If you have a choice, would you prefer the drivers around you on the road to have chugged two beers within the last hour, or be talking on a cell phone?
Based on the results of a study recently conducted at Carnegie Mellon University, with funding from the Office of Naval Research, the answer is: take your pick and take your chances; there is very little difference.
Various studies on the affects of alcoholic consumption have established an average baseline that two beers consumed within an hour would leave a 160-pound person with a loss of some forty percent of cogitative function. At that level of loss, a driver is “1.4 times more likely to have an accident than someone who is sober.”
The Carnegie Mellon study, using brain-imaging instrumentation, documented that “listening alone reduces by 37 percent the amount of brain activity associated with driving.” A press release from the university detailed the test procedure and the results.
“The 29 study volunteers used a driving simulator while inside an MRI brain scanner. They steered a car along a virtual winding road at a fixed, challenging speed, either while they were undisturbed, or while they were deciding whether a sentence they heard was true or false.
State-of-the-art functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) methods were used to measure activity in 20,000 brain locations, each about the size of a peppercorn. Measurements were made every second.
The driving-while-listening condition produced a 37 percent decrease in activity of the brain's parietal lobe, which is associated with driving. This portion of the brain integrates sensory information and is critical for spatial sense and navigation. Activity was also reduced in the occipital lobe, which processes visual information.
The other impact of driving-while-listening was a significant deterioration in the quality of driving. Subjects who were listening committed more lane maintenance errors, such as hitting a simulated guardrail, and deviating from the middle of the lane.”
Neuroscientist Marcel Just, director of the University’s Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging, said, "The clear implication is that engaging in a demanding conversation could jeopardize judgment and reaction time if an atypical or unusual driving situation arose. Heavy traffic is no place for an involved personal or business discussion.”
Those who are against any laws against restrict cell phone argue that there is no difference between cell phone use and listening to a radio /music player or talking with a passenger. While admitting it is not known how these activities compare to cell phone usage, Dr. Just addressed this issue.
"Talking on a cell phone has a special social demand, such that not attending to the cell conversation can be interpreted as rude, insulting behavior." A passenger, by contrast, he noted, is likely to recognize increased demands on the driver's attention and stop talking.
Americans have a history of not accepting studies that do not support personal choices, and while one study does not establish an irrefutable fact, it is only a matter of time until the use of cell phones will added to alcohol and drugs as a reason for a driver to be cited for DUI (driving under the influence.) Five states have already taken steps toward that end.
Those interested in reading the complete Carnegie Mellon study may download a copy by going to the university’s Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging Web site.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Human Instinct, Deportment Training Combine to Make Use of Cell Phone While Driving a Deadly Combination
Back in the days when telephones came only in basic black and had a cord that tied them to a wall outlet, The Old Cobbler’s employer at the time sent his employees off to a charm school to learn the proper way to deal with a customer in our office should we have to answer the phone in the customer’s presence.
The secret to success we were told was maintaining maximum eye contact with the customer while on the phone. That we were also told was not as easy as it sounded. Doing such was contrary to basic human instinct and training.
Three separate incidents over the past weeks reminded me of what was learned in that class from yesteryear, that it is still applicable, and carries importance of a greater nature in today’s world of cell phone usage while driving.
Here’s what was learned in that class. From infancy, it is human instinct to look in the direction of any sound heard. Then, from the age when the teaching of polite manners arrives, kids are taught to look at someone when they are being spoken to.
It is this mixture of basic instinct and training that we carry with us when we use a cell phone while driving. So what happens? On three occasions, this was observed at intersections with two through lanes and a dedicated left-turn lane and left-turn traffic signal.
Traffic was stopped for the traffic signal. The driver in the inside through lane was talking on the cell phone, which was being held in the left hand. The left-turn signal turned green, the traffic in the left-turn lane started moving, and the driver in the inside through lane began moving through the intersection and through what was still a red light.
These three incidents were observed from a point head on, across the intersection. None of the three drivers were looking ahead at the traffic signal. They were looking down and to their left while talking on their cell phone. One can only assume that they saw movement to their left, which triggered their reaction to start moving through what was for them, still a red light.
In two of the incidents, the drivers continued without incident through the red light because there was no opposing traffic: left-turning vehicles from the opposite direction. In the third incident, the left-turning driver ahead of me saw what was happening, hit his horn, stopped, and only then did the driver running the red light while talking on his phone look up and slam on his brakes. A collision was avoided by mere inches.
If anyone questions the idea that people look down and to the side while talking on a telephone should plant themselves somewhere and watch their fellow citizens who walk or drive by while talking on a cell phone.
State-by-state, authorities are dealing with the issue in various ways. Some have banned cell phone use by drivers below a certain age. That begs the question as to what the legislators are doing to protect the young people from the other drivers.
Some states allow only hands-free usage. Those legislators much think people think with their hands or fingers, and not their ears.
I asked a gentleman I know, a personal injury lawyer, what he thought about the use of cell phones while driving. He smiled and said, “They’re good for business.”
So, bottom line. If you are going to drive and talk on your cell phone, please keep your eyes on the traffic around you and obey the traffic signals.
There are may be some folks around who do not remember the item below. If you do, you are showing your age.
The secret to success we were told was maintaining maximum eye contact with the customer while on the phone. That we were also told was not as easy as it sounded. Doing such was contrary to basic human instinct and training.
Three separate incidents over the past weeks reminded me of what was learned in that class from yesteryear, that it is still applicable, and carries importance of a greater nature in today’s world of cell phone usage while driving.
Here’s what was learned in that class. From infancy, it is human instinct to look in the direction of any sound heard. Then, from the age when the teaching of polite manners arrives, kids are taught to look at someone when they are being spoken to.
It is this mixture of basic instinct and training that we carry with us when we use a cell phone while driving. So what happens? On three occasions, this was observed at intersections with two through lanes and a dedicated left-turn lane and left-turn traffic signal.
Traffic was stopped for the traffic signal. The driver in the inside through lane was talking on the cell phone, which was being held in the left hand. The left-turn signal turned green, the traffic in the left-turn lane started moving, and the driver in the inside through lane began moving through the intersection and through what was still a red light.
These three incidents were observed from a point head on, across the intersection. None of the three drivers were looking ahead at the traffic signal. They were looking down and to their left while talking on their cell phone. One can only assume that they saw movement to their left, which triggered their reaction to start moving through what was for them, still a red light.
In two of the incidents, the drivers continued without incident through the red light because there was no opposing traffic: left-turning vehicles from the opposite direction. In the third incident, the left-turning driver ahead of me saw what was happening, hit his horn, stopped, and only then did the driver running the red light while talking on his phone look up and slam on his brakes. A collision was avoided by mere inches.
If anyone questions the idea that people look down and to the side while talking on a telephone should plant themselves somewhere and watch their fellow citizens who walk or drive by while talking on a cell phone.
State-by-state, authorities are dealing with the issue in various ways. Some have banned cell phone use by drivers below a certain age. That begs the question as to what the legislators are doing to protect the young people from the other drivers.
Some states allow only hands-free usage. Those legislators much think people think with their hands or fingers, and not their ears.
I asked a gentleman I know, a personal injury lawyer, what he thought about the use of cell phones while driving. He smiled and said, “They’re good for business.”
So, bottom line. If you are going to drive and talk on your cell phone, please keep your eyes on the traffic around you and obey the traffic signals.
There are may be some folks around who do not remember the item below. If you do, you are showing your age.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Forget Swine Flu; Odds are Greater That a Cell Phone Will Lead to Injury, Death
Okay. The Old Cobbler has been chewing on something for quite a while now and I’ve decided to do more than chew. I am going to start spitting out my observations and their implications regarding how people are using cell phones these days.
If one person reads what will be posted over the coming weeks and starts understanding the implications, I will consider my time well spent. Why is this topic such a big deal for me? My awareness of the topic was jacked up to a new level when my wife was killed in a vehicle crash in the fall of 2006.
The police were never able to determine from witnesses and the investigation of the scene what caused the incident. [The medical examiner concluded that my wife suffered either a heart attack or stroke prior to the crash.] But there were four drivers involved who told their version of what they thought happened. That led to a city detective appearing at my home, asking questions the day of the crash.
“Did you wife have a cell phone?
“Yes, but she did not use it while driving.”
“Well, we’ve searched her vehicle and the crash site and can’t find it. One of the other drivers said it looked like she was leaning over the steering wheel. I’m thinking she might have dropped it. Was trying to retrieve it and wasn’t watching the road.”
It was not until after my wife’s purse was retrieved from her van and brought to my home where, in front of the detective, I removed a small case, opened its zipper, and pulled out her cell phone did the detective accept the fact that his theory didn't wash.
The following week I had the opportunity to talk with the young lady who at that time was the spokesman for the police department. She was familiar with the crash, having been involved with the local media at the scene. During the course of the conversation, I asked her why a detective was involved rather than a traffic patrolman and why he was focused on a cell phone.
Her answer was two fold. The police were finding that cell phone usage was becoming a contributing factor in vehicle crashes equal to that of alcohol. The implications of usage in crashes involving fatalities were such that they were investigated at the homicide level when the reason for the crash was not clearly discernable.
My insurance agent later told me that being able to prove my wife could not have been using her cell phone at the time of the crash was absolutely the best thing that could come out of a horrible situation.
Vehicle crashes are a fact of life. The cause in many cases is clear-cut. The other guy was drinking. He ran the stop sign and hit you. But you were using your cell phone at the moment the drunk ran into you. Why didn’t you see him and stop?
Insurance companies and lawyers love to talk about contributory negligence. Cell phone usage while driving is becoming the same as the hole you dig in your backyard. During the night, a drunk wanders through, falls in the hole and breaks his leg. The drunk sues you and wins. You dug the hole. Contributory negligence.
There are some basic human tendencies common to all who use a telephone that add weight to the argument of contributory negligence. That will be the topic of The Old Cobbler’s next posting.
If one person reads what will be posted over the coming weeks and starts understanding the implications, I will consider my time well spent. Why is this topic such a big deal for me? My awareness of the topic was jacked up to a new level when my wife was killed in a vehicle crash in the fall of 2006.
The police were never able to determine from witnesses and the investigation of the scene what caused the incident. [The medical examiner concluded that my wife suffered either a heart attack or stroke prior to the crash.] But there were four drivers involved who told their version of what they thought happened. That led to a city detective appearing at my home, asking questions the day of the crash.
“Did you wife have a cell phone?
“Yes, but she did not use it while driving.”
“Well, we’ve searched her vehicle and the crash site and can’t find it. One of the other drivers said it looked like she was leaning over the steering wheel. I’m thinking she might have dropped it. Was trying to retrieve it and wasn’t watching the road.”
It was not until after my wife’s purse was retrieved from her van and brought to my home where, in front of the detective, I removed a small case, opened its zipper, and pulled out her cell phone did the detective accept the fact that his theory didn't wash.
The following week I had the opportunity to talk with the young lady who at that time was the spokesman for the police department. She was familiar with the crash, having been involved with the local media at the scene. During the course of the conversation, I asked her why a detective was involved rather than a traffic patrolman and why he was focused on a cell phone.
Her answer was two fold. The police were finding that cell phone usage was becoming a contributing factor in vehicle crashes equal to that of alcohol. The implications of usage in crashes involving fatalities were such that they were investigated at the homicide level when the reason for the crash was not clearly discernable.
My insurance agent later told me that being able to prove my wife could not have been using her cell phone at the time of the crash was absolutely the best thing that could come out of a horrible situation.
Vehicle crashes are a fact of life. The cause in many cases is clear-cut. The other guy was drinking. He ran the stop sign and hit you. But you were using your cell phone at the moment the drunk ran into you. Why didn’t you see him and stop?
Insurance companies and lawyers love to talk about contributory negligence. Cell phone usage while driving is becoming the same as the hole you dig in your backyard. During the night, a drunk wanders through, falls in the hole and breaks his leg. The drunk sues you and wins. You dug the hole. Contributory negligence.
There are some basic human tendencies common to all who use a telephone that add weight to the argument of contributory negligence. That will be the topic of The Old Cobbler’s next posting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)