Road test shows texting slows reaction time
Driving while texting, amusingly dubbed DWT, has a more profound effect on reaction times than drivers realize, a new road test shows.
A road test run by Car & Driver magazine showed dramatically slower reaction times by two test drivers who tried to brake while reading and, separately, writing text messages. Previous studies on DWT have typically been run in car simulators. The magazine believes its study may be the first conducted in a real vehicle on a stretch of road.
To cover different age ranges, two separate tests were set up on a road course--one with 22-year-old Jordan Brown, a Car & Driver intern, the other with the magazine's 37-year-old editor-in-chief, Eddie Alterman.
Using a Honda Pilot as the test vehicle, both drivers first drove a straight line and were told to hit the brake in response to a light that flashed on the dashboard. That measured their baseline reaction time. The second test had the drivers read a text message while driving; the third asked them to type a message while behind the wheel.
An additional test also compared the effects of DWT with driving while intoxicated, on the same day under the same road conditions. After downing enough alcohol to become legally drunk, the test subjects took to the road again.
The results showed that at 35 mph, it took a sober Brown an extra 21 feet to hit the brake while reading a text message, and an extra 16 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, it took him 30 extra feet to jam on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 31 feet while composing.
Those figures compared with an extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph while intoxicated. However, in his drunken condition, Brown had to be told twice which lane to drive in--a dangerous scenario if he had been in actual traffic.
At 35 mph, a sober Alterman took an extra 188 feet to step on the brake while reading a text, and an extra 90 feet while typing a message.
At 70 mph, he took an extra 129 feet to hit the brake while reading a message, and an additional 319 feet while writing one.
While intoxicated, it took him at extra 7 feet at 35 mph and an extra 15 feet at 70 mph.
"In our test, neither of us had any idea texting would slow down our reaction time so much," said Alterman. "Like most folks, we believe we are good drivers, but the real key to driving safely is keeping your eyes and your mind on the road. Text messaging distracts any driver from those primary tasks."
Car & Driver also noted the relatively safe conditions of its test, compared with driving in the real world. The two subjects drove down a straight line without other cars, signals, or pedestrians.
The full story can be read in Car & Driver's June issue.
Previous studies have also confirmed the dangers of DWT. A recent survey by Vlingo found more than a quarter of respondents admitted to texting while driving.
Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. You can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET. 
When are we going to get smart and ban all cell phone use when driving. I don't use my cell phone on my motorcycle.
My god I would hope not.
But you can txt on your motorcycle too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZxjgKcsPE
A few months ago, I was knocked off my bicycle by a van driver on his mobile, who then stuck a finger up at me when I complained! Nice.
"it is also dangerous" is not the same as "it is equally dangerous".
So yes, driving while talking with a phone in the hand should be banned, while talking on a handsfree should be allowed (considering that the incremental risk is quite likely compensated by people not rushing on the roads to be able to "get that call" and other indirect effects).
I would suggest that you re-read the articles (or that you actually read them for the first time if all you did was reading articles about the articles, as it is common) and get your facts straight.
// Posted from my cellphone while driving on the highway - please excuse brevity and typos //
New England Journal of Medicine:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/336/7/453.pdf
"The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used [...] units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage
over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant)."
British Medical Journal:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/331/7514/428.pdf
"Driver?s use of a mobile phone up to 10 minutes before a crash was associated with a fourfold increased likelihood of crashing (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 2.2 to 7.7, P < 0.001). Risk was raised irrespective of whether or not a hands-free device was used (hands-free: 3.8, 1.8 to 8.0, P < 0.001; hand held: 4.9, 1.6 to 15.5, P = 0.003)."
Perhaps you are thinking of other studies, because I don't see how I can be misinterpreting this - it is pretty clear. Even if there are other studies with differing conclusions out there, I find it very hard to believe your comment that a handsfree device is an order of magnitude (10x) safer than a handheld device. Both clearly impair significantly.
If you look at a lot of the legislation that has been put in place to ban handheld cellphone use, you will see that one of the reasons handsfree devices are not also banned is difficulty in enforcement. Some jurisdictions are now talking about introducing such bans. We shall have to see how that goes, given the apparent difficulty of enforcing bans even against handheld devices (still see lots of them here where it has been illegal for some time...)
"In our test, neither of us had any idea texting would slow down our reaction time so much," said Alterman.
Alterman sounds like he lives in his own little world. No too bright.
"Like most folks, we believe we are good drivers.."
Most folks are not too bright. Ego is the downfall of most people. We need to stop giving people/children so much confidence. The real world does not work like that.
"...but the real key to driving safely is keeping your eyes and your mind on the road."
This is common sense to most people. Usually anything that requires hand - eye co-ordination requires use of the hands and eyes. What a fool.
What a waste.
As for these resources being wasted - it's a magazine for crying out loud. I assume you also think that every road test or car comparison is a waste of gasoline? How dare they floor it and consume that fuel just to find out the 0-60mph time of cars.
Additionally, I knew that textign would impair a driver's reaction time, but the order of magnitude of the impairment is a surprise. I would have expected it to be on the same level as DUI, but it is apparently much more significant. That finding is worth the effort and the time.
The only one coming off as "not too bright" is someone who would say "Most folks are not too bright", immediately followed by "This is common sense to most people".
Yeesh...
While driving under the influence, you are impaired for the whole trip. In addition, not only your reaction times are affected, but your ability to judge situations also is. A texter would not drive on the sidewalk, while a drunk driver probably would.
My point is not that texting while driving is not an issue or that it should be allowed, but that given the different patterns, even if texting can cause accidents, the vast majority of accidents will continue to be caused by drunk drivers, and focus on prevention should not be lifted from there, as accidents caused by texting should account for a minority when compared to trunk or "high" drivers.
Come on, someone actually did a study on this? Why do a study on the obvious?
No **** Sherlock!
Stating the obvious.
For example, say at 35 MPH it took Brown 300ft to react normally, his reaction time while texting would only be 5% worse, which is probably negligible and less than the amount of error.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think text while driving is good or that it doesn't significantly impact your reaction time, just that these number are meaningless.
(The real reason I bring this up is because I bet their results also showed that being older has a significant impact on reaction time, probably more significant than texting or being intoxicated. Certainly the editor-in-chief wouldn't let that little tidbit by.)
The huge difference between the two drivers is very interesting. It's a pity they didn't try a bigger sample - with just two drivers it's impossible to say how much of that difference is down to age.
If you exercise your mouse finger and click on the link that goes to the original Car and Driver article, all your questions would be answered. This CNet article is basically just a comment referencing the C&D article.
Really, clicking a properly cited link is much less effort than posting a comment asking where all the answers are...
Having figures to backup what should be common sense should not be required. If we stopped "hand holding" people and let them fail and die, there would be more people around with more common sense. These types of people need to learn things the hard way.
I know that putting my finger in an electrical outlet is going to hurt. That is common sense. I don't need a study done to let me know how much it will hurt.
And again, you may know that some things are bad, but having a test to show exactly how bad is not a waste. Since large numbers of people seem to think it is acceptable to use a cellphone or text while driving, having a test to show the relative effect compared with drunk driving, which those same people mostly understand is not ok, is an important and interesting result.
- by HeavyJim June 27, 2009 7:40 PM PDT
- Evidently the study was needed to show the idiots who continue to text and talk and not pay attention to what they should be doing....DRIVING.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(37 Comments)