Safe Speed Forums

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/ ... 6963.shtml

(CBS) A new study by University of Utah psychologists on the ability of people to operate a motor vehicle and talk on a cell phone at the time confirms what other studies have shown: Virtually no one can perform both tasks without impairing safety.

But it is not impossible, for a very select few: 2.5% of subjects (whom researchers dubbed "supertaskers") were able to successfully operate a driving simulator and chat on a cell phone simultaneously without noticeable impairment.

The study's authors say the findings may lead to further understanding of the brain's capacity, as it challenges current theories about multitasking and shows there are fewer of them than we might think.

"Given the number of individuals who routinely talk on the phone while driving, one would have hoped that there would be a greater percentage of supertaskers," said Dr. Jason Watson, who with Dr. David Strayer authored the study.

"And while we'd probably all like to think we are the exception to the rule, the odds are overwhelmingly against it."

He indicated that the chances of someone being a "supertasker" were as good as flipping a coin and getting five heads in a row.

Previous studies have measured impairment of drivers while engaged in cell phone conversations. The National Safety Council estimates that 28% of all accidents and fatalities on U.S. highways were caused by drivers using cell phones.

Six states and the District of Columbia currently ban the use of handheld cell phones while driving, and an additional 14 states also ban texting while driving. In January Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would push for a national ban on cell phone use while driving.

In this latest study, the University of Utah psychologists analyzed the responses of 200 participants, who were first tested in a driving simulator, and then again driving while also engaged in a hands-free cell phone conversation involving word memorization and math problem-solving.

The researchers measured reactions in braking, the drivers' following distance on the "freeway," memory, and math computation.

Results showed that for 97.5 percent of the subjects, performance suffered across the board when both driving and talking on a hands-free cell phone.

Reaction to hit the brakes was slowed 20 percent. Drivers also failed to keep pace with traffic, as following distances increased 30 percent. Their performances in memorization declined (by 11 percent), and math performance dropped as well (by 3 percent).

Yet for the "supertaskers," there was no change in their braking times, following distances or mathematical ability - and their memory improved by 3 percent.

Researchers found this small group of "supertaskers" also displayed better performance when performing a single task than did the rest of the subjects.

Supertaskers: Profiles in Extraordinary Multi-tasking Ability

The study is set for publication later this year in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.

"Psychologists may need to rethink what they know about multitasking in light of this new evidence," said Dr. Strayer, who authored a 2006 study which found motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones were as impaired as drunk drivers.

"We may learn from these very rare individuals that the multitasking regions of the brain are different, and that there may be a genetic basis for this difference. That is very exciting."

And, Dr. Watson adds, as people strive to keep with expanding technology, "it will be very useful to better understand the brain's processing capabilities, and perhaps to isolate potential markers that predict extraordinary ability, especially for high-performance professions."

The two are currently studying fighter pilots.

And even if they had been "supertaskers" it would still have been illegal.
The law does not allow for special abilities.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

So this isn't testing whether people can "drive safely and chat on a phone", it is testing whether they can drive safely whilst being required to compute complex mathematical problems and accurately recall words from memory - things that most people would find quite challenging!

I bet that similar (even identical) results would occur without the driver using a phone, but with a passenger forcing them to perform tasks that they wouldn't normally do when driving!!

Thus the claim that 97.5% of drivers are more dangerous when using a phone is bogus!!

How about running a test whereby a driver is forced to drive to an unknown destination without stopping or hesitating? In "Scenario A" they are given polite, timely, verbal instructions over a hands-free car-kit, but in "Scenario B" they are given pages of scrappy notes, written in a foreign language and an out-of-date map.

Guess who will finish first, most relaxed, and by far more safely?

Sure, the study seems to have identified a group of "clever people", but please don't let them extrapolate the results to fit another agenda!

mb

But surely those that can do it can understand that most can't and therefore the law is still a good thing?

Or do you want to say, well 5 people out of 200 can do it, so it should be allowed?

Perhaps ,it might be allowed if the 2.5% were CYCLISTS - they almost seem to be ABOVE the LAW .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

They call them supertaskers, we call them pilots

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Hmmmm. I'm with Boomer. I'd need to know a lot more about the study. Of their random sample, they must have had brighter and thicker candidates. Did they all get the same questions or were they weighted according to IQ? I could imagine that if they all had the same questions, some of the "supertaskers" would have probably been what, in good old-fashioned parlance, we might have called "bright"! Similarly, did they all have the same driving ability / experience? I can imagine that an inexperienced driver, perhaps also lacking in confidence, who also happened to be lousy at mental arithmetic, might show worse results than someone who was good at both! Maybe the experiments were properly controlled, maybe not. We can't tell from the article. As it is, it looks like the "problem" with mobiles doesn't seem to be holding the phone, but having the conversation in the first place! The authorities won't like that though - the police won't be able to drive and use their 2-way radios at the same time!

And all car passengers would have to wear a gag lest they start a conversation. Hmm ... thinking about the mother in law

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Actually, yes.
DWoDC&A would seem to cover most of the problem.
If 'the defendant' drove like an inconsiderate and reckless idiot, what does it matter whether or not the phone was in use? He's guilty of careless/inattentive driving, and that's that. Being on the phone proves nothing; driving like an idiot certainly does.

On the other hand ...
Officer Shepherd:"I hereby charge you with speaking to someone outside the car using a rather dodgy contraption."

Mr Sheeple:"How's my driving, officer?"

Officer Shepherd:"Don't know, don't care. I saw a phone in your hand."

If even 66% of the citations for driving with phone in hand specifically stated that the driver was driving without due care and attention, and a second 'DWoDC&A' citation accompanied the 'driving with phone in hand' citation, I'd change my mind.

So why don't the 'DWoDC&A' citation & the 'driving with phone in hand' citation find themselves paired together more often?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

You might have a good point there. Standard of driving in modern Britain isn't important anymore. Judging the standard of anyones driving properly needs a human input and quite a high input in terms of intelligence.

Measuring faults on the binary scale are easier to dumb down. For example... were they exceeding a speed limit? Yes or No, were they talking on a phone Yes/No, eating and apple Y/N....but complicated questions like was their driving of an acceptable level?. was it safe or likely to cause a serious accident?...computer overload.....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Being on the phone is driving like an idiot.

Prove it.
Mere correlation is not tantamount to causation.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Prove it's not.

They are clearly not, by definition, nobody is, with the possible exception of cycling or car driving foreign diplomats (but diplomatic immunity is part of the legal system I guess).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

This bit's interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic ... #Vehicular

Driving while speaking on the phone will impair a persons driving by a certain amount, that is true, just as holding a conversation with a passenger would do, the amount that a persons driving is impaired would vary from person to person BUt who is to say that person A who is a very good driver and spends say 10 hours a day driving , whilst being on the phone for a lot of that time, would be driving any worse than 70 year old Mrs Jones, who only does 1000 miles a year, when the suns shining and suddenly finds that she has to go out in a rainstorm for an emergency.
The only difference is that person A can be observed using a phone by a camera and Mrs Jones's erraticaly dangerous driving, with no lights in bad visibility, whilst occasionally crossing a double white lines on sharp bends, may not be noticed by a camera.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

You make a bold and clear claim; someone quite reasonably asks you to substantiate it; you respond be asking them to substantiate the opposite without actually addressing their question.

Weepej, can you just prove/substantiate your claim as requested, please?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Weepy - YOU like throwing down the "PROVE IT "gauntlet - NOW , listen very carefully ,I will say this only once - "PUT UP OR SHUT UP "

( to be added to the other requests to weepy) .( To which he will conveniently pass over ).

And then perhaps I might have a poll ,with you as subject , to asks mods to GAG you ( until such time as you decide to answer those questions you decline to answer).

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Is a traffic copper driving whilst using a 2-way radio (or an ambulance driver, trucker or taxi driver for that matter) "driving like an idiot" - or is it just the lack of a curly bit of wire betwen you and the microphone that's the problem?

You're comparing apples with pears.

You have to take each case in isolation.

There are clearly different levels of driving skills on the roads, but the questions surely should be "Is person A hampering their driving when using a mobile phone" and "Is Mrs Jones hampering her driving when using a mobile phone?".

What you're saying is "When Person A uses their mobile phone it doesn't hamper their driving as much as Mrs Jones is already 'hampered' without using a mobile phone so it's OK for person A to use their mobile", which to me sounds a little whack.

In both cases operating a mobile phone whilst driving has a negative impact on control and the reduces ability to react to an adverse situation.

Again they are clearly hampering their ability to control their vehicle, however not allowing them to communicate might have more of an impact on their ability to get somewhere to save a life for instance (excepting truck drivers).

Still better all round if they didn't have to hold a mic whilst they were operating their vehicle.