OCR Text |
Show Warning: Using a Cellular Phone While You Drive May Be Hazardous Kenneth Wayne Jackman II of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records. The results of the study seem to show that cellular phone use is much more distracting than adjusting the radio or eating a hamburger: We found that using a cellular telephone was associated with a risk of having a motor vehicle collision that was about four times as high as that among the same drivers when they were not using their cellular telephones. This relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (Redelmeier and Tibshirani 1997,456). The implications of this study are enormous. Society has little patience for those causing accidents due to their alcohol consumption, and now the use of cellular phones by drivers is coming to be seen as a comparable problem. As cellular phone use continues to grow, one must ask whether society will continue to accept the potential cost of this relatively new technology. To be sure, these researchers acknowledge that much more research is needed before any definitive conclusions are drawn. They stress that this study is only the first of many that will surely follow. However, the researchers also declare that the association between cellular phone use and automobile accidents is not just a casual one, and it should not be taken lightly by the public, lawmakers, or the cellular industry (Redelmeier and Tibshirani 1997, 457). Further research may only confirm what that first study shows. Many people believe that the solution to erratic driving by cellular phone users is to require the use of hands-free telephones. Many relatively cheap hands-free options are available to cellular phone users. If one has both hands on the steering wheel, it might be supposed that most of the safety problems would be eliminated. However, Redelmeier and Tibshirani concluded that they "observed no safety advantage to hands-free as compared with hand-held telephones" (1997, 456). They theorized that "motor vehicle collisions result from a driver's limitations with regard to attention rather than dexterity" (1997, 456). Dr. David Strayer, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Utah, has also conducted research on the effects that cellular phone use has on the ability of drivers to react. On the basis of his preliminary research, Dr. Strayer concluded that hands-free devices do not increase the safety of cellular phones: Control studies showed that the decrements in performance were not due simply to holding a phone, listening, or speaking, but were due to the increased attentional demands incurred during cellular phone use. Thus, hands-free cellular phones will not help because the deficits are primarily due to limits of human attention (Strayer 1999). These studies show that the difficulty of safely using the cellular phone while driving is not in dialing, holding, or answering the phone, but in the fact that one's attention is diverted from driving to talking on the phone. The New England study also concludes that one's risk of an accident is substantially higher even six minutes after the call is terminated (Maclure and Mittleman 1997, 501). This is likely because the driver's attention is still not entirely focused on driving. Hence, simply mandating the use of hands-free phones will not solve the problem. Furthermore, Dr. Strayer asserts that cellular phones cause a distraction far different from other distractions commonly associated with automobiles, e.g., eating or adjusting the radio. First, the driver/cellular phone user has no control over when he will receive a call. With other distractions in the car, the driver has some control over when they occur, and should driving conditions become difficult the driver can easily end the distraction, e.g., quit eating or putting on makeup. Second, carrying on a conversation is an interactive activity that requires a lot of attention to be devoted to the conversation. The more serious or important the conversation, the more attention that must be devoted to maintaining it. Carrying on a conversation requires much more attention than passively listening to the radio or sipping a soda. Therefore, the risks associated with cellular phone use are much higher than other common distractions simply based on the nature of the talking on a cellular phone. Another common argument is that talking to another person in the automobile distracts the driver just as much as talking on a cellular phone. However, Dr. Strayer says that this argument is also false. When two people are having a conversation in an automobile, both individuals are aware of the driving conditions. As the driving conditions become increasingly difficult, conversation will decrease between the individuals. By contrast, the person at the other end of the cellular phone may not even be aware that the caller is driving and will not react to a change in driving conditions. Therefore, talking on a cellular phone is very different from talking to another person in the same automobile. It is also important to compare the length of a cellular call with other common distractions such as changing the radio station. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) reports that an average cellular conversation lasts 2.15 minutes. If one includes dialing and hanging up the phone, it is reasonable to assume an average of 2.5 minutes per call. At 65 mph, 95.3 feet of roadway are covered each second. For a 2.5 minute phone call this translates into approximately 2.7 miles of roadway that are traveled while the driver's attention is shared between the road and the telephone (NHTSA 1997, 3.3). One can clearly see the danger involved when a driver's attention is diverted for an average of 2.7 miles of roadway. Although changing the radio station may cause a momentary distraction, it is very small compared to a 2.5 minute phone call. Significantly, all research conducted thus far indicates that cellular phone use while driving may be dangerous. To date, apparently no studies exist that refute the claims made in these preliminary studies. Even though researchers stress that more research is necessary before lawmakers take any definitive action, these findings must be taken seriously. 42 |