CONTACTTRAFFICABOUT TOM VANDERBILTOTHER WRITING CONTACT ABOUT THE BOOK

‘Hands Free’ Is Not Brain Free

I’m slow to post on this, but I’ve finally gotten around to reading a new cell-phone driving study from the indefatigable David Strayer and colleagues from the University of Utah’s Applied Cognition Laboratory, via The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.

With all the usual caveats (a small sample of student-aged drivers in a simulated driving environment), this study is of particular interest for addressing a question one often hears: How is talking on a phone while driving any different than talking to a passenger?

Among other things, test drivers were asked to exit a highway at a rest stop area under different conditions — while on the phone, while a passenger was present, etc. The researchers found that “drivers in the cell phone condition were four times more likely to fail task completion than drivers in the passenger condition.” (these were the socially sanctioned, but arguably no less distracting, ‘hands free’ phones, by the way).

Why?

They write: “On the strategic level of performance, cell phone drivers performed poorly at the navigation task. Two nonmutually exclusive explanations can be provided for this deficit: First, drivers conversing on a cell phone may experience problems with keeping the intention of exiting at the rest area in working memory, or second, drivers may not sufficiently process information from the driving environment (exit signs). Some support for the latter hypothesis comes from studies demonstrating inattention blindness in cell phone drivers (Strayer et al., 2003).”

What’s particularly interesting here is the way the conversation also changed with the cell-phone. Drivers made fewer references to traffic on the cell phone (because the person on the other end isn’t sharing the experience, or presumably interested in sharing it), and what’s more, actually started to speed up their conversation, even as it grew less multi-syllabic: “Also, quite surprisingly drivers conversing on the cell phone increased their production rate when talking on the cell phone, which is contrary to the predictions of the modulation hypothesis. More interesting, this happened even as those drivers in the passenger condition tended to reduce their production rate.”

The speech was getting simpler, in other words, even as it grew faster.

Drivers on cell phones, the author speculated, “may have attempted to dominate the conversation to avoid having to engage in speech comprehension, whereas with in-vehicle partners, it may be easier to relinquish control, given that the partner can be relied on to accommodate with his or her contributions.” (I’ve overheard quite a few cell-phone conversations where it seemed the caller was trying to dominate the conversation).

As study co-author Frank Drews told the Salt Lake City Tribune:

“It’s crazy. They talk faster. It’s quite counterproductive for driving safely,” Drews said. “There is an obviously malevolent influence.”

And, of course, it depends on who the passenger is: “For example a passenger who is too ‘supportive’ by constantly commenting and directing attention in an overcontrolling fashion has a potentially negative impact on performance.” (what I call the ‘Hyacinth Bucket syndrome’).

See the video here.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 4:33 pm and is filed under Drivers, Traffic Psychology, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “‘Hands Free’ Is Not Brain Free”

  1. mdf Says:

    “How is talking on a phone while driving any different than talking to a passenger?”

    This is just a useless distraction. Here is a better question:

    http://www.bridgeratings.com/Images/Cellphone/Numb%20Cellphone%20UsersTrend65.jpg

    Over the last 20 years or so, we have a cellphone using population that probably went from exactly zero to virtually everyone who can drive a car.

    http://geoff82.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/traffic-fatalities.gif

    Over the same interval, the number of fatalities per year has remained essentially unchanged.

    The Question:

    Given cell phone use while driving is incredibly dangerous, where is the excess human wreckage?

  2. Karl-On-Sea Says:

    MDF – do you think the same could be said of drink driving?

    Put it this way: it’s easy to spot someone who’s using a cellphone while driving. They struggle to keep in their lane, brake late & then too hard, and then drive too slowly for the traffic conditions as they compensate.

    All the same sort of errors that are typically seen in DUI cases.

    These don’t sound like a recipe for ‘good’ driving to me.

  3. mdf Says:

    “do you think the same could be said of drink driving?”

    If no one drank 20 years ago, and today almost everyone who could drive a car drank, and data shows no substantial change in accident fatalities, even in the face of incontrovertible proof that driving drunk is a seriously bad idea for numerous reasons, and there is evidence some people are driving drunk (a few cars now and then spotted with cocktail glasses casually held out the windows, riotous parties in the back seats, etc) then one could (should!) indeed question the entire business of whether or not “drunk driving” is worth caring about to the point of a special law against it.

    Of course, today we have utterly undeniable evidence of the fact that drunk driving is creating a massive pile of human bodies (I’ve selected one of thousands of hits here):

    http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

    “In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.”

    Now, in the face of this kind of data, I don’t think anyone needs to conduct experiments as to why driving drunk is bad, model the chemical changes that create the deficiency in the brains of drivers, and stand before legislative committees begging for a law against drunk driving. The menace is clear, the decision is obvious.

    Does cellphone use have similar support? Well, we have the instant report on the low-level cognitive stuff cited above, that shows the risk. But then we have real-world data. Here is a typical report:

    http://www.ncsl.org/print/transportation/2006cellphone.pdf

    Executive summary: even after years of research and monitoring, direct reports say about 1% of all crashes are cellphone related, but unspecified critics — perhaps bothered because the death toll isn’t as high as they would ‘like’? — argue about under-reporting.

    Maybe. However, I would say that if using a cellphone while behind the wheel is as demonstrably dangerous as driving drunk, we would see the effect clearly, and it would closely track the deployment of cellphone usage in the broader population. Consider (say) 10% of all traffic deaths are because someone was on a cellphone. At rates near about 1995, we would expect, then, today, an excess of about 4200 people per year … or something like 46-47 thousand people killed on the roads in the USA.

    Well, this appears not to be the case. More so, the fatality data is surprisingly flat — I haven’t run the tests, but to my eyes it isn’t totally out of the question that the real incidence is statistically indistinguishable from zero. (A statement, if true, doesn’t deny these kinds of accidents/deaths occur, but simply says that they are well inside the random noise of data gathered to date.)

  4. db Says:

    Shouldn’t you also factor in the increased safety of vehicles, which has presumably saved a large number of lives that would have been lost in the vehicles of 20 years ago? So if conditions/behavior stayed the same and cars got safer, there should have been a decrease in fatalities. Since fatalities remain at the same level, there must be additional conditional/behavioral dangers that have been causing fatalities. Seat belt use has also increased, so that should have improved the statistics as well.

    I think it’s also quite plausible that cellphone use hasn’t much increased the number of serious collisions leading to death, but has significantly increased the number of rear-enders and injury-causing crashes. It seems to me that it’s still rare to see a red light run by a driver on a cellphone, but it’s very common that the same driver would rear-end another car when traffic stops suddenly.

  5. bonzadog Says:

    I’m not sure why this discussion is exclusively related to traffic fatalities.
    If driver one is on the phone and holding up traffic flow, and driver two recklessly drives in order to put D1 behind him, would not an accident attributable to cell phone use (D1), but not officially recorded as such, be related? In other words, how much of reckless city driving might be ascribed to a faster-paced environment, combined with impatience with phone dawdlers, who effectly force those of us w/o distraction to drive more defensively, hence tying up the natural flow of traffic.

Leave a Reply

Traffic Tom Vanderbilt

How We Drive is the companion blog to Tom Vanderbilt’s New York Times bestselling book, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), published by Alfred A. Knopf in the U.S. and Canada, Penguin in the U.K, and in languages other than English by a number of other fine publishers worldwide.

Please send tips, news, research papers, links, photos (bad road signs, outrageous bumper stickers, spectacularly awful acts of driving or parking or anything traffic-related), or ideas for my Slate.com Transport column to me at: info@howwedrive.com.

For publicity inquiries, please contact Kate Runde at Vintage: krunde@randomhouse.com.

For editorial inquiries, please contact Zoe Pagnamenta at The Zoe Pagnamenta Agency: zoe@zpagency.com.

For speaking engagement inquiries, please contact
Kim Thornton at the Random House Speakers Bureau: rhspeakers@randomhouse.com.

Order Traffic from:

Amazon | B&N | Borders
Random House | Powell’s

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
U.S. Paperback UK Paperback
Traffic UK
Drive-on-the-left types can order the book from Amazon.co.uk.

For UK publicity enquiries please contact Rosie Glaisher at Penguin.

Upcoming Talks

April 9, 2008.
California Office of Traffic Safety Summit
San Francisco, CA.

May 19, 2009
University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies
Bloomington, MN

June 23, 2009
Driving Assessment 2009
Big Sky, Montana

June 26, 2009
PRI World Congress
Rotterdam, The Netherlands

June 27, 2009
Day of Architecture
Utrecht, The Netherlands

July 13, 2009
Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP)
Phoenix, AZ.

August 12-14
Texas Department of Transportation “Save a Life Summit”
San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2009
Governors Highway Safety Association Annual Meeting
Savannah, Georgia

September 11, 2009
Oregon Transportation Summit
Portland, Oregon

October 8
Honda R&D Americas
Raymond, Ohio

October 10-11
INFORMS Roundtable
San Diego, CA

October 21, 2009
California State University-San Bernardino, Leonard Transportation Center
San Bernardino, CA

November 5
Southern New England Planning Association Planning Conference
Uncasville, Connecticut

January 6
Texas Transportation Forum
Austin, TX

January 19
Yale University
(with Donald Shoup; details to come)

Monday, February 22
Yale University School of Architecture
Eero Saarinen Lecture

Friday, March 19
University of Delaware
Delaware Center for Transportation

April 5-7
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
McMurrin Lectureship

April 19
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association (Organization Management Workshop)
Austin, Texas

Monday, April 26
Edmonton Traffic Safety Conference
Edmonton, Canada

Monday, June 7
Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals
Niagara Falls, Ontario

Wednesday, July 6
Fondo de Prevención Vial
Bogotá, Colombia

Tuesday, August 31
Royal Automobile Club
Perth, Australia

Wednesday, September 1
Australasian Road Safety Conference
Canberra, Australia

Wednesday, September 22

Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s
Traffic Incident Management Enhancement Program
Statewide Conference
Wisconsin Dells, WI

Wednesday, October 20
Rutgers University
Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
Piscataway, NJ

Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Ontario Injury Prevention Resource Centre
Injury Prevention Forum
Toronto

Monday, May 2
Idaho Public Driver Education Conference
Boise, Idaho

Tuesday, June 2, 2011
California Association of Cities
Costa Mesa, California

Sunday, August 21, 2011
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Attitudes: Iniciativa Social de Audi
Madrid, Spain

April 16, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Gardens Theatre, QUT
Brisbane, Australia

April 17, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Centennial Plaza, Sydney
Sydney, Australia

April 19, 2012
Institute for Sensible Transport Seminar
Melbourne Town Hall
Melbourne, Australia

January 30, 2013
University of Minnesota City Engineers Association Meeting
Minneapolis, MN

January 31, 2013
Metropolis and Mobile Life
School of Architecture, University of Toronto

February 22, 2013
ISL Engineering
Edmonton, Canada

March 1, 2013
Australian Road Summit
Melbourne, Australia

May 8, 2013
New York State Association of
Transportation Engineers
Rochester, NY

August 18, 2013
BoingBoing.com “Ingenuity” Conference
San Francisco, CA

September 26, 2013
TransComm 2013
(Meeting of American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials’ Subcommittee on Transportation
Communications.
Grand Rapids MI

 

 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [MySpace] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Yahoo!]
Twitter
December 2008
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031