast food restaurant -- and I moderate my behavior accordingly.
So let's say that there is a loss of reaction time of 15% due to phone usage, as compared to the optimal 100% driving condition. The spread between 100% and 85% may be a big difference in a theoretical study. But if that driver normally drives at 90%, and then moderates his phone usage to times when it is safest to do so, the spread may actually be 2-3%, or one-fifth of what was shown by the study. If that same driver would have been inclined to wrestle with the CD changer if he didn't have his phone to amuse himself, then the phone usage might actually be an improvement over his typical driving state.
Which gets to this point: If there is a 2-3% result in the real world (I just made that up for discussion's sake to illustrate a point, so don't quote it as fact, please), that percentage may not translate into anything meaningful. That could well explain why we can add millions of phones to our vehicles, and not see any changes in the accident rate, etc.
I think your reference to how people drive is how you drive.
I disagree with this. While it's good sport to point out how everyone else on the planet sucks behind the wheel (except for ourselves, of course) and it feels good to do so, the accident, fatality and injury rates tell us that most people are actually pretty good.
I like to complain about other drivers just as much as the next guy, but I have to admit that while I'm venting about the idiot with the Big Mac who cut me off, I conveniently forget all of the hundreds and thousands of others cars around me that were being piloted in a totally reasonable fashion.
Most drivers aren't employees of Al Qaeda, and therefore don't have a death wish that causes them to act so stupidly that they could hurt themselves, and therefore, me. Similarly, most of them have adequate technical skills that they aren't typically going to collide with others for lack of car control skills -- they may not be ready for the track, but they can handle normal highways most of the time. If the bad drivers weren't in the minority, you'd see a lot more accidents than you see today.
So all those new subscribers (with some duplicity for people with multiple SIM cards I am sure), and still no explosion in casualties as one would expect (as we are demanded to believe driving while yapping is actually worse than driving while intoxicated). I'm so shocked!
I see no good ideas from the anti-cellphone-ignore-everything-else crowd. If you want change, you need to prove your point and convince people that you are right. The burden of proof is on you.
I want no changes in laws? Where did I say that? You're again reading something that is not there. If we see changes, I want changes that are both justifiable and economically feasible. I have yet to see any presented.