Comparison Cell Phone Driver Drunk Driver 2006
- Alcohol Baseline Cell Phone Total Accidents 0 0 3 Brake Onset Time msec 888 51 943 58 1022 61 Braking Force of maximum 69.6 3.6 56.4 2.5 55.2 2.9.
- This article is the fifth part in a series of articles titled 7 disadvantages of cell phones. The first four parts: Cell Phone Disadvantage 1 – An Unsafe.
- Cell phones come with pros and cons. Jupiterimages/Brand X Pictures/Getty Images. by Contributing Writer.
- Strayer s lab is building a theoretical account for why cell phone use disrupts driving performance. So far, the evidence points to conversations forcing drivers to.
Cancel
Merged citations
This Cited by count includes citations to the following articles in Scholar. The ones marked may be different from the article in the profile.
Done
Duplicate citations
The following articles are merged in Scholar. Their combined citations are counted only for the first article.
Done.
MLA Research Paper Daly Angela Daly Professor Chavez English 101 14 March XXXX A Call to Action: Regulate Use of Cell Phones on the Road When a cell phone goes.
JULY 2015 UP FRONT Insurance Topics at a Glance. Auto Insurance; Preparedness and Safety; Life Stages.
Impact Factor:1.694 Ranking:Ergonomics 5 out of 15 Engineering, Industrial 13 out of 43 Psychology, Applied 25 out of 76 Behavioral Sciences 40 out of 51 Psychology 47 out of 76
Source:2014 Journal Citation Reports Thomson Reuters, 2015
A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
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.
New data from Virginia Tech Transportation Institute provides insight into cell phone use and driving distraction.
