Living Car Free - Government suppressed study showing cell phone use and driving dangerous

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=watchdogs-feds-buried-data-proving-2009-07-21



The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) put politics above public safety in 2003 when it suppressed research estimating that cell phone use—both phone calls and text messaging—while driving had caused hundreds of thousands of car accidents and hundreds of crash-related deaths the previous year, the New York Times reports.
...
Congress discouraged the NHTSA from releasing the information (even threatening to withhold funding), warning the agency to "stick to its mission of gathering safety data," NHTSA officials told the Times. The legislators were reportedly concerned that the agency would take its research directly to the states in an attempt to encourage them to pass laws against cell phone use while driving.

All to the point that we discussed recently in another thread... that the 40,000+ road deaths in the US are perfectly acceptable.

This one is my favorite line:

"Because a ban against cell phone use while driving is impractical, Consumer Reports deputy technical director David Champion suggested in a blog the use of public service announcements to warn drivers of the risk and stiff penalties for those multitasking with their mobile phones behind the wheel."

Whats impractical about drivers not being able to yak on a cell phone while they pilot a three or found thousand pound hunk of steel? Instead of passing laws to enforce the research studies we should simply ask people nicely to stop using their phones while driving? Its just too inconvenient for them to have to wait till they get somewhere to discuss the latest news they hear while standing around the watercolor? If cell phone drivers cause accidents at the same rate as a drunk behind the wheel why dont we just make drinking and driving legal but ask very nicely that they do not do it because its too impractical to expect such behavior from the general public?

+1K

I guess it's too much to expect for 'adults', as they call themselves, to ACT like adults...........

Follow the money trail...:bang:

Aaron:)

I'm not interested in reading the study, but; there is something I'd like to know. Some people use bluetooth headsets for hands free talking. Many of those still require the person to press a button on their phone to start and end calls. Is the study counting that type of device as hands free?

In some cars there are voice recognition features that allow totally hands free calling. I wonder if that type is safer to use.

On a TV news story it was reported that even talking to other passengers is also the equivalent of driving drunk. Somehow I think that some of these studies are just wrong. I can agree that any phone that requires the operator to take their eyes off the road or their hand off the steering wheel to operate it is a distraction from driving.

http://www.personal-injury.com/practice_areas/Auto_Accident_Statistics.asp

While any distracted driving is bound to lead to more accidents and deaths, the statistics shown at this site show that for the period 1994-2004 fatalities per miles traveled show a steady, though small decline.

I'm not interested in reading the study, but; there is something I'd like to know. Some people use bluetooth headsets for hands free talking. Many of those still require the person to press a button on their phone to start and end calls. Is the study counting that type of device as hands free?

In some cars there are voice recognition features that allow totally hands free calling. I wonder if that type is safer to use.

On a TV news story it was reported that even talking to other passengers is also the equivalent of driving drunk. Somehow I think that some of these studies are just wrong. I can agree that any phone that requires the operator to take their eyes off the road or their hand off the steering wheel to operate it is a distraction from driving.

OK, so I'll use a few minutes of my time in order to save you the trouble of actually reading the studies. :)

Talking on the phone uses more cognitive ability (such as attention and concentration) than many other tasks, such as talking to passengers. Driving also requires a lot of the same cognitive abilities. The human brain is only capable of limited amounts of cognitive processing. Evidently phone talking and car driving at the same time over-extends human cognitive abilities. Both tasks cannot be done at the same time. Attention has to switch back and forth from the phone to the driving. It's pretty obvious (at least to those who have actually read the studies) that both activities can't be done safely at the same time, and this has nothing to do with hands-free or the phone blocking your view.

Do you have any further questions? My fees are pretty reasonable!


http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:gZ3uXh0SCIZ7VM:http://www.sju.edu/honor-society/sigma-xi/The_Doctor_is_In/Lucy.jpg

Follow the money trail...

Aaron

... from the politicians' pockets back to the telecommunications lobby.

Unfortunately, there is also the cost and effectiveness of enforcement. I lived in a jurisdiction (Newfoundland) that banned the use of hand-held cell phones in moving vehicles and it did absolutely no good at all. Everytime I walked across the road or got the bike out there was some self-important git that had to yak on their stupid electronic leash. The police couldn't prevent street racing in front of my building, people running cyclists off the road and drivers passing in school zones. In fact the only time I ever saw any one pulled over for anything was the RCMP out on the Trans-Canada Highway. The RNC (Royal Newfoundland Constabulary) which patrolled St John's was essentially useless on traffic management.

This one is my favorite line:

"Because a ban against cell phone use while driving is impractical, Consumer Reports deputy technical director David Champion suggested in a blog the use of public service announcements to warn drivers of the risk and stiff penalties for those multitasking with their mobile phones behind the wheel."

Whats impractical about drivers not being able to yak on a cell phone while they pilot a three or found thousand pound hunk of steel? Instead of passing laws to enforce the research studies we should simply ask people nicely to stop using their phones while driving? Its just too inconvenient for them to have to wait till they get somewhere to discuss the latest news they hear while standing around the watercolor? If cell phone drivers cause accidents at the same rate as a drunk behind the wheel why dont we just make drinking and driving legal but ask very nicely that they do not do it because its too impractical to expect such behavior from the general public?
What had to happen with drinking and driving is that a number of people had to stop doing it before it was made illegal or penalties were made more severe. Back when most of the politicians and most of their constituents thought nothing of driving down the road with a beer in their hand it was impractical to make it illegal. I remember my father sipping a beer while he drove. It seems logical to me that one reason the fatality rate is going down is that people don't drink and drive as much as they used to. The fatality rate would drop more quickly if we punished cell phone use exactly as we punish drunk driving.

What had to happen with drinking and driving is that a number of people had to stop doing it before it was made illegal or penalties were made more severe. Back when most of the politicians and most of their constituents thought nothing of driving down the road with a beer in their hand it was impractical to make it illegal. I remember my father sipping a beer while he drove. It seems logical to me that one reason the fatality rate is going down is that people don't drink and drive as much as they used to. The fatality rate would drop more quickly if we punished cell phone use exactly as we punish drunk driving.

I think the main reasons the fatality rates have gone down is because of the increase in safety features in cars and highway infrastructure. Airbags, seat belts (and increased usage of same) crumple zones, those cool looking water barrels in front of bridge abutments that explode when you hit them...etc, etc. It damn sure hasn't been because the driver behind the wheel has improved.:rolleyes: or the licensing process.

Aaron:)

This story was at the top of the New York Times site today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/technology/28texting.html?_r=1&hp



Texting Raises Crash Risk 23 Times, Study Finds
The first study of drivers texting inside their vehicles shows that the risk sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research — and far surpasses the dangers of other driving distractions.

In these videotape stills, a truck driver, whose image is blocked to protect his identity, is shown texting while at the wheel, top left. The other camera angles show the truck’s actions as the driver was texting, including views from the left and right side-view mirrors, bottom right.

The new study, which entailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras over 18 months, found that when the drivers texted, their collision risk was 23 times greater than when not texting.

The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, which compiled the research and plans to release its findings on Tuesday, also measured the time drivers take their eyes from the road to send or receive texts.

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices — enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Even though trucks take longer to stop and are less maneuverable than cars, the findings generally applied to all drivers, who tend to exhibit the same behaviors as the more than 100 truckers studied, the researchers said. Truckers, they said, do not appear to text more or less than typical car drivers, but they said the study did not compare use patterns that way.

Compared with other sources of driver distraction, “texting is in its own universe of risk,” said Rich Hanowski, who oversaw the study at the institute, which is affiliated with Virginia Tech.

Mr. Hanowski said the texting analysis was financed by $300,000 from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which has the mission of improving safety in trucks and buses. More broadly, the two studies yielding the results represent a significant logistical undertaking. The cost was $6 million to equip the trucks with video cameras and track them for three million miles as they hauled furniture, frozen foods and other goods across the country.

....

It has been illegal to hold a cell phone whilst driving here in the UK for a few years now but, much like the observation from Canada above, it has made little difference to driver's behaviour. I will see [I]AT LEAST[I] one driver on the phone during each 20 minute commuting journey i make. Research here has been released that says the effect on driving is more negative than being just over our drink drive limit.

Enforcement is actually fairly easy. Make it legal to enforce based on video or photographic evidence submitted by the public at large.

Of course, this would skyrocket VIO POV, VHoldr, Hero Cam, etal's sales skyrocket.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to pass.

Actually, I don't think the problem is that it's hard to enforce, but that no one chooses to enforce it. I've seen people texting driving right next to or by a police officer and the officer does nothing. All it would take is enforcing it on 10% of offenders and you'd be able to stop probably about 50% of all users (since a lot of people are really afraid of being caught). Sure, it wouldn't be 100%, but what illegal activity is? Removing 50% of those offenders could be enough to make it safe again.

Actually, I don't think the problem is that it's hard to enforce, but that no one chooses to enforce it. I've seen people texting driving right next to or by a police officer and the officer does nothing.

That's because the cop is too busy talking on his cell phone. Has any one ever noticed that cops are the BIGGEST violators of the no cell phone law?

On a side note; Has anyone seen the show (I think that it was on the Discovery Channel) where they had people drive an obstacle course while talking on a cell phone and then had them consume enough alcohol to be juuuusst above the legal limit (aka, if you were breathalized you would loose your license) and guess when they were more dangerous (ie less able to navigate the course)? Give your self 2 points if you said talking... That's right, the soccer mom on the phone is (according to the Discovery Channel's unscientific test) 15% more dangerous than your neighborhood drunk.

Update: Mythbusters episode #33

Lemme get this straight; a bunch of our tax dollars went toward a study to determine if cell phone use while driving causes more accidents?

I'm going to propose my own government funded study. I'll investigate if there's any connection between exposure to the sun and sunburn. Think they'll go for it?

Lemme get this straight; a bunch of our tax dollars went toward a study to determine if cell phone use while driving causes more accidents?

I'm going to propose my own government funded study. I'll investigate if there's any connection between exposure to the sun and sunburn. Think they'll go for it?
No lets do a study on the effects of sexting while driving, may as well have some fun.

Now they're having a summit on it:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBh5ii0HJc5TbtwUI4uxCB1DgKaAD99S0DCG1

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/department-of-transportation-to-take-on-distracted-driving/

Having driven professionally for decades--using a mix of both two-way radios and contemporary and archaic cell/mobile phones while driving--I have trouble understanding why people find this to be such a difficult thing to do; and feel that the statistics are at least misleading, if not outright false. Not only did I never have a vehicle accident while using the radio or phone, none of my co-workers did either. That's not to say that accidents didn't happen. It is simply a fact that the communication devices were not a contributing factor in the accidents that did take place. So...what's wrong with the American public?

US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood will hold ‘Distracted Driving Summit’

http://bikeportland.org/2009/08/04/us-dot-secretary-ray-lahood-will-hold-distracted-driving-summit/

Having driven professionally for decades--using a mix of both two-way radios and contemporary and archaic cell/mobile phones while driving--I have trouble understanding why people find this to be such a difficult thing to do; and feel that the statistics are at least misleading, if not outright false. Not only did I never have a vehicle accident while using the radio or phone, none of my co-workers did either. That's not to say that accidents didn't happen. It is simply a fact that the communication devices were not a contributing factor in the accidents that did take place. So...what's wrong with the American public?

Your driving was your job - which meant that while you were doing it, it was your primary concern and vital to you making a living. If you weren't driving well, it could impact your ability to eat, etc. So you paid very close attention to what you were doing. With most people, driving is simply something they have to suffer though to do the other things that are important to them (like their jobs that they're trying to get to), so they treat it as something to escape from - and they use the cell phone to do that.

Having driven professionally for decades--using a mix of both two-way radios and contemporary and archaic cell/mobile phones while driving--I have trouble understanding why people find this to be such a difficult thing to do; and feel that the statistics are at least misleading, if not outright false. Not only did I never have a vehicle accident while using the radio or phone, none of my co-workers did either. That's not to say that accidents didn't happen. It is simply a fact that the communication devices were not a contributing factor in the accidents that did take place. So...what's wrong with the American public?

There is a huge difference between two way radios and cellphones. There is also a huge difference between a professional driver and Harriet/Harry Homeowner that drive ~15k a year. I average somewhere in the range of 50k miles a year. We are REQUIRED by our company to complete a Defensive Driving course every other year. If we get a ticket we have to take a course that year, major infractions and you lose your job. If we required that of the normal driver I bet we would see an improvement in driving skills. Show me any job that pays a decent salary where you go through training once and continue on for life with no additional requirements required.

Aaron:)

Having driven professionally for decades--using a mix of both two-way radios and contemporary and archaic cell/mobile phones while driving--I have trouble understanding why people find this to be such a difficult thing to do; and feel that the statistics are at least misleading, if not outright false. Not only did I never have a vehicle accident while using the radio or phone, none of my co-workers did either. That's not to say that accidents didn't happen. It is simply a fact that the communication devices were not a contributing factor in the accidents that did take place. So...what's wrong with the American public?Professional drivers might adapt to the conditions, but most of us don't have that level of practise. I have talked on the phone a few times while driving and found it greatly affected my performance. I don't do it now.

Lemme get this straight; a bunch of our tax dollars went toward a study to determine if cell phone use while driving causes more accidents?

I'm going to propose my own government funded study. I'll investigate if there's any connection between exposure to the sun and sunburn. Think they'll go for it?


Government funds did not pay for the study. The government supressed the results of several studies that had already been done so as not to upset some powerful senators.
But what better way is there to spend money, than making innocent people safer?
Efforts to ban cell phones while driving will require clear and convincing evidence that there actually is a problem. Just "common sense" and old wive's tales are not enough evidence to support expensive policy to restrict this practice. You have to have hard evidence.

Having driven professionally for decades--using a mix of both two-way radios and contemporary and archaic cell/mobile phones while driving--I have trouble understanding why people find this to be such a difficult thing to do; and feel that the statistics are at least misleading, if not outright false. Not only did I never have a vehicle accident while using the radio or phone, none of my co-workers did either. That's not to say that accidents didn't happen. It is simply a fact that the communication devices were not a contributing factor in the accidents that did take place. So...what's wrong with the American public?

We're supposed to just take the word of one guy on the internet? :rolleyes:

Your personal experiences mean absolutely nothing to me. I want some scientific evidence before I get all hincty about this issue--one way or the other.

...So you paid very close attention to what you were doing...
and

...If we required that of the normal driver I bet we would see an improvement in driving skills...

::: shrug :::

Yeah. I can go with that...it does remind me of the so-called studies that supported the "55 Saves Lives" rhetoric, when the suppressed DOT statistics proved the contrary to be true.


...Your personal experiences mean absolutely nothing to me...

Obviously, areas of life which are meaningless to you, are not limited to your reading of my experiences.

Obviously, areas of life which are meaningless to you, are not limited to your reading of my experiences.

I am so sorry! On rereading it, my reply to your post sounded real snotty, which is not what I intended. :o

What I meant to say was that important and expensive public policies should not be based on one person's experience, but on sound scientific studies. IOW, the fact that you personally drove safely while talking on a cell phone doesn't mean that this is generally a safe practice. Maybe you were just lucky, or maybe you have some special ability that most people lack.

Again, I apologize for the snotty tone.

Having driven professionally for decades--using a mix of both two-way radios and contemporary and archaic cell/mobile phones while driving--I have trouble understanding why people find this to be such a difficult thing to do; and feel that the statistics are at least misleading, if not outright false. Not only did I never have a vehicle accident while using the radio or phone, none of my co-workers did either. That's not to say that accidents didn't happen. It is simply a fact that the communication devices were not a contributing factor in the accidents that did take place. So...what's wrong with the American public?

My experience with hitchiking with CB buddies back in the 80s was the the CB chat was minimal, hi, bye, where you been, where you going, check out the chick, watch out for that checkpoint, see you later. In addition, truckers are generally professional drivers, in a company vehicle, with valuable merchandise, all incentives to drive carefully.

Cell phone users are a completely different demographic. A bunch of people yapping away endlessly, with minimal driving skills, and with multi-featured phones and contact lists. CB buddies used only a couple of channels and communicate only with truckers in line of sight, press button, talk, reach, occasionally change volume or channel, but not often. Those are limited actions that cause little attention interference.

I wear my bluetooth all the time, at the store, in the car, in the bus, on my bike. My bluetooth is the best investment I ever made. What I do not understand is why we never see advertisements for bluetooths?

Not that they're perfect, they may cause cancer (killing yourself better than killing others), they are not free with phone contracts and to have a true bluetooth advantage, your cellphone has to have a built in voice command function, not that silly BS programmable voice dialing which barely works, no the real integrated automated Voice Command, which is unfortunately on too few phones.

If governments wanted to make a dent in cell phone handling while driving, they would mandate all cells have built-in Voice Command and include a bluetooth sales.

However another imperfection is that bluetooth, even in perfect circumstances still distracts. A conversation with a passenger is more distracting than driving alone, but usually a passenger will automatically shut up if driving gets tricky, the passenger is also an extra set of eyes. On the other hand a bluetooth conversation can become it's own zone, as the speaker at the other end is not tuned in to your driving needs.

Here's how I rate my driving from best to worse:
Sober, awake, alone, with radio
Sober awake, alone, without radio (I get bored and distracted)
Sober, awake, alone, bluetoothing
Sober, awake, with passenger
Sober awake, handling cell phone
drunk
drowsy (yes, for me worse than drunk. when drinking I'm extremely self conscious, when drowsy, I can suddenly be asleep at the wheel, I've done both.)

I wear my bluetooth all the time, at the store, in the car, in the bus, on my bike. My bluetooth is the best investment I ever made. What I do not understand is why we never see advertisements for bluetooths?

Not that they're perfect, they may cause cancer (killing yourself better than killing others), they are not free with phone contracts and to have a true bluetooth advantage, your cellphone has to have a built in voice command function, not that silly BS programmable voice dialing which barely works, no the real integrated automated Voice Command, which is unfortunately on too few phones.

If governments wanted to make a dent in cell phone handling while driving, they would mandate all cells have built-in Voice Command and include a bluetooth sales.

However another imperfection is that bluetooth, even in perfect circumstances still distracts. A conversation with a passenger is more distracting than driving alone, but usually a passenger will automatically shut up if driving gets tricky, the passenger is also an extra set of eyes. On the other hand a bluetooth conversation can become it's own zone, as the speaker at the other end is not tuned in to your driving needs.

Here's how I rate my driving from best to worse:
Sober, awake, alone, with radio
Sober awake, alone, without radio (I get bored and distracted)
Sober, awake, alone, bluetoothing
Sober, awake, with passenger
Sober awake, handling cell phone
drunk
drowsy (yes, for me worse than drunk. when drinking I'm extremely self conscious, when drowsy, I can suddenly be asleep at the wheel, I've done both.)

The studies indicate it is the cellphone conversation more than the physical device that causes the problems. In several studies it didn't seem to matter whether the person was hands free or not. It is loss of concentration of the task at hand; driving; that is the problem. I suspect in at least some cases, if the drivers were more competent the cellphone MIGHT not be as big a distraction.

Aaron:)

From my glimpses at the study, they don't make much distinction between types of "hands-free". I've used onstar, you have to scream at your rear-view mirror and speak in tongues for it to understand you, that is indeed very distracting! Also, among bluetooth or wired headsets users, there are those that still have to constantly fiddle with their phones to dial and search for contacts, so that the phone is in their hands anyway, my phone's Voice Command allows me to not touch the phone at all, I touch my ear and say who I want to dial. So at least both hands are busy driving. Some bluetooths are also quite low quality and you HAVE to pay MORE attention to the conversation just to hear and be heard.

It appears to me that their study did not put much focus on distinguishing between various hands-free technologies so I look forward to more in-depth research in this particular matter.

That was that particular study, there was another one done that tested the difference between hands free and not. FWIW I have used headsets, speaker phones and blue tooth. It is very easy to get lost in the conversation and not give you full attention to the road. When driving in heavy traffic, ie; city or congested interstate I ignore the phone. If I am on a long open stretch of interstate I am more apt to use the phone. I also drive a fair bit more than the average driver and suspect I am better trained than most.;)

Aaron:)

The studies indicate it is the cellphone conversation more than the physical device that causes the problems. In several studies it didn't seem to matter whether the person was hands free or not. It is loss of concentration of the task at hand; driving; that is the problem. I suspect in at least some cases, if the drivers were more competent the cellphone MIGHT not be as big a distraction.

Aaron:)

I think this needs to be repeated over and over. People don't seem to be getting the idea that handsfree is probably just as bad as handheld. Not even government policy wonks--who should know better--are getting this idea.

I see a lot of people in this discussion, here and elsewhere, getting distracted by the idea that if we just build the "perfect" hands-free controller then the problem will go away. The studies do not support that. The trouble is not the nature of the device. The problem is the nature of the conversation.

Telephone conversations are a high cognitive task. We have been conditioned to treat them as such. The person we are speaking to expects us to treat them as such. This is also the fundamental difference between cell phone conversations and two-way radio conversations. We are conditioned to expect ONLY the dispatcher to treat the two-way conversation as a high level task.

If you feel like testing it, in the middle of a cell conversation, at a totally random point, quickly say, "stand-by," and say nothing for 30 seconds; or, to make it harder, just stop talking. See if the other party can 1. resist the temptation to continue the conversation 2. not sound irritated when you resume the conversation. If they do not have proper training they probably can not do it.

The problem is not the nature of the device, it is the nature of the conversation. Two-way is different and the studies can not be substituted for each other.

[...]The problem is the nature of the conversation.

If you feel like testing it, in the middle of a cell conversation, at a totally random point, quickly say, "stand-by," and say nothing for 30 seconds; or, to make it harder, just stop talking. See if the other party can 1. resist the temptation to continue the conversation 2. not sound irritated when you resume the conversation. If they do not have proper training they probably can not do it. [...]

You may be surprised that I agree with your post to a very large extent, as I detailed in my personal anecdotal driving impressions, I do KNOW that I am more distracted when phone conversating.

However, and I may be in a unique life situation here, but I spent 10 years nearly phoneless, so in 2001, when I subscribed to my first cell phone service, phone "conversating" took the place of an intrusion in my life. The few months that I was driving a car in these years, using my bluetooth, I have indeed said to my speakers, hold on, I need my full attention right now, and they understood and kept from talking, sometimes I even hang up after a rough "call you back in a minute", and they are also fine with that.

I fully realize I am a less than perfect driver when phone-conversating, which in my opinion is still better than many idiot drivers even without a cell phone! But I fully know that I am MORE distracted if the phone conversating involves handling a phone and looking for contacts or looking for the phone itself, or such, and the worse, texting, this is absolutely impossible to do while driving.

Other functions on my high danger list are ruffling through music collections looking for just that CD while looking at the road only intermittently!

I realise we probably we probably may never a see a specific reliable exhaustive study comparing various handsfree behaviours. I reiterate reliable because if the study doesn't specify the precise definitions of handsfree, then it is pointless. To me, handsfree not only involves speaking time, but all peripheral phone activities.

The world is not black and white, similarly, someone who is a little drunk is not quite as dangerous as someone who is very drunk.

i did not read this whole thread but i can not tell you the number of times a car does something stupid (pulls out on me, runs a stop, drifts lanes, etc) and when i give them my watch what the hell you are doing stare they are on there phone and completely ignorant that they almost hit me. i would say 75% of the times i have to give my disapproving, watch what the hell you are doing stare the driver is on the phone. i have even seen a few times it looks like the person is looking down at there phone below the wheel txting. idiots.

i did not read this whole thread but i can not tell you the number of times a car does something stupid (pulls out on me, runs a stop, drifts lanes, etc) and when i give them my watch what the hell you are doing stare they are on there phone and completely ignorant that they almost hit me. i would say 75% of the times i have to give my disapproving, watch what the hell you are doing stare the driver is on the phone. i have even seen a few times it looks like the person is looking down at there phone below the wheel txting. idiots.
This thread has gotten me to put my hand to the side of my head with the pinky and thumb spread like its a phone when I yell at the idiots who do something stupid while driving and talking on their cell phones at the same time. It shows the other people watching the altercation from inside their airconditioned SUVs what its all about. Not that it does any good.