IBJOpinion

ALTOM: The data says: Driving deserves your full attention

Tim Altom
November 30, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Tim Altom

You talk on your cell phone while you drive, don’t you? Don’t try to deny it. I’ve seen you in traffic, chatting away while you recognize your exit at the last minute, slow down unexpectedly, and seem bewildered behind the wheel. It might be unfair of me, but I’ve come to expect drivers doing surprising things in traffic to be on their phones. I’ve come to call it “cell phone inebriation,” because the phone makes chatty drivers act rather like drunks.

Don’t just take my word for it. Decades of research have established that talking on a phone reduces awareness and reaction time. Phone conversations differ from in-person ones. Phone conversations require the speaker to visualize the person on the other end, which engages the very same cognitive systems needed to drive. The brain can’t do both, so it chooses to put the car on intermittent autopilot while the driver is on the phone.

The research is undeniable, and has been accumulating since the 1960s. Talking on a phone is different from talking to a passenger, although they might seem like the same thing.

Lawmakers and cell phone users have often been huffy about this, refusing to believe it’s a fact, focusing on the more obvious hazards like fumbling with the phone or texting. But research consistently bears it out, and in terms I used earlier: inebriation.

In 1997, for instance, researchers Donald Redelmeier and Robert Tibshirani wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that talking on a cell phone has the same effect on driving as being sloshed. They looked into whether cell phone use was associated with higher auto accident probability, and found that it was. They compared cell phone records with accident records, and concluded that, “When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk.”

In 2006, Donald Strayer and his colleagues looked more deeply into the DUI vs. cell comparison and found that, indeed, talking on a cell, even a hands-free cell, greatly lengthens reaction time equivalent to that of being snockered.

For accuracy, they used test subjects who were actually drunk. By doing so, they also found that being drunk and being conversational caused different driving problems. Drunks followed more closely, hit the brakes harder, and charged forward faster to reach speed again. While cell phone inebriation vanished quickly when the call ended, being drunk lasted as long as the alcohol level did.

There have been well over 100 studies of the effect of cell phone use on driving, most of which have found everything from a possible connection between cell phones and nutty driving to an unmistakable one. In 2009, a CBS/New York Times poll showed that an overwhelming majority of my fellow travelers had the same misgivings I do: 80 percent said cell phone use while driving should be banned.

As you might imagine, not everyone agrees with this viewpoint, and for a surprisingly good reason. The past decade or so has seen cell phone purchase and use soar, but the accident rate hasn’t. No one seriously doubts that cell phones cause slower reaction times, but nobody quite knows why this hasn’t resulted in an Armageddon of highway carnage.

Just this year, Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram Pathania of Carnegie Mellon and the London School of Economics, respectively, published a paper in the American Economic Journal that should have the cell phone industry popping corks. They found no significant association between the rate of vehicle accidents and cell phone use.

They do offer some explanations. One is that cell phone users may have compensating strategies, like slowing down while they’re on the phone. Another possibility is that regular phone users are risk-takers who are usually distracted, anyway, and being distracted on the phone isn’t any different. Yet a third is that operating a cell phone in traffic might actually keep some bored or sleepy drivers more alert.

But the reality is that we just don’t know why something as potentially dangerous as phoning while driving doesn’t cause widespread slaughter when it’s acknowledged by everyone that phoning interferes with driving.

I’m not mollified by the accident rate data. I still see driving as a full-time job, something that’s hazardous even under the best conditions. Digging for CDs, setting the GPS, putting on makeup, texting, talking on a cell—these are all things best done at a dead stop. Cell phone talkers might slow down to increase reaction time, but that only transfers the problem to others around them. Driving is a communal activity. Phoning is not.•

__________

Altom is an independent local technology consultant. His column appears every other week. He can be reached at taltom@ibj.com.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Ban Cell Use While Driving
    The legislators of IN should address this issue and not gay marriage. I don't see how gay marriage negatively impacts others, while cells in cars kills.
  • cell phone use
    I rarely use my phone when driving; when I do, I certainly notice how I pay less attention to driving. I have a theory that younger drivers have gotten so used to driving and talking that it is almost second nature to them, and this also applies to many other drivers that constantly talk and drive. As a former delivery driver, with close to a million miles of accident free driving, I used to multi task while driving (eating, drinking, reading maps, doing paperwork, steering with my knees, sometimes all at the same time!) and as counterintuitive as it might sound, I actually was "hyper-tuned in" to my driving while doing all of this, simply because I knew I was taking a risk by doing all of that. It is puzzling why the accident rate hasn't gone way up. Is it a possibility that the decrease in alcohol related accidents has been replaced by the increase in cell phone related accidents? Or two people involved in an accident and both were on the phone just don't report it? Is cell phone use even listed as a factor on accident reports?
  • Cease & Desist
    When the IMPD and Sheriff's Department bans personal cell phone use in patrol cars I will stop using mine. I see it every day coming into work.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT