Paying Attention to Distractions

With California considering restrictions on cell phone use in cars, the driver distraction debate is heating up again. How big a problem is talking on the phone, compared to other popular on-the-road activities, such as CD switching, map reading, cheeseburger eating, nose picking, daydreaming, hair combing, and child scolding? In a study by the California Highway Patrol, The New York Times reports,

driver distraction or inattention was found to be a factor in 5,677 of the 491,083 traffic collisions reported in the state from Jan. 1, 2002, to June 30, 2002. The top four distraction-related accidents were connected to these: cellphone use, 11 percent; radios and CD players, 9 percent; children, 4 percent; and eating, 3 percent.

Yet the same article says "the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 25 percent of traffic accidents involve some form of driver distraction." That is more than 20 times the rate found in the California study. It seems clear that official accident records (in California, at least) do not reflect all the distractions that contribute to crashes--only the most conspicuous.

Comments

[Tommy_Grand]

"For instance, we all know that drunks are really dangerous drivers. Except a researcher by the name of Zylman (who has examined thousands of accidents) has concluded they are not."

I'd bet you a beer that this study involved people hovering around the "legal definition of intoxication" (.08 BAL). I would be surprised if people at that level are much more dangerous than the overall population.

When I say "drunks" are dangerous drivers - I am not talking about people at .08. I am talking about hard core boozers. Drunks are often 3-4 times the "legal definition." You get to .08 b.a.l. after only 2-3 drinks. Drunks never stop at 2. Drunks pour down 10-11 cocktails and try to sneak a 12th out of the bar after last call. These people are dangerous drivers.

[MP]

How about the simple question of how many resources we want to put into trying to keep people driving responsibly vs. allocating those resources elsewhere. We pay for this huge force to drive around and keep people from drinking straight from a can (no straw? that'll be a $50 fine), while the real losers are out robbing the neighborhood blind.

[Russ]

Without a doubt the biggest distraction is all those other damn cars on the road. If you'd all just get outta my way, we'd all be much safer.

On a serious note, on two separate occasions I have seen drivers BRUSHING THEIR TEETH! I'm all for multitasking, but that's just too damn funny.

[DAVID F]

hey there Chuck Divine and WLC!!

yup we've got a whole bunch of strange types here in chicagoland. of course, local cops really love us when we roll through the rest of the state. or in cheezland, for that matter.

chuck -- huh? actually, the "slower traffic keep right" is a traffic law (obviously never enforced) in illinois. so "not liking certain types of drivers" sure. why not. so what?

drf

[Anonymous]

Helmet laws SUCK. Seatbelt laws SUCK. Baby seat laws SUCK. Cell phone laws SUCK. That's why we need PRIVATE ROADS. So you can do whatever the hell you want, WHILE DRIVING. Read a book, brush your teeth, hell strap your kids to the bumper for all I care.

[Brian]

I think it's pretty clear from everyone's experience here that cell phone usage distracts some people more than others. The real problem is not driving along under normal conditions with a phone...the problem is that your ability to react when something unexpected happens is likely compromised when one of your hands (or a significant portion of your attention) is occupied. It's the same problem with people who are at or just above the level of "legal" drunkeness...most people can drive just fine with a BAL of 0.08 or 0.09 under normal conditions...but their reaction time is slower, and this can make all the difference if someone pulls out in front of you, etc.

To me this makes an arguement for secondary enforcement...in other words, they shouldn't be pulling people over for talking on the phone, but if a cop observes someone speeding, running red lights, or crossing the center line while on the phone (I see all of these things all the time) they can be cited for "distracted driving" in addition to their primary offense.

[WLC]

drf,

My apologies. It was intended as a joke, not blasphemy 🙁

[dhex]

as much as i'd like to just snap my fingers and make cell phones disappear the real problem is just most people are suicidal, but supress their urge to kill themselves so it comes out when they drive. either that or the bulk of the population are nitwits when they get behind the wheel.

[david f]

hey WLC!

sorry -- no harm done! was more reading the "huh" into chuck's comments. sorry if my response sounded like that! have a great rest of the day and a great weekend! 🙂

cheers
drf

[Jim]

Brian,

I agree with your assessment. Basically if you do something stupid while driving, you should get a ticket for it regardless of the exact cause. That leaves it up to individuals to manage their risks in a manner that is suitable with avoiding causing problems for others.

I also agree that the problem isn't normal driving per se but 'unexpected' happenings (which actually happen pretty regularly if you're in traffic a lot). Most accidents occur on surface streets because of the multiple entrance and exit points for cars and the existence of stop signs and signals. Your chances of getting tripped up by these things is significantly less on a country road or highway. Time and place, and common sense, apply when deciding how to use your cellular phone.

Anon @ 1:42PM, you assume that private road owners would allow mayhem on their property. I don't think this would be the case as their customers (i.e. the people using the road) are not going to want to feel threatened by other drivers on it. The real benefit however is allowing for choice so the best solutions can be found to balance individual needs with safety. The current legal situation doesn't really allow for that.

[Jim]

BTW, another comment... too much of police resources are spent on preventing speeding, a crime which everybody commits (and is probably one of the things that would be changed to better balance consumer needs on private roads) while all of us here have seen people doing dangerous and stupid things on the roads and have said, 'where's a cop when you need one?'. Provide better enforcement for lane weavers, people who cut people off or enter and exist roads dangerously, and you'll go along way towards making the roads safer (and discouraging distraction if there's a good chance you'll get ticketed for these things!).

[Anonymous]

Jim, the point is the private road owner can do whatever the hell he wants, including having his own private fucking police army to enforce whatever the hell he wants. Who needs those UNIONIZED COMMIE POLICE BASTARDS?

I could then drive however the hell I wanted. Oh and drink whatever the hell I want. This isn't FUCKING FRANCE.

[SDL]

I remember some study a while back where the time of an accident shown on the accident report was compared against cell phone time logs. There was some leeway with the data because the accident time was probably not very accurate. If they ever get those black boxes for cars, and the times are in sync with the cell phone times, it should be pretty easy to see how many people were talking on the phone at the time of an accident.

Of course that doesn't necessarily mean that talking on the phone caused or contributed to the accident...

[fredH]

Jim:

With respect to speeding, I once heard an interesting proposal (I forget where) that speed limits should be set empirically, rather than by arbitrary fiat as they are now. The plan would be to have no speed limit on a given stretch of road for a period of time and clock all of the cars. The speed limit would then be set at the 85th percentile of the measures speeds. The idea behind this plan seemed to be that about 85% of people naturally drive at a speed at or below what is reasonably safe for the road and only 15% or fewer are really reckless.

[The Mountain Goat]

I don't have a cell phone, but I do have the CD player. Its probably no more distracting than my 8-track player was twenty years ago.

I find signs to be distracting. The roads are full of signs. We are expected to abide by the instruction on each sign. "Speed limit 25 when children are present": now I have to look for children. Where is present? I know when, but where? On the road? The sidewalk? 100 yards away?

Or how about "Bridge Freezes Before Road Surface." Isn't 30 feet before the bridge a little late to teach people that the earth's core has heat and that the bridge doesn't conduct that as well? "Emergency pull off ahead." Too bad the wipers are on the outside of the glass!

Here's a test. Count how many signs exist in a half mile on your drive. I think there are too many signs, and that these create major distractions.

[tchiers]

Actually, this 85th percentile idea is already codifed into law as MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). It's pretty universally ignored, because states have found that underposting speed limits is a big revenue generator.

[WLC]

drf,

🙂

[Lefty]

I'm with you on that, Goat, but we get used to it, I guess. I drove in England for awhile and was struck by the lack of signs. Traffic directions are on the pavement and absolutely no business billboards. Very disconcerting.

[david f]

and Lefty, the directions are upside down. and people drive with sinister intentions.

oh wait. that's how it's supposed to be...

nevermind.

off to eat buffalo wings and drink beer. happy weekend, Lefty, WLC, and the entire gang today!
(there. is that &*#$#%^*%^ chirpy enough??? &*%&*%* mary lou retton...)
cheers,
drf

[Kevin Carson]

National Lampoon "True Facts" once included a news clip about a trucker who jackknifed his rig shortly after he was observed "drinking beer and masturbating" while driving.

[Anonymous]

Lefty drove in England for awhile and was struck by the lack of signs. Traffic directions are on the pavement and absolutely no business billboards. Very disconcerting.

Take heart, Lefty. nothing is permanent. Nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anon @ 1:42PM, private road-ownership would include private enforcement with all its concommitant consequences.

[david f]

happy friday!

driving home on the eden's, rush hour really sucked. chicago wasn't, as every other city, designed for traffic. and the I 94 and I 90 merge causes snarls galore. grrr. anyhow, the cell phone drivers and readers were the worst two sets of drivers. playing with the radio is just a few seconds, but the readers and cell phone chatters would break suddenly for no reason, not keep pace, switch lanes, and behave like maniacs who were either reading or on phones. READING? jeez. that's the one they should go after. wait -- existing laws and all that. hrumph.

then, get those $^&*(^$(^$(%&*$^&*%E people who insist on going 50mph in the left lane outta there. grrrr. is "left lane fever" only a feature of the midwest, or do other regions suffer from that left-lane turtleitis, too?

cheers!
drf

[Tommy_Grand]

I would be interested in an objective study of the causes of traffic accidents. By objective, I mean a study which does not rely on questions asked of the driver at fault for the study's data/conclusions. I don't trust the drivers' responses.

On the basis of my own observations, I am convinced that drivers with one hand on the wheel and one hand holding a phone are MUCH more dangerous then drivers in general. Other dangerous categories include: mini-vans filled with unruly children, drunks, and vehicles piloted by very old drivers. Often, these vehicles cause accidents in which they are not invloved.

[Brian Carnell]

Jacob Sullum wrote:

"It seems clear that official accident records (in California, at least) do not reflect all the distractions that contribute to crashes--only the most conspicuous."

Isn't an equally likely explanation that the NHTSA is wildly overestimating the role that driver distraction plays in causing accidents?

And I'm curious how both studies actually go about quantifying to what extent an accident is caused by "distraction." Does the NHTSA quiz drivers to find out if they rear-ended someone because they were daydreaming about winning the lottery or obssessing about a possible layoff at work?

[tchiers]

No, unfortunately left lane hogs can be found - in copious numbers - in every state in the Union.

I have driven through most states in the US (though not the Chichago area) and I was sure Florida was tops in this the-hell-with-slower-traffic-keep-right mentality until I drove through Louisiana...

[Chuck Divine]

drf and Tommy Grand obviously dislike certain kinds of drivers. Police officials dislike certain kinds of people as well.

Too often "studies" simply show what the people paying for them want to see. What's disturbing in the field of auto accidents is the relative paucity of repeatable, objective research.

For instance, we all know that drunks are really dangerous drivers. Except a researcher by the name of Zylman (who has examined thousands of accidents) has concluded they are not. The real danger according to Zylman? Drivers who show clear antisocial tendencies or drivers who have had something very traumatic happen to them. Perhaps the drunk factor is a dependent variable, not a causative one. Or something else entirely is going on. Who knows? I do know too much accident research is simply asking police what their opinions are -- hardly a scientific approach.

[WLC]

A few days ago, I read of a woman who drove while breast-feeding her child. Idiotic. Idiotic. Idiotic.

READING while driving?! We don't even do that downstate, drf 😉

Having said that, today some local boob will prove me wrong. *sigh*

Have a nice weekend everybody!

[Todd Fletcher]

We must ban nose-picking while driving now - for the CHILDREN!

[Jim]

I agree that there's not a lot of credible data out there about cell phones or distractions in general, other than people's observations and pre-existing prejudices. Usually if something the driver did is at fault they probably won't admit it, so all such distractions are probably underreported. That said, I do think cell phone use has an unfair bad rap just because it's observable behavior (phone at window level) vs. other forms of distraction. Eating and drinking come in next and child scolding after that for things other drivers can see. Personally I've had a few near rear-enders trying to pick up a CD jewel case off the floor after the last unexpected brake stomp caused all my CDs to fall on the floor (I've got to rethink leaving them on the passenger seat).

Common sense should be the rule here. You wouldn't try to eat your big mac or change your cd's while merging onto the freeway at 70 mph in rush hour traffic, so you also shouldn't be talking on your cellphone then. Or at least tell the person you're talking to to wait because you need to perform a 'traffic maneuver' - I've found that works pretty well if you're already on a call and need to change lanes or something.

'Driver Distraction' is really just poor task managment while multitasking. Doing it propertly is a skill that can be learned. A friend of mine who is a pilot said that during flight training, he'd be performing a complicated maneuver and the instructor would start asking him bullshit questions like, 'how was your weekend? what did you do last night? etc. The stated goal of this was to train you to compartmentalize and to properly perform your necessary tasks in the face of distractions. I doubt of course than most drivers do this consciously but if you drive a lot and use your cellphone you start to develop these skills naturally.

[Jacob]

Brian, NHTSA's estimate seems a lot more plausible than the California Highway Patrol's finding that driver distraction plays a role in only about 1 percent of crashes. Here's what looks like a pretty careful study that found "driver inattention" was a factor in 23 percent of crashes:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/UDAshortrpt/UDAshortresult.htm

I'm not sure if this is the source for the "25 percent" figure, which is cited in this DOT press release:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/2000/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2000&filename=pr28-00.html

The press release, like the Times, attributes the number to NHTSA.

[Josh]

I helped out with a study to try to figure out who was culpable in pedestrian and cyclist deaths via auto crashes in NYC. We tried to determine this with copies of the police reports.

Needless to say, the reports were obviously rushed. "He appeared out of nowhere" was a frequent response the police found acceptable.

People lie, especially when it comes to taking responsibility for car crashes. Cops have more profitable duties to take care of than traffic safety (like asset forfeiture).

[Lefty]

After backing out of my driveway and bumping my neighbor's car while concentrating on a cell phone conversation, I quit using the phone while driving. I'm not even sure the hands free phones are any better since you still need to divide your attention between two tasks. In the end it's really not fair to either one.

[Jim]

If you give credence to either study, neither makes a good case for banning cell phone use while driving. In the CHP study, about 1% of all collisions are due to distraction and only 1/10th of those are due to cell phone use. A relatively small number. In the NHTSA study, cell phone use was only attributed to one type accident and it was the act of hanging up the phone. Again it accounted for about 10% of that accident type. All other accident types noted other, more frequent (and of course harder to prohibit) forms of distraction such as looking at street signs or conversing with passengers. Maybe cell phone use could have been included in 'conversing with passengers' but since it did show up in the study at least once you'd think the researchers would have been aware of and looking for cell-phone only related risk factors.

[PLC]

It's not really difficult to determine that cell phone talking while driving is dangerous, without looking at accident reports. As has been stated above - accident reports don't tend to be too enlightening in aggregate. Obviously, if someone was drunk, that will get reported because it's a visable cause - but if the driver puts away their phone...

The study of this issue that read, probably 6-9 months back (maybe in Scientific American?) looked at people using a driving simulator (sort of like what pilots use). When people are asked to eat and drive, they can. When they are asked to listen to the radio and drive, they can. When they are asked to have an interested phone call and drive - they just can't do both.

Apparently, talking on the phone requires an inordinate amount of attention, because it is a conversation devoid of visual cues, which taxes the brain. This is why you often hear about people on cell phones rear-ending other cars without even hitting the brakes. Their eyes were open but their brain didn't have the resources to process the visual information and to interpret the conversation.

[PLC]

Oh my gentle Jesus - I agree with Lefty!!!!

[Jim]

Lefty,

I understand your point about the given situation, but do you really think you need 100% of your mental faculties when creeping along at 20 mph in a traffic jam just to keep your car between the lines and from hitting the car in front of you? Might as well make use of your time for something...

Hands free is an improvement, but you'll probably not want to talk to your passengers, then, because it's also been shown to be a risk factor for accidents.

[David2]

Chuck is right in that studies and reports are often slanted to favor a certain conclusion.

I'm a regular commuter of Metro Atlanta's biggest political pork project, and I have seen all of the favorite distractions. I have seen people shaving, eating breakfast, reading the newspaper (YES they do exist!), talking on the cellphone... but none, in my brutally honest opinion, ranks up there as much as women farding.

That's FARDING, with a "d", which is French for putting on makeup... not the other word with the "t" to represent passing gas.

I have acutally seen women on more than one occasion reach behind them and pull out a big Tupperware container of makeup (yes, I kid you not!), flip that driver's visor down so the vanity mirror is exposed, manually adjust the rear-view mirror so it faces them, and then put on makeup while driving at 80 miles an hour with the rest of the morning traffic!

Of course the women whom I've seen pull that stunt also drive those big suburban tanks, so they know that WHEN they get in an accident, THEY will be safe and relatively undamaged.

It should be no wonder why the highways here have at least ONE major accident per day!

[Jim]

PLC,

What people did they study? I use my cell phone every day in traffic, and I drive 100 miles a day at least. I don't seem to have trouble not hitting people when I'm on the phone. Maybe I'm an accident waiting to happen but if it is really that hard I think it would have happened by now.

Your brain is taxed in the same way a conversation with a passenger would tax it - you can't really look at them while driving (or you shouldn't anyway). Maybe I just don't have very interesting conversations in my car 😉

I've noticed that the one thing that 'gives' when talking on the phone or to other passengers (with about the same frequency based on my personal experience) is my navigational ability. It kind of goes on autopilot and I follow the route I'm used to, occasionally missing turns when I'm going someplace different off of a road I'm familiar with. Also, I think eating certain foods in the car can be extremely distracting and dangerous - never order a taco in the car, ferinstance. Also, make sure your coffee is secure and any fast food is not oozing of ketchup. Bad combos.

[Fatal Distraction]

You have to hand it to California legislature, they would tax "thingy" if they find a way to enforce it.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I find all those other cars on the road very distracting. I do wish they would go somewhere else.

[Roemer Jessi]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
DATE: 02/27/2004 08:22:34
He who wishes to secure the good of others has already secured his own.