Hands-free Mobile Conversation vs Passenger Chatting - Essay Example

Is Having a Hands Free Mobile Conversation More or Less Distracting Than Chatting to a Passenger in the Car? Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction The number of car crashes as well as accidents has been overwhelming since the invention of mobile phones (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). While manufacturers factored in the effects of hand-held mobile phones and risk on the roads and thus developed hands-free devices, there is still a concern with their use when driving. People love mobile phones and carry it along with them as they undergo their daily activities driving inclusive. There has been a heavy debate that has drawn the interest of policy makers and researchers as well as law enforcement agencies. From a layman’s point of view the two actions are more or less alike (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). This is not the case either as the controlling factor here is the cognitive ability of the brain to handle each. Most people have argued that talking to the passenger as well as having a conversation with a hands free mobile phone has the same risk levels to the driver and the passengers (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). However, recent studies have indicated that the risk is higher when having a hands free conversation than when chatting with a passenger This paper seeks to find out whether or not having a hands free mobile conversation is more or less likely distract the driver compared to chatting with a passenger. Hands Free Vs. Conversation with a Passenger Hands free mobile conversation unlike hand held mobile phone involves the use of mobile phone while not holding it on the hands (Adams, 2014). When driving, one requires high levels of attention. Attention refers to a cognitive as well as behavioral process where an individual selectively concentrates on a distinct piece of information keeping at bay all the other perceivable information (Stevenson, 2010). Distraction on the other hand refers to anything that has the ability to shift the attention of someone from one action to the other and is normally agitating to the mind and emotions as well. Simply put, when attention is divided one ends up being distracted (Gaspar et al., 2014). The performance of the driver is reduced when using a hands free mobile phone (Gaspar et al., 2014). Studies have indicated that the attention of the driver during such circumstances is reduced to a point where the hands free mobile conversation itself is a distraction to the driver. There has been a common argument that accepting hands-free mobile telephone conversation impairs driving capabilities just the same way as conversation with the passenger. However, this is not the case because of a number of reasons (Gaspar et al., 2014). First off, the nature of the two conversations differs in that there are two different modes involved. Mobile conversation is very intense and direct compared to chatting that is casual in nature (Gaspar et al., 2014). This means that high levels of attention and thus cognitive abilities must be attached to hands-free mobile phone conversation (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). Second, passenger-driver conversation can easily be modified to suit the situation (Stevenson, 2010). This is because both participants are in the same conditions and are therefore able to judge visually, and thus suspend the conversation if need arises (Hartzell, 2012). This is not the case with hands-free mobile conversation as the participants have to accord mush attention to the conversation while at the same time concentrate on the road (Hartzell, 2012). The moment a driver engages in a hands-free mobile conversation all their attention is shifted to the conversation (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). The drivers become less attentive, make gap measurements, swerve off their lanes, and look at the vehicles behind them and also the surroundings of the road (Adams, 2014). As such, the drivers end up being disconnected to the traffic conditions. On the contrary, passengers are likely to alert the driver when they sense that the driver is not paying attention (Gaspar et al., 2014). At times when the passenger is also an experienced driver, they are likely to halt the talk so that the traffic rules are adhered to by the driver and initiate them when the conditions are suitable for conversation (Hartzell, 2012). But when the conversation in both scenarios needs in depth concentration, the effects could be the same as there will be a shift of attention (Hartzell, 2012). Even in-car conversation requires attention in that the non-verbal cues also count and face to face conversation may cause distraction to the driver (Hartzell, 2012). A good case is where the passenger is behind the driver and the driver cringes to see their reaction or facial expression (Stevenson, 2010). When the two cases involve emotional conversations, they are likely to elicit the same emotional response such that the driver is distracted (Stevenson, 2010). However, because the driver and the other participant are not in the same place as is the case of in-car conversation, the response may cause high levels of distraction (Adams, 2014). As such, both cases present distraction, with in-car conversation posing fewer risks compared to hands-free communication. Meta-analysis, case-cross over, and epidemiological studies indicate that there is more of cognitive workload when having a conversation over a hands-free mobile device than in-car conversation (National Safety Council, 2012). The brain shifts its focus to the person on the other end thus distracting the driver (Gaspar et al., 2014). Answering the phone slows down the reaction time as well as lowers the response time of the drivers and thus they are highly likely to cause crashes (Stevenson, 2010). The reaction time in this case refers to the attention resources and processing of information (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). On the other hand, movement time that is also a function of reaction time refers to the activation of muscles (Hartzell, 2012). The drivers are therefore least reactive to imperative events thus reducing the performance of the driver (National Safety Council, 2012). This is evident in both, when the driver is in either forms of conversation they are alert to the information over the phone other than the road and are likely to crash. However, there is a high risk of crashing when on a hands-free mobile conversation compared to chatting with a passenger (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). Drivers on phone often miss the small signals such as billboards, banners, and traffic signs because their attention is somewhere (National Safety Council, 2012). Drivers chatting with the passengers are likely to note the traffic signs and act proactively. Research has indicated that when the driver and the passenger are conversing, the dyad cooperate in observing the situation and thus the performance of the driver (Cornell University, 2015). The driver is this case is more situational aware and is able to take the necessary precautions (National Safety Council, 2012). A good example is when the driver breaks in traffic that is moving. Here the passenger is able to inform the driver to take necessary actions. On the other hand, when on phone, the driver will concentrate only on the vehicles ahead of them and thus their levels of alertness are affected. Hands-free mobile conversations cause inattention blindness where the driver becomes insensitive to vision (Cornell University, 2015). The drivers will be looking but not exactly seeing the road scene. Much of the incoming information is sent to the working memory and thus the drivers are unable to act on the information that is filtered from the memory (Cornell University, 2015). Consequently, this form of cognitive distraction causes the drivers to be inattentive and respond slowly (National Safety Council, 2012). Additionally, when chatting with a passenger the driver is less likely to be disconnected from realities. On the other hand, when on the hands-free phone, the driver is disconnected from realities and is more concerned with decoding the information rather than paying attention to details on the road. These facts are supported by various researches by different independent bodies indicating truly that the two have contribution to distraction (National Safety Council, 2012). However, as with the case of hands-free conversation, the levels of distraction are high as indicated by large number of accidents recorded annually. On the other hand, however much a distraction chatting with the passenger is the danger it poses on the attention of the driver is nearly negligible but still counts (National Safety Council, 2012). The latter happens so because passengers and the driver are in one environment. Conclusion There is a connection between the distraction and conversation whether be it hands-free mobile conversation or the casual talk between the driver and the passenger. The only difference comes in the mode and the risk levels that each poses. As evident in the paper, a driver with a passenger is likely to perform better above a driver on hands-free mobile conversation. Among the issues that propagate this are slow response time and increased reaction time, inattention blindness, and lack of concentration; all which are forms of distraction. While the two forms of conversation are similar in terms of cognitive workload, the environment in which each is propagated differs and thus the effect on drivers. Greater disconnection to reality and cognitive distraction is connected with hands-free conversation albeit the message or information that is being passed. When the attention of the driver is divided, they pay little attention to detail such as traffic signs, the road conditions and the weather conditions altogether. It then follows that such drivers are unlikely to observe general traffic rules since their movement time is also affected in the process. References Adams, J. U. (2014, February 10). Talking on a cellphone while driving is risky. But simpler distractions can also cause harm. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/talking-on-a-cellphone-while-driving-is-risky-but-simpler-distractions-can-also-cause-harm/2014/02/07/49675ce8-8cf2-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html Cornell University. (2015). The evidence on hands-free cell phone devices while driving. Retrieved from http://evidencebasedliving.human.cornell.edu/2013/06/17/the-evidence-on-hands-free-cell-phone-devices-while-driving/ Faulks, I. J., & Irwin, J. (2013, November 22). Is it time to ban hands-free mobile phones while driving?. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/is-it-time-to-ban-hands-free-mobile-phones-while-driving-20426 Gaspar, J. G., Street, W. N., Windsor, M. B., Carbonari, R., Kaczmarski, H., & Mathewson, K. E. (2014). Providing views of driving scene to drivers’ conversation partners mitigates cell-phone-related distraction. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2136-2146. Hartzell, D. (2012, February 23). Driver Cell Phone use more Dangerous than Talking to Passenger. Retrieved from http://articles.mcall.com/2012-02-23/news/mc-cellphone-driving-passenger-talk-20120223_1_hands-free-distraction-cellphone-chatter National Safety Council. (2012). Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free cell phones is risky behavior. Retrieved from http://www.nsc.org/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Cognitive-Distraction-White-Paper.pdf Stevenson, M. (2010, July 21). Can you drive safely and talk on a hands-free mobile phone? - Health & Wellbeing. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2010/07/21/2960092.htm Read More

This means that high levels of attention and thus cognitive abilities must be attached to hands-free mobile phone conversation (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). Second, passenger-driver conversation can easily be modified to suit the situation (Stevenson, 2010). This is because both participants are in the same conditions and are therefore able to judge visually, and thus suspend the conversation if need arises (Hartzell, 2012). This is not the case with hands-free mobile conversation as the participants have to accord mush attention to the conversation while at the same time concentrate on the road (Hartzell, 2012).

The moment a driver engages in a hands-free mobile conversation all their attention is shifted to the conversation (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). The drivers become less attentive, make gap measurements, swerve off their lanes, and look at the vehicles behind them and also the surroundings of the road (Adams, 2014). As such, the drivers end up being disconnected to the traffic conditions. On the contrary, passengers are likely to alert the driver when they sense that the driver is not paying attention (Gaspar et al., 2014). At times when the passenger is also an experienced driver, they are likely to halt the talk so that the traffic rules are adhered to by the driver and initiate them when the conditions are suitable for conversation (Hartzell, 2012).

But when the conversation in both scenarios needs in depth concentration, the effects could be the same as there will be a shift of attention (Hartzell, 2012). Even in-car conversation requires attention in that the non-verbal cues also count and face to face conversation may cause distraction to the driver (Hartzell, 2012). A good case is where the passenger is behind the driver and the driver cringes to see their reaction or facial expression (Stevenson, 2010). When the two cases involve emotional conversations, they are likely to elicit the same emotional response such that the driver is distracted (Stevenson, 2010).

However, because the driver and the other participant are not in the same place as is the case of in-car conversation, the response may cause high levels of distraction (Adams, 2014). As such, both cases present distraction, with in-car conversation posing fewer risks compared to hands-free communication. Meta-analysis, case-cross over, and epidemiological studies indicate that there is more of cognitive workload when having a conversation over a hands-free mobile device than in-car conversation (National Safety Council, 2012).

The brain shifts its focus to the person on the other end thus distracting the driver (Gaspar et al., 2014). Answering the phone slows down the reaction time as well as lowers the response time of the drivers and thus they are highly likely to cause crashes (Stevenson, 2010). The reaction time in this case refers to the attention resources and processing of information (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). On the other hand, movement time that is also a function of reaction time refers to the activation of muscles (Hartzell, 2012).

The drivers are therefore least reactive to imperative events thus reducing the performance of the driver (National Safety Council, 2012). This is evident in both, when the driver is in either forms of conversation they are alert to the information over the phone other than the road and are likely to crash. However, there is a high risk of crashing when on a hands-free mobile conversation compared to chatting with a passenger (Faulks & Irwin, 2013). Drivers on phone often miss the small signals such as billboards, banners, and traffic signs because their attention is somewhere (National Safety Council, 2012).

Drivers chatting with the passengers are likely to note the traffic signs and act proactively. Research has indicated that when the driver and the passenger are conversing, the dyad cooperate in observing the situation and thus the performance of the driver (Cornell University, 2015). The driver is this case is more situational aware and is able to take the necessary precautions (National Safety Council, 2012).

Read More