Home>Articles on Road Rage and Aggressive Driving>Distracted

Distracted Driving

Cell Phone Rage  |  Cellular Phone Etiquette  |  Research Articles on Car Phones  |  Human Factors  |  Driving and Talking  | Multitasking  |  Driver Inattention Research  | NHTSA Public Meeting on Driver  Distraction  |  Drowsy Drivers  |  Driving Drowsy Quiz  | Characteristics of Drowsy-Driving Crashes  | 

Leon James, Ph.D.
January 2000
www.DrDriving.org

Joseph Tessmer, a NHTSA statistician, estimated 20% to 30% of fatal accidents are due to distractions, but said it's impossible to know for sure because only a few states document distractions in accident reports. quoted here

	Enter your search terms
	Web DrDriving.org

ABCNews.com story

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
holding a hearing on driving distractions and road safety, and a
major focus of the meetings is the proliferation of high-tech,
in-vehicle devices such as mobile phones, on-board maps, GPS
devices and CD players.
How big a problem is this, in your view? Express your opinion.

The government is getting involved...Help the government by responding!

To: DrDriving@DrDriving.org

Subject: Press query

Dr. James,

I'm a freelance writer working on a story for the Boulder (Colo.) County Business Report and was wondering if I could get your opinion on the impact, dangers, and/or benefits of telematics - essentially, vehicular Internet access. Would it prove distracting to a driver? How about if the driver couldn't access it while driving, but passengers could?

Eric Peterson
Denver CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply by Dr. Leon James:

We devote a section of our new book on Road Rage and Aggressive Driving (see press release below) to this topic of automotive telematics in relation to driver distraction--which by the way includes in car communications devices and dashboard dining, both being major sources of distraction. We don't think that multi-tasking should be banned by the law but we do think that some form of required training is highly desirable. In fact, no training is dangerous.

Distracted drivers who are busy communicating or dining are being aggressive because they are willfully imposing their own level of risk on others. Distracted drivers are not only a danger to themselves but to others. Forcing higher risk on others is aggressive. Maybe the distracted driver thinks, Oh, I can handle it, but can others? Se we consider distracted driving as a form of aggressive driving. Drivers who use communication devices and drive distracted as a result are being aggressive drivers.

Internet access from a moving vehicle is a reality today, and getting bigger each month. Research on cell phone use by drivers shows that some drivers become dangerous due to distraction. But other drivers maintain their focus and safety level. What is the difference? First, some people are naturally more excitable and distractible while driving, whether they communicate with a passenger or through a communication device. They are especially at risk and dangerous--unless they train themselves. We don't know of any training programs for Internet access in cars, or for other multi-tasking activities. We recommend that these be put in place by the industry and government. But in the meantime, drivers can train themselves.

First, drivers must acknowledge that they need to train themselves, and if they don't, they become a danger to others. So until they go through the training, they ought not to allow themselves to use the equipment while the car is moving. Second, they need to practice the equipment over and over again while the car is not moving, until they can do it with closed yes and while talking to a passenger. Third, they cautiously begin to use features, one at a time while the car is moving in the right lane without too much traffic, thus gradually increasing the times and places of use. We also recommend monitoring yourself and keeping a Driving Log or Diary where you record the errors you've seen yourself make. Finally, ask a passenger to monitor you to see if you're making mistakes or distraction.

Unless drivers voluntarily train themselves, it's likely that government regulations and restrictions will be the reaction.

Aloha.
Leon James

+++++++++

Press Release

Leon James, Ph.D. and Diane Nahl, Ph.D.

ROAD RAGE AND AGGRESSIVE DRIVING: Steering Clear of Highway Warfare (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2000)

ISBN 1-57392-846-1

Two nationally known authors from Hawaii have published a new book on a topic often discussed in the media. What other authors say about this book:

"Like the weather, everyone is talking about road rage, but Drs. James and Nahl have finally done something about it. They show that what we call "traffic" is really an ever-changing set of social relationship tests, and how we engage in these auto-connections speaks volumes about the ultimate quality of our own and others lives. They show us how being a better driver helps us lead a better, happier, healthier life."

Paul Pearsall, author of The Pleasure Prescription and Wishing Well

"Next time you're about to crowd someone's bumper because they cut you off in traffic, take a deep breath, back off, and drive to the nearest book store to buy this book. You'll not only learn why we've become such impatient, hostile drivers, you'll learn exactly how to reverse this life-endangering habit. Bravo to the authors for a well-written, much needed book. Read it and reap!"

Sam Horn, author of Tongue Fu and ConZENtrate

"It's about personal behavior! ------ For those of us that have been personally involved with "Road Rage"; for those of us who have witnessed "Road Rage"; for those of us that understand "Road Rage" truly exists and is a serious issue for the motoring public, this is a page turner. Leon and Diane have defined the issue, shown what it has cost us and most importantly ----Given Specifics for us to prevent from participating in a "Road Rage" incident or being the victim of "Road Rage".

This is a must read for young drivers, experienced drivers and professional drivers alike-----Remember that it's about personal behavior! Who better to discuss this issue than Social Psychologist, Dr. Leon James and Dr. Diane Nahl."

Stan McWilliams, Manager Safety Information Systems

M.S. Carriers Inc..

Human Factors Issues Related to Driver Distraction From In-Vehicle Systems

Y. Ian Noy, Ph.D., CPE Ergonomics Division Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada

Distraction:

• shift of attention away from the driving task for a compelling reason.
  
• in-vehicle task can lead to visual/cognitive lock-up
  
• inappropriate display salience can capture attention
  
• cue elicits immediate response (e.g., telephone ring)

Inattention:

• shift of attention away from the driving task for non-compelling reason

Note: inattention may result from over-reliance on driver support system (reduced vigilance)

Conclusions

• Driving task difficulty predominant factor affecting attention and performance variables
  
• Drivers modified their looking behaviour in an attempt to maintain driving performance
  
• Despite strong adaptive behaviour, distraction from in-vehicle task caused driving performance to deteriorate

The new curse: Cell-phone rage

Anger over mobile phones may be the next social ill as millions get increasingly fed up with hearing the strains of Beethoven or Jingle Bells

WACO (Texas) - Like air rage and road rage, mobile-phone rage is emerging as a disturbing social menace, prompting some manufacturers to take steps to put an end to unwanted ringing.

'Mobile phones are a fairly new technology and a sense of etiquette maybe has not evolved as fast as the phones have penetrated the market.' -- Mr Travis Larson , spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association of America

Since they were first sold in the United States in 1983, these phones have multiplied.

From a few thousand the first year to more than 100 million today, mobile phones are here to stay.

The bad news for those fed up with ringers disturbing the peace is that, according to the telecommunications industry, only 30 per cent of the market has been penetrated.

Not only is the number of mobile phones growing, the piercing sounds of their ringers seem to be increasing as well, with louder and more elaborate tones available, said Ms Amy Wu, who writes for Wired News.

Even though most of today's phones have volume controls, many people leave them set on high no matter what the situation.

And instead of just ringing, phones can be programmed to play Bach, Mozart, the James Bond theme or Jingle Bells.

While you might be happy when Beethoven lets you know someone is calling, millions of people are not pleased at all.

They are fed up with hearing your phone go off.

'Mobile phones have become part of the urban landscape, but the behavioural battles rage on,' Ms Wu said.

'Some businesses and public places have devised ways to deal with the phenomenon. But mobile-phone rage may very well become the social controversy of the next decade.'

(...).

Mr Travis Larson, spokesman for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association of America said: 'Mobile phones are a fairly new technology and a sense of etiquette maybe has not evolved as fast as the phones have penetrated the market.'

Mobile-phone rage is a big enough problem that some manufacturers have started sensitivity training for users.

(...)

Signs in museums, announcements over intercoms and advertisements outside buildings remind people gently to turn down their mobile phones in 'quiet zones'.

Ms Mary Beth Griffin, executive vice-president of BlueLinx, based in North Carolina, said her company designs and builds ringer regulators or nodes.

They are mounted on the walls of movie theatres or churches and emit a signal that turns down mobile-phone ringers.

But for the system to work, each mobile phone must be equipped with a special software.

'Right now, courtesy is based on people's memories,' Ms Griffin said.

(...)

--New York Times

By DAVE CARPENTER AP Business Writer

(...) inside the elegant San Antonio club and the jasize="3 singer was crooning love ballads.

Then a cell phone rang. To the dismay of performer Ken Slavin, the patron not only answered the phone - but shushed the singer so he could take the call.

On a San Francisco Bay ferry, where "Cell Phone Free Zone" signs are posted, a woman gossiped loudly on her phone.

"Hey lady," a fellow rider piped up. "I think I speak for the rest of the passengers here when I say that we don't care to hear about the intrigues of your office, so please either finish your call or go outside."

The woman stormed out - to applause.

(...)

"No Cell Phones" signs are popping up all over. Restaurants, theaters, libraries, museums and doctors' offices have banned the devices.

(...)

"People on the street jabbering away, in restaurants, in public toilets for heaven's sake!" complained New Yorker Judy Walters.

She's not joking. According to an industry-sponsored telephone survey conducted in March by Wirthlin Worldwide, 39 percent of those polled said they would answer a cell phone call in the bathroom.

(...)

Doctors at a Toronto hospital report treating both mobile phone talkers and irritated bystanders for black eyes and even a cracked rib after eruptions of "cell phone rage."

A New York restaurant fielded so many gripes it banished users to a cell phone lounge.

(...)

National Public Radio's popular Car Talk program, whose hosts rail against cell-phoning drivers, has given away 60,000 "Drive Now, Talk Later" bumper stickers since last September. "The response has taken us by surprise," said staffer Doug Mayer.

(...)

"Manners between strangers have broken down," said Stein, a UCLA sociology professor and director of Cultural Research Assistants in Santa Monica, Calif. "We've become desensitized to each other."

(...)

original here

By Stephanie Miles Staff Writer

SAN DIEGO--

Turn off your ringers, please. It's Cell Phone Courtesy Week.

Brought to the citizens of San Diego by cell phone maker Nokia, this week is dedicated to encouraging the increasingly unmindful corps of cell phone users to be more respectful of their surroundings and those around them.

The promotion is part of a growing movement to rein in rogue cell phone users, a group that continues to grow in number and offense, according to some.

There are approximately 94 million people using cell phones in the United States, or one out of three Americans, according to Nokia.

The skyrocketing number of mobile phone users, driven in part by falling prices for phones and service, along with improvements in network coverage and quality, has led to complaints about inappropriate calling while driving, during performances, in classrooms, libraries, museums and restaurants.

(...)

A growing number of restaurants have designated themselves cell phone-free zones, and a few areas have proposed banning cell phone usage while driving.

The city of San Diego and Finnish-based Nokia, which employs 600 people in its Product Creation Center in San Diego, launched the courtesy campaign today. Consisting primarily of identifying specific "Quiet Zones" where cell phones are not welcome,

Cell Phone Courtesy Week was brought about in part by overwhelming public demand, according to San Diego Mayor Susan Golding.

original here

by: Craig L. Derington DirectWireless.com

(...) some cities have banned the use of wireless phones while driving, making it a punshiable offense. This legislation brings up some concerns, however. For instance, does banning the use of phones while driving violate our rights as citizens. While nearly everyone would agree that it is important to be able to keep in touch with family and co-workers when away from home or office, the issue of safety is also a major concern. The wireless industry has recognized this need for balance, and now offers a wide selection of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), and third party (after-market) products to help drivers stay safe when using cell phones.

Here are some safety tips for using your wireless phone while driving:

Go hands-free.

(...) Hard install car kits usually include a holder for your phone, an adapter that plugs into your cars electrical system, and a separate microphone and earpiece that let you talk without having to touch your phone.

Speed dial.

Almost all phones come equipped with memory dialing features. These features compliment your need to call your business associates, family and friends, by making it as easy as a button touch from your hands-free system.

Safety first.

(...) If you feel like you are unable to concentrate on the task at hand: it's always best to pull off the road to a safe stopping location, or simply tell the person you are talking to that you will have to call them back once you have reached your destination. The little extra time you spend could be the difference between life and death.

Know your phone.

(...) Reviewing the features is a good idea every few months. That way, users get the most support from their phones, as they are most comfortable with their capabilities and use.

(...)

original here

"So far, here at CA State Archives, our patrons have consistently demonstrated the courtesy of leaving the Research Room to handle their cell calls.

And then there's my local metro bus driver who drives her coach most evenings, on freeway and off, having quiet little calls on her personal cellphone. I'm about to turn her in to the transit brass. It may not be illegal (yet) to cell-phone talk and drive, but in the cases of public transit drivers, it oughta' be -- nationwide. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Aaaarrrrggghhh! I want to rip the damned things out of their hands and smash them against the wall! However, seeing that such actions wouldn't be in accordance with professional behavior, I just grit my teeth. Students at our university library will answer their cell phone and put the reference person they were speaking to "on hold" until they're done using the phone. Sheesh! As far as I know, there is no official policy on use of cell phones in our building."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail your comments or observations to DrDriving

Do people on cell phones bother you in waiting rooms, streets, cars, etc.?

DrDriving:

Porter, Tx -- Kimberly Adams, daughter of Claude T. Jacobs Sr. and his two co-workers, was tragically killed as a result of an auto accident caused by a motorist whose attention was distracted while using a cellular phone.

Prior to this accident, we and the rest of the public, lacked a meaningful awareness of the danger of talking on a cell phone while driving. Since the horrific death of my father, I have discovered that the use of cellular phones by drivers has become a very substantial safety problem. Scholastic studies have indicated that the risk of accident quadruples when a cell phone is being used by a motorist, equivalent to driving with a blood-alcohol level at the legal limit.

I am committed to raising public awareness of this issue. I believe cell [Already at start of message] phones can be useful safety tools, but have found it to be simply too dangerous to talk while driving. I have already and will continue to provide input to my own representatives in Montgomery Co., Tx to support meaningful legislative efforts aimed at this serious problem.

• 70 percent of drivers routinely talk to passengers while driving.

• 47 percent adjust controls.

• 29 percent eat or read.

• 26 percent pick up something that fell.

• 19 percent talk on the phone

found it here

Have you ever been in a movie theater and heard someone's phone ring? How about viewing a play at your child's school? As mobile phone prices continue to drop, more people are using phones in some of the most inappropriate places.

As a result of the increased inappropriate usage of mobile phones, the city of San Diego and Nokia, which has approximately 600 people working in San Diego, have launched Cell Phone Courtesy Week. During the week, specific "Quiet Zones" where cell phones are not allowed will be identified.

JOEL'S OPINION

I can't believe it has actually come to this.

I first heard a case of mobile phone abuse when I was sitting in a movie theater. It was during the movie and the guy just kept letting his cellphone ring. Apparently, he figured if he ignored it and looked around, people wouldn't get mad at him. Well, eventually it went to voicemail but the guy looked very uneasy for the remainder of the movie, no doubt afraid for his life.

People really have no clue when the appropriate time to use a mobile phone is. In addition, why can't they just remember to shut the ringer off? I guess we could also blame mobile phone manufacturers for not making it a "one touch" button that just silences the ringer. If that button existed, people could just silence their mobile phone before going into a restaurant, bank, etc.

I used to have a phone with a vibrate feature and I would turn that on if I absolutely needed to keep the phone on. I remember someone I used to work with would shut the ringer off during a movie and just wait for the light on his phone to light-up if a phone call came in. I'm not sure what he would have done if the call actually did come in, though. One would hope that he would leave the theater before answering the phone.

(...)

(...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not forget business... (2:11pm EST Tue Jul 11 2000) I see cell phone arrogance at its worst during business events such as meetings or conferences. It's unbelievable how these business men let their cell phones ring and TAKE CALLS while someone else is talking or trying to give a presentation just a few feet away. Of course they're each just TOO important to shut it off...

(...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The One-Touch button (2:25pm EST Tue Jul 11 2000) If I've forgotten to turn off my ringer, I can reach in my pocket and press the 'end' or the 'off' button to silence it after one ring. I use this a lot as there are a lot of places I consider it rude to talk on the phone. Basically, anywhere where anyone is forced to sit and listen to you is usually bad. The train, doctor's office waiting room.

(...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell phone proper use (3:38pm EST Tue Jul 11 2000)

(...)

However, people today have NO concept of those around them. People are self-centered and selfish, not caring how their actions impact others. The problems you all state about using cellular phones merely mirror the overall problems in society. If we all tried to be a little more cognitive of the needs and rights of those around us, we certainly would all be a lot better off.

(...)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(...)

The other day I was Big K-Mart, and the lady in front of me, in the line of eleven people, her phone rings. So my buddy and I strike a conversation about the up coming All-Star game. Our voices steadily grew as she continued on the phone. No doubt, she turned around and asked us to please quite down. We both looked at her, and yelled, AAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!. She jumped back into the person in front of her. The person got mad at the lady with the cell phone. The cell phone lady got mad at us. The people behind us started going, "Yeah!!". It was the beginning of a brawl. But sadly, the manager came over and told every to be calm, and ask the lady with the cell phone to leave. So she stormed out of the store, with her cell phone still on!! Ah, it was a Kodak moment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phone beating (4:34pm EST Tue Jul 11 2000) I read a story a while ago about a guy in german who's phone rang one to many times in a bar. after the 4th time the other patrons of the bar started throwing beer bottle at him and he eventually got killed by one of them... now that is a waste of good beer.

original here

What can be done to fix them, and are some of them located near you? For years, big insurance companies have been sponsoring state-of-the-art crash tests to encourage safer car designs and reduce insurance costs. But experts say that cars and drivers aren’t the only ones to blame for accidents. Sometimes, it can be the road itself, everything from confusing signs to faded lane lines, to traffic lights you can barely see.

At high accident locations, drivers had to shoot the gaps between multiple lanes of on-coming traffic in order to make a left turn. State Farm traffic experts say allowing protected left turns only on a green arrow is safer. And if the signals are properly timed, the green arrow can improve traffic flow.

Are the pavement markings clear?

Too often, bad intersections need a fresh coat of paint to help keep drivers in the proper lanes. At big intersections with two or more left turn lanes, State Farm says it's especially important to have good markings to keep drivers from side-swiping each other as they make the turn.

Are drivers approaching the intersection at high speeds?

State Farm says several of this year's worst intersections seem to have a speed problem. Sometimes there's a relatively high speed limit leading up to a light and drivers get caught by surprise. A simple fix could be an "advanced warning" light before the intersection to alert drivers they'll have to stop soon. Other locations may need tougher enforcement of lower speed limits and crack-downs on red light runners.

Are there pedestrian crosswalk signals?

This seems to be a forgotten element at some big intersections. There are poor or missing signals/markings to help pedestrians get across a big street safely. What's more, when surprised drivers slam on the brakes to avoid a pedestrian, the result is often a rear-end accident.

NHTSA Public Meeting on Driver Distraction Tuesday, July 18, 2000 Washington, D.C.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Driver distraction is perhaps the most demanding highway traffic safety issue of the day. For us at the Department of Transportation working in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, - driver distraction is a broad subject area that includes everything from radios and fast food to Internet connections and on-board navigation devices. I was eager to participate in today's meeting because we in the highway safety community must take every opportunity to explore and share information about this critically important subject. To meet with the individuals, organizations, and industries represented here today is a special opportunity.

For more than three decades - since its founding in 1966 - the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - has grappled with many threats to public safety on America's roadways. The challenges we confronted over these many years range from drivers who are too impaired by alcohol to drive safely or testing the protective benefits of seat belt systems.

Driver distraction is not a new problem. NHTSA has been studying and confronting distraction issues for many years. Yet, the driver distraction of today is far different than in years past. It is related to innovative technologies that are entering vehicles at breathtaking speed - whether it is wireless telephones, Internet services, navigation devices, or new sophisticated entertainment centers.

The driver distraction that traditionally was a single device or stimulus is now a diffused and often difficult-to-define set of issues. The stunning speed from innovation to installation is so fast that NHTSA's first awareness of a product or service may well be when it is already being designed into or carried into a vehicle and used by a driver on the road.

The driver's responsibility is to operate the vehicle safely. Distraction degrades driver performance. Multiple distractions and more complex distractions degrade driving performance even more. For all driver distractions, including wireless phones, the gathering evidence is persistent and clear. Whether the information comes from anecdotal reports, real-world data, or research, we have a serious problem on our roadways now and it is growing.

We cannot dismiss anecdotal reports, although they are unreliable sometimes. They are continual and straight-forward. Real-world data is limited at this point, and, for years to come, may not be robust enough to measure distraction precisely or justify a particular course of action. But the real-world data we can assess leads us to conclude that drivers' use of wireless phones in moving vehicles is contributing to crashes.

Research is further along. We are using many tools and techniques that have matured over the years to assess new forms of distraction - the use of wireless phones, in particular. NHTSA's National Advanced Driving Simulator, which will come on-line by the end of this year, will provide unprecedented opportunities for detailed, repeatable research on such driver fitness issues as distraction and fatigue.

But all of the information to date, from all sources, is consistent - each separate story, each data set, and each research paper adds to the growing body of evidence.

Increasing distractions, increase the risk and in turn lead to unintended consequences.

I am not aware of a single instance - not one - of information that suggests distraction is not a problem, or that we have misunderstood it, or that it is lessening. Driver distraction, in all its forms and from all its sources, is a real threat to the safety of America's roads.

This threat is growing and growing fast. Wireless phones are the fastest penetrating technology in history. Just a few short years ago - to see someone talking on a wireless phone anywhere was still relatively rare. Today, a regular commute trip without seeing two, three, or more drivers talking on their wireless phones while their vehicles are in motion is relatively rare.

Knowing of a traffic safety threat is often easier than mitigating that traffic safety threat. Data and information that are clearly worrisome enough to recognize risks and warn of their consequences are not nearly complete enough to support a given solution or validate a particular action. Further complicating the search for solutions are the equivocal, and sometimes vague, public arguments that obscure what must be good-faith efforts to confront distraction issues directly and effectively. Here are five.

Assertion Number One: "The genie is out of the bottle" - that potentially distractive devices have invaded the driver's domain so pervasively, attempts to control them now are impossible or ill-advised.

Response: This problem will grow larger and more complex. Waiting only increases the difficulty we will have solving it.

Assertion Number Two: Eating fast food, applying cosmetics, and other in-car distractions also present risks, so why are we not worrying about them?

Response: We have work to do on all forms of driver distraction. But, we should not accept one risk because we have yet to address another or because have accepted a particular risk.

Assertion Number Three: Hands-free equipment will lessen or eliminate driver distraction.

Response: Hands-free is not risk free. NHTSA research and other research clearly show that we must be concerned with manual distraction, visual distraction, and cognitive distraction. Hands-free, depending upon the equipment, may reduce both manual and visual distraction - but it will not affect or reduce cognitive distraction. Some researchers believe cognitive distraction is the most problematic. I have not seen any research or studies that suggest hands-free devices will solve the distraction problem. If anyone is aware of such research, NHTSA's scientists would like to review it.

Suggesting solutions for part of the problem without addressing the whole problem may simply postpone a better, more complete solution.

Assertion Number Four: Existing laws are adequate to deter drivers from the inappropriate use of distracting devices.

Response: NHTSA's preliminary review and assessment suggest that existing laws are not necessarily adequate to limit distractions from wireless phones or other electronics. The nature of distraction-related crashes is that they often occur under conditions where the driver may not be exhibiting overtly negligent behavior - they occur when unexpected events happen. Moreover, only a few states have "inattentive driving" laws, and they are not uniformly enforced.

Assertion Number Five: Wireless phones and other devices contribute to highway safety, because they allow people immediately to notify law enforcement and emergency services, reducing their response time, or provide directions to drivers who may be lost or unfamiliar with an area.

Response: While these benefits are certainly real, they in no way reduce the risks from a driver's use of a wireless phone or other devices in a moving vehicle and that is the threat we are addressing today. Moreover, we obtain these same benefits, if the caller or user is not driving or if only 911 calls are possible in moving vehicles.

Like many traffic safety challenges, solving this one will require all interests coming together to contribute to its eventual resolution. All of those involved in highway safety - whether in government, industry, or the public at large - are responsible for raising and debating the important questions of driver distraction. The highway traffic safety community must expand to include those who design, manufacture, and service the computers, navigation systems, and other devices used on the roads and installed in vehicles. You can become one of our most important partners for years to come.

Let me briefly mention a couple of areas where we can work together. First, we all need good quality and uniform data. Perhaps with the help of other devices in the vehicle, such as event data recorders, we can determine which device was in use when a crash occurred. Recognizing the private nature of much of the data, we must use it only for statistical indicators and for maintaining a data base to help define the problem. We need states to work with us to develop better data on driver distraction through a uniform data collection methodology with which NHTSA will enthusiastically assist you. If manufacturers make their test and evaluation data available to NHTSA, we can independently evaluate the results. NHTSA can help manufacturers and service providers publicize safe use information for people who use the products.

We are experiencing a dramatic change in driver behavior. Every day, you see more and more drivers using wireless phones. It is hard to ignore that wireless phone use is increasing at an exploding rate. We can expect a similar pattern for other devices. It follows - and it is illogical to suggest otherwise - that increasing distractions increase the risk and lead to unintended consequences.

If we underestimate this potential risk to highway traffic safety and do not moderate drivers' use of in-vehicle systems, the price may be very steep, indeed. We cannot wake up in 2004 or 2003, or even a year from now, and excuse the possibly scores or hundreds of deaths - or the injuries to thousands more - because we failed to ask the right questions and we failed to seek answers when we had the opportunity. That opportunity is now. This public meeting is one of the steps in that journey. The Internet forum that we have underway until August 11 is another.

NHTSA's consumer information will now include advice that growing evidence suggests using a wireless phone or other electronic device while driving can be distracting and drivers should not talk on the phone or use other devices while their vehicles are in motion. As effective as government might be in providing this advice, it will not be enough to affect significantly the problem or reduce the threat.

Driver distraction is a shared problem and everyone has a role in solving it. The federal government has a role, state legislatures have a role, as do safety organizations and other traditional highway safety partners. Manufacturers and service providers whose products and services create the credible and substantial risk to highway safety have a special role.

Like vehicle manufacturers and many others, the in-vehicle systems industries are responsible for understanding and assessing their products' risks to their customers and others on the highway - before they become a major threat to the public. Manufacturers and service providers are responsible for understanding the safety implication of their devices; designing features to mitigate risks; and providing effective consumer information to resolve any remaining risk.

The plethora of gadgets and gizmos that are being designed into vehicles as standard equipment may be the much bigger threat of tomorrow. In the interim, we must learn more about the risks of today's devices, including drivers' use of wireless phones in moving vehicles. Will we learn about those risks and deal with them expeditiously, or will we wait for rising numbers of deaths and injuries? That is the challenge we face today.

original here

Hi,I was looking for something that is unsafe while driving. So many people do them while driving. I know the number one thing is cell phones and it is a big problem. I can't wait till the law is pass that driver can't use their cell phone and drive.

Things I see Items unsafe...not in order

1. Putting on make-up
2. Picking their nose
3. Pop their pimples
4. Talking
5. Adjusting radio
6. Reading (map, newspaper, & etc..)
7. Looking for something.
8. Pets in car
9. Reach in back (baby or getting something)

This list keeps going on and on. I will stop now.

So is their a site that show these unsafe acts.

Thanks
JC

(...)

by Lavi Lewis

Conclusion: I am a self-hating cellphone user.

(...)

Perhaps it's the narcissism that cellphones construct. it starts with the assumption that doing business takes absolute precedence over everything else, like eating or driving or chatting with a neighbour. But Cellphone Guy takes that feeling and runs with it, and all of a sudden the callback from the dog-sitter makes him the centre of the world, certain that any annoyance he causes is swept away in the tide of his obvious importance.

No other technology allows you to be elsewhere so casually while in the company of others. Cellphone Guy does more than just erode the line between the public and the private. He's continually making a statement on his surroundings, blind to his effect on others, until everyone around him feels subtly rebuffed.

The truth is that Cellphone Guy isn't any more important or busy or focused than the rest of us. He's just a modern-day overgrown teenager who's figured out how to leave the house while remaining in his bedroom, like John Milton's Satan, who carried hell with him everywhere he went.

(...)

Don't get me wrong. As much as I hate Cellphone guy, I love my cellphone. There's nothing more satisfying than buying movie tickets while stuck in traffic. Or getting hit with a good idea in an elevator and being able to share it with someone across town before the doors open at the concourse level...

(...)

I'm by no means suggesting a Luddite-like return to an earlier time. Rather, we need the maturity to be at ease with the technology. and we should know when to send Cellphone Guy back to the corner of his room for a little time out.

I'm calling for a new sense of digital decorum. Consider it the blinking light on your spiritual message indicator. Welcome to your new mobility. You have two messages. First message: Love your cellphone. To replay this message, press one. Next message: Tame your inner cellphone guy. Never delete this message from your mailbox.

found it here

Driver distraction can manifest itself in several ways (Brown, 1994). A general withdrawal of attention manifests itself in both degraded vehicle control and degraded object and event detection. The putative mechanisms behind this are eyelid closure (in the case of driver fatigue) or eye glances away from the road scene (in the case of visual inattention). A second, and more insidious, type of distraction is what is termed the selective withdrawal of attention. In this type of distraction, vehicle control (e.g., lane keeping, speed maintenance) remains largely unaffected but object and event detection is degraded. The putative mechanism behind this is attention to thoughts and might be indicated by open-loop rather than closed-loop visual scanning, restricted visual sampling of mirrors and the road scene, empty field myopia (e.g., fixating too close), and selective filtering of information based on expectations rather than the actual situation.

These categories of driver distraction suggest different types of measures and scenarios for evaluation of their presence during device use. For example, measurement of lane keeping performance represents an example of general withdrawal of attention but says nothing about the selective withdrawal of attention that might be associated with a device that perhaps does not require a visual resource, e.g., a voice-recognition system.

There is also a type of distraction effect which I term biomechanical interference. This refers to body shifts out of the neutral seated position, e.g., when reaching for a cellular telephone or leaning over to see or manipulate a device. That this may be important is indicated by a recent report from the Japan that indicated the preponderance of cellular telephone-related crashes were associated with receiving calls and reaching for the cell phone (National Police Agency of Japan, 1998). Similarly, the hand(s) occupied and off the steering wheel might degrade the driver’s ability to execute maneuvers. These types of manual loads might involve, e.g., operating a hand-held remote for a route guidance system, a hand-held cellular telephone, eating, drinking, lighting a cigarette, etc. These are the types of biomechanical interference effects that a thorough safety evaluation should also be prepared to address.

Device Demand Measures

Except perhaps in retrospect, safety cannot be measured directly (Dingus, 1997). Indirect measures which are used to measure safety-relevant distraction effects can be put into several categories (Tijerina, Kiger, Rockwell, and Wierwille, 1996). Driver eye glance behavior measures are taken primarily because of the importance of vision in driving. Glance durations, glance frequency, and scanning patterns are part of this set of measures. Driver-vehicle performance measures are also popular because of their prima facie safety relevance. Lane keeping, speed maintenance, car following performance, and driver reaction times to objects and events are common measures from this class. Driver control actions such as steering.3 wheel inputs, accelerator modulations, gear shifting, brake pedal applications, and hand-off-wheel time all have been or can be used to make inferences about the distraction level a driver is under during a trial. Subjective assessments of driver workload and device design are also sometimes used. Finally, measures of the in-vehicle task such as task completion time have been used or are being proposed as a index of the distraction potential of a device (Green, 1998). It is interesting to note that a measure such as the number of lane exceedences during device use is not considered prima facie safety-relevant by everyone.

For example, some argue that if there is no one nearby, if the lane exceedence is small or of short duration, if the lane exceedence reflects the driver’s strategy for reducing workload during concurrent task execution....there is no safety implication at all. This is an intriguing line of reasoning. On the one hand, it honors the wisdom of the driver to generally make good choices. On the other hand, it flies in the face of accident statistics that indicate drivers by and large get into trouble precisely when they think everything is fine, i.e., in daytime, dry pavement, moderate traffic density situations (Wiacek and Najm, 1999). At present, it seems ill-advised to run a comparative study of different devices or tasks, find that one generates substantially more lane exceedences, yet declare such results irrelevant unless there happened to be a near miss. Tijerina (1996) pointed out that the chaotic nature of crash occurrence may be taken to imply that new technology that taken the driver’s eyes off the road or attention away from the driving task produces an incremental rise the crash hazard exposure.

original article here

by Amy Wu

(...)

Cell phones have become part of the urban landscape, but the behavioral battles rage on. Some businesses and public places have devised ways to deal with the phenomenon. But cell phone rage may very well become the social controversy of the next decade.

(...)

Dr. Joseph Miller, a social psychologist who teaches at the New School of Social Research in Manhattan, views the cell phone as an annoying object of post-modernism.

"It's a way of minimizing the importance of the group," Miller said. "It's ego-enhancing at the expense of others. [Cell phone users are] telling people around them, 'You don’t matter, and I must be very important,' and it forces people into [an] awkward sense of participation."

(...)

At least one group, the Solid Gold Chart Busters, has become vigilant in the matter. Another couple of renegades goes so far as to dress up as cell phones, grab the objects from unwitting public users, then videotapes the antics and puts them up on their Web site

Travel writer Lois Reamy, disturbed by the increased rudeness of phone-talkers, thinks cell phone manufacturers should distribute a little etiquette book with each phone.

(...)

The day when cell phone rage becomes a daily news story may not be far away.

In Paris, model Laetitia Casta recently got a dose of tear gas in her face after a cab driver had enough of the incessant ringing of her cell phone from the back seat.

(...)

To discourage rampant talking on cell phones, the MTA installed pay phones on the trains. However, the MTA has received some angry letters from commuters who have chastised fellow commuters for disturbing their peace.

(...)

original here

By Randy Dotinga HealthSCOUT Reporter

MONDAY, July 24 (HealthSCOUT) -- Don't be so fast to hang up your car phone. A new study suggests that the hazards of driving while talking on a cellular phone aren't as bad as you might think.

"The risks of using a cell phone in a car are real, but they're smaller than other risks in life," says Karen Lissy, director of the Program on Motor Vehicles and Public Health at the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis.

Lissy is the principal author of a study released today that analyzes the dangers of cell phone use on the road. The study, funded by AT&T Wireless, a cell phone company, follows last week's government hearing on the phoning-while-driving danger.

(...)

Ninety-four million Americans, or about 38 percent of the population, now have cell phone service, and surveys have shown that 80 percent to 90 percent of them use the devices while driving.

The Harvard study found that cell phone use is risky to drivers, other motorists and pedestrians. However, while the level of risk is not entirely clear, Lissy says it is not very high.

The study estimates that a driver talking on a cell phone has a 6-in-1-million chance of dying in an accident each year. That compares with a 31-in-1-million chance for a person who drives drunk.

The study also points out that U.S. traffic fatalities continue to decline, even as cell phone use grew 17-fold from 1990-1998.

(...)

Cell phones also strengthen "social networking" and increase productivity when they are used for business purposes, the study says.

When all the benefits and risks are considered, limiting cell-phone usage may not be as cost-effective as other measures, such as reducing the speed limit and installing daytime running lights, the study says.

(...)

Five small municipalities have banned routine cell-phone use while driving: Marlboro, N.J.; Brooklyn, Ohio; and Hilltown, Conshohocken and Lebanon, Pa. While numerous states have considered restrictions, none have enacted significant legislation.

Other countries, including Japan, France, Australia, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Spain and Switzerland, have restricted cell-phone usage in cars.

A Gallup Poll says about two-thirds of Americans support outlawing cell-phone use on the road. Half of those surveyed would ban them in restaurants, too.

(...)

A 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that talking on a mobile phone while driving quadruples the risk of an accident — a rate similar to impairment caused by intoxication.

Some lawmakers say a rush to pass new laws may not be the best answer. Technology is moving too quickly. In a couple of years, people may simply consider it irresponsible to use a car phone without a headset and a built-in system that dials numbers by voice command.

While all 50 U.S. states have laws covering reckless driving, only half have laws against inattentive driving, according to NHTSA. The safety agency released a survey showing that a quarter of the 6.3 million vehicle crashes each year in the United States involves some form of driver distraction or inattention. More sophisticated cars and efforts by drivers to use their time on the road more productively had seen some vehicles come to resemble home offices.

If we conservatively assume that the risk was only doubled, then 6 to 12 percent of the 699 collisions in the study by Redelmeier and Tibshirani were attributable to telephone use. If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000, and the average risk of a collision in those cars is the same as in other vehicles, then between 0.6 percent and 1.2 percent of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use. This would amount to a cost to society of at least $2 billion to $4 billion per year in the United States.

Laws against using hand-held telephones while driving exist in Brazil, Israel, Switzerland, and two Australian states and have been debated in several other jurisdictions. Advocates can cite both simulations and real driving experiments showing that telephone conversations involving mental tasks slowed reaction times by half a second or more. Placing a call was found to be no more distracting than tuning the car radio or engaging in an intense conversation, but it made steering more imprecise (more than doubled the amplitude of steering-wheel movements) in city traffic, especially by users of hand-held telephones.

According to the survey 32% of drivers are reading and writing while on the road, 29% are talking on a cell phone, 17% are combing hair, 16% are fighting with another passenger, 10% are putting on makeup and 3% are putting in eye drops or contact lenses. 20% are so busy they admit to steering with their thighs. The most common activities were tuning the radio (62%), eating (57%) and turning around to speak to someone in the car (56%).

In one of the most startling findings, the survey revealed that activities many drivers would consider innocuous were potentially just as dangerous as those usually considered irresponsible. While breaking up a fight between children in the car and racing with another car were both done by 12% of those surveyed, more drivers say they caused or nearly caused an accident by separating their kids than they did by racing another car (26% vs. 21%).

Distracted Drivers: Should Cell Phones be Outlawed?

Aired July 18, 2000 CNN.com

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(...)

COSSACK: Barry, it seems to me that in your ordinance -- and I read it this morning -- that what you have done is outlaw the use of a handheld cell phone, per se. In other words, if anybody is driving through your township and speaking on a handheld cell phone, they are violating the law without any proof that they're driving recklessly. In other words, you've said that you're talking on the phone, you're driving recklessly.

DENKENSON: That's absolutely correct. It's a primary offense, and we feel it's a distraction and we don't want to wait for an accident to occur. We hope that this will help in preventing those kinds of accidents, Roger.

COSSACK: Well, why did you then make an exception for people to be able to speak on the telephone or speak on a cellular phone that's not handheld? In other words, these kind that are either built into the dashboard or some other way, that's not a violation of your law.

DENKENSON: Well, in a perfect world, I think I would probably want to ban the use of all cell phones. But we don't live in a perfect world and I think that this is just a good first step in an effort to try and get legislation enacted, particularly in my home state of New Jersey where legislation is pending in the legislature in committee and lies dormant. And you need a first step to get started. And maybe down the road, either the cell phone industry will come up with better phones that will be safer for drivers to use or we will ban the use of cell phones entirely.

COSSACK: Barry, I think what your objection is -- and, you know, correct me if I'm wrong -- is what you're saying is, look, we don't want people driving in our township, at least, while they are distracted, while they're doing -- while they're thinking about something else. It seems to me that by putting that exception in, what you're saying is, you can still speak on the phone, which means that you may be thinking about something else, but your hands are on the wheel. What about the radio? What about eating in the car? What about feeding your child in the car or looking over your shoulder? I mean, aren't those -- don't those present the same problems?

DENKENSON: I get that question asked very frequently. There are other distractions, but the fact remains that the hard data that you referred to, the "New England Journal of Medicine" study, has indicated that the use of a handheld cell phone while driving increases the risk of an accident by at least four times. There isn't any other hard data, or there have not been any studies which have been done in relation to other kinds of distractions. I believe the federal government has some hearings this morning which are investigating other distractions. But until we get some hard data on other distractions, it's been proven that the use of handheld cell phones are a significant distraction and increase the risk of injury as a result of automobile accidents.

COSSACK: I guess, Barry, the questioning that I'm having for you is this. I mean, it's -- and I recognize what you're trying to do, but look: If you and I are sitting in a car and I'm driving and I'm talking to you and we're having a conversation, something as innocuous as that, it's clear that I am not concentrating 100 percent on my driving if I'm talking with you. Can you ban that? I mean, can you start arresting people for that?

DENKENSON: No, I don't think so, and I wouldn't want to. When I introduced this ordinance at our meeting a couple of weeks ago, I said that I was not interested in being intrusive. But the fact remains that the government has a right and a responsibility to enact laws or ordinances where there is a risk of injury as a result of particular kinds of conduct. Examples of that are drunk driving laws and seat belt laws in New Jersey.

So, in this particular instance, the study has shown that this kind of behavior, this particular kind of behavior, the use of a handheld cell phone, is a significant risk of injury. And so, therefore, I think we have to -- we need to enact legislation, we've done that, to regulate this kind of conduct.

July 19, 2000
Agency Says High-Tech Driver Distraction a Threat

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Drivers operating electronic devices such as cellular phones and navigation systems pose a real safety threat, a government regulator said.

The rising number of devices, which now include fax machines, e-mail systems and entertainment centers, may account for an increasing number of crashes, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said.

(...).

But industry representatives said the answer was not to ban the devices but to make them safer, noting that a similar debate accompanied the introduction of radios in cars in the 1930s.

(...)

Americans are driving more than ever, and efforts by drivers to use their time on the road more productively has seen some vehicles come to resemble home offices.

NHTSA said it found 44 percent of drivers have phones in their vehicles or carry a cellular phone while driving, 7 percent have e-mail access and 3 percent have fax capabilities.

Research by NHTSA and the American Automobile Association shows that while equipment activated by voice commands has a safety advantage, there is still a danger in focusing on a conversation with the device.

(...)

While all 50 U.S. states have laws covering reckless driving, only half have laws against inattentive driving, according to NHTSA.

(...)

Some countries use a mixture of legislation and recommendation, but are not consistent about the difference in hands-free and hand-held phone use. For example, in Italy only hands-free phones are allowed by law during driving. At the same time, however, the use of equipment that restricts the hearing senses (which presumably includes all types of mobile phones) is prohibited. The same situation exists in Spain, whereas in Portugal, Denmark, and Hungary only hand-held use of mobile phones is prohibited by law (Oei, 1998; United Nations, 1998). Outside Europe, a hand-held prohibition exists in Israel, Malaysia and some states of the U.S.A. (Oei, 1998). Germany, France, and Sweden are examples of countries in which no rules or jurisprudence are used to limit the usage of mobile phones during driving (Becker et al., 1995; Oei, 1998; Petica, 1993)..

Nevertheless, it is recommended in Finland and the UK to use hands-free phones only (Oei, 1998). The situation is confused and changing continually. Only recently, The Netherlands (June 2000)) have jurisprudence on using handheld mobiles during driving. A driver has been found guilty causing an accident because she was having a phone conversation. It is likely that many other countries will develop case law in this way even if legislation does not exist.

Re: Americans ARE LOUSY drivers 7:54PM PDT, Oct 9, 2000

Very true....I live in a major city, and I see very few drivers using basic driving skills such as directionals when changing lanes, inattentive driving, not looking over the shoulder. I am a FAST driver, I talk on my cell phone, I drink coffee or a soda.....and I do all these things only when it's appropriate to do so. I've never had a fender bender or accident.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: CELL PHONE DRIVING 11:42AM PDT, Oct 6, 2000

We will never get rid of the "gee, look at me talking on my cellphone while driving--aren't I important?" mentality. Self importance seems to be the latest status symbol. Hopefully, it will fade away, once the novelty wears off.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Enforce Traffic Laws.......... 10:19PM PDT, Oct 4, 2000

"If you wanted to save a whole lot of lives...put a govenor on every automobile that would prohibit speed above 50 MPH !!"

I believe that's gonna kill more people than it'll save, I can see it now, John drives behind a trailer on a two lane road with 45 mph speed limit.The trailer goes 40, so John tries to pass, but while he tries to accelerate his car, whoops, it won't go over 50mph.

Actually I believe that some distractions are worse.For instance if I drink 3 beers I am legally drunk in this state, yet, there's absolutely no feel of beeing drunk(and don't any of you tell me"Ahh you just think you're not drunk, blah blah blah)Actually I start losing my reflexes around after 6 beers, which are still better than the reflexes of some 90 YO grandma driving 20 miles an hour in the left lane on the highway.There are some problems however to just outlaw cellular or other distractions,first for the cellulars, if they ban cell phones, I can almost guarantee you, you'll have hundreds of drivers making mad dashes toward the side of the road to answer their phones, that can be worse than actually the talking itsef,besides generally it's not the talking itself endangering the driving, is the fact that the driver also tries to take notes on what he's talking about. Second: where will it stop?Again after 3-4 beers I have better reflexes than if I didn't sleep for 30 hours, or if I took a cold medicine that made me a bit drowsy, will we have big brother watching us 24 hours to make sure we have slept before we're driving?I don't think I like that.

Not to be the devil advocate, or not saying that you are one of those, but it's also amazing how some people would rather die than let someone change lanes in front of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: CELL PHONE DRIVING 3:30PM PDT, Oct 3, 2000

I think that distractions in general - cell phones and otherwise - are one of the leading causes of car wrecks. When you're driving, your one and only priority should be just that: DRIVING. Hang up the phone, don't turn away from the road to make eye contact with a passenger, put the book down, and focus on keeping the car where it should be.

There is no time when talking to a passenger, making a phone call, reading a book, or disciplining a child is more important than staying alive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Not my fault driving 12:25PM PDT, Oct 2, 2000

I agree that curtesy are needed. I have 30 years with a midwest highway department. After watching driving habits so that highways can be designed safer, I discovered it always the highway's fault. i.e. "I coundn't read the sign", "I HAD to drive on the wrong side of the road to miss the pothole", "I didn't see him coming", etc.

The reason a person ran off the road to into another vehicle simply "is NOT MY fault".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Rushing is the problem 10:52AM PDT, Oct 2, 2000

I also get a sense of enjoyment in watching someone rush rush rush only to see them 10 or 15 minutes later pulled over by a cop or in an accident. Naturally, I don't want to see anyone hurt, but I see a number of single car accidents here in WI that I don't feel too guilty about.

Just yesterday I was cruising along with traffic on I94. Both lanes were full up with the right lane moving at about 75mph and the left lane at about 85mph.

But this wasn't fast enough for a guy in his early 20s. He was driving a beatup old brown Pontiac 6000. I first saw him doing about 95mph on the right shoulder. And when I saw him go past me, it was just in time to see him hit a muffler lying on the shoulder. Somehow he didn't lose control and kept on going.

About ten minutes later, I drove by an accident scene involving him. I didn't see any other cars involved, but he had obviously rolled his car. Not wanting to rubberneck, I didn't take the time to see if he was ok, but my guess would be no, as he probably got ejected (I saw no seatbelt when he whisize="3ed by me earlier).

I almost felt guilty for not calling the state police when I saw him busize="3 by the first time but I don't think they could have gotten to him by the time he rolled his car. Stupid fella...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Bad drivers, bad roads 10:15PM PDT, Oct 1, 2000

Good points there...European roads (and drinking water too, for that matter) are definitely better than those in the U.S. I even remember some really good roads in Malaysia (sure...no frost...but then they get 100 inches of rain a year too--that takes some toll on the roads). Admittedly, most roads in developing countries are pretty crappy (even if they're paved). Of course, in developing countries, the main negative factor is the imbalance of driver skill (and vehicle performance), something seen less in the US and even further less yet in Europe.

Actually, while American drivers have become much more aggressive in the past 5-10 years, there are drivers in many countries far more aggressive than here. Take Ecuador as an example (I was there last December)--on curvy 2 lane roads (in spots which would have a double yellow line for no passing in the US), I have seen not only cars blindly passing trucks, but also a THIRD car passing the car passing the truck, also blindly (all within a total of 2 lanes)! Also--the honking--you hear more honks on a typical street in Quito in a minute than you probably hear all day in a typical US city! I rented a car there that stalled once (Quito is at 9300 feet above sea level--not good for the poorly tuned-up car I rented), and it was in the middle of an intersection (and the light turned red)--and probably 10 or 15 cars were honking at me at the same time, until 15 seconds later when I was able to start the car again and proceed forward.

People also honk at probably 20 times the frequency in Tijuana versus San Diego (much more yet at the northbound border wait).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nintendo Generation 7:41PM PDT, Oct 1, 2000

It seems as if some of these vehicles passing me at 80 or 90 on the freeways are imagining that they are playing a computer car race game. I think that for their sakes they had better come back to reality as they may not get a second chance after a wreck.....nor will the innocent 'faceless' occupants in the other cars. I have a 16 year old daughter taking drivers ed. She will be driving the residential streets in our neighborhood (with an adult in the front seat) for a very long time. After a teen learns the rules of the road and basic driving skills, it is up to the parents to see that they master these (with an adult in the car) and show serious responsibility before allowing their child to drive alone. I cannot understand how parents can let their child drive alone 1, 2 or even 3 months after receiving a permit. If it takes my daughter a year to prove responsibility and good driving skills then so be it. Thats my job as a mother, and my responsibility to society.

DONALD A. REDELMEIER, M.D., AND ROBERT J. TIBSHIRANI, PH.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case-crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.

Methods We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records.

Results

A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P,0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had ad- vantages in the aftermath of an event.

Conclusions

The use of cellular telephones in mo- tor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, how- ever, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.

Volume 336 Number 7 ? 453 The New England Journal of Medicine ©Copyright, 1997, by the Massachusetts Medical Society VOLUME 336 FEBRUARY 13, 1997 NUMBER 7

An Article from the April 1999 State Legislatures Magazine

(...)

In automobiles, wireless telephones allow millions of people to conduct business, stay in touch with loved ones, call for assistance, report emergencies, convey information about hazardous road conditions, and report aggressive or drunk drivers.

(...)

In New Jersey, lawmakers are considering legislation that would prohibit drivers from operating a telephone in a motor vehicle that is in motion. Proposed in response to a fatal hit-and-run accident involving a cell phone driver, the New Jersey bill would impose fines between $100 and $250 for violations.

(...)

A report published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) similarly concluded that cellular phone use while driving increased the risk of crash. The report cautioned, however, that any legislative actions should recognize a balance between the benefits and the negative effects of cell phone availability in motor vehicles. For example, in 1996 alone cell phone users placed 2.8 million calls for emergency assistance. In many instances, cellular phones reduced response time to automobile accidents and actually saved lives.

Wireless technology proponents argue that cellular phones in automobiles are no more distracting than a radio, food or a vanity mirror. As the number of car phone users rise, however, state policymakers may face greater pressure to weigh the benefits against the potential dangers.

More than 60 million people in the United States subscribe to wireless telephone services and an estimated 80 million people will own wireless telephones by 2000. Surveys indicate that 85 percent of wireless phone owners use their cellular telephones while driving.

All states already make reckless or careless driving illegal. Few states, however, specifically regulate wireless technology in vehicles.

In Florida, cellular telephone use is permitted in an automobile as long as it provides sound through one ear and allows surrounding sound to be heard through the other ear.

In Massachusetts, car phones are permitted as long as drivers keep one hand on the steering wheel at all times. California requires rental cars with cellular phones to have written instructions for safe operation. Oklahoma and Minnesota require police to include information about cellular telephones in accident reports.

Since 1995, at least 18 states have introduced measures to regulate car phones. Legislators have proposed outright bans of all cell phones in motor vehicles, requirements for hands-free devices, restrictions on phone call length, prohibition of phone solicitation and improved data collection.

If passed, the New Jersey bill would be the first in the nation to prohibit all drivers from operating a telephone in a motor vehicle that is in motion.

(...)

All Cell Phones Can Compromise Safe Driving" No Author. NSC Construction Section Newsletter, Itasca, IL 60143. November/December 1995, pp. 2-3.