NHTSA Suppressed Report Calling for Total Ban on All Phone Use While Driving

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Why not just fine people a thousand or two if they cause an accident while on the phone. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing as a ban without invading on people's right to do whatever the fuck they want?

Too simple I know.

When you're on a road though, you don't have the right to do what you want. You can't run red lights and say "fine me if I cause an accident". You can't drive on the wrong side of the road and claim that people are invading your rights.

Now I'm a libertarian of sorts and against a lot of regulations on private property. But on a public road, we have rules and they are there to make everyone safer. People somehow managed to survive their life without texting for decades before cell phones. They can somehow manage to do it now. This culture of having to be constantly connected to every human being at every waking moment of our life is getting out of control.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Bad Science.

Exactly how are all of these studies "bad science"? Making the blanket statement that ALL of these studies have an agenda with no proof isn't going to help your position either. I've seen complaints that some studies put an onerous burden on the cell phone parts (handling complex questions that are atypical, although I tend to disagree as most business calls require focus), that the conversation tests don't use similar questions as the cell phone part, and that the driving conditions aren't "real". I believe these to be valid criticisms of some tests, but the results have been repeated over and over again in studies that vary in their methodology and specific tests (simulators vs driving courses, for example).

Is there even one study out there that shows cell phone use is NOT a distraction? Even with the "overwhelming" evidence in favor of global warming I can find data to support the other side (which also happens to be the side I argue in favor of), but the folks arguing the cell phone case so far only have anecdotes and unfounded accusations of bias to back them up.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Samdari

FYI - I am not trying to defend my habit. I HATE talking on the phone, so this is not about me wanting to be ble to do it more.

The only two things I hate more than talking on the phone (non "wife habits that annoy me" division) are:

Loss of personal freedom.

and

Bad Science.

I find a combination of the two to be particularly vexing.



Who said that was the problem? It can be invalid if you do it wrong, like exrapolating data from several hundred people to 100 million. That's too small to be a significant sample.

I happen to the that their methods of arriving at rates of accident for cell phone use, and for non cell phone use are horrendous. Even if using a small sample, they still don't index the results properly. They are nowhere near an accurate, meaningful number that can be considered a "rate" with or without cell phones.

That thinking would invalidate almost all medical trials. If well constituted a group of a few hundred can easily provide valid data for the population as a whole. What percentage of the population needs to be included for the data to be valid?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

...
You're not the first person to think a scientific study invalid because it doesn't jive with your personal n=1 study.

I get it. I used the word anecdotal while stating my position. You simply aren't going to convince me that I compromise safety while using a hands free device to the degree that the government should prohibit the behavior.

[CU Tiger]

My point was not sample size.
Each person has a probability to have an accident based upon mental acuity, reaction reflexes, driving ability, driving frequency and vehicle type driven.

Now what I am asking for and have never seen is a study that takes a given individual and gauges his likelihood off having an accident.

Let me try to explain this. If I drive 60k miles a year it is a given that I have a greater chance than you of being in an accident if you drive 20k miles annually.
the studies I have read seem to indicate that if I talk on the phone, other factors ignored I am more likely to have an accident.

I am no interested if I am more likely than you to have an accident, but am I more likely than I was not talking on the phone to have an accident.

If I am not mistaken outside sales has the highest rate of deaths (not % but total numbers) annually among all occupations. One because they drive a lot and that is a dangerous activity and two because there are a lot of sales people (under water high voltage welding for example is much ore dangerous but many times fewer people do that job) And without fail outside sales types spend a ton of time on the phone, by definition its their job. So I dont doubt they are more likly to die in a car crash than a stay at home mom is. To say they are and blame cell phones is pig science. What I am questioning is whether an individual is more likely to be injured or have a crash when they are talking on the phone.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I get it. I used the word anecdotal while stating my position. You simply aren't going to convince me that I compromise safety while using a hands free device to the degree that the government should prohibit the behavior.

At least you're open minded about it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Sure, but lets do GOOD research. A quick perusal says that even the studies (which lack several pieces of data crucial to making it good science, as pointed out by CU TIger) that say hands free does not help (due to the cognitive distraction of talking on the phone) do not measure the cognitive distraction other types of activities cause.

So, I don't think you can, in good conscience*, ban cell phone use in cars without also studying other optional potential cognitive distractions and ban them as well. While banning passengers and kids fighting in the back seat is not possible, banning drive through windows at restaurants and radios in cars is no more ridiculous than banning cell phones.

*Not required to be a member of congress.

This is false. I liked twice to a study which compares the effects of talking to someone on the phone while driving versus talking to someone in the passenger seat while driving. Studies are being done to measure multiple types of distraction.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

My point was not sample size.
Each person has a probability to have an accident based upon mental acuity, reaction reflexes, driving ability, driving frequency and vehicle type driven.

Now what I am asking for and have never seen is a study that takes a given individual and gauges his likelihood off having an accident.

Let me try to explain this. If I drive 60k miles a year it is a given that I have a greater chance than you of being in an accident if you drive 20k miles annually.
the studies I have read seem to indicate that if I talk on the phone, other factors ignored I am more likely to have an accident.

I am no interested if I am more likely than you to have an accident, but am I more likely than I was not talking on the phone to have an accident.

If I am not mistaken outside sales has the highest rate of deaths (not % but total numbers) annually among all occupations. One because they drive a lot and that is a dangerous activity and two because there are a lot of sales people (under water high voltage welding for example is much ore dangerous but many times fewer people do that job) And without fail outside sales types spend a ton of time on the phone, by definition its their job. So I dont doubt they are more likly to die in a car crash than a stay at home mom is. To say they are and blame cell phones is pig science. What I am questioning is whether an individual is more likely to be injured or have a crash when they are talking on the phone.

So if they do a study with 100 people driving while talking on the phone and discover that reaction time is on average X and they do a study with 100 people driving while not on the phone and discover that reaction time is on average Y...and X>Y, you don't think this shows that reaction time is worse in people driving while on the phone? You realize that random samples are generated to overcome the bias you are suggesting.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I am not saying its not true, I am saying that the conclusions of such studies are determined before the data is taken, reflect the intent of whoever has decision making authority in awarding the grant money, and are thus of dubious value. Essentially if they are the only evidence that cell phone use is dangerous, than there is no evidence to that effect.

It may, in fact, be true, there is, IMO, NO evidence to support that at this point.

OK, so take the studies I linked and tell me what the background agenda is. Tell me who is funding the research and why the researchers are falsifying their data. I would agree that some studies go the way you suggest, but that not all of them do. Why do these fall in to the category that you claim? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Though I will say I find it very difficult to believe that hands free cell phone usage is just as bad as regular cell phone usage... for the simple reason that with hands free, you can have both hands on the wheel, which is impossible if you put the phone up to your ear.

The above pretty well cover my position here. I can't reconcile the findings with common sense. There are key differences between a cell phone in hand and a hands free device. I'm not buying that those differences alone don't account for a degree of safety, let alone that with those obvious "gains" that there are enough negatives apparently introduced by a hands free device that it balances to no net difference in safety.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Dangerous needs to be balanced with individual liberties though. There are tons of dangerous activities that are still allowed because we believe in some forms of personal freedoms. Carrying guns for one.

+1

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's really the key. I think a strong majority of people would favor allowing cell phone conversations while driving even though it increases the odds of injury and death.

+1

Originally Posted by gstelmack

It's like we're talking music piracy all over again with the way cell phone users want to defend their habit...

Oh damn. Am I on the wrong side of this?

----------

For the record. I lost my blue tooth about two months ago. It kills me to not answer the phone when I'm on the road. I do believe that some conversations can be distracting, even hands free conversations. I use the hands free to tell my wife where I am on the freeway commute home, and to direct employees to the appropriate resolution path for problems escalated to me(very few these days). Those are short calls, and if I need to engage in anything more drawn out...Get this... I pull off the road, and have the conversation. Mainly because if I need to concentrate on what I'm saying...I shouldn't be driving. If the use of cell phones is banned in a blanket manner, then my responsible use is unduly prohibited. That is what I have a problem with.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Atocep

At least you're open minded about it.

See. Some people apparently don't need a sarcasm emoticon to get their point across.

Nicely done.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When you're on a road though, you don't have the right to do what you want. You can't run red lights and say "fine me if I cause an accident". You can't drive on the wrong side of the road and claim that people are invading your rights.

Now I'm a libertarian of sorts and against a lot of regulations on private property. But on a public road, we have rules and they are there to make everyone safer.

Well no, of course not. The point was & is that there are already laws covering all of that. We don't need more covering what you can & can't do in your car. If you want to add an extra penalty for breaking any number of existing laws while doing something distracting, (eating, drinking, texting, etc.) then fine.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BrianD

OK, so take the studies I linked and tell me what the background agenda is. Tell me who is funding the research and why the researchers are falsifying their data. I would agree that some studies go the way you suggest, but that not all of them do. Why do these fall in to the category that you claim? Just saying it doesn't make it so.

I've been on the giving and recieving ends of funded research, and I can tell you this - the results damn well better end up being what the funding source wants them to be. If the're not, two things happen:

1) They don't get published.

2) That funding source will never read another grant application from your organization again. And they'll tell anyone who asks you are not a good researcher.

I saw nowhere near all the grants given by the government, but I can assure you every one I have ever seen was awarded by someone with an agenda, or some sort of personal bias. I.e the solicitation would read something like this, "we're trying to show that cell phone use while driving is dangerous" rather than "we're trying to evaluate the dangers of multiple types of distractions"

The only studies I trust are where the funding source has a financial motive to know the truth. The iihs is a pretty good example of this - they want to know what their risks are. Their page summarizes results like this:

1) Results are mixed. No conclusive evidence about how dangerous cell phones are, although its pretty apparent that it is more dangerous than not talking on the phone.

2) No substantive studies of other distractions have been done.

My specific beef with all of the studies to date is that in order to properly evaluate this, you need to come up with accident rates. Its pretty easy to count accidents, pretty hard to come up with a denominator to determine the rate. I don't like the way any of the studies I have read about (note its pretty hard to find the original research for free) come up with that number.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I've been on the giving and recieving ends of funded research, and I can tell you this - the results damn well better end up being what the funding source wants them to be. If the're not, two things happen:

1) They don't get published.

The government made it pretty clear this week though, that their desired result (at least for the 8 years of the last administration) is that cell phones are SAFE. Yet we still had overwhelming studies that they're not (including from other agencies in the government). Yes, we did see the kind of stuff you're talking about (the result wasn't the one they wanted, so the study was suppressed) - except what was suppressed was the result that cell phone use is extremely dangerous.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Samdari

My specific beef with all of the studies to date is that in order to properly evaluate this, you need to come up with accident rates. Its pretty easy to count accidents, pretty hard to come up with a denominator to determine the rate. I don't like the way any of the studies I have read about (note its pretty hard to find the original research for free) come up with that number.

So (serious question), how do you feel about the study that showed 50% of people talking on the cell phone during the test were unable to successfully navigate a busy highway on a simulator and make the required exit, while only 12% of people driving alone and 12% of people driving while talking to an in-car passenger failed to successfully make the exit?

The sample size in that study was a bit low, so I'm not sure how good the numbers are. There is also a difference between navigating to an exit and navigating to not get in an accident. Is there a correlation though?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So (serious question), how do you feel about the study that showed 50% of people talking on the cell phone during the test were unable to successfully navigate a busy highway on a simulator and make the required exit, while only 12% of people driving alone and 12% of people driving while talking to an in-car passenger failed to successfully make the exit?

How interesting was the passenger, and how engaging was the conversation?

Did this study talk about people using handsets or only hands free?

I've only been using "talking to a passenger" as an example of a distraction that could not be legislated away. The ones I seriously think should be banned before (hands free) cell phones are eating and books on tape.

It comes down to this. I believe that processing information that is relayed to you verbally takes approximately the same amount of brain power whether you are on the phone or talking to someone next to you, or listening to an irate sports talk radio caller. It would admittedly be difficult to convince me otherwise.

We could also make a convincing (but flawed scientifically) argument that while cell phone use while driving has skyrocketed, fatal crashes have been steadily falling (both widely accepted as trends). Writing a paper linking the two, and getting a headline published on CNN would be pretty easy. Of course, the scientific value of the research would be bunk, but since the easily convinced public (and congress) would only read the headline, we could snow a whole bunch of people.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Samdari

How interesting was the passenger, and how engaging was the conversation?

Did this study talk about people using handsets or only hands free?

I've only been using "talking to a passenger" as an example of a distraction that could not be legislated away. The ones I seriously think should be banned before (hands free) cell phones are eating and books on tape.

It comes down to this. I believe that processing information that is relayed to you verbally takes approximately the same amount of brain power whether you are on the phone or talking to someone next to you, or listening to an irate sports talk radio caller. It would admittedly be difficult to convince me otherwise.

We could also make a convincing (but flawed scientifically) argument that while cell phone use while driving has skyrocketed, fatal crashes have been steadily falling (both widely accepted as trends). Writing a paper linking the two, and getting a headline published on CNN would be pretty easy. Of course, the scientific value of the research would be bunk, but since the easily convinced public (and congress) would only read the headline, we could snow a whole bunch of people.

The passenger was a member of the study. Positions were randomly given to driver and passenger from the group of participants. The topic of conversation was a close call situation...meant to be fairly engrossing. In addition to finding out how many people missed the exit to a rest area, they also measured how many times the conversation broke off from the story and switched to a discussion about the traffic. Based on the numbers, the theory was that in-car passengers did much more to help the driver stay focused by also reacting changing driving conditions...something the person on the cell phone couldn't do. No mention was made as to whether the phone was hands-free or not...though other studies by the same group showed no statistical difference in reaction times between drivers with a hand-set or with hands-free phones.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BrianD

other studies by the same group showed no statistical difference in reaction times between drivers with a hand-set or with hands-free phones.

I have real trouble wrapping my head around this. I think if you are measuring with the driver merely talking, this is not surprising.

But, what about answering, and dialing? (not to mention texting). Things that require your eyes and your hands, in addition to your brain, have to be more distracting than talking while looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

while looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel.

But how many people actually do that? Seriously, how many people actually drive with both hands on the wheel & no distractions at all? Their mind isn't wandering on something other than their driving? They aren't singing with the radio? They aren't ready to strangle some talk radio host?

It's comparing a situation to (theoretically) optimal conditions that really don't exist all that often, so how valid an indicator of alleged improvement could it possibly represent?

edit to add: But after 1800+ posts, what it really comes down to is what it would have come down to before we starting batting it about: whether it represents an acceptable level of increased risk. To some it does, to others it doesn't, and all that really matters is which point of view has more sway with people with the power to do anything about it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I have real trouble wrapping my head around this. I think if you are measuring with the driver merely talking, this is not surprising.

But, what about answering, and dialing? (not to mention texting). Things that require your eyes and your hands, in addition to your brain, have to be more distracting than talking while looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel.

I would strongly imagine that the study is dealing with the active conversation, not the dialing. I think you could get pretty good consensus that looking at the phone for any reason during the process is more dangerous than looking at the road. Where consensus isn't reached (and why we have the studies) is to see what the distraction level is with a call in process.

I would say we can skip the texting conversation until someone tries to make the point that texting while driving is OK. I don't think anyone has come close to that yet.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit to add: But after 1800+ posts, what it really comes down to is what it would have come down to before we starting batting it about: whether it represents an acceptable level of increased risk. To some it does, to others it doesn't, and all that really matters is which point of view has more sway with people with the power to do anything about it.

I think this is the main point of the conversation, though some seem to disagree that there is any increased level of risk. My feeling from the (admittedly limited number of) studies I've read is that the risk increases sufficiently enough to at least have the discussion if anything should be done. I don't think it is clear that a ban should happen or that it shouldn't.

[Gary Gorski]

Originally Posted by BrianD

So (serious question), how do you feel about the study that showed 50% of people talking on the cell phone during the test were unable to successfully navigate a busy highway on a simulator and make the required exit, while only 12% of people driving alone and 12% of people driving while talking to an in-car passenger failed to successfully make the exit?

Serious question from me...shouldn't we be taking a look at the 12% of people driving all alone with no distractions that can't even navigate the highway in the simulator? Wouldn't getting people off the road who apparently can't even drive a car under ideal conditions do a lot to curb accidents?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Serious question from me...shouldn't we be taking a look at the 12% of people driving all alone with no distractions that can't even navigate the highway in the simulator? Wouldn't getting people off the road who apparently can't even drive a car under ideal conditions do a lot to curb accidents?

Well, we can't even keep people from driving who have had licenses revoked. You can't tell by looking that someone is not actually licensed. Let alone the folks who get a license but shouldn't have it.

[gstelmack]

Just to add that I agree we should keep people off the road who can't drive at all (or like that moron that came from the right lane, cut across the middle lane, and cut off the person in the left turn lane when they realised they needed to turn), just not sure how to do it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

Serious question from me...shouldn't we be taking a look at the 12% of people driving all alone with no distractions that can't even navigate the highway in the simulator? Wouldn't getting people off the road who apparently can't even drive a car under ideal conditions do a lot to curb accidents?

Considering the simulation is on a busy highway with cars changing speeds and changing lanes, I'm not sure 100% accuracy should be expected. I know I've missed exits because I was in the wrong lane and the traffic didn't allow me to safely get to the exit lane. I would say the purpose of the control group was meant to be...you know...a control to see what the average was under normal circumstances.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I think this is the main point of the conversation, though some seem to disagree that there is any increased level of risk. My feeling from the (admittedly limited number of) studies I've read is that the risk increases sufficiently enough to at least have the discussion if anything should be done. I don't think it is clear that a ban should happen or that it shouldn't.

That's where I am. I came into this thread pretty indifferent either way about a cell phone ban, but have spent all my time here just pretty much shocked at the ignorance of the danger. It has pushed me more into the ban cell phones side, as some people apparently need the government to tell them this is even a danger at all. And the whole discussion, nationwide, at least gives more attention to that research, and can inspire more research, and can maybe convince some people to at least keep the calls short and to the point.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

That's where I am. I came into this thread pretty indifferent either way about a cell phone ban, but have spent all my time here just pretty much shocked at the ignorance of the danger. It has pushed me more into the ban cell phones side, as some people apparently need the government to tell them this is even a danger at all. And the whole discussion, nationwide, at least gives more attention to that research, and can inspire more research, and can maybe convince some people to at least keep the calls short and to the point.

I've also been fighting really hard to keep my own anecdotal evidence out of this thread. In a completely unscientific manner, I've been trying to pay attention to my own activities when I do multiple things at once to determine what might use similar parts of the brain and what probably doesn't. That really has no place in this discussion, but it might be something for another thread.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Based on the numbers, the theory was that in-car passengers did much more to help the driver stay focused by also reacting changing driving conditions...something the person on the cell phone couldn't do.

So the conversation partner was a plant, and if he said hey watch out ahead that made it ok....got it...

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

So the conversation partner was a plant, and if he said hey watch out ahead that made it ok....got it...

Reading comprehension for the loss. All of the people in the study were put into one large pool. Names were then drawn at random with one name being the driver and the other name being the passenger. That passenger - based on the trial - was either put in the passenger street and in a different room with a cell phone.

I like how people just assume the science is bad without even reading about the study.

[JPhillips]

I'm fascinated at the mindset that believes a peer reviewed scientific study has less validity than a gut feeling.

[CU Tiger]

ok guilty as charged....I think this is hog wash.
And I refuse to to read or think anything about it is credible...or at least to accept it.

I am stubborn, hard headed, and objective to change

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I have real trouble wrapping my head around this. I think if you are measuring with the driver merely talking, this is not surprising.

But, what about answering, and dialing? (not to mention texting). Things that require your eyes and your hands, in addition to your brain, have to be more distracting than talking while looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel.

This is where I'm at. Holding, dialing, selecting a contact from a list, or as ridiculous as it seems 'texting' are all activities that people would perform with a cell phone that are eliminated with hands free use. Laws that require hands free use of cell phones would presumably ensure the above, obvious to me, improvement in safety. The studies in question seem to remove the reduced interaction with a device from the equation, and I don't think that is valid.

Originally Posted by BrianD

I would strongly imagine that the study is dealing with the active conversation, not the dialing. I think you could get pretty good consensus that looking at the phone for any reason during the process is more dangerous than looking at the road. Where consensus isn't reached (and why we have the studies) is to see what the distraction level is with a call in process.

I would say we can skip the texting conversation until someone tries to make the point that texting while driving is OK. I don't think anyone has come close to that yet.

I'd think I could even stipulate that a conversation on a hand held cell phone and a conversation on a hands free phone are roughly equivalent in terms of distraction. I also believe the interaction with a non hands free phone is many times more distracting than the use of a hands free phone, so I am reluctant to embrace the notion that laws requiring hands free utilization are negligible in terms of value.

On the 'texting' bit. A study came out today that showed that individuals 'texting' while driving had their eyes off of the road for five of every six seconds. To me, laws requiring hands free use of cell phones should get credited for outlawing such behavior.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

This is where I'm at. Holding, dialing, selecting a contact from a list, or as ridiculous as it seems 'texting' are all activities that people would perform with a cell phone that are eliminated with hands free use. Laws that require hands free use of cell phones would presumably ensure the above, obvious to me, improvement in safety. The studies in question seem to remove the reduced interaction with a device from the equation, and I don't think that is valid.

I'd think I could even stipulate that a conversation on a hand held cell phone and a conversation on a hands free phone are roughly equivalent in terms of distraction. I also believe the interaction with a non hands free phone is many times more distracting than the use of a hands free phone, so I am reluctant to embrace the notion that laws requiring hands free utilization are negligible in terms of value.

On the 'texting' bit. A study came out today that showed that individuals 'texting' while driving had their eyes off of the road for five of every six seconds. To me, laws requiring hands free use of cell phones should get credited for outlawing such behavior.

Based on your last paragraph, I renew my suggestion that texting not even be part of this conversation. If texting really causes the drivers eyes to be off the road 83% of the time, that is a pretty easy ban.

On the difference between hands-free and not, I'm thinking the reason studies don't include dialing time is that in a 3-minute call (which seemed to be the surveyed average), the dialing time is probably only about 5 seconds, which is 2.7% of the call time. I'm not sure if that amount of time is statistically significant. I will agree, though, that the 5 second dialing is much more dangerous for a person using a handset. In fact, I'd believe your statistic of not looking at the road for 83% of the dialing time is probably about right. Hands-free phones are much safer for the first 5 seconds even if they aren't any different for the next 175 seconds.

My question would be if requiring hands-free phones would provide a worthwhile safety increase just for those 5 seconds if the remaining 175 are the same. It would make some amount of people feel good because they got their law passed, but it would also cause people to feel more secure because they switched to hands-free...which they really wouldn't be.

So at this point I think we are saying nearly the same thing.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Based on your last paragraph, I renew my suggestion that texting not even be part of this conversation. If texting really causes the drivers eyes to be off the road 83% of the time, that is a pretty easy ban.

On the difference between hands-free and not, I'm thinking the reason studies don't include dialing time is that in a 3-minute call (which seemed to be the surveyed average), the dialing time is probably only about 5 seconds, which is 2.7% of the call time. I'm not sure if that amount of time is statistically significant. ...

My question would be if requiring hands-free phones would provide a worthwhile safety increase just for those 5 seconds if the remaining 175 are the same. It would make some amount of people feel good because they got their law passed, but it would also cause people to feel more secure because they switched to hands-free...which they really wouldn't be.

So at this point I think we are saying nearly the same thing.

I think the difference in our opinions is that I see the dialing and interaction bit as many times more dangerous than talking. Along the lines of the texting study dangerous...

So I am weighing those 5-10 seconds of near complete inattention to the road to 180 seconds of somewhat distracting conversation, and concluding that avoiding the initial very large risk is sufficient even while allowing the lesser, albeit longer lasting risk. Too bad it took me two days to assemble a cogent position on this.

FWIW, The texting study was discussed on NPR this morning...they video taped truck drivers for a four year period and tracked their eye movements.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

On the 'texting' bit. A study came out today that showed that individuals 'texting' while driving had their eyes off of the road for five of every six seconds. To me, laws requiring hands free use of cell phones should get credited for outlawing such behavior.

I can answer calls, select a contact from my phone and dial and text with one hand without looking at my phone*, so this anecdotally supports my contention that most people are worse at activities than I am.

I also drive with one hand unless I'm changing lanes (thus necessitating a turn signal in my mind, although I guess it's debateable in most people's) or dealing with high beams. (I also usually drive barefoot, which is apparently actually illegal, although I've never seen any scientific studies done there.)

* - I originally became proficient at it when my LCD screen was broken for a few months, and then noticed the difference during The Departed when Matt Damon keeps his phone in his pocket and texts Nicholson. Everyone I was watching the movie with was like "oh that's ridiculous" and I did it easily. If you think this is ridiculous, what % of time would you say you spend looking at your fingers as you type on a keyboard you're used to? Yes, I often mess up a character or two, but it's still better than most people's spelling and grammar. If I need to do it while driving, I'll only read incoming texts and check my outgoing ones at a light or completely open stretch of highway before hitting send, but the actual typing is no more cognitively distracting than changing radio stations.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

How about talking to a passenger riding beside you?
Should we ban riders in the front of cars because they too could distract drivers?

I agree 100% with this one. At least with a cell phone you're still looking at the road. How many times have I been in the car where the driver keeps turning around and looking at me while he's talking ... keep your eyes on the road!

If they ban cell phones they should also ban talking to a passenger in your car. Maybe even singing along to music. If you're into the music enough to sing along, that's distracting. When you think about it, any lip movement at all should be considered a crime.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Mota

If they ban cell phones they should also ban talking to a passenger in your car. Maybe even singing along to music. If you're into the music enough to sing along, that's distracting. When you think about it, any lip movement at all should be considered a crime.

This is totally the first time this point has been made in this thread.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm fascinated at the mindset that believes a peer reviewed scientific study has less validity than a gut feeling.

What makes you think these are all peer reviewed?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Samdari

What makes you think these are all peer reviewed?

What makes you think none of them are?

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What makes you think none of them are?

Where did I say that?

The one "produced by NHTSA" - NOT peer reviewed (our government has no peers).

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Where did I say that?

The one "produced by NHTSA" - NOT peer reviewed (our government has no peers).

There has been a pretty consistent theme in here that all studies showing cell phones are dangerous are bunk. I'll grant some of them likely are, but I'm looking for evidence that they all are as continually espoused in this thread.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The one "produced by NHTSA" - NOT peer reviewed (our government has no peers).

Are you referring to the one that started this thread? If so, it looks like a collection and discussion of outside experiments in journals that I would assume to be peer reviewed.

Also, government funded research that appears in major research journals are all peer-reviewed, so I'm not sure what the point you are making is.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There has been a pretty consistent theme in here that all studies showing cell phones are dangerous are bunk. I'll grant some of them likely are, but I'm looking for evidence that they all are as continually espoused in this thread.

The reality of the situation is this - research on the issue is mixed. You can make a pretty convincing argument that cell phone use is more dangerous than drunk driving if you cite the right studies. You can make the argument that its not definitively more dangerous than listening to the radio if you cite others. And very little of it is is from peer reviewed scientific journals.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is totally the first time this point has been made in this thread.

LOL!

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The reality of the situation is this - research on the issue is mixed. You can make a pretty convincing argument that cell phone use is more dangerous than drunk driving if you cite the right studies. You can make the argument that its not definitively more dangerous than listening to the radio if you cite others. And very little of it is is from peer reviewed scientific journals.

Please cite some. I'd like to read about them and their testing methods.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Please cite some. I'd like to read about them and their testing methods.

Seriously, he's getting off picking apart all these tests and has cited NOTHING that support his own conclusions.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by molson

Seriously, he's getting off picking apart all these tests and has cited NOTHING that support his own conclusions.

Actually, he hasn't really done much to pick them apart. He has mentioned that studies in general are biased toward the funding agency and that the research is mixed. He hasn't yet given any examples why the linked studies made mistakes in either their methodology or in their conclusions.

My request for a cite of studies showing cell phones are no more dangerous than listening to the radio was dead serious. I'm very interesting in reading those. They might make me think differently about cell phones. I'm willing to have my opinion influenced by science if the science seems valid.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Samdari

And very little of it is is from peer reviewed scientific journals.

What is your basis for this?

Many of the studies in the NHTSA report are from Accident Analysis and Prevention.

Accident Analysis & Prevention - Elsevier

Journal of Experimental Psychology

Instructions to Authors | Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied | APA Journals

Traffic Injury Prevention

Taylor & Francis Journals: Welcome

I'll stop here.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is totally the first time this point has been made in this thread.

Sorry for having an opinion.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mota

Sorry for having an opinion.

That was quite the slippery slope you had going there. I'm sure eventually that chain of events would have led to nuclear armageddon.