Two new studies indicate that talking on the phone while driving does not translate into more accidents in the real world.
Studies from Carnegie Mellon University and the London School of Economics (full text of study) as well as a separate analysis of different data by The University of Colorado and RAND Corporation both indicate that real world data indicates that talking is not the problem.
A third study, by Virginia Tech published in the New England Journal of Medicine, used in-car and exterior video cameras on 100 cars, and also found that talking on the phone wasn't a risk factor, but dialling was. (Uniquely, this study could also evaluate "near accidents" because they had video.)
In the CMU/LSE study, the researchers explain (quoted in the Daily Mail):
"Using a cellphone while driving may be distracting, but it does not lead to higher crash risk in the setting we examined".
"While our findings may strike many as counter-intuitive, our results are precise enough to statistically call into question the effects typically found in the academic literature. Our study differs from most prior work in that it leverages a naturally occurring experiment in a real-world context."
The Virginia study did evaluate texting, neither of the other projects did. And even these results are surprising. The odds ratio of accidents attributable to different driver distractions is listed in this table. Dialling is a far greater risk than is texting. But risks are dramatically worse for novice drivers. Experienced driver handle distraction far better. For both groups, actually talking on the phone had an odds ratio of less than one (safer than not talking), perhaps because talking prevents other risky behaviour.
Taken together these results suggest Hands-Free + Voice Dialling might actually make us all safer without having to ban phone use while driving.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday July 20 2014, @11:18AM
I am not a statistician (IANAS?) but 100 seems like a small sample size to be drawing meaningful conclusions about something like accident risk. So many of these sort of studies (involving social or political issues) seem to have tiny sample sizes. I can understand it's cheaper, quicker and more convenient for the research time, but is it good science?
A study of 3000 drivers might get my attention.
Frosty piss?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 20 2014, @12:14PM
I simply do NOT put any stock in this "study".
Alright, on a good day, when traffic isn't much of a problem, the weather is good, visibility is good - the average person can talk on his phone safely.
Add in any number of factors, such as an inexperienced driver, intoxication, extra heavy traffic, or just a bunch of other fools distracted driving - and your distraction can easily cost your life.
Doesn't matter how good a multi-tasker you really are, behind the wheel is NOT the place to practice your talent.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by starcraftsicko on Sunday July 20 2014, @04:34PM
Neat idea. In practice, nearly all people will multitask.
They fiddle with the radio. They eat breakfast and lunch that they got from the drive-through. They read. They look at the map or the written directions. They look at the blue line on their GPS. They shave or put on makeup. They check their mirrors. They check out the accident on the other side of the street. They check out the miniskirt on the sidewalk. They talk to the passengers. They yell at the kids in the backseat. They talk on the phone. They try to stare down the tailgater. They text. They complain to passengers or people on the phone about any and all of the above.
Speaking just for myself, I don't find talking on the phone to be more distracting than driving someplace with my wife in the passenger seat (complaining about my driving, fiddling with the radio, pointing out that we're lost because I didn't use the GPS, handing me the phone because I have to explain whatever to whoever, telling me to hurry up because we're late but to miss all the bumps because she has to fix her damn makeup, and elbowing me if she thinks I looked at that miniskirt).
When the government is ready to ban all distractions while driving, I'll support them. I'd love to see what happens to _them_ when they tell my wife to shut up and let me drive.
Until then, stay out of it.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Sunday July 20 2014, @05:46PM
Very bad logic. If there are all those distractions going on whilst driving then there's even more reason not to add mobile phones to the mix, not less.
(That is unless these studies are right. I'm undecided.)
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 20 2014, @07:18PM
I guess that makes me a very, very unusual person. I've never shaved while driving. Don't text or talk on the phone. I do talk to passengers, but when things get tense, my selective hearing just turns the passengers off. I focus on my driving.
Of course, I'm a motorcycle rider as well as an auto driver, and a truck driver. On the bike especially, you stay FOCUSED, or you die. In a truck, I sometimes fumbled with the CB radio, or a cup of coffee. And, believe me, I have dropped both when the situation warranted.
I suspect that those people who don't have a one track mind like my own are incapable of focusing on driving the way I do. When I'm driving, I DO NOT argue with the wife - I just let her natter away, and pay her no mind at all. Which suits her, because she thinks she has won the argument that makes no sense anyway.
(Score: 1) by dpp on Thursday July 24 2014, @01:56AM
While I agree with many/most points you are making, I don't understand what about the post (you're replying to) that you disagree with.
As I read it it's saying - "don't multi-task, bad idea" and doubts that talking on phone is a good form of multi-tasking.
You've given a long list of multi-tasking activities people do - are you saying those things are better to do?
Re: "distractions while driving"
I don't know that laws where you live, but don't many North Americans states/provinces have laws against "distracted driving".
So if you're doing many of those things you're mentioning and it's determined by a law enforcement officer that it has affected your driving to the level of danger, you can be charged with "distracted driving"?
Re: laws against "x" while driving
Although that wasn't the point of the original post, as I read it. Personally, I don't believe we need many individual laws for for every instance of "distracted driving" activity. That's up to an officer to charge and evidence to convince judge you're guilty ( video of you swerving/speeding-up/down repeatedly/etc? ).
Re: distracted driving
Contrary to what people say/believe - humans are NOT good multi-taskers. Particularly as age.
Great documentary (PBS) called "The Distracted Mind" which covers how poorly humans multi-task and the challenges that it creates.
(Score: 1) by Gavster on Monday July 21 2014, @02:26AM
Man, it's a good thing we have your enumeration of the factors that are theorized to affect driving performance! These guys were wasting a ton of time on a controlled study to quantify the effects, and it would have been a disaster if other people were to read their paper and be inspired to do further work when you've already got it all worked out.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by N3Roaster on Sunday July 20 2014, @01:30PM
Anecdotes aren't data, but the other day I got to practice my defensive driving skills on the way home from work as a driver stopped at the stop sign and then didn't bother to look both ways to make sure it was safe before advancing into the intersection. Had there been more traffic behind me I'm not convinced I would have been able to avoid an accident. The oblivious driver? Yeah, she was on a cell phone.
Typica - Free software for coffee roasting professionals. [typica.us]
(Score: 1) by danomac on Sunday July 20 2014, @02:45PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20 2014, @07:27PM
Your contention is that your passenger continued speaking multiple sentences because they were oblivious to the fact that you "did evasive action?"
I find that hard to believe. Either that, or your definition of "evasive action" is exceptionally mild.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday July 20 2014, @02:33PM
How is dialing a greater risk than texting? I don't see much a of a distinction between the two. Both involve pushing buttons on the screen, both require you to look at the screen - texting moreso, if anything - so I'm curious know why dialing is such a big danger.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 20 2014, @04:02PM
Maybe because you have to concentrate to type the numbers correctly, while with texting, most people don't care too much about spelling errors (even less so if they have autocorrect).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by starcraftsicko on Sunday July 20 2014, @04:14PM
I understood the article to mean that dialing was more dangerous than simply talking on the phone. This makes sense, especially with touch screen phones. If your cell phone has buttons, an experienced user can dial blind while still watching the road. Just like a good secretary[D[D[D[D administrative assistant can type 120wpm without looking at the keyboard.
This post was created with recycled electrons.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday July 20 2014, @04:47PM
Dialing can also mean scrolling through your phone book entries. Its all about how long it takes and how long you eyes are not on the road. If you can tell your phone to call Bob at work via voice probably even dialing risk is reduced.
Far more interesting to me is the fact that real world accident counts are not showing that simply talking is dangerous.
The Virginia study shows that talking is actually SAFER than not talking. Maybe this is because talking at least keeps your mind awake, not off in some dream world, anfd PREVENTS more dangerous distractions, like fiddling with the radio, or women checking their makeup or texting.
But all of these studies show that talking isn't the problem. Even hand held talking.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Nuke on Sunday July 20 2014, @08:06PM
I don't understand how talking can be much of a problem. If it is, then we should be building cars with the driver sealed off from talking to any passengers.
Clearly though, unless it is hands-free and voice dialed, the phone will occupy [at least] one of your hands, and when dialing it will occupy your eyes too. Not good for driving.
As for talking being "safer than not talking", that depends on your personality and your circumstances. I used to make a regular, lone, long journey in the small-hours and would talk to myselk to keep awake, and having someone to talk to would have helped; otherwise another person talking is a distraction, for me anyway; I am not a talkative type and find talking a bit stressful to be honest. Maybe people drive safer anyway when they have a passenger (talking or not) because they don't want to give the impression they are a road-rager, but with passenger they are more likely to be talking as it happens.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday July 20 2014, @08:27PM
I think an additional reason talking (hand held or hands free) comes out being better than not talking (and to be fair, it only did that in the Virginia study) is because people (even novice drivers) just naturally don't do that stuff in stressful driving situations, (high density, high speed high complexity.
People aren't all idiots. And when you look at the number of items in that last link that experienced drivers actually show a less-than-one odds-ratio you see a number of activities that just didn't have any risk exposure, or are actually safer than not doing them. This says to me people just don't dick around with with the HVAC controls while trying to negotiate an urban interchange or lane change on the freeway where crashes often happen.
The Safer Than measurements occured in a long running study of different drivers in specially equipped cars, (dash cams and exterior cameras that show what happens around them as well as inside the car). There were enough such drivers that they probably accounted for all types of personalities. Even if you don't like talking, you are not any more likely to get in an accident when doing so.
(Meaning that to the extent there were crashes or near crashes, these activities were negatively associated with the crash.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 20 2014, @07:34PM
> I understood the article to mean that dialing was more dangerous than simply talking on the phone.
No, that is not it at all. It isn't even an article, it is just a table of odds.
Odds for inexperienced drivers:
texting: 3.87
dialing: 8.32
It was interesting that the number of accidents for experienced drivers who were texting was too small to be statistically meaningful. Does that mean experienced drivers are smart enough not to text while driving?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Monday July 21 2014, @01:59AM
Yes, it means exactly that, experienced drivers simply were not in accidents (or near accidents) while texting, and they explained it in the study write-up, that experienced drivers OF THAT TIME just didn't text while driving.
As for your table of odds statement, you are close, but not exactly on.
They are tables of odds-ratios, which has its own link explaining what that means.
1) Some accidents happen when the driver is doing none of those activities. There are odds of that.
2) Then other accidents happen when the driver is doing one of those activities. There are odds for that as well.
The odds ratio is the ratio of #1 and #3, such that if the ratio was 1, the accident happened just as often whether the subject was tuning the radio or not tuning the radio.
For inexperienced drivers tuning the radio was in progress when an accident happened more often than an accident happened otherwise.
For experienced drivers tuning the radio was seldom being done when an accident happened even though accidents still happened.
One of the things these odds ration can measure is LEARNING, and in many cases experienced drivers simply learn over time that there are some times you just don't mess with the radio, because accidents or (more likely) near misses have taught them not to do that stuff.
The interesting thing is that experience evidently teaches drivers SO WELL that when they DO tune the radio, they are so careful in doing it, or choosing when to do it, that their chance of having an accident when tuning is less than their chance of getting in an accident when they are just driving along (JDA).
I guess that pretty well defines "experience".
(Score: 1) by Adamsjas on Monday July 21 2014, @02:05AM
Gurrr. I meant he odds ratio is the ratio of #1 and #2.
You probably figured that out.
Frojack linked to the Virginia study, which was fairly recently published but some of the actual research that went into this study dates from much earlier, some portions back in 2004.
Its an interesting insight into learning and and experience.