Comments on: Road test shows texting slows reaction time

A test conducted by Car & Driver magazine included reading texts, writing texts, and then drunk driving to see the effects on two actual men behind the wheel. The results aren't pretty.

[mutualin4mation]

Meanwhile the police are busy writing failure to stop tickets to recapitalize the local governments.

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.

[applediddy]

That would work too and I'd be ok with that!

[monkeyfun14]

"I don't use my cell phone on my motorcycle."


My god I would hope not.

[Hernys]

You don't use your cellphone on your motorcycle because you use a helmet, and if you didn't wind would not allow you to hear anything. So you can't compare talking on a car with talking on a motorcycle because the later is physically impossible.

[mutualin4mation]

For those that don't know you can use a cell phone on a motorcycle. There is the new technology called "bluetooth" that you use with a "head set" can you can get integrated with a "helmet".

But you can txt on your motorcycle too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxZxjgKcsPE

[Inconnux]

Cell phone usage (hands free is fine) should have been banned while driving years ago. I cant count how many times some idiot using a cell phone has cut me off etc... almost causing an accident.

[eddy m]

It's been illegal to use mobiles while driving in the UK for years now, but that's made little difference, because it isn't enforced.

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.

[applediddy]

Is this supposed to surprise anyone? There should be laws against texting while driving and I think all states (not just some) should outlaw talking on the cell without some sort of handsfree device whether bluetooth or corded. And for those people who say they can't afford those, I got two bluetooth headsets for 15 bucks on Overstock 3 months ago.

[martin1212]

Actually other studies show that using handsfree devices are no safer than actually holding a cellphone, the main distraction factor in this case is the conversation itself with someone who is not there with you in the car. So saying the latter should be banned while doing the former is not really helping.

[Hernys]

No, you misinterpreted those studies. Those studies (I've read at leas three of them and they were consistent in this) demonstrated that using a hansfree device also impaired driving, but the difference with holding a cellphone was very clear, by about an order of magnitude. Holding a cellphone equated to drunk driving, while using a hands-free slightly impaired reaction times and concentration. Big difference.
"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.

[Hernys]

Now, we need further research on the impact of browsing the web, tweeting and viewing Youtube videos while driving.

// Posted from my cellphone while driving on the highway - please excuse brevity and typos //

[martin1212]

@Hernys, here are a couple of the studies I was referring to:

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...)

[Renegade Knight]

there should be laws against engaging in driving distractions. We don't need individual laws to cover each distraction. A like "Inatentive driving" would be a good start. That's already on the books.

[baconstang]

Ban both unless traffic is moving less than 10MPH.

[jaina8851]

No, it's dangerous even then, because in bumper to bumper traffic if you take your eyes off the road you won't notice if the car in front of you stops and you will rear end them.

[JWreford]

I cannot believe that a test had to be devised in order to gain this information. What a waste of resources. This should be common sense. Although common sense is not very common anymore.

"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.

[CrimsonCantab]

Amen. Sure, it's nice to see the numbers, and I think for some people it can be quite an awakening, but if you don't have enough intelligence to know that DWT is a bad idea, you shouldn't have a license.

[jchanski21]

You're asking why do we need to "waste" resources doing these tests? Try reading your own comment. You just said that people don't have common sense, and we need to tell them what the "real world" is like and take away their overconfidence. What better way than to show them with hard numbers how texting/reading hurts their reaction time?

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.

[Hernys]

I don't think this is foolish. Dumb people need to be convinced, and hard data is good at doing that. This article would be useless only if there were no stupid people in the world, and as you say, that's not the case.
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.

[Alphaman63]

"What a waste"??? Did you read the article, or just come down to the comments section to start blathering? The "test" was done by Car and Driver magazine. It's called "an article". Articles are required to fill the pages of magazines, so they can sell the magazines. Exactly what "resources" were wasted, other than the electrons used to store and transmit your comment?

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...

[Renegade Knight]

What's your point? You knew that texting was worst than DUI? Only one way to know that and that's to be an expert in both. Are you?

[Hernys]

Very interesting results. Now, not that I advocate texting while driving, but the article is missing one important factor: when somebody is driving and texting, he or she is (significantly) impaired during that operation, while for the rest of the trip reaction times should be normal.
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.

[man_w_balls]

have you ever been drunk? It's not like you lose all sense of reality or comprehension, to the extent that you would mistake a sidewalk for the road.

[myles taylor]

And in other news, eating at McDonalds exclusively is unhealthy.

Come on, someone actually did a study on this? Why do a study on the obvious?

[ewsachse]

No duh!

No **** Sherlock!

Stating the obvious.

[limaxray]

Just wanted to point out that these number are pretty much meaningless. Without knowing the baseline distances, you can't infer much from simply saying 'it took X number of ft more'.

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.)

[martin1212]

The numbers in terms of baseline and distracted reaction times are in the original article if you follow the link.

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.

[Alphaman63]

@limaxray: "Just wanted to point out that these number are pretty much meaningless. Without knowing the baseline distances, you can't infer much from simply saying 'it took X number of ft more'."

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...

this just shows that old people shouldn't text while driving ;)

[tipoo_]

Kind of one of those "no ****" studies.

[ktmglen]

What's the effect on reaction time when you're sitting completely stopped at a light that just turned red and won't turn green for another minute?

[lvcsslacker]

It seems Alterman really shoudln't be on the road at all...

[JWreford]

What resources were wasted? Once again not to bright. Someone had to spend time to do the test, they get paid. Someone had to drive the car and burn the fuel, fuel costs money and the driver had to get paid. The time and effort could be better spent doing other tasks. Stop thinking so linear.

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.

[martin1212]

The article was published in a magazine, this was not government funded research. The purpose of the magazine is to sell more copies so they get more advertising revenue. Writing articles like this attracts readers so achieving that purpose. Clearly it is doing a good job as it appears to have attracted a lot of readers judging by the comments here.

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.

[moviegeek65]

They'll get my cellphone when they pry from my cold dead fingers....which might be soon if I text while driving.

[rickhigginshtbr]

I'm assuming they used the same phone for both people, right? Before I got my Samsung Eternity, I had some LG Flip phone that was 10x easier to text with.

[HeavyJim]

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.