OLYMPIA, Wash. -- During the morning rush hour on Dec. 5, the 53-year-old driver of a blue Dodge Caravan was traveling north on Interstate 5 outside Seattle when he took his eyes off the road to scan an email on his BlackBerry, the State Patrol says. And that's how he hit the white Mazda, which clipped the green Honda, which rammed the black Toyota SUV before spinning into the other lane and plowing into a city bus.

Nobody was seriously hurt. But the episode sparked a chain reaction of a different sort in the state legislature, in the form of a bill that would make it a crime to "operate a motor vehicle while reading, writing or sending electronic messages."

"I think just about everyone realizes that text messaging while driving should not be acceptable," says Joyce McDonald, the bill's sponsor. But the Republican member of the Washington House of Representatives also recognizes that people call it "CrackBerry" for a reason: She cheerfully admits she'd probably scan her own device on the drive to work "if I didn't need my reading glasses to see email."

Forget DWI. The big new traffic-safety issue is DWT: Driving While Texting.

Ms. McDonald is joining a crowd of politicians seeking a crackdown. In neighboring Oregon, pending bills would provide fines -- up to $720 in one of them -- for any driver caught texting, or holding a cellphone to an ear. And in Arizona, a bill is pending that would make DWT a ticketable offense.

DWT is an extreme version of a whole new class of modern "distracted driving" issues lawmakers are wrestling with around the country, as electronic devices become an ever more important part of people's lives, in and out of their automobiles. Lawmakers are being encouraged by insurance companies like Allstate Corp., which has added an email fanatic to its stable of "multitasker" safe-driving ads. The campaign shows the "dedicated investor," who is balancing a BlackBerry and the business section of a newspaper on the wheel while he navigates his sports car through stop-and-go traffic. (Another scene in the ad shows a driver changing his trousers while blazing down the highway).
Driving while talking on cellphones has gotten the most legislative attention. Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, California and the District of Columbia currently outlaw the use of handheld phones while driving, and 38 states are currently debating 133 bills that would regulate their use behind the wheel, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions. In Washington, D.C., an industry lobby group called CTIA -- The Wireless Association has begun tracking legislation, including Ms. McDonald's bill, and scratching out a strategy to counter it.

"I don't think you'd find anyone who would say that trying to text and drive is not reckless behavior," says Joe Farren, spokesman for the group. "If you're being reckless, you should get a ticket." He adds that his group has taken no formal position on text-message bills such as Ms. McDonald's.

Few driver distractions seem quite as frighteningly intrusive as attempting to read and type messages while weaving in traffic. The first reported incident of DWT may have been in Tennessee in 2005, when a man died while texting when he lost control of his pickup and plunged down an embankment. In Colorado that same year, a teenager served 10 days in jail after he struck and killed a bicyclist while texting a friend.

A study conducted by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. that was released earlier this year found that 19% of all drivers text message behind the wheel -- and 37% of drivers between the ages of 18 and 27.

DWT seems particularly common among kids. Ms. McDonald first considered her ban last October after she visited a high school and a group of students showed her how to send text messages by cellphone. "They were sending messages secretly while they were sitting in class," she says. "It wasn't long before it dawned on me that they were also texting while they were driving."

The discovery enabled Ms. McDonald to find a quick co-sponsor across the aisle in Democrat Dawn Morrell, who said she had seen her own campaign manager texting behind the wheel. "Imagine these kids driving along while they're breaking up with their boyfriends or whatever," Ms. Morrell says. "We laugh but it's scary."

A hearing was held recently on Ms. McDonald's bill in an ornate legislative building adjacent to the capitol in Olympia, where she and others testified before a largely impassive group of House Transportation Committee members. The legislature has turned down cellphone legislation eight years straight. But this time, it was clear the mood had begun to shift. Many legislators seemed keen to enact some restrictions. One representative, Larry Seaquist, referred in the hearing to a bill that would "phase out" handheld wireless devices among drivers as "The Save My Wife's Life Act."

Sprint Nextel Corp., which opposes legislation that would limit wireless devices in cars, had a lobbyist in Olympia that day. Sprint says curbing abuse is best handled through education and should focus on the full spectrum of driver distractions. The company has begun distributing a series of four posters to high schools around the country that highlight this strategy. One of the posters shows a burger and fries, while the others show a tube of mascara, a compact disc and a silver fliptop phone. The caption on the phone poster reads: "Cell Phone 4oz. Car 2,800 lbs. Taking the wheel is a ton of responsibility."

Few opponents argue that driving and texting -- any more than driving and drinking -- is a good idea. Instead, opponents focus on the dearth of statistics showing that wireless devices cause crashes. Indeed, there are few data suggesting that texting causes more wrecks than, say, fast-food. A study conducted by the state of Washington in 2006 blamed "driver distractions" for 7.5% of the 50,000 reported accidents during the first nine months of that year. Of that number, the study said distractions prompted by "operating a handheld communications device," including text messaging, came in fifth, statistically in line with the grab-bag category of "driver interacting with passengers, animals or objects."

But police in Washington say not a day passes when they don't see a case of DWT, and that the statistics may not reflect the extent of the problem. Many wrecks have an undetermined cause, and DWT data rely on driver honesty. Current state law gives drivers little incentive to blab. The reward for honesty is a ticket for negligent operation of a vehicle, which draws a flat $538 fine.

The only way to independently determine whether the devices were in use is cumbersome. Police would have to get a warrant to subpoena billing records. But it would be hard to talk a judge into granting such subpoenas for a fender bender.

Trooper Jeff Merrill says the driver of the Dodge Caravan on Dec. 5 would almost certainly have gotten away with his carelessness had he not confessed. "He's been very upfront about it," Trooper Merrill says.

Trooper Merrill said the biggest problem with Ms. McDonald's legislation may be its enforceability. Though Ms. McDonald says more than 80% of her constituents who text behind the wheel would probably knock it off if the practice were outlawed, the lawman is skeptical.

"Hey, we've all done it one time or another, and I think people will continue to do it," Trooper Merrill says. "But if you're going to do it, you better be careful."

I've never heard someone say that having to visualize the other person is what distracts you (vs talking to them in person) - do you have any reference for that, or is it just your opinion?

Unique Identifier 16884056

Authors Strayer DL. Drews FA. Crouch DJ.

Authors Full Name Strayer, David L. Drews, Frank A. Crouch, Dennis J.

Institution Department of Psychology, 380 South, 1530 East, RM 502,
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0251, USA. david.strayer@utah.edu

Title A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver.
Source Human Factors. 48(2):381-91, 2006.

Abstract OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to determine the relative impairment associated with conversing on a cellular telephone while driving. BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence suggests that the relative risk of being in a traffic accident while using a cell phone is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit. The purpose of this research was to provide a direct comparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory setting. METHOD: We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell phone drivers with drivers who were intoxicated from ethanol (i.e., blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% weight/volume). RESULTS: When drivers were conversing on either a handheld or hands-free cell phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on a cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were intoxicated from ethanol they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. CONCLUSION: When driving conditions and time on task were controlled for, the impairments associated with using a cell phone while driving can be as profound as those associated with driving while drunk. APPLICATION: This research may help to provide guidance for regulation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phone conversations.

Unique Identifier 16854702

Authors McCartt AT. Hellinga LA. Bratiman KA.

Authors Full Name McCartt, Anne T. Hellinga, Laurie A. Bratiman, Keli A.

Institution Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia 22201, USA. amccartt@iihs.org

Title Cell phones and driving: review of research.[comment]. [Review] [135 refs]

Comments Comment on: Traffic Inj Prev. 2005 Jun;6(2):97-104; PMID: 16019393

Source Traffic Injury Prevention. 7(2):89-106, 2006 Jun.

Abstract OBJECTIVE: The research literature on drivers' use of cell phones was reviewed to identify trends in drivers' phone use and to determine the state of knowledge about the safety consequences of such use. METHODS: Approximately 125 studies were reviewed with regard to the research questions, type and rigor of the methods, and findings. Reviewed studies included surveys of drivers, experiments, naturalistic studies (continuous recording of everyday driving by drivers in instrumented vehicles), studies of crash risk, and evaluations of laws limiting drivers' phone use. RESULTS: Observational surveys indicate drivers commonly use cell phones and that such use is increasing. Drivers report they usually use hand-held phones. Experimental studies have found that simulated or instrumented driving tasks, or driving while being observed, are compromised by tasks intended to replicate phone conversations, whether using hand-held or hands-free phones, and may be further compromised by the physical distraction of handling phones. Effects of phone use on driving performance when drivers are in their own vehicles are unknown. With representative samples of adequate size, naturalistic studies in the future may provide the means to document the patterns and circumstances of drivers' phone use and their effects on real-world driving. Currently, the best studies of crash risk used cell phone company billing records to verify phone use by crash-involved drivers. Two such studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use; increased risk was similar for males and females, younger and older drivers, and hands-free and hand-held phones. A number of jurisdictions in the United States and around the world have made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held phones. Studies of these laws show only limited compliance and unclear effects on safety.CONCLUSIONS: Even if total compliance with bans on drivers' hand-held cell phone use can be achieved, crash risk will remain to the extent that drivers continue to use or switch to hands-free phones. Although the enactment of laws limiting drivers' use of all phones is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced. At least in the short term, it appears that drivers' phone use will continue to increase, despite the growing evidence of the risk it creates. More effective countermeasures are needed but are not known at this time.

Unique Identifier 16696268

Authors Horrey WJ. Wickens CD.

Authors Full Name Horrey, William J. Wickens, Christopher D.

Institution University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Savoy, Illinois, USA. william.horrey@libertymutual.com

Title Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques.

Source Human Factors. 48(1):196-205, 2006.

Abstract OBJECTIVE: The performance costs associated with cell phone use while driving were assessed meta-analytically using standardized measures of effect size along five dimensions. BACKGROUND: There have been many studies on the impact of cell phone use on driving, showing some mixed findings. METHODS: Twenty-three studies (contributing 47 analysis entries) met the appropriate conditions for the meta-analysis. The statistical results from each of these studies were converted into effect sizes and combined in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Overall, there were clear costs to driving performance when drivers were engaged in cell phone conversations. However, subsequent analyses indicated that these costs were borne primarily by reaction time tasks, with far smaller costs associated with tracking (lane-keeping) performance. Hands-free and handheld phones revealed similar patterns of results for both measures of performance. Conversation tasks tended to show greater costs than did information-processing tasks (e.g., word games). There was a similar pattern of results for passenger and remote (cell phone) conversations. Finally, there were some small differences between simulator and field studies, though both exhibited costs in performance for cell phone use. CONCLUSION: We suggest that (a) there are significant costs to driver reactions to external hazards or events associated with cell phone use, (b) hands-free cell phones do not eliminate or substantially reduce these costs, and (c) different research methodologies or performance measures may underestimate these costs. APPLICATION: Potential applications of this research include the assessment of performance costs attributable to different types of cell phones, cell phone conversations, experimental measures, or methodologies.

Unique Identifier 15350880

Authors Gugerty L. Rakauskas M. Brooks J.

Authors Full Name Gugerty, Leo. Rakauskas, Mick. Brooks, Johnell.

Institution Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA. gugerty@clemson.edu

Title Effects of remote and in-person verbal interactions on verbalization rates and attention to dynamic spatial scenes.

Source Accident Analysis & Prevention. 36(6):1029-43, 2004 Nov.

Abstract This study focused on how teams allocated attention between a driving-related spatial task and a verbal task, and how different kinds of verbal interactions affected performance of the driving-related task. In Experiment 1, 29 two-person teams performed an interactive verbal task while one team member also performed a simulated driving task. Of the team members performing only the verbal task, half could see their partner's spatial situation, as a car passenger can (in-person condition), and half were remotely located, similar to someone speaking to a driver using a cell-phone. Teams interacted verbally at an overall slower rate during remote than in-person interactions, suggesting that remote verbal interactions are more difficult than in-person interactions. Verbal interactions degraded situation awareness for driving-related information while performing the spatial task; and this degradation was not greater during remote than in-person interactions. Experiment 2 used a faster-paced verbal task and found greater degradation of situation awareness due to the verbal task. These findings are potentially relevant to the issue of how passenger and cell-phone conversations affect driving performance.