Michael LaMaita Professor Lee Hochberg B CMU Section B 20 February 2012 Risk and Solution to Hands-Free Devices Introduction

Discouraging talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving is a policy we have recently adopted, however, studies show that the risk of using a hands-free device is equally as dangerous, and as a result we will have to discourage using hands-free devices while driving. Adopting a policy of driver education to eliminate the use of hands-free devices will increase our public relations before they turn sour had we not analyzed this situation. Problem Studies performed by National Safety Council (NSC) indicate that drivers talking hands-free suffer from cognitive distraction and inattention blindness. Cognitive distraction occurs when talking hands-free, and diverts attention from driving to the conversation1. In a hands-free cell phone driving study by Carnegie Mellon University, researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to track parietal lobe activity in the brain, and found that listening to sentences on cell phones decreased activity by 37 percent in the brains parietal lobe2, (Figure 1). The parietal lobe controls driving and navigation. Moreover, the occipital lobe, which is in charge of processing visual information, decreased in activity as well when using a hands-free device. This cognitive distraction occurs when the brain switches rapidly between talking, listening, and reacting to the road. The result is a brain overloaded with information that selectively focuses on the primary or secondary task, talking/listening or driving2. This leads to inattention blindness, in which the brain sees but does not process or store in short-term memory what is being seen or focused on when talking hands-free

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/technology/07distracted.html Understanding the Distracted Brain National Safety Council, March 2010.

(Figure 2). This is the role of the occipital lobe. Drivers distracted by a cell phone conversation increase their chance of crashing fourfold, and their driving abilities are equal to a driver with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level3. Figure 1: Decrease in Parietal Lobe Functioning

Functional Magnetic Resonance Images of the brains parietal lobe. The image on the right shows normal parietal lobe functioning while the image on the left shows a significant decrease in parietal lobe functioning when focusing on a conversation hands-free. Source: Carnegie Mellon University and National Safety Council.

Figure 2: Inattention Blindness

These images show where drivers not using a hands free device looked while driving (right picture). Left picture shows where drivers using a hands-free phone looked. Drivers not using cell phones are able to pay attention to a larger area of the road, while distracted drivers focus only on a narrow section while driving. Source: National Security Council.

Understanding the Distracted Brain National Safety Council, March 2010

In a meta-analysis of drivers using hand-held and hands-free phones, the mean increase in reaction time was 0.25 seconds, which is highly significant because an increase in time to brake means a decrease in stopping safely before the object4. Hands-free drivers are also prone to decelerate less in demanding conditions, ignored surface variables such as wet pavement, time to collision was shorter (negative effect) and overall driving performance decreased when compared to drivers not using a cell phone5. Adrian Lund, president of the Highway Loss Data Institute and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said in a statement that The laws arent reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk6, meaning that the laws are essentially useless. This is part of the problem since laws discouraging hand-held use of cell phones tacitly imply that hands-free is safe, even though the laws are not decreasing crashes6 (Figure 3) Figure 3: These Laws are Useless
Hand held laws dont reduce crashes. Hands-free needs to be included as well. Source: handsfreeinfo.com

Automakers with installed voice-recognition systems reduce the physical distraction of handling the phone but do not reduce the cognitive distraction when driving, the key problem. Research of voice-recognition systems concludes that it only eliminates the physical distraction of manually handling the phone7. Solution

A Meta-Analysis of Cell Phones on Driver Performance J.K. Caird et al. Accident and Analysis Preventio n, 2008.

The Impact of Hands-Free Message Reception/Response on Driving Task Performance P.J. Cooper et al. Accident and Analysis Prevention, 2003.
6

Study: Hands-Free Cell Phone Laws Dont Reduce Crashes Rose, Joseph. Oregonlive.com 29 January 2010. http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10444717-266.html

The truth, as shown by Carnegie Mellon Universitys study, is that talking on a cell phone hands-free is a serious detriment to driver performance and reaction time. An effective solution is to educate drivers on the dangers of distracted driving and eliminate cell phone use by the driver8. Therefore we should initiate a public education campaign illustrating the dangers of cognitive distraction and cell phone use while driving in a vehicle. Some of the work has been done for us. Oprah Winfreys No Phone Zone campaign encourages fans to turn off their phones while driving9. Oprahs audience is enormous, with 48 million viewers and 150 countries broadcasting her show10. Supporting Oprahs campaign is a method to educate millions of viewers and customers about the dangers of using cell phones (hand-held or hands-free) along with our own education platform that takes a look back at the history of seat belts. Turning off or not using the cell phone when driving should be an unthinkable habit, much like buckling the seatbelt upon entry is today. Currently over 25 countries have a mandatory seat belt law, and meta-analyses of usage rates indicated 20-25 percent buckled up before passage of the law, compared to 6090 percent after seat belts were enforced11. This increase was coupled with an education system showing the benefits of wearing a seat belt, such as safety belts reducing the number of fatalities by 60-70 percent and serious traffic injuries by 50 percent11. Creating and encouraging a program in a similar method for hands-free devices might lead to the same positive benefits. Conclusion

Understanding the Distracted Brain National Security Council, March 2010 http://handsfreeinfo.com/oprahs-no-phone-zone-campaign http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/the-oprah-phenomenon---by-the-numbers.html http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/safetybelt.shtml

10

11

Last year, 3,092 people died due to distracted driving in the United States alone12. Field studies have shown that hands-free and hand-held cell phone devices significantly impair driving performance, creating a danger to the driver and others in the roadway13 One hiccup in our education platform is that cell phone crash statistics do not have nearly as much depth as seat belt usage because cell phone use has not been tracked as closely or for as long as seat belt statistics. Therefore we educate drivers about the cognitive distraction posed by using a cell phone in the car. Creating a habit of turning off or not using a cell phone in the car into one that is as habitual as buckling up is our ideal goal and optimal solution.

12

http://www.ntsb.gov/ Understanding the Distracted Brain National Safety Council, March 2010

13