As if we did not already know...

Cell phone users have reaction times of oldsters. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=738&e=1&u=/ap/20050202/ap_on_re_us/cell_phones_young_drivers)



Some things to think about when you are out there in the middle of the commute... especially if you are the type of rider known to push for your rights on the road.



"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging."

In the simulator, each participant drove four 10-mile freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone with a research assistant during half the trip and driving without talking the other half. Only handsfree phones — considered safer — were used.

The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.

The numbers, which come down to milliseconds, might not seem like much, but it could be the difference to stopping in time to avoid hitting a child in the street, Strayer said.

The only silver lining to the new research is that elderly drivers using a cell phone aren't any more of a hazard to themselves and others than young drivers. Previous research suggested older drivers may face what Strayer described as a "triple whammy."

And I bet in the study the drivers weren't making notes in their day planner, smoking a cigarette, etc. at the same time like real world drivers do. I put a few miles on the bicycle and many miles on the motorcycle every year and every close call I've had in quite a while has been with drivers on cell phones. They scare the Hell out of me.

SS

And I bet in the study the drivers weren't making notes in their day planner, smoking a cigarette, etc. at the same time like real world drivers do. I put a few miles on the bicycle and many miles on the motorcycle every year and every close call I've had in quite a while has been with drivers on cell phones. They scare the Hell out of me.

SS

The crazy thing is, these morons don't single anybody out it's just that cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians are the most vulnerable. It's no wonder we get angry/ upset and at times aggressive. All too often it's stupidity and/or a lapse in concentration (ie from the afore mentioned activities) that's the cause of an accident. A complete disregard for other people's safety :mad:

Thats why I carry my cell phone in the back pocket of the pannier. If I want to use it I stop and get off the bike. If I am driving a car stuck in traffic, I dont think my slowed reactions will cause any problem.

The crazy thing is, these morons don't single anybody out it's just that cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians are the most vulnerable. It's no wonder we get angry/ upset and at times aggressive. All too often it's stupidity and/or a lapse in concentration (ie from the afore mentioned activities) that's the cause of an accident. A complete disregard for other people's safety :mad:

True. I've had just as many close calls in my Avalanche, I just don't worry about it as much as when the only thing between me and an idiots car what clothes I have on.

SS

Cell phones, dvd players, gps readouts, cup of coffee, cigarettes, something to eat, the radio on to your favorite talk show, the kids fighting in the back seat. All set!

I don't even do that many things at once sitting in my living room.

Drivers on Cell Phones Kill Thousands, Snarl Traffic
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 01 February 2005
01:52 pm ET



Finally, empirical proof you can blame chatty 20-somethings for stop-and-go traffic on the way to work.

A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in general, and when young adults use cell phones while driving, they're as bad as sleepy septuagenarians.

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone," said University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer. "It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers."

The study was announced today and is detailed in winter issue of the quarterly journal Human Factors.

Traffic jams and death

Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year, according to the journal's publisher, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The reason is now obvious:

Behind the Statistics
Are Cell Phones Really So Dangerous?




Drivers talking on cell phones were 18 percent slower to react to brake lights, the new study found. In a minor bright note, they also kept a 12 percent greater following distance. But they also took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked. That frustrates everyone.

"Once drivers on cell phones hit the brakes, it takes them longer to get back into the normal flow of traffic," Strayer said. "The net result is they are impeding the overall flow of traffic."

Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don't see, because they're distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Separate research last year at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign supported the conclusion that hands-free cell phone use causes driver distraction.

"With younger adults, everything got worse," said Arthur Kramer, who led the Illinois study. "Both young adults and older adults tended to show deficits in performance. They made more errors in detecting important changes and they took longer to react to the changes."

The impaired reactions involved seconds, not just fractions of a second, so stopping distances increased by car-lengths.

Older drivers more cautious

The latest study used high-tech simulators. It included people aged 18 to 25 and another group aged 65 to 74. Elderly drivers were slower to react when talking on the phone, too.

The simulations uncovered a twofold increase in the number of rear-end collisions by drivers using cell phones.

Older drivers seem to be more cautious overall, however.

"Older drivers were slightly less likely to get into accidents than younger drivers," Strayer said. "They tend to have a greater following distance. Their reactions are impaired, but they are driving so cautiously they were less likely to smash into somebody." But in real life, he added, older drivers are significantly more likely to be rear-ended because of their slow speed.

Other studies in the journal found:

Telephone numbers presented by automated voice systems compete for drivers' attention to a far greater extent than when the driver sees the same information presented on a display.
Interruptions to driving, such as answering a call, are likely to be more dangerous if they occur during maneuvers like merging to exit a freeway.
Things could get worse. Wireless Internet, speech recognition systems and e-mail could all be even more distracting.

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

Are Cell Phones Really So Dangerous?
Posted Feb. 2, 2005 at 10:15 a.m. ET

Several readers wrote to LiveScience questioning whether cell phones were really so bad for drivers. Here is some additional information that helps illuminate the death statistic.

The estimates of annual deaths reported in this week's article (2,600) may well be low. The number, for U.S. deaths related to drivers using cell phones, comes from a 2002 study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA). Researchers then estimated that the use of cell phones by drivers caused approximately 2,600 deaths.

Because data on cell phone use by motorists are limited, the range of uncertainty is wide, those researchers said. The estimate of fatalities in that HCRA report ranged between 800 and 8,000.

Importantly, the researchers noted (in 2002) that increasing cell phone use could be expected to cause the annual death estimate to rise. The 2002 estimate, for example, was up from an estimate of 1,000 deaths in the year 2000. Logic suggests the number -- though just an estimate -- could be much higher in 2005.

The estimates are based largely on mathematical models, but they are not without basis. In 2001 in California, for example, "at least 4,699 reported accidents were blamed on drivers using cell phones, and those crashes killed 31 people and injured 2,786," according to an analysis by The Los Angeles Times. That number can expected to be low, because of the lack of formal procedures for noting cell phone use as a cause of a traffic accident.

The Times also noted a 1997 study of Canadian drivers "who agreed to have their cell phone records scrutinized found that the risk of an accident was four times greater while a driver was using the phone."

Each year, about 42,000 people die in U.S. auto accidents.

Here is how the new University of Utah simulations were conducted:

Participants in the simulator used dashboard instruments, steering wheel and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes and traffic, including a "pace car" that intermittently hit its brakes 32 times as it appeared to drive in front of study participants.

If a participant failed to hit their own brakes, they eventually would rear-end the pace car. Each participant drove four simulated 10-mile freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone with a research assistant during half the trips and driving without talking the other half. Only hands-free phones were used to eliminate any possible distraction from manipulating a hand-held cell phone.

Thirty times each second, the simulator measured the participants' driving speed, following distance and - if applicable - how long it took them to hit the brakes and how long it took them to regain speed.

-- RRB

On "Scientific American Frontiers" last night, Alan Alda summarized some pretty scary driving simulator results, which suggested that teenage drivers are particularly distracted by cell phones.

On the commute home tonight (I was riding in a friend's car, not cycling), I saw some clown wrestling with his cell phone while driving in the right lane and weaving in and out of the bike lane. Where are the cops when you need them?

Alan Alda's the man!
They also had a show where they hooked up this eye tracker and put the projected focus of the eye onto an image of what the eye saw. Subconsciously, people were looking around in very quick split second glances while driving. But when they were on the cellphone, they would only look forward.

Cell phones, dvd players, gps readouts, cup of coffee, cigarettes, something to eat, the radio on to your favorite talk show, the kids fighting in the back seat. All set!

I don't even do that many things at once sitting in my living room.

Sad/funniest thing I saw on a commute one day was this guy with a cell phone at his ear... held by his shoulder, trying to light a cigarette with his hands and make a left turn right in front of me... I gave him a look that would kill. He had to slam on the brakes in mid turn. Upset his whole phone/cig balance.

Guess he was steering with his knees??

That is something I have enver been able to understand: The human compulsion to answer the phone over doing everything else. I don't get it. Why is it so important to drop everything and answer a phone? Leave a message, I'll get back to you or your voice mail. I ignore the phone as much as I use it.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but if I'm in your place of busniess, with money in hand, do NOT answer the phone. I've taken my time to go to your place of busniess with money, don't blow me off to chat with someone who can't give you a dime over then phone. Auto parts stores are the worst, followed by small boutique stores, and bike shops aren't immune.

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone," said University of Utah psychology professor David Strayer.
However, if 70 year olds use cell phones, they actually go at a negative speed and uncause accidents. Scientists are investigating this as a means to unlocking the secrets of time travel.

I'm curious. What is it about talking on the cell phone that is so distracting? Why is that different than talking to someone next to you in the front seat? Inquiring minds want to know.

I'm curious. What is it about talking on the cell phone that is so distracting? Why is that different than talking to someone next to you in the front seat? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just a guess...

When you are talking to someone in the car with you, you both see the road conditions and tend to pause at the same times. When you are talking on the cell phone, you tend to "visualize" the things you are talking about and the person you are talking to.

Although frankly I have known some folks that could not drive and talk at the same time... they would look right at you, rather than the road.

PaperBoy, if I recall correctly, it's that when you talk on the phone your brain needs to create an image of the person on the other end of the line. This uses up brain resources. You don't do that when you talk to the person in the next seat because you can just look at them.

Some things to think about when you are out there in the middle of the commute... especially if you are the type of rider known to push for your rights on the road.
By "the type of rider known to push for your rights on the road" are you talking about those of us who negotiate for the right-of-way before moving in front of a faster vehicle? Why would you single us out?

PaperBoy, if I recall correctly, it's that when you talk on the phone your brain needs to create an image of the person on the other end of the line. This uses up brain resources. You don't do that when you talk to the person in the next seat because you can just look at them.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that there are other communications going on between folks situated within physical proximity of each other besides voice and hearing.

For one thing if you have to slam on the brakes for something the passenger can see and feel what is going on, someone on the phone cannot, and you know that. It's easier to communicate effectively with someone who is right there with you, and, hence, requires less concentration and focus.

It's called context switching and many of us are very bad at it. It can be overcome with training however. Pilots undergo this sort of training... emergency response folks do too. Perhaps rather than enacting laws to ban this, that and the other thing, we should revise our training to take into account the fact that one needs to be able to maintain situational awareness as well as context switch between several tasks in today's modern driving environment. Rather than spend all of our efforts attempting to eliminate distractions (an exercise in futility as far as I'm concerned), I think some amount of effort should be made in teaching drivers how to better deal with them. Now I'm not advocating that everyone go out and gab on their phones in the middle of traffic but I am advocating that everyone know how to handle the situation. Whether to answer or make a call while driving should be a matter or priority management and it should be the case that either decision should leave the driver with a fair margin of safety.

I came within literally a foot of getting broadsided by some guy on a cell phone tonight on my way home from the shop. We made eye contact but he still chose to slam the gas as I was crossing in front of him.

I believe studies have shown that human complex multi-tasking (such as talking on a cellphone while driving) involves a rapid (or not so rapid) shifting of attention.....In other words, unlike a properly programmed computer, which can run two or more programs simultaneously, the human brain is at best flickering between tasks.....We are subjectively unaware of this in much the same way we are unaware our blinking eyelids are blinding us for fractions of seconds.....

In the U.K. it is now illegal to use a hand held cell phone whilst driving.
Problem is that the police don't seem to give a toss about enforcing it and I still keep getting chopped by drivers on the phone.

khuon wants driving school to be a training experience... heh :D

what would your driving school be like?

FAA part-141 Flight training and it would never end. You would be required to undergo regular qualification tests and recurrent training on a periodic basis.

no one would drive. :eek:

And what you gotta problem wid dat?

The cell phone distraction falls under driving without due care and attention. Something that seems to be the norm in driving. Isolating the driver from the reality of driving by creating a distraction. Not good.

However, if 70 year olds use cell phones, they actually go at a negative speed and uncause accidents. Scientists are investigating this as a means to unlocking the secrets of time travel.

HA!

FAA part-141 Flight training and it would never end. You would be required to undergo regular qualification tests and recurrent training on a periodic basis.

Wonderful! Your ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter!

no one would drive. :eek:


Exactly!.....Merton, sometimes you amaze me!!..... ;)

no one would drive. :eek:

That's not true. Only the professionals (or people who act professionally) would drive. The ease by which one can obtain and maintain driving priviledges in this country means that most motorists out there are simply hacks. I still maintain that despite this supposedly "Love for the Automobile", most people deep-down don't really want to drive. How else would one explain the rise in popularity of car accessories (ie. in-car DVD player) that promote everything except actual driving? The bar is too low... I'm all for making it so that someone needs to stand quite a bit taller to ride this ride.

All cell phone use while driving should be banned. Even remote-operated cell phones are distracting. Anybody who is involved in a crash while on the phone should go to jail.

Where is the insurance industry on this? They are one of the most powerful lobbys in the US.

" A new study confirms that the reaction time of cell phone users slows dramatically, increasing the risk of accidents and tying up traffic in general...."

Next time a driver (or a police officer!) accuses me of "holding up traffic" because I'm riding, I'd love to flash this nice study result at him. I'M not slowing the traffic! It's the dam drivers on their cell phones!

I caught up to what I'd assumed was a drunk driver, weaving in both lanes 10mph under the speed limit,
at the stop light.
She was using her mobile 'phone, perched on her shoulder, while sorting what looked like a large assortment of coupons.

This giant white Chevrolet Suburban was the worst-driven vehicle I'd seen all day.
(Not that unusual, in other words.)

Then again, I know of a very experienced roadie who pulled a no-no.
He answered his mobile 'phone while clipped-in & moving at a fair clip.
As a result, he suffered road-rash, bruised joints, and scraped-up handlebar tape;
he knew better, but s**t happens, I suppose!

This thread is 3 years old. FYI...

This thread is 3 years old. FYI...

Think things have improved in three years?

Now cellphones can show videos... along with a host of other features.

The numbers, which come down to milliseconds, might not seem like much, but it could be the difference to stopping in time to avoid hitting a child in the street, Strayer said. Makes me feel like the study is flawed, like people talking on the cell phone know they're in a study and therefore expect **** to go down. Should be much more than milliseconds, unless they mean a few hundred milliseconds. Milliseconds in a collision means inches.

I hope the upcoming ban on hand-held cellphones while driving (Calif.) has an effect on driver behaviour... or whether we'll see more of the same. This issue is one of my particular "champion causes" as both a driver and cyclist. I have experienced a number of near miss incidents where one might say "cell phone use might be considered a factor".


Ed

wow, long live the cell phone thread!
have you ever noticed the look in people´s eyes when they are on the phone? they are far, far away, on the edge of the time-space contiuum. i think only people with proven metaphysical capabilities whould be allowed to use these devices, let alone while wielding large instruments of death in crowded roads.

I hope the upcoming ban on hand-held cellphones while driving (Calif.) has an effect on driver behaviour... or whether we'll see more of the same. This issue is one of my particular "champion causes" as both a driver and cyclist. I have experienced a number of near miss incidents where one might say "cell phone use might be considered a factor".


Ed

I tend to agree... too many close calls with cell phone hugging motorists.

I hope the upcoming ban on hand-held cellphones while driving (Calif.) has an effect on driver behaviour... or whether we'll see more of the same. This issue is one of my particular "champion causes" as both a driver and cyclist. I have experienced a number of near miss incidents where one might say "cell phone use might be considered a factor".


Ed

This appears to be a cooperative thread. Virtually everyone agrees that phone use while driving should be banned?

Yesterdays' morning ride.... 40 miles, aprox. 8:00am to 10:30 or so. Did a survey of cell use by drivers. With some small margin of error, the number was about 80%....yes 80%. Traffic was light which may have contributed to what, at least to me, was an extremely high number. But those typical characteristics of slowing down, swerving, abrupt braking, were also in evidence.

Saw or read recently about a portable jammer and how people were up in arms over someone abusing their cell phone rights.

Shall we start a movement to enact regulations to jam cell phones except for 911 calls in all moving vehicles?

Watch out... here come the Libertarians!

:):):)

I hope the upcoming ban on hand-held cellphones while driving (Calif.) has an effect on driver behaviour... or whether we'll see more of the same. This issue is one of my particular "champion causes" as both a driver and cyclist. I have experienced a number of near miss incidents where one might say "cell phone use might be considered a factor".


Ed

We've had this ban in CT for over a year and it does no good at all. It is very difficult to enforce (ditching the phone in the back seat upon seing flashing lights in the mirror makes it just about a non event) and it is so far from the top of the priority list for the understaffed police as to be a non law.

It ranks down there with the seatbelt laws, the insurance laws and even the drivers license law. It does little to stop the action but it provides lawyer fodder after an accident has happened.

Training drivers to be serious drivers still holds the most promise but even that faces a huge entitlement attitude from John Q.

Some of the new laws with teeth may work better............ie confiscation of car and license after some major infraction. Abuse it and loose it.........that's the motto.

so with all the bans on cell phones out there, when do we start banning the 70 year old drivers? They are just as bad as cell phone users, right? Yet they get to plow their buick into the nearest coffee shop and get sent on their merry way with a condescending pat on the back and a "try to be careful next time. We are running out of coffee shops!" Meanwhile, I have to let my cell phone go to voice mail as I'm stuck in a traffic jam caused by a 70 year old plowing into another coffee shop.

Won't someone think of the multi-taskers????

so with all the bans on cell phones out there, when do we start banning the 70 year old drivers? They are just as bad as cell phone users, right? Yet they get to plow their buick into the nearest coffee shop and get sent on their merry way with a condescending pat on the back and a "try to be careful next time. We are running out of coffee shops!" Meanwhile, I have to let my cell phone go to voice mail as I'm stuck in a traffic jam caused by a 70 year old plowing into another coffee shop.

Won't someone think of the multi-taskers????

Easy for you to say...

Besides, I know some excellent 70 year old drivers, and some abismal drivers in their 30's. We should look to restrict bad drivers, but that will never happen. Certainly not with the systems that give bad drivers multiple bites of the cherry for serious infractions of the law.

Ed

We've had this ban in CT for over a year and it does no good at all. It is very difficult to enforce (ditching the phone in the back seat upon seing flashing lights in the mirror makes it just about a non event) and it is so far from the top of the priority list for the understaffed police as to be a non law.

It ranks down there with the seatbelt laws, the insurance laws and even the drivers license law. It does little to stop the action but it provides lawyer fodder after an accident has happened.

Training drivers to be serious drivers still holds the most promise but even that faces a huge entitlement attitude from John Q.

Some of the new laws with teeth may work better............ie confiscation of car and license after some major infraction. Abuse it and loose it.........that's the motto.

Sorry to hear it doesn't work. Like most laws, we choose to ignore those we think we can if doing so doesn't 'do harm' to anyone else.

I'd vote for confiscation of car and license for this and other infractions such a DUI.

Don't forsee much chance of changing driving priveleges or qualifications. Would be nice were it possible.

Another poster griped about aging drivers. That is a real problem not necessarily associated with chronological age. As Ed Holland observed, there are miserable drivers in their 30's and, as known by the insurance industry, the worst drivers range from 16 to 24 years old. Can't blame that on aging or reaction time.

Wouldn't it be an amazing world if we chose to do the right thing just because it was the right thing? I know...who decides what the right thing is?

:D

I guess you guys were missing my point and/or sarcasm. The original article specifically mentioned elderly drivers, i.e. "70 year old drivers" as being bad, not me. I guess I was the only one to pick up on that bit in the article.

Next time I'll turn on the *sarcasm* tag.

It should be required that a jammer effective over a 12 ft radius be activated by the car ignition. If you need to make a 911 call you can pull to the side of the road and turn off the engine. If you need to receive emergency messages, use a pager, which can remain active while driving.

This zombie thread helped me relive the most terrifying thing ever. (Edit: at least while driving or cycling)
Sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle that was going at a good 80mph weaving in traffic while in a 30mph zone all while the driver watched and laughed at an episode of family guy on an ipod video. I think I'm gonna be sick now and it's been at least a few months since that happened.

I think with a good driver cell phones are kind of like a gateway distraction. We need active driver analysis big brother style forget this ban X because it won't be enforced. Plus who the heck cares what people do when they know they are being tested once a year or twice a year even if we could do that.

I care what people do when it threatens the wellbeing of those around them.

Successful enforcement is quite another matter...

Few Phoenix drivers cited under text-message ban

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/0305text-message0305.html

Actually I am surprised they were able to cite as many as three drivers.

Al

Few Phoenix drivers cited under text-message ban

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/0305text-message0305.html

Actually I am surprised they were able to cite as many as three drivers.

Al
"The ordinance bars drivers within Phoenix city limits from either sending or receiving text messages while their vehicle is moving. "
Wow that makes it sound like if my cell phone was in my bag and it received a text message I could get into trouble. Hopefully the ordinance when rewritten clarifies that if it isn't already clear to mean reading recieved messages. With some phones I'm not sure how one could reliably tell.
I wonder if they are testing those self driving cars with bicycles yet.

"The ordinance bars drivers within Phoenix city limits from either sending or receiving text messages while their vehicle is moving. "
Wow that makes it sound like if my cell phone was in my bag and it received a text message I could get into trouble. Hopefully the ordinance when rewritten clarifies that if neccessary to mean reading recieved messages. With some phones I'm not sure how one could reliably tell.
I wonder if they are testing those self driving cars with bicycles yet.

The news story did not fully capture the actual text of the ordinance. It says ~'while using to send/receive" I interpret 'using' to mean in the hands of the user vs. being out of reach or sight.

"Sec. 36-76.01 Use of personal digital assistants while driving; prohibited; exceptions.*
__________
A. A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a street while using a personal digital assistant to send or receive a written message while the motor vehicle is in motion.
B. This section does not apply to any of the following:
1. Law enforcement and safety personnel.
2. Drivers of authorized emergency vehicles.
3. Holders of commercial driver licenses while driving within the scope of their employment.
4. Public transit personnel.
5. A person who is reporting reckless or negligent behavior.
6. The use of a personal digital assistant for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation:
(a) An emergency response operator.
(b) A hospital, physician's office or health clinic.
(c) A provider of ambulance services.
(d) A provider of fire fighting services.
(e) A law enforcement agency.
7. A person who believes the person is in physical danger if the person is the only adult in the motor vehicle.
C. For purposes of this section,"personal digital assistant" means a wireless electronic communication device that provides for data communication other than by voice.
D. A violation of this section is a nonmoving civil traffic violation.
E. If a person violates this section and the person is not involved in a motor vehicle accident, the person is subject to a civil penalty of not less than one hundred dollars plus any other penalty assessments authorized by law.
F. If a person violates this section and the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident, the person is subject to a civil penalty of not less than two hundred fifty dollars plus any other penalty assessments authorized by law.
G. If a person is cited for violating this section, the person is involved in a motor vehicle accident and a written accident report is required by law, the law enforcement officer investigating the accident shall indicate on the written accident form the use of a personal digital assistant to send or receive a written message at the time of the accident."

I'm curious. What is it about talking on the cell phone that is so distracting? Why is that different than talking to someone next to you in the front seat? Inquiring minds want to know.

The difference is that onlookers cannot distinguish between just driving and distracted driving when the distraction consists of talking to someone next to you. Society, the media, we all love labels and stock excuses/pet projects. The cell phone is a lightning rod for all of that. Truth is, many an accident is caused by other distractions - we just have no preset form on which to log those distractions, nor are those distractions the focus of all these "studies."

I don't advocate distracted or impaired driving, but I also do not place much trust in the sorts of studies mentioned as the topic of this thread.

Caruso