Drivin' and dialin'

January 28, 2003 11:45 AM

Inattention blindnesshas been documented in a study of drivers using cell phones. Back when the driving-while-yakking phenomenon first started growing, I told friends I could always tell if the driver of the car ahead of me was on a cell phone: They had a certain style of stupid driving that I couldn't quite describe but I always knew it when I saw it. Now a team of researchers has pinpointed it; they also effectively debunk "you're just as distracted talking to someone in the car"-type analogies. The question remains, now that we know what's wrong with this practice, what do we do about it?
posted by soyjoy (82 comments total)

I've noticed that I drive like shit when my girlfriend talks to me in the car. No cell phone required. What's that about?
posted by techgnollogic at 11:51 AM on January 28, 2003

I think the situation to this problem is obvious:

Have heated debates on metafilter! Look at how well it's worked for the SUV problem!
posted by chrisege at 11:52 AM on January 28, 2003

Revoke drivers licenses for anybody ever involved in an accident anywhere. Ever. Implement legislation that requires all new cars have cell-phone blocking devices. Send all stupid drivers to stupid driver school.

Or maybe just try to be more aware of your surroundings, all the time, regardless of whether or not you've got a cell phone up to your ear or kids hitting each other in the back seat or the remnants of a shitty day (week, month, life) eating away at your insides.
posted by RKB at 11:53 AM on January 28, 2003

Tests showed this kind of inattention did not affect drivers who were listening to music, to audio books or talking with a passenger in the car.

I wish they would explain the results further. I can't understand why a driver is more effected talking on a hands-free cell phone than when having a conversation with someone in the car - at least on the phone, you're not trying to make eye contact.
posted by harja at 11:55 AM on January 28, 2003

I can see a day not very far in the future when insurance companies will either refuse to underwrite drivers who own cell phones (much as Geico already does with radar detectors), or charge a hefty premium for having one.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:58 AM on January 28, 2003

"Inattention blindness"?

Euphemism for "dumbf**k on a cellphone in traffic."
posted by Shane at 11:59 AM on January 28, 2003

How about being videotaped by a person goading you into acting like a moron while driving?
posted by argybarg at 12:00 PM on January 28, 2003

The question remains, now that we know what's wrong with this practice, what do we do about it?

Drive an SUV.
posted by four panels at 12:00 PM on January 28, 2003

And harja: Someone talking to you in the car will usually pause to let you take care of a tricky bit of driving -- merging on the freeway, for instance. Not always, but usually, and often subtly they'll adjust to your physical task of driving.

A person on the other end of the phone can't do that.

And something about carrying on a conversation via that tiny earpiece is more demanding to one's concentration than talking to someone in the car.
posted by argybarg at 12:02 PM on January 28, 2003

I wish they would explain the results further. I can't understand why a driver is more effected talking on a hands-free cell phone than when having a conversation with someone in the car - at least on the phone, you're not trying to make eye contact.

but when the person you're talking to is in the car with you, they can react to the outside surroundings - while you're turned to make a point at them, they're looking ahead and say 'Oh, shit,' getting you back in the real world.
posted by notsnot at 12:04 PM on January 28, 2003

I love this quote: "It is like studies that show 90% of people think they are better-than-average drivers. Forty percent of them are wrong."

I'm not entirely sure about the math, but I think he's trying to suggest that 50% all drivers are below-average anyway. Which begs the question: now that we know that half of the people on the road are already bad drivers, what do we do about it?
posted by RKB at 12:08 PM on January 28, 2003

"now that we know that half of the people on the road are already bad drivers, what do we do about it?"

Stay out of their way?

I'd actually prefer bumper-mounted nuclear weapons, but only for me and a few of my trusted associates.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:17 PM on January 28, 2003

I hate most/some cell phone wielding drivers but I don't think anything should really be done about it. Like a lot of things there are already mechanisms and penalties in place. If you get in an accident and were using your cell phone then you should be charged with reckless driving. Insurance companies love reckless driving convictions, they have very special rates.

Basically, drive responsibly, since no amount of television ads, celebrity endorsements or statistics will influence people, hit them where they can be influenced: the wallet.
posted by substrate at 12:22 PM on January 28, 2003

>>I wish they would explain the results further. I can't understand why a driver is more effected talking on a hands-free cell phone than when having a conversation with someone in the car - at least on the phone, you're not trying to make eye contact.<<

That may be the problem. I know when I'm on the (desk) phone, to some extent I try to mentally project myself into the room where the other person is. I'm listening very intently precisely because I don't have all the visual and other cues that go into a face-to-face conversation. If you're talking with someone in the car, you can glance over at them as you check your side mirror, then get right back to the road. If they stop talking, you know it's not because the connection failed. And so on.

Plus, as others have pointed out, the person in the car with you knows what's going on and can pause when you need to focus elsewhere for a minute.
posted by kewms at 12:23 PM on January 28, 2003

I think inattention blindness is what lets your mind filter out banner ads on web pages. It's the mind's spam filter. You only see what is important to processing the primary task at hand.

Somehow cell phones flip your primary task to listening to and operating the phone. I find that I have to listen harder and talk clearer when I am, or the other party is, on a cellular. I wonder if improvements in fidelity, like piping a clearer signal through the stereo would help?

I know that I don't see many road signs when the weather requires me to drive more attentively. Phones sound terrible. cellular worse. they're very hard to attend to.
posted by putzface_dickman at 12:26 PM on January 28, 2003

"Sometimes you have to actually do the silly study that shows the obvious."

Amen to that. It seems obvious that talking on a cellphone is a bigger distraction than listening to music or talking with someone in the car. Why? Maybe a kernel of truth can be found in William Gibson's bromide that cyberspace is where you are when you're talking on the phone.

If you have talked on a cellphone while driving (as I have) and you think it didn't affect your driving performance, you're kidding yourself. This study backs up that assertion.

I ride my bike in traffic (yet another hot-button issue for MeFites!), and cellphone-using drivers scare the hell out of me. When I drive my car, I see them weaving all over the place, braking too late when traffic slows in front of them, sitting there when the light turns green.

Three years ago I spotted a woman in a car at a stop sign, crying uncontrollably and talking on a cellphone. She was crying as if her husband was telling her he was divorcing her, or as if she had just found out that her kid had been killed in an accident. And she was driving. I wonder if she killed anyone that day?
posted by Holden at 12:31 PM on January 28, 2003

putzface - I may call you putzface, mayn't I? - the banner ads thing is an interesting tangent. I couldn't decide whether to ask the question I did or to ask if people had other areas of their lives where "inattention blindness" may be operative. I find the concept fascinating, as though sensory information is coming in and held in a temporary cache for a short length of time, and then if not accessed or processed in some way, is deleted.
posted by soyjoy at 12:34 PM on January 28, 2003

i saw an english tv programme on how safe cars are now, and the false sense of security that the driver is given. this quote stood out...

"if car manufacturers mounted a 10 inch knife on the steering wheel instead of an airbag, then road deaths would drop overnight"

and you know, i kinda agree.
posted by triv at 12:34 PM on January 28, 2003

Personally, I've never said that using a cellphone is comparible to talking to a passenger.

What I do believe is that driving with one hand occupied in a manner other than driving is dangerous. This goes for drinking, eating, cell phone use and smoking. As for sex...

Seriously, I believe that the cell phone has been picked on in the same way that the internet has in connection to peadophiles. It's a certain degree of media induced panic that centres around an under-understood object. Yes, using a phone is dangerous. So is smoking while driving. Which one are you more likely to drop in your lap in an emergancy?

There is a problem, no doubt, but when will we start looking at things like general public awareness rather than sledgehammering one element and assuming that will cure everything?
posted by twine42 at 12:43 PM on January 28, 2003

"you're just as distracted talking to someone in the car"-type analogies

On the flip side, the "but someone on the phone won't stop talking to you in an accident because they can't see the 18wheeler driving at you while someone in the car with you would" family of statements are often used.

They've never met my Ex or my grandmother, obviously...
posted by twine42 at 12:48 PM on January 28, 2003

If we tell drivers they can't use their cell phones because they'll just be too distracted, then shouldn't we tell truckers it's time they give up their CBs for the same reason? Isn't a distracted big rig driver even worse than a distracted SUV driver?
posted by /\/\/\/ at 12:54 PM on January 28, 2003

I believe from personal experience that when you're on the cellphone you're somehow mentally projecting yourself to that person's location. That doesn't have to occur with a passenger in your car because you're at their location.

However, I do believe we put too much emphasis on cellphones when the truth of the matter is, I'm often off in another world while driving, thinking about work or personal stresses. Don't even talk about driving while tired or having kids in the car.
posted by PigAlien at 12:54 PM on January 28, 2003

There is a lot of research on inattention blindness. Below are some examples. Another example you may know is the aggravating test where you're asked to count a repeating the number of times the letter a appears in a sentence? Most people find that they can't find all of the "a"s they're told are there. Usually they skip the articles. I think I've seen it with i too. People skip the word "I."

1.
2.
3.
posted by putzface_dickman at 12:58 PM on January 28, 2003

I'm often off in another world while driving

Too true. Hands up anyone who can honestly say that they've never parked up outside their house and suddenly realised they can't actually remember the last 15 minutes of their drive home.

It's called disociation... at the bottom end is this, then you get the feeling of looking over your own shoulder, and right up the top end you have the Multiple Personality Disorder problem (I think it's now called DID). We all suffer from one extent or another...
posted by twine42 at 12:59 PM on January 28, 2003

How long before we start targeting video games? Ever step into your car after a few hours of aggressively driving your Porsche into guard rails, or ... umm ... gently nudging the car in front of you so it'll get out of your way? Distractions aren't the problem, then, it's too-high levels of adrenaline, and muscle memory.

There's a good future study: percentage of accidents involving people who own a driving wheel for the gaming system of choice.
posted by RKB at 1:01 PM on January 28, 2003

i saw an english tv programme on how safe cars are now, and the false sense of security that the driver is given...

Yeah, it's called risk homeostasis -- the idea that, once a driver is provided with a safety improvement, he or she will compensate for it by driving more recklessly. There's the Munich taxi driver experiment, for instance. It's a favourite of the kind of obsessives who campaign tirelessly against helmet and vehicle safety regulations. Look out for the killer seatbelts, everybody!
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:05 PM on January 28, 2003

CBs don't require the sustained attention that cell phones do. The information shared is repetitive, and broken into short clips. Cell phones require sustained attention.

The thing about not knowing what you've been doing for the last 15 minutes is a different, less dangerous psychological event. I believe it's called automatic processing. You are actually providing accuarte feedback to stimuli your brain is processing at close to optimal levels. You simply aren't aware of it. I don't recall why this works, but the the consuming nature of the phone experience, I think, flips your brain to attending to that task.
posted by putzface_dickman at 1:09 PM on January 28, 2003

>>Yes, using a phone is dangerous. So is smoking while driving. Which one are you more likely to drop in your lap in an emergancy?<<

Which is more dangerous: hanging onto your cellphone and continuing to talk during an emergency, or dropping a lit cigarette in your lap?
posted by kewms at 1:14 PM on January 28, 2003

I'd like to see two things done as regards driver licensing:
- a serious retest every five years, with mandatory remedial training if failed.
- serious jailtime for those who are responsible for an accident while impaired (drunk, stoned, cell-using, dropping coffee in their lap, whatever.)

If we demand accountability, we will get it. As long as there are no real consequences for bad driving, we'll have death on the highways.

There is a death caused by a motor vehicle crash every 12 minutes; there is a disabling injury every 14 seconds.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 1 to 33.

There were an estimated 5,800 pedestrian deaths and 90,000 injuries.

About 3 in every 10 Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related traffic accident at some time in their lives.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:20 PM on January 28, 2003

putzface_dickman - possibly, but if you ask people they could probably tell you what they had been planning to eat for dinner or to do their date when they went back for 'coffee'.

The answer is that there's lots of answers of course.

Do I take it people tend to disagree with my thoughts that a lot of the problem is physical control with only one hand?

I am willing to play my "it's the fault of smoking SUV drivers" if you want. ;)

Seriously, people who drive while smoking piss me off. They don't have control of the vehicle, and then they flick small explosive bundles of glowing embers onto the road in front of me. Just after I got my license i nearly crashed several times when seriously spooked by fag ends hitting the road at night...
posted by twine42 at 1:20 PM on January 28, 2003

continuing to talk during an emergency, or dropping a lit cigarette in your lap?

true... but if you are the type to continue talking while you have a an emergency situation, then you're probably only still in the genepool because of the warning signs telling you not to clean your teeth with Clorox...
posted by twine42 at 1:23 PM on January 28, 2003

twine, one of the findings of the linked study was that there seemed no difference in the performance of those with hands-free phones and those who were holding a phone. So, no, I don't think the one-hand aspect is as crucial as the zero-brain aspect.

And by zero-brain, I only mean you don't have your mind there with you at the time - it's off in cyberspace, as others have noted.
posted by soyjoy at 1:25 PM on January 28, 2003

"It is like studies that show 90% of people think they are better-than-average drivers. Forty percent of them are wrong."


This is a common fallacy. There's no reason why 90% of people can't be better than average at something. A small number of very bad performers can drag the average well below the median.
</nitpick>
posted by electro at 1:28 PM on January 28, 2003

Using a cell phone is more dangerous that drink driving.

Maybe. But between 1988 and 2001 there were 19 deaths in the UK attributable to using a mobile phone but 520 people died in drink drive accidents in 2001 alone.

Isn't it time to get things in perspective?
posted by twine42 at 1:34 PM on January 28, 2003

The BBC ran a story sometime this year which suggested that "driving while cellphoning" was generally more dangerous than driving drunk. Obviously, this depends on the level of intoxication of a drunk driver - I assume they determine an average level? Maybe they just assumed legal limit? (this would cast doubt on the study) Anyway, this was sobering to me.

No time to reference (dredge out of archives) right now, but it was a real study.

People say that I get inattention blindness when I drive and talk. "driving while thinking?" Breathing? Having sexual fantasies? Farting?


Oh, and "driving while eating" has been shown to be VERY hazardous. Especially in the case of soup.
posted by troutfishing at 1:35 PM on January 28, 2003

[ can I just restate that I agree using a mobile while driving is bad, but that I feel we need to chose campaigns targetted at problems that will have a significant impact. Catch the smaller problems later on. ]
posted by twine42 at 1:36 PM on January 28, 2003

yeah, but what about a "toothphone"?
posted by troutfishing at 1:36 PM on January 28, 2003

What to do about it? That's easy - Off with their ears!
posted by troutfishing at 1:46 PM on January 28, 2003

My sister told me yesterday that she was driving next to a policeman who was using a cellphone while driving. As they aproached an intersection, a car ran the light. She said the policeman took his free hand off the wheel to turn on his flashylights instead of dropping the cellphone.
posted by tolkhan at 1:55 PM on January 28, 2003

Maybe. But between 1988 and 2001 there were 19 deaths in the UK attributable to using a mobile phone but 520 people died in drink drive accidents in 2001 alone.

Key word is "attributable". If someone does not actually witness cell phone use the police have no way of attributing an accident to that cause so it doesn't get reported that way.

Accidents caused by drunk driving on the other hand have a clear chain of evidence as to the cause. Plus, the police no doubt over-report drunk driving accidents - if there's an accident and the driver was drinking that's probably presumed to be the cause.
posted by krtzmrk at 1:58 PM on January 28, 2003

twine, I dunno how it is in the UK, but here in the US it's only very recently that any states have mandated reporting of cell phone involvement on accident reports. I don't know how many do it currently, but as of five or six years ago, there wasn't even any place on the report to check that off, unless the officer wanted to handwrite a note about it, which doesn't lend itself to statistical analysis.

I had another paragraph, but deleted it on preview since krtzmrk already said it.
posted by soyjoy at 2:01 PM on January 28, 2003

I agree that it's not obviously checked by the police, but I know that more and more people are trying the "It wasn't my fault, he was using his mobile phone" argument, in which case they _do_ check your records.
posted by twine42 at 2:05 PM on January 28, 2003

Cell-phoning is to careening SUV as ______ is to ______
posted by troutfishing at 2:05 PM on January 28, 2003

[damn it, I should stop and think before I post... it would cut down my self followups...]

Even so, something like 1500 deaths compared to 19 is a massive difference, don't you think?
posted by twine42 at 2:07 PM on January 28, 2003

twine, with all due respect, DUI is a red herring. Nobody's saying, let's stop pulling over drunk drivers and instead concentrate all our energy on cell phones. There are laws and procedures in place for DUI already. And a "massive" difference between numbers that are recorded and numbers that aren't recorded (not even considering the fact for half the period in question the number of cell phones in cars was near zero) may indeed be massive, but it's a difference in kind, not a difference in quantity.
posted by soyjoy at 2:31 PM on January 28, 2003

"There are laws and procedures in place for DUI already."

And in most states there are laws regarding inattentive driving, as well.

Getting the police to enforce those laws, well, that's another story. It's much more important for them to sit by the side of the road with their radar speed guns and generate revenue for the state than to ticket drivers who are an actual hazard.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:36 PM on January 28, 2003

Using a (non hands-free) cell phone while driving has been illegal for some time here in Australia, since several studies showed the risks involved. Using CB radios while driving is also illegal, IIRC, for the same reason. Some of the current affairs-type TV programs have done tests with cell phones and showed fairly graphically that hand-held phones have a serious impact on the driver's ability to control the car and that hands-free phones have a lesser, but still significant, effect. My personal experience is that I have to concentrate a great deal more to talk to someone on the phone (hands free or not) than I do talking to them in person. The lack of visual clues is my best guess as to why.

I can see a day not very far in the future when insurance companies will either refuse to underwrite drivers who own cell phones (much as Geico already does with radar detectors), or charge a hefty premium for having one.
I cannot see that happening - they would have to charge extra for almost every driver in Australia, to start with. They could, however, start checking whether the driver was actually using the phone at the time of the accident and factor that into their claim process.

What is it with the SUV thing? Do only SUV drivers have cell phones in the US or something? Or is it that some people cannot resist having a jab at their favourite hate-object, no matter how tenuous the connection?
posted by dg at 2:42 PM on January 28, 2003

it's illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving in australia. you gotta use a handsfree device.
posted by kv at 2:45 PM on January 28, 2003

Plus, the police no doubt over-report drunk driving accidents - if there's an accident and the driver was drinking that's probably presumed to be the cause.

Why WOULDN'T it be presumed to be the cause, or at least a major contributing factor?
posted by agregoli at 2:51 PM on January 28, 2003

soyjoy - shall we agree to disagree? I agree with you that cell phone involvement may or may not be reported as such in vehicle related deaths. But I still disagree that it is anything like as life threatening a problem as DUI.

In the Uk at least, cell phones in cars aren't that rare. We had none of the problems I believe the US had with network to network calls or roaming and I personally have had a cell phone with me in the car for 5 years and my father had one way back in 88. The main rise in cell phone sales now is the under 18 market rather than the car driving market.

I'm not implying that anyone has suggested we stop hunting drink drivers. Hell, we've never really started hunting them other than with an occasional advert of a car wrapped round a tree in time for xmas. We don't have random breath tests over here, for example.

My problem is just that our media culture allows itself to be drawn by today's latest fear.

Remember, giving someone your email address will get you killed by peadophiles... *shrug*

[on preview]
agregoli - on research, red cars are more likely to be involved in crashes. In that case, ifyou are driving a red car and crash, should it automatically be your fault? If you are technically drunk, and someone drives into you, is it your fault? (not the offence, the accident)
posted by twine42 at 2:57 PM on January 28, 2003

"Why WOULDN'T it be presumed to be the cause, or at least a major contributing factor?"

Example: A person I know was driving home from a bar. He stopped at a red light and was hit from behind by another driver. The other driver was ticketed, and my friend was taken to jail for DUI after blowing a .085 on the breathalyzer. Even though he was stopped at a red light and was clearly not at fault, this accident still counted as "alcohol-related".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:59 PM on January 28, 2003

twine42, are you psychic?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:00 PM on January 28, 2003

mr_crash_davis erm... been accused of being psychotic and psychologically unstable, but never psychic...

Appart from that one time at Uni...
posted by twine42 at 3:06 PM on January 28, 2003

[ why can I not learn how to spell paedophiles? ]
posted by twine42 at 3:15 PM on January 28, 2003

Wow — smokers, SUVs, cell-phones, and drinking all in one thread! If only this one would merge with the 'obesity is good for you' thread (and if only somebody would bring kittens into it. Won't somebody think of the kittens?)

Cell phones are different than CBs because cell-phone speakers are really effing quiet. Seriously, whenever I use a cell phone (I don't have one of my own) it takes me about a minute of intense concentration and multiple repetition to understand each sentence. I will never understand how people are able to use cell phones in crowded bars, or in the middle of the street, or anywhere other than a sensory deprivation chamber. A CB, on the other hand, is quite loud and there is not the same sense of concentration. (FWIW, Lexus (and maybe others) are building phones into cars which pipe the audio through the car's stereo system and have microphones built into the dash which capture ambient sound. It would be interesting to compare accident rates for these to accident rates for standard cell-phones and standard hands-free cell-phones).
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:04 PM on January 28, 2003

Proximate cause?

A taxicab driver picked up an intoxicated passenger on a very busy Saturday night and attempted to pull out of a nightclub parking lot. It was raining hard at the time. The posted speed limit was 35 mph.

The taxidriver slowly inched forward hoping to make a left turn out of the nightclub drive. He cleared the first lane where traffic was at a standstill. He looked around the stopped cars and seeing the next lane clear he continued to pull out. At that moment a BMW pulled from the lane of stopped cars and quickly accelerated into the clear lane t-boning the taxicab with enough force to total both vehicles. Not only was the BMW driver talking on a cell phone but was also highly intoxicated. Turns out it was his 3rd DUI arrest. The BMW belonged to his girlfriend who was in the car with him. She wasn't intoxicated but wanted him to drive because it was raining.

The airbags failed in both vehicles.
posted by oh posey at 4:40 PM on January 28, 2003

on research, red cars are more likely to be involved in crashes. In that case, ifyou are driving a red car and crash, should it automatically be your fault? If you are technically drunk, and someone drives into you, is it your fault? (not the offence, the accident)

Using your terms, if you are "technically drunk" (which I take to mean you are at least over the legal limit) then the accident may not be directly your fault, but you shouldn't have been on the road, and who's to say that your faster reaction time when sober wouldn't have helped you stay out of that accident?

It is not illegal to own or drive a red car (last time I checked). It IS illegal to drive drunk.
posted by agregoli at 4:49 PM on January 28, 2003

argybarg, your reasoning for a cell phone to be more distracting to cause a wreck, right on. That too was my thought on the matter.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:58 PM on January 28, 2003

Turns out it was his 3rd DUI arrest.

In my less tolerant moments (which is to say at any time I consider that it could well have been my wife or friends in that taxi), I'd argue that this sort of thing is exactly why the cops should be allowed to execute justice independent of the courts. "Execute" being the operative word.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:19 PM on January 28, 2003

twine - sure, let's agree to disagree. Here's why: The question of whether cell phone use "is anything like as life threatening a problem as DUI" is not up for grabs; it's already been answered scientifically. Some studies say your responsiveness is impaired more by being on the phone than being drunk. The difference is only one of scale, because historically more people have been drunk than on phones. The current problem is a problem not because of faddish fearmongering, but because more idiots are using phones while driving and causing more accidents.

This is not to disparage you or your dad. Plenty of people can drive very skillfully while on the phone. But then, plenty of people can also drive very skillfully while inebriated. Yet the risk is great enough that most countries have banned driving drunk, no matter how skilled one thinks one is at it, because of the proven impairment and the odds of something somehow going wrong. My question is simply, if impairment is what the laws address, why not cell phones too? Previously this was moot because the numbers were negligible. But as records are just now beginning to be kept on this, it seems to be worth examining.

Oh, or did you mean "agree to disagree" and not respond? Boy, is my face red...
posted by soyjoy at 6:29 PM on January 28, 2003

C'mon twine42... you aren't making sense. This argument isn't some kind of fad or some media drivin' madness. It's a real problem. Suggesting otherwise is just naive. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread about how they "can tell if someone is on the phone". I know exactly what they mean... I feel the same way.

People on the phone tend to drive "in a box"... a tad slower and sluggishly, drifting. I've watched them totally botch merely merging into traffic from an entrance ramp. They go all the way until the acceleration lane ends and find themselves on the shoulder.

I can't tell you how many times I wondered "what the hell is wrong with this guy" only to find out, "Oh... the bastard is one the PHONE".

Everyone here has said "GET OFF THE FUCKIN' PHONE AND DRIVE DUMBASS". I've never said, "PUT THE CIGARETTE OUT AND TURN DAMMIT!"
posted by Witty at 6:33 PM on January 28, 2003

it's illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving in australia. you gotta use a handsfree device.

Korea too, for what it's worth. Dash-mounted microphone/ phone attachments are most common.

But the simplest solution might be just not using the damn thing while driving. Too easy! More laws required! More taxes! Legislation! Et Cetera!
posted by hama7 at 6:37 PM on January 28, 2003

'I told friends I could always tell if the driver of the car ahead of me was on a cell phone: They had a certain style of stupid driving that I couldn't quite describe but I always knew it when I saw it.

You may be being unfairly discriminative, they might have just been female.
posted by Kino at 6:38 PM on January 28, 2003

"...they might have just been female..."

Or Asian.

Ha-ha! Aren't stereotypes a riot?

'Scuse me while I drive my SUV over to the shootin' range and fire some hand-loaded ammo at all the beer cans I emptied during my lunch break.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:43 PM on January 28, 2003

Not particularily... See, i made a joke. You didn't. My post brings a smile, yours brings a frown. Nice job.
posted by Kino at 6:57 PM on January 28, 2003

That's funny, I heard about a similar study about a year ago, only that study referred to it as a case of "divided attention", which I think is a standard piece of jargon for psych people. While "inattention blindness" is new to me.
posted by lbergstr at 7:10 PM on January 28, 2003

Uh, kino, sorry to disabuse you, but your post is the one that brings a frown. A joke requires more than dragging in stereotypes and plopping 'em down. There's this crucial element called wit...
posted by soyjoy at 7:22 PM on January 28, 2003

I remember a radio spoof commercial about "Smoking and Driving is dangerous!"

You could hear a guy driving his car, then he says something like:
"hmm where's my pack of cigarettes?!"
[pause - car engine noises]
"ha! there it is, on the back seat!"
"hmmf, hmmf, almost... c'mere you... hmmf"
[tire screech sound, crash sound, broken glass sound]

Narrator's voice: "Smoking and driving can kill you!"

or something along those lines.

BTW I can ride my mountain bike and talk on my cellphone at the same time without kissing pavement (or dirt or whatever).
posted by titboy at 7:22 PM on January 28, 2003

red cars are more likely to be involved in crashes
Probably because red cars go faster.
posted by dg at 7:32 PM on January 28, 2003

*comtemplates ant-hill, thinks of poking at it with a stick*

"What is it with the SUV thing? Do only SUV drivers have cell phones in the US or something? Or is it that some people cannot resist having a jab at their favourite hate-object..." I don't hate SUV drivers at all. Far from it...my very own sister is one. But they do correlate in the US, in my experience, with careening cellphone drivers...
posted by troutfishing at 8:37 PM on January 28, 2003

The Car Talk brothers (who amuse me, even if they don't amuse everyone) have strong opinions on cell phones. Their opinions were rebutted in this Slate article. I read the article a long time ago but I vaguely remember that the article's reasoning was a little bit right and a little bit fishy. This author's other greatest hits include an economic analysis of peeling a banana.

I went to the Car Talk web site for the link above and was surprised to find so much information about driving with a cell phone. They have a small list of research available online, a table of legislation enacted or pending in different states and a sizable list of press mentions.

I think I'll have to accept my role as the guy who pops up and spreads the word of Malcolm Gladwell. He wrote an article about the history of seatbelts and airbags. It includes some interesting facts about inattention blindness.
posted by stuart_s at 11:44 PM on January 28, 2003

Oh, or did you mean "agree to disagree" and not respond? Boy, is my face red...

No, I meant both put our points once and then walk away... especially as I was bloody knackered.

red cars are more likely to be involved in crashes
Probably because red cars go faster.

Nope... They may make people *think* they go fast, but red was the most popular colour for cars for ten or fifteen years until someone decided silver looked better...
posted by twine42 at 12:39 AM on January 29, 2003

agregoli
the accident may not be directly your fault, but you shouldn't have been on the road

It IS illegal to drive drunk.


Very true. But for the sake of this can we ditch what has an hasn't been made illegal? Tobacco is legal while joints aren't. Look how that argument can go. I'm trying to look at danger, not at blame.

soyjoy
This is not to disparage you or your dad.
Oh, please do. Because I know that using a phone reduces your concentration. We also know that listening to wagner is more likely to lead to road rage than listening to most current dance music is. It's to do with comparative risks.

Right... I'm off to work. Have fun without me for a few hours...
posted by twine42 at 12:47 AM on January 29, 2003

The problem with talking on a mobile as opposed to talking to your passenger is that the conversation cannot reflect the situation that you, the driver, is in.

If you are chatting to someone in the car, the conversation will slow down or stop if you are approaching a junction, hazard or whatever. On the mobile the person on the other end has no knowledge of what you are doing, where you are etc so the conversation never changes tempo to allow you to handle what is around you.
posted by jontyjago at 1:05 AM on January 29, 2003

But they do correlate in the US, in my experience, with careening cellphone drivers...
Ah, must be a US-only phenomenon, then. I find it a little hard to believe that all (or even a statistically significant percentage of) "careening cellphone drivers" are in SUVs but, hey, you are the one on the spot.

red cars are more likely to be involved in crashes
Probably because red cars go faster. <-- this was a joke.
posted by dg at 2:53 AM on January 29, 2003

this was a joke. - sorry dg... it was half eight and I'd not had coffee yet...

I left home at ten to nine for my five minute drive to work. I arrived at twenty past nine. I spent the entire time wondering about the irony of being stuck in a jam caused by a cell phone user just to find it was because some daft tit in an SR Nova* had tried to out drive a lorry, and failed.

*Note to americans - SR Novas... a diddy Vauxhall/Opel compact that gets the 'ricer' treatment by every boy racer who can't afford a real car...
posted by twine42 at 3:44 AM on January 29, 2003

Sorry, I really didn't mean to restart an argument that I know I'll lose (at least in the MeFi world) but I had to comment... ;)

If you are chatting to someone in the car - this really does depend on the intelligence and awareness of your passenger.

About four years ago I was driving up the A10, past the gravel pits in Hertford, and had a muntjack deer run across in front of me. I hit it, lost the front end, recovered it, lost the back end, recovered it, lost the front end again and recovered it and finally came to a halt at the roadside with my heart doing more bpm than I could count (don't ask).

My passenger broke off her monologue to ask why we'd stopped. Worryingly, she was stone cold sober yet hadn't noticed the impact, the fight for control, or the rapid decelleration from 85 down to 0.

[Yes, I know the speed limit is 70, but it was 2 am...]
[Yes, I know that's no excuse...]
posted by twine42 at 3:52 AM on January 29, 2003

I don't really drive much anymore, but when I used to I would occasionally use the cellphone. (and no, I didn't have an SUV -- an old Nissan Stanza was more like it.) I'm not going to say it wasn't a distraction -- just like changing CDs, eating, etc. -- but I really tried to be prudent in how I used the cellphone. I found myself pulling over to talk (especially when I had to write stuff down) and every now and then I'd have to bark "Wait." at someone or just hang up on them. (calling them back later and blaming it on a dropped call.) The cellphone is there to serve me, not the other way around.

Interestingly enough, while not discounting the "inattention blindness" phenomenon, I think it works in reverse. When I'm on the phone at home, I'm not typically doing anything else at the time. When I'm on a cell phone (even while doing something as brain-free as walking down the sidewalk on my way to work) I find that I ramble and grasp for points and lose my train of thought more.
posted by Vidiot at 5:17 AM on January 29, 2003

Very true. But for the sake of this can we ditch what has an hasn't been made illegal? Tobacco is legal while joints aren't. Look how that argument can go. I'm trying to look at danger, not at blame.

I don't understand your point. It IS dangerous to drive drunk. Tobacco has proven dangerous as well, but in long-term health consequences, not in immediate deaths of healthy people. I'm not saying that one should be outlawed and not the other, just stating facts that have been proven. Please, everyone, think before you drink and drive.
posted by agregoli at 9:07 AM on January 29, 2003

Or, even better, think before you don't drink and drive.
posted by Kino at 1:37 PM on January 29, 2003

I think they knew what I meant.
posted by agregoli at 4:20 PM on January 29, 2003

If you control what goes on in a car, what other rights will we loose.

It starts with; no cell phone, then no talking, no combing hair, no sex & anything else that would be considered multi-tasking while driving. I'm not for people talking on their cell in the car but I realized where will it end.

I think the law as much as I really hate their control should be able to use good judgement. For instance you don't have to be legally drunk to get a DUI in the two states I lived. So if any substance is impairing your driving you are cited for it.

So if a cell phone is impairing one's driving well then pull them over, otherwise move on down the road.

Maybe you can ticket them, those on a cell as they are driving a car not a phone booth.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:23 PM on January 29, 2003