Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Comparison of CellPhone Driver Drunk Driver

Comparison of CellPhone Driver Drunk Driver

Ratings: (0)|Views: 71 |Likes:
Published by Kate Freeman

More info:

Published by: Kate Freeman on Apr 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/13/2012

pdf

text

original

 
INTRODUCTION
Although they are often reminded to pay fullattention to driving, people regularly engage in awide variety of multitasking activities when theyare behind the wheel. Indeed, data from the 2000U.S. census indicates that drivers spend an aver-age of 25.5 min each day commuting to work,and there is a growing interest in trying to makethe time spent on the roadway more productive(Reschovsky, 2004). Unfortunately, because of the inherent limited capacity of human attention(e.g., Kahneman, 1973; Navon & Gopher, 1979),engaging in these multitasking activities oftencomes at a cost of diverting attention away fromthe primary task of driving. There are a numberof more traditional sources of driver distraction.These “old standards” include talking to passen-gers, eating, drinking, lighting a cigarette, apply-ing makeup, and listening to the radio (Stutts etal., 2003). However, over the last decade manynew electronic devices have been developed, andthey are making their way into the vehicle. Inmany cases, these new technologies are engag-ing, interactive information delivery systems. Forexample, drivers can now surf the Internet, sendand receive E-mail or faxes, communicate via acellular device, and even watch television. Thereis good reason to believe that some of these newmultitasking activities may be substantially moredistracting than the old standards because theyare more cognitively engaging and because theyare performed over longer periods of time.The current research focuses on a dual-task activity that is commonly engaged in by morethan 100 million drivers in the United States: theconcurrent use of cell phones while driving (Cel-lular Telecommunications Industry Association,2006; Goodman et al., 1999). Indeed, the NationalHighway Transportation Safety Administration
A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver
David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews,
and
Dennis J. Crouch,
University of Utah, Salt LakeCity, Utah
Objective:
The objective of this research was to determine the relative impairmentassociated with conversing on a cellular telephone while driving.
Background:
Epidemiological evidence suggests that the relative risk of being in a traffic accidentwhile using a cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a bloodalcohol level at the legal limit.The purpose of this research was to provide a directcomparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver and a drunk driver ina controlled laboratory setting.
Method:
We used a high-fidelity driving simulatorto compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicatedfrom ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume).
Results:
When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, theirbraking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents thanwhen they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intox-icated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closerto the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking.
Conclusion:
When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the im-pairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound asthose associated with driving while drunk.
Application:
This research may help toprovide guidance for regulation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phoneconversations.
Address correspondence to David L. Strayer, Department of Psychology, 380 South, 1530 East, RM 502, University of Utah,Salt Lake City, UT84112-0251; david.strayer@utah.edu.
 H 
UMAN 
 F
 ACTORS
 ,
Vol. 48, No. 2, Summer 2006, pp. 381–391.Copyright ©2006, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
 
382Summer 2006
Human Factors 
estimated that 8% of drivers on the roadway atany given daylight moment are using their cellphone (Glassbrenner, 2005). It is now well estab-lished that cell phone use impairs the driving per-formance of younger adults (Alm & Nilsson,1995; Briem & Hedman, 1995; Brookhuis, DeVries, & De Waard, 1991; I. D. Brown, Tickner, &Simmonds,1969; Goodman et al.,1999; McKnight& McKnight, 1993; Redelmeier & Tibshirani,1997; Strayer, Drews, & Johnston, 2003; Strayer& Johnston, 2001). For example, drivers aremore likely to miss critical traffic signals (trafficlights, a vehicle braking in front of the driver,etc.), slower to respond to the signals that they dodetect, and more likely to be involved in rear-endcollisions when they are conversing on a cellphone (Strayer et al., 2003). In addition, evenwhen participants direct their gaze at objects inthe driving environment, they often fail to “see”them when they are talking on a cell phone be-cause attention has been directed away from theexternal environment and toward an internal,cognitive context associated with the phone con-versation. However, what is lacking in the litera-ture is a clear benchmark with which to evaluatethe relative risks associated with this dual-task activity (e.g., Brookhuis, 2003).In their seminal article, Redelmeier and Tib-shirani (1997) reported epidemiological evidencesuggesting that “the relative risk [of being in atraffic accident while using a cell phone] is sim-ilar to the hazard associated with driving with ablood alcohol level at the legal limit” (p. 456).These estimates were made by evaluating the cel-lular records of 699 individuals involved in motorvehicle accidents. It was found that 24% of theseindividuals were using their cell phone within the10-min period preceding the accident, and thiswas associated with a fourfold increase in thelikelihood of getting into an accident. Moreover,these authors suggested that the interferenceassociated with cell phone use was attributable toattentional factors rather than to peripheral fac-tors such as holding the phone. However, thereare several limitations to this important study.First, although the study established a strongassociation between cell phone use and motorvehicle accidents, it did not demonstrate a
causal
link between cell phone use and increased accidentrates. For example, there may be self-selectionfactors underlying the association: People whouse their cell phone while driving may be morelikely to engage in risky behavior, and this in-crease in risk taking may be the cause of the cor-relation. It may also be the case that being in anemotional state may increase one’s likelihood of driving erratically and may also increase the like-lihood of talking on a cell phone. Finally, limita-tions on establishing an exact time of the accidentlead to uncertainty regarding the precise rela-tionship between talking on a cell phone whiledriving and increased traffic accidents.If the relative risk estimates of Redelmeier andTibshirani (1997) can be substantiated in a con-trolled laboratory experiment and there is acausal link between cell phone use and impaireddriving, then these data would be of immenseimportance for public safety and legislative bod-ies. Here we report the result of a controlled studythat directly compared the performance of driv-ers who were conversing on either a handheldor hands-free cell phone with the performanceof drivers with a blood alcohol concentrationat 0.08% weight/volume (wt/vol). Alcohol hasbeen used as a benchmark for assessing perfor-mance impairments in a variety of other areas,including aviation (Billings, Demosthenes, White,& O’Hara, 1991; Klein, 1972), anesthesiology(Thapar, Zacny, Choi,& Apfelbaum,1995; Tiplady,1991) nonprescription drug use (Burns & Mos-kovitz, 1980), and fatigue (Williamson, Feyer,Friswel,& Finlay-Brown,2001). Indeed, the WorldHealth Organization recommended that the be-havioral effects of drugs be compared with thoseof alcohol under the assumption that performanceon drugs should be no worse than that at the legalblood alcohol limit (Willette & Walsh, 1983).We used a car-following paradigm (see alsoAlm & Nilsson, 1995; Lee, Vaven, Haake, &Brown, 2001; Strayer et al., 2003) in which par-ticipants drove on a multilane freeway followinga pace car that would brake at random intervals.We measured a number of performance variables(e.g., driving speed, following distance, brake re-action time, time to collision) that have beenshown to affect the likelihood and severity of rear-end collisions, the most common type of traffic accident reported to police (T. L. Brown,Lee, & McGehee, 2001; Lee et al., 2001). Threecounterbalanced conditions were studied using awithin-subjects design: single-task driving (base-line condition), driving while conversing on a
 
C
ELL
P
HONE
D
RIVERSAND
D
RUNK 
D
RIVERS
383
cell phone (cell phone condition), and drivingwith a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% wt/ vol (alcohol condition). The driving tasks wereperformed on a high-fidelity driving simulator.
METHODParticipants
Forty adults (25 men, 15 women), recruitedvia advertisements in local newspapers, partici-pated in the Institutional Review Board approvedstudy. Participants ranged in age from 22 to 34years, with an average age of 25 years. All hadnormal or corrected-to-normal vision and a validdriver’s license with an average of 8 years of driving experience. Of the 40 participants, 78%owned a cell phone, and 87% of the cell phoneowners reported that they have used a cell phonewhile driving. Afurther requirement for inclusionin the study was that participants were socialdrinkers, consuming between three and five alco-holic drinks per week. The experiment lastedapproximately 10 hr (across the three days of thestudy), and participants were remunerated at arate of $10/hr.Apreliminary comparison of male and femaledrivers found greater variability in following dis-tance for female drivers,
(1, 38) = 10.9,
 p
< .01;however, this gender effect was not modulated byalcohol or cell phone use. No other effects of gender were significant in the current sample. Ad-ditional analyses comparing the driving perfor-mance of participants who owned a cell phone withthat of those who did not own a cell phone failedto find any significant differences (all
 p
s > .60).Similarly, there was no significant difference indriving performance between participants whoreported that they used a cell phone while driv-ing and those who did not use a cell phone whiledriving (all
 p
s >.70).
Stimuli and Apparatus
APatrolSim high-fidelity driving simulator,illustrated in Figure 1 and manufactured by GE-ISIM, was used in the study. The simulator is com-posed of five networked microprocessors andthree high-resolution displays providing a 180°field of view. The dashboard instrumentation,steering wheel, gas pedal, and brake pedal arefrom a Ford Crown Victoria
®
sedan with an auto-matic transmission. The simulator incorporatesproprietary vehicle dynamics, traffic scenario,and road surface software to provide realisticscenes and traffic conditions.Afreeway road database simulated a 24-mile(38.6-km) multilane interstate with on- and off-ramps, overpasses, and two- or three-lane trafficin each direction. Daytime driving conditions withgood visibility and dry pavement were used. Apace car, programmed to travel in the right-hand
Figure 1.
Aparticipant talking on a cell phone while driving in the GE-ISIM driving simulator.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->