Benefits & Safety Risks

View Entire Paper

Abstract

View Entire Paper

Abstract

View Entire Paper

Abstract

View Entire Paper

Abstract

View Entire Paper

Abstract

  In terms of safety, what type of distraction concerns you more?   

  Have you ever witnessed, or experienced a close call or crash resulting from a driver using a cellular phone or from your personal use with a cell phone?   

  How capable are drivers at making decisions about when it is safe to use technology while driving?   

-i'd just like to say that even without the manual distraction of 'doing something' to use technology in the car... the component of thinking about and focusing on these things is equally if not more distracting in my opinion. -for instance, when i tried listening to books on tape in the car and became engrossed in particular scenes, i found myself entirely surprised and taken off gaurd in some cases by other drivers or turns in the road, etc. -solution: i only listen to tapes on the open road driving for long distances.

look, when i first started using my cell phone in the car i was taken off gaurd on several occasions and i want to say that it was indeed a surprise to find i'd almost hit a car or whatever! so, i made myself a couple of rules that worked very well. #1. Only look up and/or dial phone numbers when pulled off the road or at a stop light or sign. this was very important, as i felt i was most unaware at this time of other drivers AND the ROAD itself! #2. While on the phone remain in the right lane and drop your speed to 5 miles below the speed limit at least, depending on the situation. #3. Keep conversations short. #4. If calling for directions, etc. and need to write something down - pull over first and do so. #5. Don't talk to people on the phone while driving with whom you don't have the freedom to say, 'hold on a minute, i need to make this turn and need my full attention.'

Being almost hit by a car, then looking and seeing #1. the MAN is talking on a cell phone #2. the MAN has is still clueless that he almost hit you. Happened more than once? ABSOLUTELY! #3. i'm concerned about giving men more 'gadgets' to play with in their cars. From my personal observations, women tend to be a bit more savvy with the cell phone, maybe because they're used to talking on the phone while taking care of the kids, cooking dinner, 'multi-tasking' you know? while men tend to be without a clue at all. I know this sounds 'sexist' but, i'm telling you... from what i've seen on the road - it's the truth!

  Have you ever witnessed, or experienced a close call or crash resulting from a driver being distracted by something other than a cell phone? (e.g. reading a map, eating, personal grooming)   

While in-vehicle electronic devices can certainly contribute to the overall accident rate, the rate resulting from the electronic devices pales in comparison to all other distractions combined:

1. Adjusting controls, i.e. to reduce fogging, operate wipers, change ventilation, etc.
2. Glare from headlights, billboards, street lights, parking lot lights, sunlight, etc and having to adjust sunvisors.
3. Inferior road signage.
4. Road conditions such as potholes, bad roads.
5. Other vehicles/pedestrians, especially those appearing or acting out of the ordinary.
6. Precipitation, especially the frozen variety and threatening weather.
7. Scenery.
8. In vehicle conversation, especially with kids, misbehaving or not.
9. Low flying aircraft.
10. Emergency vehicles, even if in non-emergency mode.
11. Trees, shrubbery, and other foliage blocking line of sight.
12. Guard rails, overpass supports, and other structures blocking line of sight.
13. Driver inattention, non-electronic related.
14. Inferior road/highway system design.
15. Stray and wild animals venturing near or onto the roadway.
16. Rubbernecking.
17. Another driver motioning (e.g. go-ahead) or signalling.
18. Other non-electronic.

Add up the accidents from all of the above and the number pales compared to those from electronic related. Statistics can be manipulated to show anything you want. However, an accident is an accident. Unless you compare the rate of a cause (electronic) to all other causes (non-electronic), a case can not be made for responding in some manner to one without responding adequately to the other.

Let's be sure to legislate, make recommendations, make ordnances related to the above, else there be discrimination.

Let's have some figures on the number of vehicles on the road compared to the number of wireless/electronics devices in each. One will find the vast majority of vehicles do not have anything other than an AM/FM radio, some with a cassette player that is never used.

Although headup and night vision displays appear to be a possible answer, aren't they also a distraction and block vision to some extent?

Driving requires the marriage of many people driving and "chewing gum" at the same time and others involved in planning and construction. Let's keep things in perspective and NOT make this issue strictly an electronic issue! Pundits will say, "But electronic devices are the coming thing, on an exponential increase, look at the market projections, and the sales, etc etc". Do not be deceived. It will be a LONG time before accidents from distractions due to electronic devices will get even close to accidents from distractions due to all other causes. Electronic devices with bells and whistles are a hot topic only because they are relatively new. Wireless phones are hot because there are people who do not think that other people should have any conversation in their midst. (Granted there those people who can not carry a good (normal loudness, no profanity, etc) conversation no matter in person or on a phone of any type. - Hey, let's legislate payphone usage!)

Soapbox mode off, flame suit on.

I suspect people who are severely against the use of cell phones in a moving vehicle, must drive alone. Indeed, if they were accompanied by any talking passengers, they would apparently lose focus on the road and endanger other drivers. What about pets in vehicles, frolicing around in the back - or even the front seat? I guess that isn't distracting at all? Do these same drivers select one radio station while still in "park", lest they should take a hand off the wheel or shift their eyes downward from traffic, to select a different radio station. Must we now legislate the use of the "10-2" hands-on-wheel position. Typically, my one arm rests on the open window frame, or the other on the center arm rest - while continuing to drive safely with my primary hand on the wheel. Honestly - if these drivers can't talk and drive at the same time, can they at least walk and chew gum?

I read about the lady who's daughter died in car accident with police officer who was on cell phone and I as a mother feel bad such a tragedy happened. But, as we all know millions of people die in car accidents everyday for different reasons. How could you relate cell phone use to driving drunk? That is ridiculous!!! A person under the influence cannot even be compared, let's remember a person under the influence cannot even see clearly, what does that have to do with someone on a cell phone. I use my cell phone everyday to speak to my children on my way home and I have not had any accidents arising from the use of my cell phone and I am furious that I am being compared to a drunk driver. Furthermore, how dare you try to up hold a law that violates our personal freedom? Are we living in a communist country that tries to control everything we do even so much as to tell us when we can use a product that we have paid for and that is my personal possesion? I guess the next thing will be how often we can use the toilet in homes due to water shortage. I do agree that people become distracted while on phones, but you cannot say that a person on the cell phone is like a drunk driver because that is ridiculous.

Before we ban cell phones in cars we should ban things that are even more dangerous...like cigarettes. I think cigarettes are far more dangerous than cell phones....especially when a driver lights one up in heavy traffic or drops one and has to attend to the dropped cigarette.

Children are safest in the back seat with or without air bags. There are mirrors you can buy specifically for observing your infant in it's rear facing seat. I won't let my 6 month old daughter ride anywhere else.

I must disagree with the implication that the benefits of technological devices as a whole are not beneficial in a vehicle, or at least that their risk outweighs their benefits. I personally own both a cell phone and a computer with GPS. I use both in my car frequently. It is great to be able to call someone for directions without having to find a gas station, and even better to be able to see where you are on a computer map (especially if it means you don't have to try to fold a paper map while you are driving (a REALLY stupid act that I know most people, guys especially, will have to admit they have done). I personally find that making business calls while driving isn't really useful because I can't concentrate as much on either the conversation or the driving as I would like and I certainly can't take notes, but informational calls are great-- a quick call to a loved one saying you're running late, or to ask directions to a place you are unfamiliar with, or a quick head's up 911 to tell them a traffic light is out, that's where the benefits of a cellphone in a car are. A computer with a GPS is even more beneficial, because you can see quickly where you are and where you are going, even getting voice prompt when you have a turn coming up. That is so much better than having focus so much attention on street signs instead of on the cars around you.

Yes, your comments indicate that having these devices can be convenient, but you have not made a case for them being essential. Simple convenience is not worth the risk they bring. Why is it so important to tell your family that you are running late? They wil figure it out soon enough, just as they did in the days before cell phones. As for looking at maps, nobody should study any kind of map while driving. That should be done in advance or while pulled over.

This comment is general. Cars are inherently dangerous. They kill more people yearly than handguns. Distractions are numerous, and part of what makes cars and trucks dangerous. Someone made a partial list, but left out an important one - billboards, which are DESIGNED to distract drivers. There used to be a decent train system in this country, but it was destroyed in a conspiracy led by GM and other large corporations who stood to make huge profits, leaving most of us to rely on cars and trucks. Leaders of those companies, and the companies themselves, were convicted of that conspiracy about 50 years ago, but they received a slap on the wrist. All kinds of expensive technical solutions can undoubtedly reduce the carnage from what it would otherwise be, but will only do so marginally. For vehicle miles traveled, deaths and serious injuries in trains are one-twentieth or less compared to those for cars and trucks. And in trains, it makes no difference if you read a map, talk on a cell phone, or go to sleep! We will not bring back the trains without a major citizen movement. The car, oil, and associated corporate interests are too powerful. But it can happen if enough people decide that human lives are more important than corporate profits. Technically, we are already well on the way. Very Light Rail holds great promise for combining the safety of traditional trains with the flexibility and convenience of cars. Check out the CyberTran website, .

Thank goodness common sense and reason still shine through all the rampant emotionalism about the use of technology in vehicles. As much of a distraction as cell phones can be, they are only the tip of the iceberg; and, I believe their use is actually getting an unfair rap in the current buzz about driver distraction. Why has no one mentioned the fact that the quality of our driving is a direct reflection of the quality of both new driver training as well as periodic recertification? Having lived in both Germany and England, I can tell you that the foundation for this problem lies in the abysmal to nonexistent level of driving instruction and licensing in this country. A good driver has learned and internalized three important things: 1) the ability to handle (really handle) an automobile even at the limits of its performance (i.e., an emergency maneuver) 2) a respect for *all* the traffic laws (not just speeding) recognizing that they are there for our safety and for better traffic flow 3) a heightened level of awareness and concentration on the act of driving, including (but not limited to) anticipation of other drivers' potential dangerous actions. That's it. These three things make good drivers. We should be rigorously teaching them in regulated driving schools. People should have to pay a hefty tuition to obtain certified, high quality driving instruction. To obtain a license, one should have to pass a difficult driving and written exam. To keep one's license, recertification and retesting should be mandatory every 3 years. Failure to pass a recertification driving exam after the second time, will result in suspension of license for 6 months. Of course, this kind of thing will never pass any state legislature in this country, but making better drivers must be the foundation for any attempt to make our roads safer. Why treat the just the symptoms when we could be going after the disease? Michael F. Cochrane, Ph.D.

What do we count as a distraction that needs to be controlled? I think a lot of things that have been around 50 years no longer are considered significant. I don't see anyone railing about "turn off the radio". Billboards are considered protected speech, not distractions. There was a time when speedometers were optional equipment but their introduction as a standard feature has helped safety even though by checking them you are momentarily looking away from the road. Police cars have flashing lights specifically to make them more distracting to approaching drivers. The number of accidents associated with the traffic jams caused by police operations next to high speed highways is an area where there is little data. There seems to be little political desire to collect such data. But every officer I have ever talked to about this has had anecdotes about crashes that occured in such situations. Another problem is that none of the distractions discussed on these postings result in accidents very often. Most people would agree that reading a book while driving is a bad idea, but I know drivers who have read while driving for years and have never had an accident. Some road designs are more likely to be associated with accidents than other road designs - the infamous Chicago lakefront S-curve comes to mind - but I never heard of an insurance company taking the DOT to court as the cause of the accident, the blame and the costs are borne by the drivers.

A. First, a working assumption: a 'properly-trained' driver is one who has learned strategic (trip planning), tactical (situational awareness), and operational (vehicle maneuvering) skills to criterion levels not attainable by a 'poorly-trained' (or untrained) driver.

Next, one's concentration on 'the act of driving,' as exemplified by where one directs one's attention, how quickly and appropriately one responds to safety threats, etc., can reasonably be expected to change with experience, as specific behaviors are reinforced in some situations but not in others. Slowing down and checking carefully to the sides as one approaches an intersection where sight distance is limited by a structure, vegetation, etc., is reinforced often enough so that this training lesson sticks. (The partial reinforcement schedule for such behavior in fact makes it extremely likely to persist, to the motorist's advantage.) An untrained driver who happens to behave in this manner is similarly reinforced, of course. Thus, to the extent that a novice driver is 'properly' trained, the initial months or years of driving should be characterized by superior allocation of attention (i.e., looking where you should, when you should) relative to an untrained driver who must (hopefully) learn the same lessons through trial and error.

The differences in how effectively drivers attend to potential hazards (as well as their susceptibility to distractions) as a function of training may not be so evident over time, however. Some hazards manifest themselves very infrequently, such as trains encountered at at-grade crossings. As a result, slowing down sufficiently to effectively check to the sides before crossing the tracks may be reinforced so rarely that the 'properly trained' driver behaves no more safely than the untrained driver after some time. This may not be exactly what the question implied, by "susceptibility to distractions," though.

On this score, it is important to remember that training can have a strong impact on what a driver CAN do, but does not necessarily determine what he WILL do. An individual who has received relatively more extensive driver training may be expected to more rapidly find, understand, and react appropriately to the most safety-critical information in a given situation than an untrained or poorly trained individual. Training teaches drivers what to expect in the way of potential hazards, so they may be anticipated and recognized sooner, and responded to more effectively. This gained efficiency in visual search, except in extremely high demand situations (e.g., high-speed, high-volume traffic; or adverse weather conditions), will result in 'spare capacity.'

That is, while the untrained (especially novice) motorist is likely to experience the driving task as sufficiently demanding that his or her full attention is required to perform it, the highly-trained driver will perceive the difficulty of the driving task as being easier-even routine--especially when driving on familiar routes. And with this perception that one's full attention is not necessary to meet the demands of the driving task, the susceptibility to distraction increases.

This does not suggest that training is unnecessary or counterproductive. With experience, the same perceptions of spare capacity evolve. And for novices, I would expect safety benefits of training--especially to the extent it is focused on the 'tactical' aspects of driving, situational awareness and hazard recognition--to be measurable for at least several years. But to reiterate, it is the pattern of reinforcement for everyday behavior that ultimately controls how often and to what a driver pays attention.

At the moment, what seems to me to be the most interesting research approach in this area would be a comparison of the attentional behaviors and hazard avoidance responses, obtained unobtrusively under completely naturalistic (on-road) driving conditions, between groups selected to permit study of the interactions between experience, amount/type of training, and functional ability level.

Just look at the amount of aggression caused by just thinking about using technology while driving. Use of horn and provokotive stickers is not the answer unless we want more road rage and anger. The truth of the matter is that in-car technologies are not causing much more danger than talking to passenegrs, singing to the radio or changing tapes in the car. You would perhaps find that individuals using mobile phones when they drive are the type of people who would drive inattentively anyway. Driving is an expressive behaviour, whether it should be or not, and that means showing off behind the wheel. Using a phone or new technolgy shows you are up with the latest and more importantly you want others to notice this and therefore drive as if being distracted? How about that?

You hit it on the nail about driver training and experience. This country needs to return to driver education at an early age and require recertification every time a license is renewed. If Professional drivers are required to obtain Federal licenses why not everyone else. We are starting on our second generation of drivers with little or no official Drivers Education and what they are learning is from the first generation i.e. Mom and Dad or older sibling.

Xiomara. People who drive while under the influence of drink or drugs are a danger to others. People who drive whilst extremely tired are a danger to others. People who talk on cell phones or play with palm pilots ect are a danger to others. All of the above will and do distract people from driving. Whether it is through drink, lack of sleep or speaking on the cell phone your brain is engaged somewhere else so you tend not to notice things around you like the person standing at the cross walk or the traffic that is slowing down ahead. I have witnessed to many times cell phone users blasting through cross walks whilst people are crossing, running red lights, turning and not signalling because their hands are to busy. It gets very tiresome having to deal with this everyday. Many countries in Europe including my native country of England have banned cell phone use while driving for about a decade now because it was found that phone use whilst driving was becoming a problem. We didn't wait for statistics and numbers in order to do something. We banned it outright thus preventing many cell phone related accidents in the future. I can understand you being defensive because you are proberbly one of those culprits and are out to defend the cell phoners bill of rights. For a change maybe you can think about my RIGHT and and everybody elses RIGHT to drive on the roads without worrying about you hitting me because you were to busy yakking on the phone. Thinking about the RIGHTS of the many is what makes a society function. Also Xiomara you proberbly have no idea what it is like to live in a communist country so don't even say it. This country is not just about you its about everybody.

I don't believe that these devices and their reponsible use by attentive drivers is a safety risk. When these devices ( and I am speaking particularly of cellphones and nav systems) are properly setup and the operator is familiar with their operation, they are quite safe. You don't even really need a voice activated phone, anyone that can learn to type can learn to punch numbers into a phone keypad without taking their eyes off the road. If a computer display or a HUD (Heads Up Display) is setup near to the driver's normal line of vision, it takes no longer to check your position on a scrolling map than it does to check your mirrors. I am convinced of the usefullness of these items, what I am unconvinced of is their danger-- I believe that they are only dangerous when used improperly. That is why I continue to believe that we need to prosecute those who endanger people with their poor driving habits and leave the rest of us alone.

Do you really believe that "Using a phone or new technolgy shows you are up with the latest and more importantly you want others to notice this and therefore drive as if being distracted?" WHAT A CROCK. How immature, as is your atatement "The truth of the matter is that in-car technologies are not causing much more danger than talking to passenegrs, singing to the radio or changing tapes in the car." WHAT? Where have you been? People are getting killed everyday by drivers lost in their cell phone conversations. Go back and read some of the comments in this forum 1st, especially the ones from people who have lost loved ones. Get educated about this problem, then comment from an INFORMED position not just a load of BS. This is a serious problem and it deserves a serious attitude. After you have read up on this I would personally welcome your INFORMED thought out oppinion based on the FACTS not fantasy.

If I am going someplace that I haven't been to before and don't know the route I look at the map BEFORE I pull out of the drive. I memorize the route or if it is too complex I break it down. I memorize a portion of it and when I get to that spot I stop and look at my map and memorize the rest of it. You can't really focus on understanding a map if your blasting down the freeway. All you're going to do is endanger yourself and everyone around you. Plan ahead... you'll actually get there faster by taking 2 minutes to plan before you leave.

Why is it Americans value their freedoms so heavily as long as it's not them paying for it? So you think as long as it's not someone you love or care about then it's perfectly all right to have a distracted driver maim or kill them? What about their freedom to live? If drivers distracted by cell phone use only killed other cell phone users then maybe you would have a point BUT they don't. You would spin 180 degrees on you oppinion if you couldn't walk for the rest of YOUR LIFE because someone neeeded to get their grocery list on the freeway. Let's not confuse rights (like the right to not be killed by cell phone users) with privileges (like using a cell phone). Privileges never overrule rights. I'd be interested in your comments AFTER you get rammed by one of these "vacant" drivers. Let's see what you think about freedoms after you pay for theirs.

I remember you, you're the one that was cruising in the passing lane blocking traffic while talking on your cell phone and waiving your hands around. Then you realized that you were missing your exit and cut across 2 lanes to slam on your bakes in front of an exiting car. Thank God the drivers around you weren't on the phone and missed you. Well maybe it wasn't you...today. I see this happen EVERYDAY with drivers on cell phones. Try and convince me they're that much different from a drunk. They both drive like nobody's home. Also the personal freedom thing only goes so far. If you think it's your right to kill someone on the road in the name of personal freedom you're wrong. I know your kind, you would want to hang the person who was on the phone when they hit YOUR kids. But someone elses kids...who cares Right? And by the way the license to operate cell phones IS regulated by the FCC as are all thing that broadcast or send signals. So if they get out of hand the govt. can step in anytime they want. They probably won't but they can. Finally, unless you've lived under or fought the communist you probably could care less about that issue either so stick to what you know. Or go live there and really find out what freedom means.

I have never talked to or read a comment by a driver that starts off " I'm a bad driver... 1st of all according to the person talking/writing they are always good drivers, in their oppinion. Usually this is because they have never had a wreck. They may have caused some but were able to slip out of the collision itself. The only oppinions that should carry any significant weight should be those of focussed non-distracted drivers, because they are the ones that notice everything that is going on out there not just glimpses here and there. This is serious business and adding new toys to the already heavy concentration demands of driving is just asking for accidents. The traffic is MUCH heavier that say 5 years ago and on top of that we're going to add more distrations? I can't believe anyone who seriously drives is going to want any more to handle than they already have. Let's keep it safe out there. Turn off your toys and drive fully alert. Become the "good driver" you tell people you are.

A. The Indiana based, "Tri-Level Study of the Causes of Traffic Accidents" published by NHTSA in 1975 remains one of the classic works in attempting to define causal factors in crashes. It tells us that about 90% of crashes include human factors as direct causes. Of these, approximately 50% were characterized as recognition errors, 40% as decision errors, and 10% as performance errors. These factors were derived from detailed analyses of crashes investigated by police and by trained in-depth crash investigators. Analysts were drawn from several disciplines. To my knowledge, the level of detail captured in this study has never been replicated.

Unfortunately, the Tri-level Study was conducted long before the current plethora of in-vehicle technologies were developed. Still, the report cites driver inattention, internal distraction, improper lookout and excessive speed among the most prevalent causal factors.

The more recent 1997 NHTSA report, "An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless Communications in Vehicles" examines current databases for indications of technology-use based causal factors in crashes. As explained in my testimony at the Public Meeting, these databases rely heavily on police accident reports to recognize the use of cell phones (and other devices) as pre-crash factors. Given the widespread use of small, easily concealed, handheld phones, it is extremely difficult for law enforcement personnel to detect such use in the absence of witness statements or other physical evidence. Because cell phone use is not illegal, there is little incentive for officers to inquire about, or to note such use on their reports. The introduction of other devices such as fax machines and navigational aids is so recent, that a body of data (even of poor data) has not yet been developed.

Police reports will never be able to adequately assess technology use as a causal factor. Highway safety researchers face the same challenges, and generally conduct their investigations days after the crashes occur. A crash investigation-generated statistical basis for safety decisions regarding in-vehicle devices will always be lacking the required rigor. None of the other nations which have passed laws regulating the use of in-vehicle technologies did so on the basis of statistics.

For those few crashes in the FARS and NASS data for 1996-1997 which were determined to be technology related, the citations issued to recognized cell phone-using drivers were primarily for inattention, failure to yield, run off the road, and excessive speed. For the in-depth investigations conducted by Dynamic Science in support of the report, the overriding factor was driver inattention.

Clearly then, driver inattention is a recognized and significant factor in highway crashes. The question then becomes, "What causes driver inattention?" Any driver can tell you that there are many causes - roadside activities, crying children, handling CDs, eating, drinking, shaving, whatever humans can invent.

Current NHTSA sponsored databases indicate that about 30% of crashes are caused by driver distraction. I am not familiar with comparable data from other countries, and refer you to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

In Japan, a one-month study of cell phone use by drivers was conducted by police in June of 1996, prior to the adoption of their law banning hand held phone use. They studied 129 crashes and determined that drivers were generally dialing a phone or responding to a call at the times of their crashes. This would indicate that biomechanical distraction (handling the phone) is a serious issue in Japan. Both crash investigation and human factors data in the U.S. show that it is the cognitive distraction of being involved in conversation that constitutes the greatest risk for drivers.

The question of potential benefits of in-vehicle, distraction-related technologies is of great interest at this time. The cell phone industry and the law enforcement community tout the benefits of immediate emergency notifications. Such calls can and should be made from a stopped vehicle, which makes the issue of driver distraction a moot point. The human factors research cited in the 1997 report includes one study that indicated that conversation may help offset fatigue among professional truck drivers. It certainly can be argued that rest is the best cure for driver fatigue, and adding a recognized cognitive distraction to an impaired drowsy driving situation may be a poor solution. In fact, a great deal of attention is focused on fatigued commercial vehicle drivers, and I have not heard anyone suggest that we should issue cell phones to such drivers to improve their performance.

The merits of other in-vehicle technologies such as navigational devices, and night vision systems will have to be judged based upon human factors studies - at least for the short term. It takes years to be able to develop a statistically reliable crash data set for emerging technologies of any kind as we have seen from recent experience with air bags and antilock brakes. But the absence of statistics should never be used as an excuse for inaction when a problem has been recognized. Cell phones are not essential devices for driving. In fact, in my opinion, they are an unnecessary and dangerous source of driver distraction. Our first priority must always be safety. The design and development of new technologies must not be driven by profit, or even by convenience. The devices must be shown to at least not degrade driving performance if they cannot be shown to enhance driving safety.

Your comments are well-articulated and, in many cases, are probably right. However, I pay extraordinary attention to what's going on around me. I admit I use a cellphone often, use a computer very often, and that I drive fast. However, I also keep track of every car around me and what most drivers are doing (tinted windows is making this more and more difficult). I use my turn signals, I get in the appropriate lane well before I need to make a turn. It is possible to drive safely and attentively while doing other things. Cellphones and computers are no more distracting in a car than passengers are (less so than most children), I don't see anyone wnating to ban carpooling because of driver distraction.

Unquestionably, men are guilty of cell phone use while driving. However, during the time I worked in Westport, CT, I found that by far the worst offenders were women driving their children around in their trucks, a.k.a. SUV's. I have come to the conclusion that they aren't capable of driving unless totally distracted by kids & calls. It is beyond me how these allegedly intelligent people can choose vehicles that are unsafe both to themselves & their families (Finally admitted to by both the manufacturers & NHTSA), and to those of us who drive cars. And, to compound that danger, the majority in Westport insist on driving while distracted. I have been involved in close calls on average of once a week here. Of course, part of the problem may be that we have a lot of stop signs here. It really takes a lot of attention to driving to see them all - do you think? What 20%? 30%? As a former automotive journalist, I long ago learned of the necessity for concentration on driving while driving. Laws to enforce more concentration on driving by outlawing distractions are long overdue. Lives are involved here, not just the profits of the auto & truck manufacturers. Driving requires full concentration to be safe.

The vast majority of the cars on the roads have only one person in them so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. If you are bored with your own company how is that the problem of the "full time" drivers? Maybe you're suffering from an attention span deficit. Your justification for driving while using a cell phone is lame at best. What you basically said is that there are lots of stupid things going on out there so one more stupid thing is OK and I presume you feel it's your obligation to do it. Have you considered that other drivers may veiw you as a problem driver? Here are a few simple questions to test whether you are. (1) Are you in the left lane but not passing? (2) Are you slowing down and speeding up according to the flow of your cell phone conversation? (3) Do other drivers honk at you to get your attention back onto driving? (4) Do you find yourself 2 or 3 seconds behind on lane change decisions, exits or traffic flow changes? (5) do you have to force your way into other lanes to make your exit that you're going to miss? If you are on a cell phone while driving and answering yes to one or two of these, you may want take a strong look at your bad driving habits. Try to remember that we all have to share the roads and that all of us have the responsibility as mature adults to ensure that we are not creating hazards for other drivers. There is no slack being cut for bad drivers in wrecks. You'll get hurt or killed just like anyone else. This is serious business. Hang up. Pay attention. Drive safely.

I think this study sums up the problem with in-vehicle devices. Drivers are distracted by them and a higher risk to those sharing the road with them. If cigarette smoking is banned in public places due to the risk of second hand smoke then all distracting devices in vehicles should be treated the same way. Why should a driver be allowed, even encouraged, to risk the safety of those around them?

It's not that I think that cell phone use while driving should necessarily be banned (I don't), but the list of accident "causes" that you have compiled makes little sense. In the first place, roadway design, potholes and the like are responsible for a very, very small proportion of crashes - way less than distraction. In the second place, some of the things that you list are situations that are likely not to be a problem if the driver is attentive. Finally, the balance of the list are distractions - not less of a problem than cell phones, but cell phones do add to the problem.

I don't think that 911 is the place to call for reporting a traffic light out.

Systems exist which indicate range of vehicles in front of own vehicle. A couple of these are based on radar. It would seem that a major impact of distraction would be to expose own vehicle to low value spikes in this headway data (e.g. = 0: rear end collision with vehicle in front while distracted). In my brief review, I did not see use of headway sensed, yet close following was one of the test patterns.

Mirrors have limited use and offer some benefits. But, did you ever have a baby chocking in the back seat while you are driving at 35MPH? If you moved your eyes from the road to the baby for just ten seconds your car would have traveled out out of control for over 500 feet. Front seat for a forward facing baby allows a great deal to be done via pripheral vision, while touching with a free hand. Think about it.

In my particular area, 911 calls are routed directly to local police who can send a traffic cop out to the area as well as contacting the parties responsible for maintenance and repairs.