[OT] Mobile phones - effects on driving



Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guy Chapman

Guest
Hi All,

While I will post this to uk.tosspot I won't follow the thread, as I really can't be arsed to read
the self-justifying excuses it's bound to elicit. I'd rather play with my son's new train set :)

Apologies to those who subscribe to the Transport & Health Yahoo group, who have already seen this.

==========================================================================

Articles in the current Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 441-629 (July 2003)

The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and
conversing, Roland Matthews, Stephen Legg and Samuel Charlton
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45M0NXD-1/1/9d60da3eafcea4593e294022b0830fa6>

This found that three types of mobile phone (hand held, hands free with an external speaker and
personal hands free) all had an effect on driver workload, with personal hands free the least
harmful. The work was a result of the cognitive demands, not the physical act of using the phone.

Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a
braking response, William Consiglio, Peter Driscoll, Matthew Witte and William P. Berg
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45KSRK4-8/1/070d611192b22ac9be27c680483fe4e4>

This showed that conversation, whether conducted in-person or via a mobile phone, caused reaction
times to slow, whereas listening to music on the radio did not.

The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver, P. A. Hancock, M. Lesch and
L. Simmons
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45SH77V-1/1/dedda4a47a2a4694445f1cfa38dbea54>

This was a randomised study of 42 drivers each of whom performed 48 different permutations of
challenges of answering a phone and responding to a stop light. It showed a critical 15% increase in
non-response to the stop-light in the presence of the phone distraction task - ie they jumped red
lights when answering the phone.

Guy
 
M

Mark

Guest
"Guy Chapman" wrote :
> Hi All,
>
> While I will post this to uk.tosspot I won't follow the thread, as I really can't be arsed to read
> the self-justifying excuses it's bound to elicit. I'd rather play with my son's new train set :)
>
> Apologies to those who subscribe to the Transport & Health Yahoo group, who have already
> seen this.
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> Articles in the current Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 441-629
> (July 2003)
>
> The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and
> conversing, Roland Matthews, Stephen Legg and Samuel Charlton
>
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45M0NXD-1/1/9d60da3eafce a4593e294022b0830fa6>
>
> This found that three types of mobile phone (hand held, hands free with an external speaker and
> personal hands free) all had an effect on driver workload, with personal hands free the least
> harmful. The work was a result of the cognitive demands, not the physical act of using the phone.

<snip>

> This was a randomised study of 42 drivers each of whom performed 48 different permutations of
> challenges of answering a phone and responding to a stop light. It showed a critical 15% increase
> in non-response to the stop-light in the presence of the phone distraction task - ie they jumped
> red lights when answering the phone.
>
> Guy

An organization in the US did a similar study, tracking driver's eye movements while driving with or
without using various types of cell phones. Same results.
--
mark
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:52:57 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> wrote:

>An organization in the US did a similar study, tracking driver's eye movements while driving with
>or without using various types of cell phones. Same results.

Yes, I think it's pretty uncontroversial by now. Except for Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith, obviously, who
maintains that the increased fatality rates on motorways are due to speed cameras, not mobile phone
use (or indeed reduced headway distances).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
D

Dave

Guest
"Guy Chapman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi All,
>
> While I will post this to uk.tosspot I won't follow the thread, as I really can't be arsed to read
> the self-justifying excuses it's bound to elicit. I'd rather play with my son's new train set :)
>
> Apologies to those who subscribe to the Transport & Health Yahoo group, who have already
> seen this.
>
> ==========================================================================
>
> Articles in the current Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 441-629
> (July 2003)
>
> The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and
> conversing, Roland Matthews, Stephen Legg and Samuel Charlton
>
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45M0NXD-1/1/9d60da3eafce a4593e294022b0830fa6>
>
> This found that three types of mobile phone (hand held, hands free with an external speaker and
> personal hands free) all had an effect on driver workload, with personal hands free the least
> harmful. The work was a result of the cognitive demands, not the physical act of using the phone.
>
> Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a
> braking response, William Consiglio, Peter Driscoll, Matthew Witte and William P. Berg
>
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45KSRK4-8/1/070d611192b2 2ac9be27c680483fe4e4>
>
> This showed that conversation, whether conducted in-person or via a mobile phone, caused reaction
> times to slow, whereas listening to music on the radio did not.
>
> The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver, P. A. Hancock, M. Lesch
> and L. Simmons
>
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5S-45SH77V-1/1/dedda4a47a2a 4694445f1cfa38dbea54>
>
> This was a randomised study of 42 drivers each of whom performed 48 different permutations of
> challenges of answering a phone and responding to a stop light. It showed a critical 15% increase
> in non-response to the stop-light in the presence of the phone distraction task - ie they jumped
> red lights when answering the phone.
>
> Guy

Must admit, when I was in the 'inflated self-worth mode' of company car / phone and the phone rang,
I would answer it and the miles just flew by on those motorways without me realising it. I would
come to and think '***********, how'd I get here so fast'. I was always amazed by just how well I
appeared to drive in auto-pilot mode. Less than 0.002% of brain capacity utilisation for driving. It
is definitely the difference between the interactivity of mobile phone useage and the one way
information processing of the radio that is the issue. Usually, when in a phone conversation, you
tend to visualise what is being discussed and constantly modify that image throughout the
conversation. This leads to focus being on the image, rather than on the road, whereas you just hum
along to the radio...or occassionally do the finger dance to a really good piece of music.... Just
me tuppen'apen worth Dave.
 
G

Geraint Jones

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote: ( Yes, I think it's pretty
uncontroversial by now. Except for Mohammed ) Saeed Al-Smith, obviously, who maintains that the
increased fatality ( rates on motorways are due to speed cameras, not mobile phone use (or ) indeed
reduced headway distances).

Just don't tell him about the experimental mobile-phone cameras.
 
P

Peter B

Guest
"Guy Chapman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<snipped stuff about moby users>

Witness a typical incident on mway: Repmobile passes you in lane 3 at 85-90 mph, a little later you
catch up with him/her a couple of feet from the back of a lorry in lane 2 doing 50ish, glance over
to see mobile pinned to lug hole.

My analysis: One minute in a hurry to get from A to B to save the world or more likely to increase
OTE, next minute sufficiently distracted by 'phone to lose concentration, drop speed and get stuck
in lane 2, can't concentrate on driving so are unable to accelerate and get into L3 to pass lorry.
All very well assuming nothing too sudden happens.

It's bad enough having to share a mway with these morons but no doubt we end up sharing the other
roads with them when cycling as well as walking and driving.

A pox on them I say.

Pete
 
Status
Not open for further replies.