[OT] Mobile phones - effects on driving

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Guy Chapman, Apr 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guy Chapman

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Mark

    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
     
  3. Just Zis Guy

    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.
     
  4. Dave

    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 'bloody hell, 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.
     
  5. "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.
     
  6. Peter B

    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
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...