Behind-the-wheel multitasking
Trend in accidents caused by cellphone use behind the wheel calls for research of safety risks.
Rick Nelson, Editor in Chief -- Test & Measurement World, 8/1/2009 2:00:00 AM
|
|
|
There are many ways of looking at the dangers of using mobile communications devices while driving. Back in 2002, I addressed the costs and (supposed) benefits of TWD, or talking while driving (Ref. 1). The “benefits,” it was argued disingenuously at the time, stemmed from calculations based on the so-called VSL (value of a statistical life) spec, which then equaled $6.6 million. At the time, I suggested (also disingenuously) that technology would solve the problem it had created: “Aggressive TWDers are early adopters who will promptly outfit their cars with collision-avoidance radar, thereby limiting adjacent lane interference.”
|
See Rick Nelson's blog: "Taking the Measure" Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/Rick_editor. |
While evidence of the dangers of mobile communications may have been mostly anecdotal in 2002, the news has gotten worse over the past seven years, culminating in a September 2008 commuter train crash in Los Angeles that killed 25 people (Ref. 2). National Transportation Safety Board investigators said the operator had sent text messages shortly before the train ran a red light and hit a freight train.
And just this spring, a Boston Green Line trolley operator was reportedly texting when he rear-ended another trolley (Ref. 3)—an accident that fortunately had no fatalities, although many were injured.
What’s particularly disturbing is that researchers have known about the problem for quite some time and could have supplanted anecdotal evidence with the results of detailed research. Reports the New York Times (Ref. 4), “In 2003, researchers at a federal agency proposed a long-term study of 10,000 drivers to assess the safety risk posed by cellphone use behind the wheel….But such an ambitious study never happened.” In fact, the Times says, researchers buried what results they did have—“that drivers using a hand-held device were at 1.3 times greater risk of a crash or near crash, and at three times the risk when dialing compared with other drivers”—“in part, officials say, because of concerns about angering Congress.”
The Times quoted Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety, as saying, “We’re looking at a problem that could be as bad as drunk driving, and the government has covered it up.”
Now, I don’t know that legislation is an appropriate remedy to the problem. Laws are not particularly effective at preventing behavior that significant portions of the population don’t believe is wrong. And in fact, what laws there are on the books are probably ineffective. They tend to permit hands-free cellphone use, which, researchers found, does not eliminate serious accident risk.
Education is the first step, and that requires that the educators have available the best information to address what the Times calls “a culture of behind-the-wheel multitasking.” It’s appalling that the government would stifle research and suppress what information it did have.
| REFERENCES |
|
GM’s meaningless 230-mpg spec for Volt
09/01/2009The engineering career
04/30/2005Jennifer Kempe | Test & Measurement World
02/09/2010
-
FLIR offers IR camera for under $3000
-
Don't let the economy compromise quality (Guest commentary)
-
Danaher speeds up restructuring, acquires life-sciences businesses
-
Agilent’s Cover-Extend technology eliminates need for physical test points for in-circuit test
-
So many combinations: Testing a switch-matrix board
View All Webcasts
