Cellular Phone Usage while Driving - Essay Example

Cellular Phone Usage while Driving: Exploring Driver Inattention August 29, 2006 Table of Contents Cellular Phone and Driving-The Statistics 3 Understanding Driver Inattention 6 Challenges of Driver Inattention 8 Conclusion 10 Annotated Bibliography 12 References 14 Driving distraction has been a focus of study since the early1900's when researchers examined the 'hypnotic effect' of windshield wipers (Curry 2002). The concept of safety and 'paying attention' then is not a new concept, it has been a focus of research since the use of vehicles began. In the multi-media age, people use cell phones and personal hand held computers to stay connected to work, friends and family while they are away from the home and office. David Curry (p 30 2003) notes "the issue that must be addressed before the cellular 'problem' is targeted by legislations is not whether cell phone use in a vehicle distracts the driver. The real issue is whether such use in significantly more distracting than other tasks that the public as a whole currently regard as 'acceptable.'" The following evidence will explore previous research on accidents that can be attributed to cellular phone usage while operating a motor vehicle, followed by claims supporting or disparaging that cellular phone usage is more distracting-and therefore more susceptible to legislation-than common tasks, such as putting on makeup, talking to passengers, and changing the radio station. Cellular Phone and Driving-The Statistics Driving is a highly complex skill that requires the continual integration of interdependent perceptual, motor, and cognitive processes (Salvucci & Macuga, 2001). In a study examining three thousand drivers, half of which used cell phones while driving and half of which did not, researchers used a logistic regression model to examine age, relative cell phone usage, accident exposure and alcohol-related incidences to compare the contributing factors of police-reported collisions involving the users and "nonusers" in the sample (Wilson et. al 2003). The findings showed that drivers observed using cell phones had a higher risk of an at-fault crash than did the "nonusers," with a higher proportion of rear-end collisions, although there was no apparent effect on "inattention" violations (Wilson et al 2003). A study published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) revealed that approximately 25-30 percent of the injuries caused by car crashes were due to driver distraction (Utter, 2001 cited by Tseng, Nguyen, Liebowitz, & Agresti, 2005). Differences between drivers who used cell phones and nonusers in unsafe driving behaviors and attitudes were also examined, and target groups for intervention efforts against talking on a cell phone while driving are suggested. With in-vehicle use of cell phones rapidly increasing, the safety of young drivers, who represent 14% of licensed drivers but 26% of drivers involved in fatal crashes, may be disproportionately threatened (Seo, and Torabi 2004). The authors used a questionnaire to examine the association between in-vehicle cell-phone use and accidents or near-accidents among 1,291 conveniently recruited college students in 4 states (Seo, and Torabi 2004). Of the 1,185 respondents who were drivers, 87% had a cell phone, and 86% of the cell-phone owners reported talking while driving at least occasionally, and 762 reported accidents or near-accidents, 21% involved at least 1 of the drivers talking while driving states (Seo, and Torabi 2004). Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses showed that the frequency, not the duration, of drivers talking while driving was related to experiencing accidents or near-accidents (Seo, and Torabi 2004). Research reiterates that the use of cellular phones while driving has been established as the major cause of driver inattention. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that use of cell phones while driving caused 330,000 moderate to severe injuries and approximately 2,600 deaths each year (Sundeen, 2003 cited by Tseng et al., 2005). In an earlier study, Brookhuis, de Vries, & de Waard (1991) found that drivers while engaged on the cell phone demonstrated decreased lane deviations (cited by Horrey & Wickens, 2004). Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) found that cellular telephone use is more common in urban areas with Tulsa and Oklahoma counties accounting for 60% of cellular telephone in use crashes in 1993 and 51% in 1994 (as cited on the police crash report). Among, the 77 counties in Oklahoma phone use crashes were reported in 32 counties in both 1993 and 1994. Their study revealed that younger drivers had significantly higher risk of collision than the older drivers. Hands-free units were not any safer than the hand-held units were. Investigations conducted in 1997 by the Japan Safe Driving Centre showed that hand-held cellular telephone (HHS) use while driving significantly affected the drivers' reaction times, scanning ability and lane-keeping performance (Tokunaga, Shimojo, Hagiwara, Kagaya, & Uchida, n.d.). Esbjrnsson and Juhlin (n.d.), cite that crash data analysis suggests that it is the conversation that affects driving more than handling the phone. Another study conducted on the driver inattention in relation to cellular telephone use focused on the effects of conversation mode and split-attention communication training on driving performance (Hunton and Rose 2005). The study is based on an experiment where drivers with and without communication training (pilots vs. nonpilots) completed a simulated driving course while involved in one of three conversation modes: no conversation, conversation with passenger, or conversation on a hands-free cellular telephone (Hunton and Rose 2005). Results indicate that cellular telephone conversations consume more attention and interfere more with driving than passenger conversations (Hunton and Rose 2005). Cell phone conversations lack the nonverbal cues available during close-contact conversations and conversation participants expend significant cognitive resources to compensate for the lack of such cues (Hunton and Rose 2005). Therefore, cellular phone usage requires more attention and neurological processing than a conversation with a person in the driver's line of sight. Understanding Driver Inattention There are then several factors contributing to the 'driver inattention.' While cell phones may be hands-free, they do still require an amount of physical control, such as dialing the number or simply answering the call. Secondly, the lack of visual interaction normally found in a non-cellular conversation, such as with a passenger, requires the auditory system to over-compensate this process loss. The following claims focus on the causes and effect definition of driver inattention. Road accidents are a large problem that must be addressed by all. To further investigate what causes driver inattention, Lansdown, Brook-Carter and Kersloot (2002) examined in-vehicle distractions and the subsequent consequences. Participants were presented with a primary task, representing some of the visual and manual aspects of driving, and three secondary tasks (visual, auditory, and visual and auditory stimuli), representing some of the aspects of in-vehicle system operation (Lansdown, Brook-Carter and Kersloot 2002). The priority (high/low) that participants applied to the task was also considered. Lane exceedence (vehicle out of lane) and lane deviation (tracking error) were found to increase with the introduction of secondary tasks (Lansdown, Brook-Carter and Kersloot 2002). Overall mental workload and anger and frustration were reported as being higher when conducting both primary and secondary tasks, as opposed to solely a primary task (Lansdown, Brook-Carter and Kersloot 2002). Differences between the impact of the three secondary tasks on these factors were not observed, where previous findings suggest that in situations of information conflict, participants experience equal task disruption regardless of the sensory channel of the secondary task if the quantity of information presented is carefully controlled. Resource theories would suggest that overloading the visual channel would result in performance decrements (Lansdown, Brook-Carter and Kersloot 2002). Therefore, the more secondary tasks added to the primary task of driving, the increase in distraction grows. Visual distractions had a higher rating than auditory, and the combination of visual and auditory had the highest effect on driver inattention. There are many sources of drivers' distractions that have been associated with increased road accidents but since the introduction of cellular phones as a means of communication, there has been increased inattention while driving due to cellular phone usage. Driver distraction can be classified into two types (internal distraction and external stimuli) and four categories - visual, cognitive, auditory, and biomechanical distraction. Of these, auditory distraction is associated with cell phone usage (Tseng et al., 2005). This is more likely in case of hand-held phones but other studies demonstrate that primary cause of inattention is cognitive, which implies that even hands-free phones are equally dangerous (Horrey & Wickens). Several studies have been conducted and on an average, it has been found that drivers talking on the mobile phones while driving have higher risks in car accidents compared to non-mobile phone users (Laberge-Nadeau et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2003; Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997; Strayer and Drews, 2004 cited Tseng et al.). Use of mobile phones while driving increases the risk of collisions by four times, which is also confirmed by Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997). In addition, frequent mobile phone users had relatively higher risk than rare-users. Making calls or talking on the cell phone is definitely more risky than listening to the radio or talking to other passengers while driving. This is primarily due to the combination of visual and auditory distractions, and, possibly, increase frustration and stress as noted by Lansdown, Brook-Carter and Kersloot (2002). Challenges of Driver Inattention It would seem that a simple legislation regarding driver inattention would counter-act the effect of cellular-phone usage. After all, many states have laws that prevent a motor vehicle operator from using headphones to listen to music, which supports the auditory distraction claims. Aside from the challenge of defining the specifics of auditory distraction in cellular phone use, there is also an economic factor to consider. One study by Cohen and Graham (2003) explored evidence that cell phone use while driving increases the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle crash has led policymakers to consider prohibitions on this practice. The study states that restrictions would reduce property loss, injuries, and fatalities, consumers would lose the convenience of using these devices while driving (Cohen and Graham 2003). The analysis conducted in the study quantified the risks and benefits associated with cell phone use while driving as being, from a purely economical standpoint, complicated by substantial uncertainty in the estimates of several important inputs, including the extent to which cell phone use increases a driver's risk of being involved in a crash, the amount of time drivers spend using cell phones compared with the incremental value to users of being able to make calls while driving (Cohen and Graham 2003).. Two prominent studies that have investigated cell phone use while driving have concluded that the practice should not be banned (Cohen and Graham 2003). One finds that the benefits of calls made while driving substantially exceed their costs while the other finds that other interventions could reduce motor vehicle injuries and fatalities (measured in terms of quality adjusted life years) at a lower cost (Cohen and Graham 2003).. Another issue is that cell phone use imposes increased (involuntary) risks on other roadway users (Cohen and Graham 2003). The cost-effectiveness estimate for cell phone use while driving moves in the other direction, finding that the cost per quality adjusted life year increases modestly compared to the previous estimate, concluding that both estimates are very uncertain (Cohen and Graham 2003). There is not, therefore, a simple conclusion that cellular phone usage increases risks. According to Redelmeier, D.A., and Tibshirani, R.J. (1997), the current road use regulations on road driving are insufficient to combat the problem. Some bans only prohibit hand held device's while other bans hands- free devices for certain types of motorists like teenagers or school bus drivers. These regulations are not enough to reduce accidents caused by cellular usage because these drivers whether using a hands-free kit on their cellular phone, still lose concentration while driving. They did not find any safety advantage of the hands-free over the hand-held device. Besides, cell phones allow drivers to make emergency calls. Hence, Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997), suggest that it is important to have a better understanding of the nature and magnitude of any road safety problem rather than restricting cell phone usage while operating a motor vehicle. An in-vehicle information system or a driver assistance system could reduce road accidents. Banning their usage may only be a partial solution. Banning of hands-free phones will not affect the safety as conversation affects driving rather than handling of the phone. Conclusion Despite claims by the researchers and scientists that the studies have drawbacks and limitations, it is amply demonstrated by the studies across the world that there is a link between usage of mobile phones and driving. Even the use of hands-free sets do not add to the safety level, because studies have proved that it is communication that matters rather than holding a phone in hand. Cognitive distraction plays a greater role in attention than the auditory factor. Talking to a co-passenger in the car may not be as distractive as the conversation over the cell phone. Besides, poor driving imposes a risk on others. Drivers using a cell phone while driving are distinctly at a high risk for motor vehicle collision. While there are claims of the advantages of carrying a cell phone while driving, the government regulation in each country should at least impose a total ban on using it while driving. No matter how brief the calls are, distraction or inattention even for a brief second can be hazardous. A total ban on usage of cell phones while driving is necessary to avoid road accidents, deaths, disabilities, and property damage related to vehicle collisions. Not all communication tasks interfere with driving (Vollrath & Totzke, n.d.). Visual information processing definitely decreases driving performance. While everyone knows that many accidents are caused by cellular phone usage while driving, finding accurate assessment of its scope has been a challenging task. For one, many minor accidents go unreported and the proper documentation that these are caused due to cell phone usage would be difficult to prove. Secondly, it is impossible to prevent the driver from talking to passengers while driving. In which case, it would be equally impossible to ban the use of hands-free cell phones while driving. Thirdly, the hazard associated with use of cell phone while driving is the same as driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (Redelmeier & Tibshirani). Evidence suggests that the auditory overcompensation of the nueral processing as a secondary task increases the risks associated with driver inattention, but studies must also begin to quantify the amount of inattention in cellular phone usage compared to 'normal' distractions. It would be suggested that further study in this area be conducted because, as shown in the previous paragraphs, there is a large discrepancy in the number of accidents caused by cellular phone usage and the specific reasons these accidents were caused-that is to say, little research exists regarding the mitigating factors in driver inattention. Annotated Bibliography Violanti, J M (1997) Cellular Phones and Traffic Accidents. Public Health (Nature); Nov97, Vol. 111 Issue 6, p423, 6p. States that we should address the issue of banning the cell phone usage while driving because drivers are likely to lose concentration, thereby causing an accident. Other sources also confirm the issue of banning cell phone usage while operating motor vehicle, as they are known to cause road accidents. Alm, H., & Nilsson, L. (1995): The Effects of a Mobile Telephone Task on Driver Behavior in a Car Following Situation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 27 5), pp. 707-715. States that the drivers inattention is the number one cause of road accidents and also that driving while using the cell phone, has the same risk as one driving while drunk. The source is similar to the other sources used in this paper as it highlights the consequences of using cellular phone while driving. It advocates for total ban of using cellular phone while operating a motor vehicle. All research and studies have limitations as not all drivers consent to participate. Secondly, people vary in their driving behaviour day to day. Iudice, A.; Bonanni, E.; Gelli, A.; Frittelli, C.; Iudice, G.; Cignoni, F.; Ghicopulos, I. And Murri, L. (2005) Effects of prolonged wakefulness combined with alcohol and hands-free cell phone divided attention tasks on simulated driving. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical & Experimental; Mar2005, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p125-132, 8p, 1 chart. Examined that simulated driving ability was assessed following administration of alcohol, at an estimated blood level of 0.05%, and combined prolonged wakefulness, while participants were undertaking divided attention tasks over a hands-free mobile phone. As expected, subjective sleepiness was highly correlated with both sleep restriction and alcohol consumption. References Seo, Dong-Chul and Torabi, Mohammad R. (2004) The Impact of In-Vehicle Cell-Phone Use on Accidents or Near-Accidents Among College Students. Journal of American College Health; Nov/Dec2004, Vol. 53 Issue 3, p101-107, 7p, 3 charts, 1 graph. Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Esbjrnsson, M. & Juhlin, O. (2003), Combining mobile phone conversations and driving studying a mundane activity in its naturalistic setting. In (ed. Patten, C.J.D) Vetenskaplig rapportsamling. Publikation 2003:92. Vgverket, Borlnge. [PDF] - Report The Mobility Studio, Interactive Institute. Retrieved August 28, 2006 from http://www.tii.se/mobility/Files/OfficeDr_REPORT_030128.pdf Horrey, W. J. & Wickens, C.D. (2004), The Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving: A Meta-Analytic Approach. Retrieved August 28, 2006 from www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/TechReport/04-02.pdf Redelmeier, D.A. & Tibshirani, R.J. (1997): Association Between Cellular Telephones Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336 (2), pp. 453-458 Salvucci, D.D. & Macuga, K.L. (2001), Predicting the Effects of Cellular-Phone Dialing on Driver Performance, Cognitive Systems Research, acr.psy.cmu.edu/papers/306/dds_ klm_2001_a.pdf > 19 Aug 2006 Tokunaga, R.A. Shimojo, A. Hagiwara, T. Kagaya, S. & Uchida, K (2001), Effects of Cellular Telephone Use while driving based on Objective and Subjective Mental Workload Assessment. Published for CERI of Hokkadou, Driving Assesment Colorado. Retrieved August 28, 2006 from http://ppc.uiowa.edu/driving-assessment/2001/Summaries/PostSession1/Tokunaga_roberto_abraham.pdf#search=%22Effects%20of%20Cellular%20Telephone%20Use%20while%20driving%20based%20on%20Objective%20and%20Subjective%20Mental%20Workload%20Assessment%22 Tseng, W. Nguyen, H. Liebowitz, J. & Agresti, W (2005), Distractions and motor vehicle accidents, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Volume 105 Number 9 2005 pp. 1188-1205 Vollrath, M. & Totzke, I. (n.d), In-Vehicle Communication Driving: An attempt to overcome their Interference, Centre for Traffic Sciences, 19 Aug 2006. Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Curry, David G. (2002) In-Vehicle Cell Phones: Fatal Distraction Professional Safety; Mar2002, Vol. 47 Issue 3, p28, 6p, 2 graphs, 1bw Academic Search Premier Wilson, Jean; Ming Fang; Wiggins, Sandra and Cooper, Peter (2003) Collision and Violation Involvement of Drivers Who Use Cellular Telephones. Traffic Injury Prevention; Mar2003, Vol. 4 Issue 1, p45-52, 8p Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Hunton, James and Rose, Jacob M. (2005) Cellular Telephones and Driving Performance: The Effects of Attentional Demands on Motor Vehicle Crash Risk. Risk Analysis: An International Journal; Aug2005, Vol. 25 Issue 4, p855-866, 12p, 4 charts, 2 graphs Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Lansdown, Terry C.; Brook-Carter, Nikki and Kersloot, Tanita (2002) Primary Task Disruption from Multiple In-Vehicle Systems. ITS Journal - Intelligent Transportation Systems Journal; Apr2002, Vol. 7 Issue 2, p151-168, 18p Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Wiese, Emily E. and Lee, John D. (2004) Auditory alerts for in-vehicle information systems: The effects of temporal conflict and sound parameters on driver attitudes and performance. Ergonomics; 7/15/2004, Vol. 47 Issue 9, p965-986, 22p Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Cohen, Joshua T. and Graham, John D. (2003) A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the Use of Cell Phones While Driving. Risk Analysis: An International Journal; Feb2003, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p5-17, 13p Retrieved August 28, 2006 from EBSCO-Host Research Database. Read More