Mobile phones

[Astraist]

Testing in actual cars has produced similar results for the most part, as did investigating collisions before which the driver was on the phone. I'm afraid there is little doubt that talking on the phone (regardless of whether it's held by hand or not) is a major distraction, unlike (according the most researches) talking to a passenger or listening to the radio.

It is often more dangerous than distractions that require taking an eye off of the road, because most of us tend to subconciously compensate for that by prolonging the distracting action and peeking frequently at the road. Most drivers don't have the same coping mechanism when it comes to talking on the phone because the distraction isn't quite so overt.

So, the solution isn't to to avoid talking on the phone while driving, but rather to coach oneself into developing such a defensive mechanism by slowing down, ensuring that the main focus is on the road rather than the conversation, and - in tricky spots - being ready to cut the flow of the conversation momentarily and devote all attention the hazards ahead.

I'm sure many would dismiss the findings as they don't match their own beliefs. While that's perfectly normal, it gets in the way of any rational discussion. Hence the positions on here where everyone thinks they are definitely in the right, and everyone else is simply failing to understand the situation.

Exactly! Which is why our beliefs and values should align themselves with data beyond the fruit of our own observations, which even after countless miles could be biased.

[Horse]

As for the all the "evidence". If you believe that sitting in a mock-up of a car interior looking out at a representation of the driving environment using graphics that would have been laughed at in an amusement arcade in the 1980s, with the occasional dodgy graphic jumping out from the scenery shouting "boo", represents real driving, then there may be something in it. I don't.

And this view is based on *what* experience, exactly? Or just a belief?

[Strangely Brown]

On the way in to work this morning I was passenger with a friend and colleague and we happened to be chatting about a Netflix TV series. At one point I mentioned that a particular actor was quite well suited to his role but that I couldn't remember his hame. My friend knew which actor I was speaking about and tried to remember the his name. At this point I noticed the car begin to drift towards the left edge of the lane. It was only for a few seconds, and in this case it happened not to be dangerous because there was nobody immediately to our left, but was noticeable. By the simple action of trying to recall a name he was, I assume, searching his visual memory to put a name to a remembered face and I wonder how much of the drive in those few seconds is a complete blank in his memory.

This is the kind of thing that we all do, whether we choose to admit to it or not and is exactly the kind of thing highlighted by the research into mobile phone use. There will always be those that think they are different or that their use is more important and will seek to justify their actions. They may be right. Other opinions are available, many backed by evidence.

[akirk]

It is very difficult to fully test and replicate and analyse these issues in real life - so for many of us we can only go on personal experience...
I know with my driving that if I were to have a long phone conversation I would end up leaning back in the driver's seat with my feet up on the dashboard staring into space however I also know that a brief phone conversation of a few seconds while more distracting than no conversation is a) manageable in many driving situations and b) less distracting to my driving than the example I gave above ref. satnav.

There seem to be some very polarised / absolute views on here, where I don't believe that it is quite so simple. One of our distinguishing features as advanced drivers should be a degree of perception and intelligence and on that basis I would hope that people would see that situations can vary... Like any other choice we make as drivers a big part of the process should be that we make deliberate choices, with as much knowledge as we can, and understanding the potential impact of our choice and mitigating against possible negative outcomes - so in the case of a simple answering of the phone through a hands-free system, I would expect to consciously choose whether the conditions meant I would answer or not / I would consciously choose to make it a brief conversation and I would consciously choose to focus primarily on the road and give secondary attention to the call - and despite the nosayers, that is possible

All of that is very different from the situations being tested, and while I acknowledge that it will definitely reduce focus / concentration & increase distraction, as mentioned above in an earlier posting, one reason I do AD is to increase contingency so that I can choose at times to give away a bit of that contingency without detrimental results...

Alasdair

[Astraist]

in the case of a simple answering of the phone through a hands-free system, I would expect to consciously choose whether the conditions meant I would answer or not / I would consciously choose to make it a brief conversation and I would consciously choose to focus primarily on the road and give secondary attention to the call - and despite the nosayers, that is possible

That.

A local advanced driving "school" checked this with a department in Bar-Ilan University. A test track (essentially an autocross/gymkhana) was set with moving obstacles and surprises meant to simulate a relativelly crowded city block.

Drivers who talked on the phone (hands free) had considerable difficulty, but when they were made to focus more on the road itself - they managed to improve significantly, to the point where it wasn't all that different from driving without talking on the phone.

One way to conciously do that is to pick a task related to driving, like checking mirrors, and do it in a repetitive pattern. Other than that, it's mostly about increasing your margins to accomodate for the longer reaction time.

Making the call short is also a good idea and if it does stretch out - it's not a bad idea to pull over in a safe location, conclude the discussion and continue on.

In terms of how much people are on the phone while driving - slowing down and occasionally even pulling over - isn't going to prolong the drive by much.

[Horse]

It is very difficult to fully test and replicate and analyse these issues in real life - so for many of us we can only go on personal experience...

A couple of us have posted about drivers we've seen recently and how their phone use adversely - and visibly -affected their driving. What do you think those drivers' personal experiences and beliefs are? And there's the benefit of research involving many.

The problem is that we don't appreciate how our personal experiences are 'filtered' by bias.

Before you click the first link, have a quess at how many different ways our perceptions of the world are biased
https://betterhumans.coach.me/cognitive ... a472476b18
https://www.designhacks.co/products/cog ... dex-poster

Human thought faces “four giant problems”:
1.Information overload sucks, so we aggressively filter.
2.Lack of meaning is confusing, so we fill in the gaps.
3.Need to act fast lest we lose our chance, so we jump to conclusions.
4.This isn’t getting easier, so we try to remember the important bits.

And our solutions to these problems themselves have problems:
1.We don’t see everything. Some of the information we filter out is actually useful and important.
2.Our search for meaning can conjure illusions. We sometimes imagine details that were filled in by our assumptions, and construct meaning and stories that aren’t really there.
3.Quick decisions can be seriously flawed. Some of the quick reactions and decisions we jump to are unfair, self-serving, and counter-productive.
4.Our memory reinforces errors. Some of the stuff we remember for later just makes all of the above systems more biased, and more damaging to our thought processes.

[akirk]

It is very difficult to fully test and replicate and analyse these issues in real life - so for many of us we can only go on personal experience...

A couple of us have posted about drivers we've seen recently and how their phone use adversely - and visibly -affected their driving. What do you think those drivers' personal experiences and beliefs are? And there's the benefit of research involving many.

The problem is that we don't appreciate how our personal experiences are 'filtered' by bias.

Sorry, this seems contradictory to me...

either you are saying that experiences some have seen are a valid justification for formation of a view (in which case an opposing / different / complementary view is also valid if based on seeing other experiences)

or, you are saying that personal experiences are filtered by bias (thus invalidating e.g. my personal experience) but if so, that also invalidates the perception of others in their experiences...

so either all are valid, or none are valid - neither of which helps form any conclusion other than that experiences vary / conclusions vary and therefore there is no one prescriptive answer - which is perhaps correct!

The simple reality is that we have all seen people whose driving is distracted by e.g. a mobile phone being used - equally I suspect that we have all seen drivers whose concentration hasn't been detrimentally affected - i.e. no crashes / etc. certainly I and some others on here can confirm that we have used hands-free phones carefully and sensibly without destroying the landscape. All we can therefore conclude is that there are clear scenarios where a phone shouldn't be used, and equally there are clear scenarios where a phone through hands-free can be used and the safety level remains acceptable...

Alasdair

[Horse]

As for the all the "evidence". If you believe that sitting in a mock-up of a car interior looking out at a representation of the driving environment using graphics that would have been laughed at in an amusement arcade in the 1980s, with the occasional dodgy graphic jumping out from the scenery shouting "boo", represents real driving, then there may be something in it. I don't.

Simulation Validation: Evaluating driver performance in simulation and the real world.
Division of Kinesiology Human Factors Research Laboratory University of Minnesota
http://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/155092
As one of the few studies to directly compare simulated driving performance with a real world driving scenario, we conclude that the simulator performed reliably and provided a valid set of performance data that reflected real world driving.

Driving simulator validation studies: A literature review
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2111/1/I ... adable.pdf
Scene complexity does not seem to improve simulated driving performance where there is not enough evidence about the importance of field of view. It seems that the most important element for a successful behavioural validation study is the carefully designed experimental procedure, including the statistical analysis, and the correct interpretation of the results.


VALIDATION OF DRIVING SIMULATOR AND DRIVER PERCEPTION OF VEHICLE MOUNTED ATTENUATOR MARKINGS IN WORK ZONES
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcon ... ers_theses
The results of objective evaluation established the absolute and relative validity of the driving simulator. The results of subjective evaluation of the simulator indicated realistic experience by the participants.

Evidence of Driving Simulator Training Benefits
http://viragesimulation.com/wp-content/ ... nefits.pdf
Given the historic and non-controversial acceptance of simulator-based training by the military, the aviation industry and the medical profession as well as the increasing quality of affordable driving simulator hardware and software, there is a high probability that an increasing percentage of future driver training and evaluation for fleet drivers will be done on driving simulators. The logic and the evidence support the adoption of the simulator training. Moreover, the benefits of simulator training can be greatly enhanced if sufficient attention is paid to all aspects of the integration of driving simulators into driver-training programs, especially the quality of courseware. Research cited in this article indicates that well-planned improvements in driving simulator courseware are able to cut learning time in half.

This one is locked, so you'll ave to read it:
http://www.gov.scot/resource/doc/935/0051675.pdf


Electric vehicle development and validation of the TRL
simulator
http://www.transportresearchfoundation. ... ulator.pdf
The results demonstrated that DigiCar EV was a good representation of an EV with acceleration and deceleration characteristics identified as key areas for the development of EV simulation.

[Rolyan]

If I have to change something on the screen in the car - e.g. satnav - responding to it pinging up a message saying traffic ahead, new route found - then my eyes will be off the road for some time, potentially reading what it is saying, looking at both routes, making a decision, choosing another route etc. that is clearly dangerous, but it is not specifically legislated against...

or a phone call can come in, I can answer it without taking my eyes off the road ahead, I can easily reply briefly and finish the call - clearly that is an added distraction over not having a call, no doubt about that - but... how do you judge that against the distraction above? I would say it is less dangerous - and that is why hands-free calling is legal

now the same scenario, but I have to find the phone in my pocket / cubby hole, pick it up, use my fingerprint or password to get in / answer the call etc. - understandably legislated against as it would be eyes off the road and distracting - but how do you compare that against the legally acceptable satnav use described above?

I agree, you want to minimise any form of distraction, but driving without distraction just doesn't happen, yet normally it doesn't lead to chaos / mayhem / destruction - that tends to come from more intense distractions - so we need to not assume that the correct goal is to aim for no distraction, but to aim to minimise it / avoid it, and legislate at a boundary where above that level is clearly, demonstrably not acceptable - currently though we legislate by what is easy to prosecute, not by what is most / least distracting...

Alasdair

Its not black and white and never will be. It's not a case of removing all distractions, or accepting all distractions. Its also not a case of "it can't be that distracting as we haven't seen chaos".

It's as simple as assessing risk. There have been studies that show that having a telephone conversation, hands free, significantly increases the risk due to the process. Obviously everyone can give examples in this thread of "my wife asks me to pick her up" or "my colleague told me about a meeting"; but those are as irrelevant as the examples where its a really complicated conversation involving in depth discussions, emotions, and processing etc. Unfortunately I cant remember where all the studies are; Martin gave 2 examples on here but there are more.

The studies DO show increased risk caused by the distractions resulting from the processing involved in a conversation with somebody not in the vehicle. I'm disappointed (although no longer surprised) when so many are prepared to dismiss the findings, without even reading them. This is not directed at you specifically, just a general comment.

What we need is an open discussion of published studies, and then decisions based on risk assessment. But that's not going to happen as it takes too much work and makes people challenge their own perceptions.

[Rolyan]

It is very difficult to fully test and replicate and analyse these issues in real life - so for many of us we can only go on personal experience...

Or study the published data, accepting that personal experience is not the truth, its only our interpretation of what the truth is. Hence why so many drivers think they are above average. It's their personal experience, and they believe it to be be true, but.......

I know with my driving that if I were to have a long phone conversation I would end up leaning back in the driver's seat with my feet up on the dashboard staring into space however I also know that a brief phone conversation of a few seconds while more distracting than no conversation is a) manageable in many driving situations and b) less distracting to my driving than the example I gave above ref. satnav.

There seem to be some very polarised / absolute views on here, where I don't believe that it is quite so simple. One of our distinguishing features as advanced drivers should be a degree of perception and intelligence and on that basis I would hope that people would see that situations can vary... Like any other choice we make as drivers a big part of the process should be that we make deliberate choices, with as much knowledge as we can, and understanding the potential impact of our choice and mitigating against possible negative outcomes - so in the case of a simple answering of the phone through a hands-free system, I would expect to consciously choose whether the conditions meant I would answer or not / I would consciously choose to make it a brief conversation and I would consciously choose to focus primarily on the road and give secondary attention to the call - and despite the nosayers, that is possible

All of that is very different from the situations being tested, and while I acknowledge that it will definitely reduce focus / concentration & increase distraction, as mentioned above in an earlier posting, one reason I do AD is to increase contingency so that I can choose at times to give away a bit of that contingency without detrimental results...

Alasdair

It's not about being manageable in some situations. Its not about the fact that situations can vary. Its definitely not about the fact that you can cope.

It's about the effect of that increased risk on Joe Public. They aren't the same as you. In society we usually accept that laws apply to all for the overall good of all.

Everyday: I believe that I and others can drive faster, more safely, than many others that I know. But I still believe in speed limits.

Extreme: I believe that I and others can carry and use service pistols in complete safety, and only used appropriately. But I still believe in gun control.

So it's not about personal experience (which is actually less accurate than you may think); it's about accepted and documented studies providing data, risk assessment of that data, then working within the philosophy of accepting some things for the greater good.