 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / July 2005Study: Cell phones take up driver attention
Multitasking is a bitch. From CNN... http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/06/21/drivers.cell.phones.reut/index.html?sec tion=cnn_tech or http://tinyurl.com/b796j  Signaturejer email reply - I am not a 'ten' > Multitasking is a bitch. > > From CNN... http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/06/21/drivers.cell.phones.reut/index.html?sec tion=cnn_tech > or > http://tinyurl.com/b796j " WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Using a cell phone -- even with a hands-free device -- may distract drivers because the brain cannot handle both tasks, U.S. researchers said Tuesday. Imaging tests show the brain directs its resources to either visual input or auditory input, but cannot fully activate both at the same time, the team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found " No sh.t. That's what I've been saying for a long time: I don't like laws that restrict cell phone use while driving. But if you are going to make a law, at least make it a law that will have an impact on safety. That means ban cell phones while driving. Period. Outlawing hand held cellular handsets while driving totally misses the point. It is the conversation that is the distraction, NOT the handset. The team at Johns Hopkins just confirmed it. Hello, NEW YORK legislators!!! Are you listening? I guess not, if you are reading this, as you can't listen and read at the same time. :) -Dave > No sh.t. That's what I've been saying for a long time: I don't like laws > that restrict cell phone use while driving. But if you are going to make [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > time. > :) -Dave I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent), radios, stereos, and the opening of windows or sunroofs (external noise). Perhaps everyone should also wear noise-cancellating earphones. Edo Per Edoardo: >I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent), >radios, stereos, and the opening of windows or sunroofs (external noise). >Perhaps everyone should also wear noise-cancellating earphones. With passengers, the other person is partially participating in the task of driving - i.e. the driver can just stop talking and they'll understand. OTOH on the phone, the other end has no expectation of lapses in conversation - unlike a CB coversation or a conversation with a passenger. I've never seen a CB user wandering back and forth across the line, doing 68 in a 75 mph lane, and/or speeding up and slowing down for no apparent reason. They may be doing it.... but it's not noticible on any kind of regular basis. Every so often, I see driver/passenger conversations doing one or all of the above - especially when the driver is making active hand gestures and/or tuning around to talk to somebody in the rear seat. However I see cellphone users doing these things on a daily basis. Not just once a day, either... The wandering back and forth across the line seems tb the most common. Varying speed for no apparent reason is comes second. It's really, *really*, REALLY obvious.... OTOH, I'd be the first to say that some people can pull it off.... but way too many can't... Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive. SignaturePeteCresswell >Per Edoardo: >>I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent), [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive. To all of the whiners of America. Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have cellphone activity as the cause. Now I want all of you that hate people that drive using handsfree devices to write your represntatives and tell them you want prohibition brought back. The two most popular health hazards that are legal in this country, smoking and drinking, cause more than 100% of vehicle accidents/fatalites then all cellphones combined in the world. Don't you just love the driver that's looking to flick his ash of his cigarette into the ashtray that he/she can't find while driving? After he/she drops the cigarette into his or her lap do you really think they are not going to hit you? Get your priorities straight and stop whining about things that are not factual. If you don't want car accidents, ban cars. Smarten up! >To all of the whiners of America. > >Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have >cellphone activity as the cause. Yeah - virtually all of them are "speed related." Per Scott en Aztlán: >Yeah - virtually all of them are "speed related." It's not speed that kills. It's difference in speed. Witness the car going 35 and the oak tree going 0. SignaturePeteCresswell Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. What will they government try to do next.?.... Ban talking to passengers in the car? > Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than > having a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. What will they > government try to do next.?.... Ban talking to passengers in the car? No, just ban vehicles altogether since they can used used for criminal activity > Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than holy crhsit, we've been over this about a billion times before. Drivers give MORE attention to cell phone conversations than they do to other conversations. It's a psychological thing . . . it's harder to be rude to a person on the phone. -Dave > It's a psychological thing . . . it's harder to be rude to a > person on the phone. -Dave Spoken like someone who has never been a Sprint PCS Rep. ;) SignatureRØß O/Siris -+- A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice. +Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+ >> It's a psychological thing . . . it's harder to be rude to a >>person on the phone. -Dave > > Spoken like someone who has never been a Sprint PCS Rep. Oh great...now I have to soak up the coffee I spit all over my keyboard laughing. Per Mij Adyaw: >Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having >a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. But it *is* different. The person at the other end is not tuned into your driving situation and there is an expectation that you will keep up your end of the conversation no matter what. There's also the matter of dialing the thing. I'm not amont those that thinks any kind of ban will work - but there's not question in my mind that a cellphone conversation is very different from a conversation with somebody in the vehicle - or even a CB radio conversation. SignaturePeteCresswell > The person at the other end is not tuned into your driving situation and > there > is an expectation that you will keep up your end of the conversation no > matter > what. If I'm talking to somebody on the phone while I'm driving, the driving takes priorty. I don't give a flip if they have to hold the line for two seconds while I take attention to some change in the road or traffic situation. If they expect more out of me they can talk to me later when I'm not on the phone. -Jeff > Having a conversation on a hands-free cell phone is NO DIFFERENT than having > a conversation with a passenger that is in the car. There's one obvious difference. If you are driving, and doing something like a tricky merge or something that requires extra concentration, a passenger might notice what you are doing, and stop talking. Someone on the phone would probably keep on babbling. Whether this difference is significant or not is another question, but it is a difference. Signature--Tim Smith Per topsy: >Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have >cellphone activity as the cause. I'd suspect the statistical collection methodology (or, more to the point, lack of same) on that one. Do officers routinely ask accident participants if they were talking on the cell phone when it happened? Is there a "Cellphone In Use" checkgox on accident report forms? Would anybody in their right mind answer "Yes" to such a question? Is the data collected and tabulated? I'd guess "No Way Jose'" on all counts. Besides, my impression is that most people aren't complaining about the accidents. Instead they're complaining about the near accidents and the heightened anxiety stress on people around the cellphone driver caused by behaviors such as like weaving from lane-to-lane and varying speed for no apparent reason. >Now I want all of you that hate people that drive using handsfree devices >to write your represntatives and tell them you want prohibition brought >back. IMHO legal prohibition is futile. wasteful of resources, and generally a lousy idea. The only thing that would work is some sort of technical prohibition - like dropping calls where either phone is perceived by the system to be moving more than a certain speed and/or moves more than a certain distance. Obviously that's never going to happen. I'd favor two things: 1) Developing a national consensus on what proper driving behavior is. Germany has this, and the difference is astonishing. I'm not saying I'd prefer to drive in Germany - just that everybody's on the same page and it makes things possible there that are (thankfully) impossible here - like triple tractor trailers moving at 45 mph sharing the road with Porches tooling along at 155 mph - and other things like being able to pull back into the right lane after passing with never a thought that some nitwit might be trying to pass you there. Right now reasonable people in the USA can't even agree on the right way to come down a on-ramp and merge with traffic and I'd guess that at least 2/3 of them don't even know their car has a turn signal. 2) Enforce some more traffic laws besides running red lights and speeding. There's just *got* tb a law against weaving back-and-forth across the line in most states and for years New Jersey cops used to write tickets for cruising in the hammer lane. SignaturePeteCresswell >Per topsy: >>Less than one percent of all traffic accidents, including fatalities, have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >checkgox on accident report forms? Would anybody in their right mind answer >"Yes" to such a question? Is the data collected and tabulated? In California on the accident report forms that officers fill out (from the CHP) there is a check box for cellphone use. How many people tell the truth or how many officers actually ask the questions is something that can't really be readily discovered. >I'd guess "No Way Jose'" on all counts. > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >most states and for years New Jersey cops used to write tickets for cruising in >the hammer lane. > Per Edoardo: >>I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent), [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive. Right on, Pete. I spend over two hours on the road each day and it's easy to notice the tell tale cell phone users habits of wandering and not paying attention. There is definitely a different dynamic to a phone conversation, than one you are having with a back seat passenger. While hands free devices and voice dialing help to reduce part of the problem, the conversation itself is the real danger. It's the psychological distraction, not the physical that is the main cause of lack of attention to the road. And as you say, some seem to handle it with no problem, but most don't, and for some others, well, they almost seem to be in a trance. As for the stats not showing this as a major accident cause, they will eventually, as the practice grows. Unfortunately, what doesn't show in the stats is one driver having to react quickly to a cell phone users lane drifting and hitting another car, while the phone user goes merrily on his way oblivious to the tragedy. Bob I guess everyone missed this week's "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel which tested the myth that driving with a cell phone active was as disruptive as driving under the influence (for testing purposes they drove just under the legal blood alcohol limit in CA where it was filmed). They proved the the 'myth' was actually fact. subdude subdude wrote (6/24/2005 9:36 AM): > I guess everyone missed this week's "Mythbusters" on Discovery Channel > which tested the myth that driving with a cell phone active was as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > subdude I saw a PBS program awhile back on the subject. Don't remember the title. It was narrated by Alan Alda and featured studies on the subject of cellphones and driving, seemingly based on studies undertaken or at least funded by Ford Motor Corp. Those research studies pretty conclusively demonstrated the validity of the theory that cellphone usage has significant impacts on driver reaction time. All other thing being equal, in general, the age of the driver is a significant factor. The most serious delay in response time is when placing an outgoing call. An "older," i.e., maybe in the over-40 crowd (I don't recall the exact age breakdown), is distracted for a longer period of time, maybe 20 or so seconds, and their reaction time is slowed by something on the order of 15% (I may have these numbers askew, but the basic thrust of the study remains valid in spite of my numbers). This older driver brings the phone up to eye height, dials slowly, and continues to give the road a significant amount of attention. The younger driver, the under-25 crowd, is distracted for a shorter period of time, maybe 10 or 15 seconds, and their reaction time is slowed on the order of 40-60%. This younger driver looks away from the road, dials quickly, and in so doing diverts nearly their full attention away from the road. SignatureRJW > driver brings the phone up to eye height, dials slowly, and > continues to give the road a significant amount of attention. Sounds like a good reason to require carriers to include free voice dialing and free directory service with call completion. SignatureJud Dallas TX USA > Per Edoardo: > >I guess we should ban passengers (unless they remain absolutely silent), [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Lately, the truly scary ones are doing email while they drive. There are people on the roads who don't have the sense God gave a dog, but the answer isn't laws that treat us all like morons. Teach people how to drive. It takes discipline to multitask while driving, but it is possible if you remember that the task of driving comes first at all times. You don't make phone calls (or answer an incoming call) when traffic conditions are dicey; you don't take your eyes off the road to dial or while talking; etc. All of this also applies to tuning the radio, adjusting the heat or A/C or the seat position, checking to see if you need to buy gas, etc. > WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Using a cell phone -- even with a hands-free > device -- may distract drivers because the brain cannot handle both tasks, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > auditory input, but cannot fully activate both at the same time, the team at > Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found " > No sh.t. That's what I've been saying for a long time: I don't like laws > that restrict cell phone use while driving. But if you are going to make a > law, at least make it a law that will have an impact on safety. That means > ban cell phones while driving. Period. Outlawing hand held cellular > handsets while driving totally misses the point. It is the conversation > that is the distraction, NOT the handset. ... > :) -Dave i was discussing this with a friend awhile ago, and it was suggested by one of us that it's no different from talking with someone in the car with you, but then the other of us, ( i forget who ) countered that if someone is in the car with you, they are experiencing the phenomena of driving with you, and can respond accourdingly to various situations, such as shutting the hell up when someone in the car next your yours is in the process of cutting you off, and your screaming at them, and a dog has just leapt onto the hood of your car, during a hail storm-- But the person on the cellphone doesn't know all this, and will keep on yapping, while the driver is being hopelessly overstimulated, and then moments later, vear off the road into a nearly bottomless canyon... ( exploding in mid air ) so that's why it's 'bad' to talk on a cell phone while you're driving. [ for more helpful insites; visit : http://transamoebae.blogspot.com ] <snip> > i was discussing this with a friend awhile ago, and it was suggested by > one of us that it's no different from talking with someone in the car [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > moments later, vear off the road into a nearly bottomless canyon... > (exploding in mid air ) If something distracting is happening on the road, the driver should just ignore the cellphone conversation until the danger is past, at which point he can pick up the phone and explain, calling back if necessary. In the situation you describe there might not even be time for a quick "Oh, sh.t!", but you really shouldn't be talking during a hail storm anyway. In article <42bb5d3c$0$53137$892e7fe2 @authen.white.readfreenews.net>, noway@nohow.not says... > Imaging tests show the brain directs its resources to either visual input or > auditory input, but cannot fully activate both at the same time, the team at > Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore found " yeah. I can't type this and listen to music at the same time. I can't look at a TV screen and understand what the lady on the screen is saying at the same time. Movies totally screw me up, I end up leaving with a feeling that I just did nothing for 2 hours. Driving while listening to the radio or having a conversation with a passenger right next to me is impossible, the human brain will just not allow it. I can't even talk to myself while riding my bike. The team at John Hopkins University in Baltimore is on some strange drugs. Do they think we are really so stupid as to give any credit at all to what they came up with? I don't need an FN study to tell me that. Last year this girl (21) ran into the back of my classic mustang at 55MPH (no brakes at all) while I was stopped making a left turn with my signals on. Clear day, straight, open road, no other distractions. IDIOT! My car did not survive. My passenger and I did with BI. She is an IDIOT! If you are one - that is, someone who drives while chatting about nonsense or anything else on the phone - DON'T! MG > Multitasking is a bitch. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or > http://tinyurl.com/b796j The problem is NOT cellphone use its drivers that CANT NOT F*CKING DRIVE! >I don't need an FN study to tell me that. Last year this girl (21) ran >into the back of my classic mustang at 55MPH (no brakes at all) while I was [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> or >> http://tinyurl.com/b796j > The problem is NOT cellphone use its drivers that CANT NOT F*CKING DRIVE! For those "drivers", the cell phone doesn't help any. -Dave Per Spectre: >The problem is NOT cellphone use its drivers that CANT NOT F*CKING DRIVE! I'll second that. SignaturePeteCresswell |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.