Cell Phone Users Drive like Older People

[MOTOhooligan]

HA! I couldn't have put it any better myself... this morning I was stuck behind an old person on a cell phone... how does that rate?

Cell Phone Users Drive like Older People
If you have been stuck in traffic behind a motorist yakking on a cellular phone, a new University of Utah study will sound familiar: When young motorists talk on cell phones, they drive like elderly people, moving and reacting more slowly and increasing their risk of accidents.

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone. It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers," says David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study.

Frank Drews, as assistant professor of psychology and study co-author, adds: "If you want to act old really fast, then talk on a cell phone while driving."

The new study by Strayer and Drews was published in this winter's issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The study found that when 18- to 25-year-olds were placed in a driving simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who were not using a cell phone.

The elderly drivers, meanwhile, became even slower to react to brake lights when they spoke on a cell phone. But the good news for elderly drivers was that their driving skills did not become as bad as had been predicted by earlier research showing that older people performing multiple tasks suffer additional impairment due to aging.

The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones ? regardless of whether they were young or old ? were 18% slower in hitting their brakes than drivers who didn't use cell phones. The drivers chatting on cell phones also had a 12% greater following distance ? an effort to compensate for paying less attention to road conditions ? and took 17% longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.

In addition, "there was also a twofold increase in the number of [simulated] rear-end collisions when drivers were conversing on cell phones," the study says.

Strayer and his colleagues are widely known for their 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as hand-held cell phones, and for a 2003 study showing that the reason is "inattention blindness," in which motorists can look directly at road conditions but not really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. The research has called into question legislative efforts by various states to ban motorists from using handheld but not hands-free cell phones.

The same researchers also gained publicity for another study, which was presented at a scientific meeting in 2003, showing that motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood _______ levels exceeding 0.08.

The new study included older adults (ages 65 to 74, with average age 70) and 20 younger adults (ages 18 to 25, with average age 20). All of them had normal vision and a valid driver's license. Preliminary tests showed older people were slower to process information, as was expected.

Then the psychologists had the young and older study participants "drive" in a high-tech driving simulator. Participants in the simulator used dashboard instruments, steering wheel and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes and traffic, including a "pace car" that intermittently hit its brakes 32 times as it appeared to drive in front of study participants. If a participant failed to hit their own brakes, they eventually would rear-end the pace car.

Each participant drove four simulated 10-mile freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone with a research assistant during half the trips and driving without talking the other half. Only hands-free phones were used to eliminate any possible distraction from manipulating a hand-held cell phone.

Thirty times each second, the simulator measured the participants' driving speed, following distance and ? if applicable ? how long it took them to hit the brakes and how long it took them to regain speed. Those factors "have been shown to affect the likelihood and severity of rear-end collisions," Strayer and Drews wrote.

Six participants in the new study rear-ended the pace car while driving the simulator. Four accidents (one older adult and three younger adults) happened while the participants talked on cell phones. Two did not (one older adult and one younger adult).

There were too few collisions for statistical analysis. But Strayer notes that twice as many accidents happened to motorists on cell phones compared with motorists who were not talking. And young drivers were in collisions twice as often as elderly drivers.

"Older drivers were slightly less likely to get into accidents than younger drivers," Strayer says. "Why? They tend to have a greater following distance. Their reactions are impaired, but they are driving so cautiously they were less likely to smash into somebody," although in real life, "older drivers are significantly more likely to be rear-ended" because of their slow speed.

When Strayer and Drews combined the new accident data with simulated driving accidents in their earlier studies, they counted 12 rear-end collisions among 121 study participants. Ten of the collisions happened when motorists were talking on cell phones.

That is statistically significant and provides "clear evidence that drivers using a cell phone were more likely to be involved in a collision than when these same drivers were not using a cell phone," the psychologists wrote.

[ZaphodB]

I'm pretty young and I don't drive like an old person while I'm on the phone, but I realise I'm in the minority here... I hate it when you see traffic moving abnormally slowly and then you get up to the front of the blockage and it's some stupid idiot yapping on his or her cell phone.

If it's so important you have to pay more attention to it than to the road, pull off to the side. (This advice not valid in New England, New York or New Jersey, where the breakdown lane is the 'express passing lane'.)

...post #2000!

[WiggyFife]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB

I'm pretty young and I don't drive like an old person while I'm on the phone, but I realise I'm in the minority here... I hate it when you see traffic moving abnormally slowly and then you get up to the front of the blockage and it's some stupid idiot yapping on his or her cell phone.

If it's so important you have to pay more attention to it than to the road, pull off to the side. (This advice not valid in New England, New York or New Jersey, where the breakdown lane is the 'express passing lane'.)

...post #2000!

congrats on 2000, Zaphod!!! That belongs in the RZ!!! j/k... LOL!!!

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB

If it's so important you have to pay more attention to it than to the road, pull off to the side. (This advice not valid in New England, New York or New Jersey, where the breakdown lane is the 'express passing lane'.)

...post #2000!

I do agree some people can't drive without doing something else like chatting on the phone. And I do agree with this statment 100%, I know of a couple of people killed in the NY/NJ area for doing this. I thought the Right shoulder was a new High speed lane, Guess I better get back to the Left shoulder again.

[wgray8231]

I was almost hit on my way home from work this week. Person was on his cell phone when he decided to change lanes without signaling or looking. The only problem was that I was where he wanted to go. If you're looking for a thrill, you should come drive in Nashville rush hour traffic. It's death-defying!

[Gamer03]

Originally Posted by ZaphodB

I'm pretty young and I don't drive like an old person while I'm on the phone, but I realise I'm in the minority here... I hate it when you see traffic moving abnormally slowly and then you get up to the front of the blockage and it's some stupid idiot yapping on his or her cell phone.

If it's so important you have to pay more attention to it than to the road, pull off to the side. (This advice not valid in New England, New York or New Jersey, where the breakdown lane is the 'express passing lane'.)

...post #2000!

That's true......I see a lot people talking on their cell phones both in my town and on I-75.

Congratulations on #2000 Zaphod.

[Gamer03]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

I was almost hit on my way home from work this week. Person was on his cell phone when he decided to change lanes without signaling or looking. The only problem was that I was where he wanted to go. If you're looking for a thrill, you should come drive in Nashville rush hour traffic. It's death-defying!

Or drive on I-75 betweem Ft. Myers and Naples between 4-6:30 p.m.

Traffic is not moving in the northbound lanes.....usually a 25 mile back-up and the sounthbound lanes people are cutting each other off and passing in the break down lanes or next to the medians (in this case an area about 50 feet wide, maybe a little less) between the north and sound lanes on the shoulder of the road.....

[azcellphonejunkie]

Originally Posted by rancidhooligan

HA! I couldn't have put it any better myself... this morning I was stuck behind an old person on a cell phone... how does that rate?

Cell Phone Users Drive like Older People
If you have been stuck in traffic behind a motorist yakking on a cellular phone, a new University of Utah study will sound familiar: When young motorists talk on cell phones, they drive like elderly people, moving and reacting more slowly and increasing their risk of accidents.

"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, their reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver who is not using a cell phone. It's like instantly aging a large number of drivers," says David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study.

Frank Drews, as assistant professor of psychology and study co-author, adds: "If you want to act old really fast, then talk on a cell phone while driving."

The new study by Strayer and Drews was published in this winter's issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

The study found that when 18- to 25-year-olds were placed in a driving simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who were not using a cell phone.

The elderly drivers, meanwhile, became even slower to react to brake lights when they spoke on a cell phone. But the good news for elderly drivers was that their driving skills did not become as bad as had been predicted by earlier research showing that older people performing multiple tasks suffer additional impairment due to aging.

The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones ? regardless of whether they were young or old ? were 18% slower in hitting their brakes than drivers who didn't use cell phones. The drivers chatting on cell phones also had a 12% greater following distance ? an effort to compensate for paying less attention to road conditions ? and took 17% longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.

In addition, "there was also a twofold increase in the number of [simulated] rear-end collisions when drivers were conversing on cell phones," the study says.

Strayer and his colleagues are widely known for their 2001 study showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as hand-held cell phones, and for a 2003 study showing that the reason is "inattention blindness," in which motorists can look directly at road conditions but not really see them because they are distracted by a cell phone conversation. The research has called into question legislative efforts by various states to ban motorists from using handheld but not hands-free cell phones.

The same researchers also gained publicity for another study, which was presented at a scientific meeting in 2003, showing that motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunken drivers with blood _______ levels exceeding 0.08.

The new study included older adults (ages 65 to 74, with average age 70) and 20 younger adults (ages 18 to 25, with average age 20). All of them had normal vision and a valid driver's license. Preliminary tests showed older people were slower to process information, as was expected.

Then the psychologists had the young and older study participants "drive" in a high-tech driving simulator. Participants in the simulator used dashboard instruments, steering wheel and brake and gas pedals from a Ford Crown Victoria sedan, surrounded by three screens showing freeway scenes and traffic, including a "pace car" that intermittently hit its brakes 32 times as it appeared to drive in front of study participants. If a participant failed to hit their own brakes, they eventually would rear-end the pace car.

Each participant drove four simulated 10-mile freeway trips lasting about 10 minutes each, talking on a cell phone with a research assistant during half the trips and driving without talking the other half. Only hands-free phones were used to eliminate any possible distraction from manipulating a hand-held cell phone.

Thirty times each second, the simulator measured the participants' driving speed, following distance and ? if applicable ? how long it took them to hit the brakes and how long it took them to regain speed. Those factors "have been shown to affect the likelihood and severity of rear-end collisions," Strayer and Drews wrote.

Six participants in the new study rear-ended the pace car while driving the simulator. Four accidents (one older adult and three younger adults) happened while the participants talked on cell phones. Two did not (one older adult and one younger adult).

There were too few collisions for statistical analysis. But Strayer notes that twice as many accidents happened to motorists on cell phones compared with motorists who were not talking. And young drivers were in collisions twice as often as elderly drivers.

"Older drivers were slightly less likely to get into accidents than younger drivers," Strayer says. "Why? They tend to have a greater following distance. Their reactions are impaired, but they are driving so cautiously they were less likely to smash into somebody," although in real life, "older drivers are significantly more likely to be rear-ended" because of their slow speed.

When Strayer and Drews combined the new accident data with simulated driving accidents in their earlier studies, they counted 12 rear-end collisions among 121 study participants. Ten of the collisions happened when motorists were talking on cell phones.

That is statistically significant and provides "clear evidence that drivers using a cell phone were more likely to be involved in a collision than when these same drivers were not using a cell phone," the psychologists wrote.

I saw this yesterday and I think it is partially true. I know you can very easily get distracted if you are talking on the phone, especially if the conversation gets heated!

[wgray8231]

What I want to know is how talking on a cell w/ hands-free kit or speakerphone is any different from talking to another passenger in the car?

[Charlyee]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

What I want to know is how talking on a cell w/ hands-free kit or speakerphone is any different from talking to another passenger in the car?

Very true.

I was behind a car on my way to Chicago., whose occupants were clearly having an heated discussion/argument. The car was weaving and straddling lanes and in general making it a dangerous situation for everyone on that freeway.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by Charlyee

Very true.

I was behind a car on my way to Chicago., whose occupants were clearly having an heated discussion/argument. The car was weaving and straddling lanes and in general making it a dangerous situation for everyone on that freeway.

Lots of people have wrecks because they were talking w/ passengers (like on the phone) or changing the radio (like trying to use the phone). In the future, cars will be automated so we won't have to worry about these things.

[twopiece]

I get that with people walking on the street. Just like in their cars, they are oblivious to their surroundings.

[MOTOhooligan]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

If you're looking for a thrill, you should come drive in Nashville rush hour traffic. It's death-defying!

Actually, I'm moving to Houston soon and I'm terrified of the traffic there. In Manhattan rush hour is sort of a misnomer... it lasts about 30 minutes and it isn't that bad. Really the only "bad" traffic we get here is when K-State football has a home game. In Manhattan I have sometimes driven while talking on my cell phone. I rarely do this because I hate it and also because I drive a stick so it's pretty difficult. I would not try to do this on Kansas City and I sure as hell won't try to do it in Houston. I don't understand the people who talk on their phones in heavy traffic. Also, anyone at all who talks on their cell phone while driving in Boston has a death wish. Boston traffic is bad enough as it is. Really, they just need to make all cars Bluetooth® compatible. Now there's a solution that would make just about everybody here happy. I know I would be.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by rancidhooligan

Actually, I'm moving to Houston soon and I'm terrified of the traffic there. In Manhattan rush hour is sort of a misnomer... it lasts about 30 minutes and it isn't that bad. Really the only "bad" traffic we get here is when K-State football has a home game. In Manhattan I have sometimes driven while talking on my cell phone. I rarely do this because I hate it and also because I drive a stick so it's pretty difficult. I would not try to do this on Kansas City and I sure as hell won't try to do it in Houston. I don't understand the people who talk on their phones in heavy traffic. Also, anyone at all who talks on their cell phone while driving in Boston has a death wish. Boston traffic is bad enough as it is. Really, they just need to make all cars Bluetooth® compatible. Now there's a solution that would make just about everybody here happy. I know I would be.

... and iPod connections.

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

I was almost hit on my way home from work this week. Person was on his cell phone when he decided to change lanes without signaling or looking. The only problem was that I was where he wanted to go. If you're looking for a thrill, you should come drive in Nashville rush hour traffic. It's death-defying!

Sorry wgray8231, we got you beat in the Los Angeles area. There may be a lot of freeways, but come rush hour, they're all packed to the gills. Too many people, too many cars, and on cell phones!!!

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by lbmike212

Sorry wgray8231, we got you beat in the Los Angeles area. There may be a lot of freeways, but come rush hour, they're all packed to the gills. Too many people, too many cars, and on cell phones!!!

Does your Friday rush hour start Thursday morning like it does here?

I don't doubt LA traffic is horrid. Here, it's more like a slot machine. You never know when it will take you 20 minutes for 40 minutes to drive home 10 miles.

Being on the coast forces most everyone to live N, S, or E of downtown? Here, you can take your pick, N, E, SE, S, W, or NW. I envy one person in my department who lives in Knoxville--he works at home and comes to Nashville twice a month.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Any of you ever been to the Phoenix area? We have something like 400 people per day moving here! Most of them are from California or the Mid-West...

[MOTOhooligan]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

... and iPod connections.

I agree, although I don't know why. I don't have an iPod... nor do I have a Bluetooth® compatable handset... I guess I'm just thinking about the future, when I will have both of these things.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by rancidhooligan

I agree, although I don't know why. I don't have an iPod... nor do I have a Bluetooth® compatable handset... I guess I'm just thinking about the future, when I will have both of these things.

same here

[MOTOhooligan]

Originally Posted by azcellphonejunkie

Any of you ever been to the Phoenix area? We have something like 400 people per day moving here! Most of them are from California or the Mid-West...

I almost did move to Phoenix but it's farther away from KS than TX is... and hotter... did I mention hotter?

[Cingular GSM User]

Ok, so people talking to others (passengers), on their cell phones, chaning the radio station... all that may be a distraciton but AREN'T we forgetting....

People lighting up cigarettes (while driving) and parents turning around (while driving) to talk/yell at their children

[MOTOhooligan]

Lighting a cigarette while driving isn't hard. You push the lighter in, you put the cigarette in your mouth, the lighter clicks, you put the end of the lighter on the end of the cigarette and inhale, you put the lighter back in it's place and puff, puff, puff your way to happiness. The whole process takes about two seconds... now that I've quit smoking I think I'm actually a worse driver. I get too bent out of shape and all road ragey when I used to be all calm and whatnot.

[Andy]

There are many distractions while driving(like holding hands w/your girlfriend ). I talk on my phone all the time while driving. And although I do notice a change, it's not bad at all in my case. Europe has high fines for talking on your cell while driving, LOL, even while on your bike!!!!
Zap, Congrats on our 2000 posts!

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

Does your Friday rush hour start Thursday morning like it does here?

I don't doubt LA traffic is horrid. Here, it's more like a slot machine. You never know when it will take you 20 minutes for 40 minutes to drive home 10 miles.

Being on the coast forces most everyone to live N, S, or E of downtown? Here, you can take your pick, N, E, SE, S, W, or NW. I envy one person in my department who lives in Knoxville--he works at home and comes to Nashville twice a month.

Everyday is rush hour. How about an hour and a half to drive 10 miles. It doesn't matter what freeway you take in L.A. it's a nightmare. This is what happens when you have no metro-wide transit system. We do have MetroLink trains, but that is not an option for 95% of commuters. When they crash, as one did last week, the effect is crippling.

The other problem with L.A. is that Downtown is 10 miles inland, and there are several other "Downtowns" spread throughout the metro area, such as Century City, the Wilshire District, Westwood, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, the Inland Empire, the San Fernando Valley, and on, and on, and on. There is no "central" location in the L.A. area. L.A. is definately the blueprint for how NOT to lay out a city. Also, all of the areas of greater L.A. that make up the entire metro area comprise about 18 million people!! I'm not exagerating, and all of them are on the road at the same time!!

[Mobile Mike]

Originally Posted by azcellphonejunkie

Any of you ever been to the Phoenix area? We have something like 400 people per day moving here! Most of them are from California or the Mid-West...

Yeah, Phoenix is growing out of control, but people are still coming to SoCal as well. It seems that for as many people we seem to lose we gain back more. Greater Phoenix is huge at about 5 million people, but wait until you reach the 18 million people in Greater L.A.!

BTW, Los Angeles County alone has over 10 million people. This dubious mark was reached 2 years ago! I used to be one of them, ah but no more!

[Andy]

I've been to L.A. numerous times, and am glad to come back home to UT(even though I'd rather live out there too), but at least we only have minor traffic jams, unlike in L.A. where you have to worry to get to the airport on time, etc.

[proud2bamerican8]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

What I want to know is how talking on a cell w/ hands-free kit or speakerphone is any different from talking to another passenger in the car?

It's not. I think the study was talking about no hands free kit, i.e. traditional phone in one hand.

What about looking up a # in phone book to dial, or emailing or surfing the web for news etc on the phone? Even more distracting. If you're a Sprint user, then using Voice Command you could do those things hands free as well, and I hope you do so we don't "bump into each other." The rest of you, pull over to the side so you can TCOB and we'll pass you!

[ZaphodB]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

Does your Friday rush hour start Thursday morning like it does here?

I don't doubt LA traffic is horrid. Here, it's more like a slot machine. You never know when it will take you 20 minutes for 40 minutes to drive home 10 miles.

Being on the coast forces most everyone to live N, S, or E of downtown? Here, you can take your pick, N, E, SE, S, W, or NW. I envy one person in my department who lives in Knoxville--he works at home and comes to Nashville twice a month.

Like lbmike said, there is a downtown, but most people don't work there. Actually the fashionable places to live are all west of downtown (which is 13 miles inland from the coast). Also, unlike Nashville, you can drive 70 miles and still be in the middle of suburbs.

Rush hour (meaning that traffic is moving below 20 miles an hour) is usually from 0600 to 1000 and from 1500 to 1930 (every day, weekends too), but traffic can happen at any hour and in fact I have been stuck in a traffic jam on the 405 at 11pm on a Wednesday.

Today I worked down in Anaheim, 43 miles from my home. I left at 0645 and got to work at 0905. I left work at 1600 and got home at 1830. My normal commute of 11 miles can take anywhere from 8 minutes (at 0230 on a Tuesday, assuming no construction) to an hour and a quarter, on a rainy Thursday night. People live ridiculous distances away from their work so they can afford a house -- I have a coworker with a 104-mile commute to Perris and another that rented an apartment near work and goes home to San Luis Obispo on the weekends.

It's not better for local drives either -- when I lived in Santa Monica I remember that we would always walk to the Third Street Promenade because even walking 11 blocks was faster than driving and trying to find parking, and going to UCLA, which is just three miles away, could take an hour.

There is a metro-wide transit system, but it's always jammed full, and it's not very convenient to use, and if you have a car you don't take the bus. We don't have much in the way of subways/light rail, though they're starting to work on that.

I've lived in and driven in a LOT of places and LA has the worst traffic I've ever seen, bar-none. It's worse than London. It's worse than Rome. And it's worse than New York.

Everyone in LA uses their cell-phone to do SOMETHING on their ridiculous commutes.

[wgray8231]

Originally Posted by proud2bamerican8

It's not. I think the study was talking about no hands free kit, i.e. traditional phone in one hand.

Originally Posted by rancidhooligan

Only hands-free phones were used to eliminate any possible distraction from manipulating a hand-held cell phone.

Next time, read the article.

People also put on makeup and shave while driving. Eating can be a distraction, too.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Originally Posted by wgray8231

Next time, read the article.

People also put on makeup and shave while driving. Eating can be a distraction, too.

I've actually seen someone playing the trumpet while driving! Now that is distracting!