Conversation with passengers likely to be safer than via the phone
Thank you to McEvoy and colleagues for a detailed and thorough
attempt at a tricky research subject.
The critical commentators on the paper don't seem to fully understand
the research methodology - the results show that 9% of the 456 subjects
available for analysis were on the phone shortly before the time of their
crash, according to phone company records. They were four times more
likely to be on the phone shortly before their accident than at a similar
time of day when they were also driving their car but did not crash. This
finding was tested robustly using different control periods with the same
result.
All the various biases introduced by the interview-style study design
are likely to make this a conservative risk estimate. The true risk is
probably greater, but harder to measure where subjects can refuse to
participate.
I'm not at all surprised that hands-free units were no less risky
than hand-helds. I agree with various of the other respondents that the
distracting effects of conversation is probably at fault. However I don't
think passengers (at least adult passengers) are a good control group.
A passenger (particularly in the front seat) is aware of the road
conditions, and, if a driver themselves, will vary their conversation to
match the conditions and allow the driver to concentrate. Someone on the
phone has no idea of traffic conditions, and in this is similar to a
petulant child in the back seat who keeps talking and asking questions no
matter what is transpiring in the immediate vicinity outside the car.
Whether hands-free or voice activated, such a conversation will be a
distraction that will increase the risk of a crash if road conditions
become more dangerous.
Competing interests:
Have a mobile phone in my car, but always pull over to use it.
Rapid Response:
Conversation with passengers likely to be safer than via the phone
Thank you to McEvoy and colleagues for a detailed and thorough
attempt at a tricky research subject.
The critical commentators on the paper don't seem to fully understand
the research methodology - the results show that 9% of the 456 subjects
available for analysis were on the phone shortly before the time of their
crash, according to phone company records. They were four times more
likely to be on the phone shortly before their accident than at a similar
time of day when they were also driving their car but did not crash. This
finding was tested robustly using different control periods with the same
result.
All the various biases introduced by the interview-style study design
are likely to make this a conservative risk estimate. The true risk is
probably greater, but harder to measure where subjects can refuse to
participate.
I'm not at all surprised that hands-free units were no less risky
than hand-helds. I agree with various of the other respondents that the
distracting effects of conversation is probably at fault. However I don't
think passengers (at least adult passengers) are a good control group.
A passenger (particularly in the front seat) is aware of the road
conditions, and, if a driver themselves, will vary their conversation to
match the conditions and allow the driver to concentrate. Someone on the
phone has no idea of traffic conditions, and in this is similar to a
petulant child in the back seat who keeps talking and asking questions no
matter what is transpiring in the immediate vicinity outside the car.
Whether hands-free or voice activated, such a conversation will be a
distraction that will increase the risk of a crash if road conditions
become more dangerous.
Competing interests:
Have a mobile phone in my car, but always pull over to use it.
Competing interests: No competing interests