Mobile phones

[Strangely Brown]

you're creating a strawman by comparing research into texting while driving with research into using a mobile phone hands-free.

I am not comparing anything at all. I am asking you a very simple question. You claim that the research is biased and paid for by those with a pre-determined outcome in mind. Are you going to support your assertion and show which of the studies are biased in the way that you claim or not?

I'm going to suggest that it's impossible to have unbiased research when it comes to such politically charged subjects as road safety.

So, that's a no then. You just baldy assert that the research is biased because it is paid for by those that want to present a particular result and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'm going to suggest that you simply can't be bothered to even look at any of the studies that have been linked because your mind is already made up and quite firmly closed. I wonder who is really biased.

[Gareth]

http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/documents/Rum5FinalReport.pdf

I was curious about how the testing was done.

"When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving control condition, with a significant deterioration in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the hands-free conversation drive. The pattern of missed signs was similar."

Correct me if I'm wrong but the base conditions for the comparisons were driving plus carrying out a mental exercise ('responding selectively to road signs') which, in itself, would be a distraction from the driving task. This doesn't seem like a realistic starting point to me.

Comparisons were then made between carrying out an additional task and carrying out no additional task.

Anybody bothered by the point that in-vehicle conversation resulted in a significant deterioration in performance?

For the hands-free tests, "Questions from the Rosenbaum Verbal Cognitive Test Battery (RVCB) were given by the experimenter over the hands-free phone. The RVCB measures judgement, flexible thinking and response times (Waugh et al, 2000). The battery is composed of a 30 item remembering sentences task and 30 verbal puzzle tasks. The test battery has five levels of difficulty with six items within each level of both tests. These questions were split across the conditions and also included short monologues on familiar topics"

This sounds like quite a complicated and lengthy conversation that's being used to represent all conversations, however long.

[Matt1962]

http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/documents/Rum5FinalReport.pdf

I was curious about how the testing was done.

"When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving control condition, with a significant deterioration in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the hands-free conversation drive. The pattern of missed signs was similar."

Correct me if I'm wrong but the base conditions for the comparisons were driving plus carrying out a mental exercise ('responding selectively to road signs') which, in itself, would be a distraction from the driving task. This doesn't seem like a realistic starting point to me.

Comparisons were then made between carrying out an additional task and carrying out no additional task.

Anybody bothered by the point that in-vehicle conversation resulted in a significant deterioration in performance?

For the hands-free tests, "Questions from the Rosenbaum Verbal Cognitive Test Battery (RVCB) were given by the experimenter over the hands-free phone. The RVCB measures judgement, flexible thinking and response times (Waugh et al, 2000). The battery is composed of a 30 item remembering sentences task and 30 verbal puzzle tasks. The test battery has five levels of difficulty with six items within each level of both tests. These questions were split across the conditions and also included short monologues on familiar topics"

This sounds like quite a complicated and lengthy conversation that's being used to represent all conversations, however long.

This is exactly the problem I have with all the 'practical' research I have seen. If I choose to answer a hands free call, I am not going to be doing it in a situation where I will need to 'respond selectively to road signs'.

[dvenman]

Is this thread not dead yet ? We're advanced drivers. Anything - including mobile phones, conversations or an urgent need to have a pee - which detracts from the primary task of safely conducting a few tonnes of metal along roads, often in close proximity to other road users, some of whom don't have metal skins, is to be avoided especially at times when things are getting busy. In-car or not, "hang on" or avoiding the activity all together is an appropriate response.

Research and hair-splitting about whether it's in-car conversation, mobile phones, nose picking or something else which is "more distracting" is navel gazing to the nth degree. When it comes to the majority of drivers who are unable to make that decision then they need to be explicitly told "don't do it, it's dangerous" but unfortunately enforcement generally comes too late.

[jont-]

Have you ever driven in a simulator? I have, a couple of times, and can tell you it is incredibly immersive and convincing.

Does Sega rally count?

[ChristianAB]

you're creating a strawman by comparing research into texting while driving with research into using a mobile phone hands-free.

I am not comparing anything at all. I am asking you a very simple question. You claim that the research is biased and paid for by those with a pre-determined outcome in mind. Are you going to support your assertion and show which of the studies are biased in the way that you claim or not?

I'm going to suggest that it's impossible to have unbiased research when it comes to such politically charged subjects as road safety.

So, that's a no then. You just baldy assert that the research is biased because it is paid for by those that want to present a particular result and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'm going to suggest that you simply can't be bothered to even look at any of the studies that have been linked because your mind is already made up and quite firmly closed. I wonder who is really biased.

It should be simple to understand. Stop the funding for studies for studies that seem to indicate results that you want to avoid. Let the researchers know of your orientation.
Since most of them will be desperate for the funding. You end up with studies that all go in the same direction.

I am still going through the studies posted on this thread, and so far, I am yet to see a single convincing example, in terms of methodology. Of course, not everyone has the mathematical knowledge needed to tell what's what. The intellectual dishonesty is pervasive: it's appaling.

[Silk]

I am not comparing anything at all. I am asking you a very simple question. You claim that the research is biased and paid for by those with a pre-determined outcome in mind. Are you going to support your assertion and show which of the studies are biased in the way that you claim or not?

I'm going to suggest that it's impossible to have unbiased research when it comes to such politically charged subjects as road safety.

So, that's a no then. You just baldy assert that the research is biased because it is paid for by those that want to present a particular result and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'm going to suggest that you simply can't be bothered to even look at any of the studies that have been linked because your mind is already made up and quite firmly closed. I wonder who is really biased.

It should be simple to understand. Stop the funding for studies for studies that seem to indicate results that you want to avoid. Let the researchers know of your orientation.
Since most of them will be desperate for the funding. You end up with studies that all go in the same direction.

I am still going through the studies posted on this thread, and so far, I am yet to see a single convincing example, in terms of methodology. Of course, not everyone has the mathematical knowledge needed to tell what's what. The intellectual dishonesty is pervasive: it's appaling.

You only have to look at Professor David Nutt to see what happens when you produce research that gives the "wrong" answer.

[Silk]

you're creating a strawman by comparing research into texting while driving with research into using a mobile phone hands-free.

I am not comparing anything at all. I am asking you a very simple question. You claim that the research is biased and paid for by those with a pre-determined outcome in mind. Are you going to support your assertion and show which of the studies are biased in the way that you claim or not?

I'm going to suggest that it's impossible to have unbiased research when it comes to such politically charged subjects as road safety.

So, that's a no then. You just baldy assert that the research is biased because it is paid for by those that want to present a particular result and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'm going to suggest that you simply can't be bothered to even look at any of the studies that have been linked because your mind is already made up and quite firmly closed. I wonder who is really biased.

If you can point me to some research that is truly independent, paid for independently and where the researcher had no vested interest in obtaining a particular result, then I may be interested.

Can you honestly tell me that, if the research had shown that hand-free mobile use enhances concentration, it would have seen the light of day? If you think yes, then you're even more naïve than I thought.

[ancient]

http://www.mthr.org.uk/research_projects/documents/Rum5FinalReport.pdf

I was curious about how the testing was done.

"When drivers were required to respond selectively to road signs, it was shown that the best performance was achieved in the driving control condition, with a significant deterioration in-vehicle and passenger conversation conditions, and yet further deterioration in the hands-free conversation drive. The pattern of missed signs was similar."

Correct me if I'm wrong but the base conditions for the comparisons were driving plus carrying out a mental exercise ('responding selectively to road signs') which, in itself, would be a distraction from the driving task. This doesn't seem like a realistic starting point to me.

Comparisons were then made between carrying out an additional task and carrying out no additional task.

Anybody bothered by the point that in-vehicle conversation resulted in a significant deterioration in performance?

For the hands-free tests, "Questions from the Rosenbaum Verbal Cognitive Test Battery (RVCB) were given by the experimenter over the hands-free phone. The RVCB measures judgement, flexible thinking and response times (Waugh et al, 2000). The battery is composed of a 30 item remembering sentences task and 30 verbal puzzle tasks. The test battery has five levels of difficulty with six items within each level of both tests. These questions were split across the conditions and also included short monologues on familiar topics"

This sounds like quite a complicated and lengthy conversation that's being used to represent all conversations, however long.

This is exactly the problem I have with all the 'practical' research I have seen. If I choose to answer a hands free call, I am not going to be doing it in a situation where I will need to 'respond selectively to road signs'.

Indeed and it is worth noting that increasing time headway on the car following task (dropping back a bit for safety) appears as performing worse on this test. Using this (flawed) measure for the car following task, hands-free conversation and passenger conversation had similar "error".
>Similarly on the non-motorway ("curved") section of the test " the driver was required to maintain a speed of 60 mph" and slowing to cope with the complex test tasks is specifically marked as 'failure': "Mean speed was significantly higher in the control condition than the passenger ...hands free ...and in-vehicle conditions .... There was no significant difference between the passenger, in-vehicle and hands-free conditions"
>Lane position errors ("defined operationally as the instantaneous variance in position from the centre of the lane"). " There were significantly less errors in the passenger condition compared to the control ... and in-vehicle conditions .... There were no significant differences between the control, in-vehicle and hands free conditions".
>On the dual carriageway section " SD of mean speed on the dual carriageway was significantly lower in the control condition than in the passenger ... in-vehicle ... and hands free conditions .... There was no significant difference between the passenger, in-vehicle and hands-free conditions". Note it is the SD of the mean speed that is lower and not the speed itself.
>For dual carriageway lane position "There were no significant differences between the control, passenger and hands-free conditions".
>For reaction time, they had difficulty analysing the data but after "post hoc tests" (possibly because subject's reaction time is so varied anyway?) concluded "Reaction time was significantly slowest for the hands-free phone condition in comparison to the in-vehicle tasks..., talking with a passenger... and the control drives. Reaction times in the control drive were also significantly faster than during the in-vehicle task ... and passenger drives"; in view of which I reiterate that sensible coping strategies were marked down in this test.

[ChristianAB]

Yeah, should be obvious. Why it isn't is still a mystery to me: they look for red apples, and when they find green ones, they dismiss them as not being apples.
Still going through the studies but it's disheartening to see the amount of bullshit they contain.