Hands-free Phone Use Research Articles

Talking on hands-free and handheld cellphones while driving in association with handheld phone bans

Introduction: Concurrent use of a cellphone while driving impairs driving abilities, and studies of policy effectiveness in reducing distracted driving have yielded mixed results. Furthermore, few studies have considered how hands-free phone use associates with handheld phone bans. It is not clear whether hand-held phone bans dissuade some drivers from using the phone while driving completely, or whether it simply promotes a shift to hands-free use. The present study estimates the association between handheld phone policies and self-reported talking on hands-free and handheld cellphones while driving. Methods: Our data consisted of 16,067 respondents to annual administrations of the Traffic Safety Culture Index from 2012-2017. Our primary exposure variable was handheld phone policy, and our primary outcome variables were self-reported talking on any phone, self-reported talking on a handheld phone, and self-reported talking on a hands-free phone while driving. We estimated adjusted prevalence ratios of the outcomes associated with handheld phone bans via modified Poisson regression. Results: Drivers in states with handheld bans were 13% less likely to self-report talking on any type of cellphone (handheld or hands-free) while driving. When broken down by cellphone type, drivers in states with handheld bans were 38% less likely to self-report talking on a handheld phone and 10% more likely to self-report talking on a hands-free phone while driving. Conclusions: Handheld phone bans were associated with more self-reported talking on hands-free phones and less talking on handheld phones, consistent with a substitution hypothesis. Handheld bans were also associated with less talking on any phone while driving, supporting a net safety benefit. Practical Applications: In the absence of a national ban on handheld phone use while driving, our study supports state handheld phone bans to deter distracted driving and improve traffic safety.

Taking the right course: The possibilities and challenges of offering alternatives to prosecution for drivers detected using mobile phones while driving

There is a considerable body of literature that outlines the dangers of mobile phone use by drivers. However, there is very little research that explores the role and effectiveness of attempts to tackle this specific road user problem. Generally, normative motives are more likely to generate compliance with traffic law, and are more likely to be developed through approaches which focus on engagement and education. There would seem to be little potential for them to be developed through the use of penalty points and fines, which rely on more instrumental logic. Nonetheless, the decision was made in the UK in recent years to cease offering ‘courses’ (inputs to detected phone-using drivers offered as an alternative to prosecution) for mobile phone offences. This decision was made despite a lack of evidence one way or another about their effectiveness in tackling both handheld mobile phone use and handsfree mobile phone distraction – a form of distraction not explicitly covered in law. This research project aimed to explore driver education as an alternative to prosecution for mobile phone use while driving offences, focusing on perceptions and experiences of one particular educational intervention. This paper draws on 46 semi-structured interviews with those involved in delivering a specific intervention aimed at reducing handheld mobile phone use by drivers that was previously offered as an alternative to prosecution in the UK; the police officers identifying offenders for referral to such courses, those delivering the intervention, drivers attending the course as an alternative to prosecution and members of the public attending the course as general education. Four key themes, with underpinning subthemes, emerged; 1) Police officer discretion and control over entry into the criminal justice system 2) Police-public interactions, 3) Course experiences, and 4) Post-course considerations.Firstly, police officer discretion is an important determinant of criminal justice system outcome, based on subjective rather than legal decisions about whether or not to report drivers for an offence. Secondly, police officers negotiate encounters with road users using the avoidance of prosecution as a way of diffusing difficult conversations, sometimes by offering a course as a preferable alternative to prosecution, sometimes by encouraging handsfree phone use. Thirdly, course attendance provides an opportunity to develop both normative alignment through increased understanding of police work, and to appreciate a range of instrumental consequences associated with mobile phone use. Both self-reportedly impacted upon mobile phone use while driving. Finally, post-course considerations emphasised a focus on who should be offered courses as an alternative to prosecution, focusing upon desires for both punitive and rehabilitative responses to mobile phone using drivers.

Support for legislative, technological, and organizational strategies to reduce cellphone use while driving: Psychological predictors and influences of language

Objective A large body of research has established that cellphone use while driving (CUWD) is common and dangerous. However, little research has been conducted about how people react psychologically to various distraction-reduction strategies and, ultimately, support or do not support them. Understanding support for reduction is important for predicting use of technological solutions and compliance with laws and for improving communication and education about the risks of CUWD. Methods We measured support for a variety of legislative, technological, and organizational strategies to reduce CUWD in an online sample of American drivers (N = 648). We also developed evidence-based communication techniques, describing strategies in terms of benefits vs. costs or using freedom-invoking vs. freedom-reducing language to assess what would influence support. Results Support for CUWD reduction was generally high. It was predicted by driver characteristics and beliefs. For example, drivers who supported reducing CUWD more also had lower CUWD reactance, greater anti-CUWD beliefs, higher personal risk perceptions of CUWD, and greater self-reported distracted driving. Age and perceived ability to drive distracted did not predict overall support. However, two strategies that allow for handsfree phone use were supported more by people who engaged in more CUWD, perceived they had greater ability to CUWD, perceived more benefits to CUWD, had more positive affect to cellphones, and were younger. Communication techniques also influenced support. Specifically, the same strategy was supported more when described using benefits and permissive language instead of costs and restrictive language. Conclusions Most respondents supported strategies to reduce CUWD, and beliefs about risks and benefits predicted this snupport. Reactance to CUWD messaging emerged as a key predictor of lower support (and of greater self-reported distracted driving), indicating that it could be an important variable to consider when designing strategies to reduce CUWD. When targeting people resistant to quitting CUWD entirely, communicators could recommend a switch to handsfree use. Communicators who emphasize benefits and use permissive language also may increase support for CUWD reduction.

Does awareness of penalties influence deterrence mechanisms? A study of young drivers’ awareness and perceptions of the punishment applying to illegal phone use while driving

This research implemented both qualitative and quantitative methods to 1) explore young drivers’ (aged between 17 and 25 years) awareness and perceptions of legal sanctions associated with phone use while driving and 2) identify whether the accuracy of their knowledge influences deterrence-related perceptions. In the qualitative phase, 60 Queensland motorists participated in focus groups. The findings of the focus groups highlighted that greater awareness of the penalty for phone use while driving would enable this punishment to act as a more salient deterrent. More specifically, the penalty for hands-free phone use was considered too high, whereas when the penalty was applied to hand-held phone use it was considered reasonable, with some commenting that increasing the fine could be a greater deterrent. However, the penalty also appeared to be linked to the perceived legitimacy of the rule. The quantitative phase utilised a cross-sectioanl survey design and consisted of 503 drivers. Overall, more participants appear to be underestimating (63% underestimated the fine and 37% underestimated the demerit points) as opposed to overestimating (14% overestimated the fine and 22% overestimated the demerit points) the penalty for phone use while driving. As expected, compared to those who accurately estimated the extent of the punishment (both the monetary sanction and the number of demerit points) associated with phone use while driving, drivers who underestimated the phone punishment (points and fine) had significantly lower perceptions of the severity of punishment. These findings suggest that some young drivers do not have sufficient knowledge of mobile phone sanctions, which has significant implications for ongoing attempts to maximise deterrent mechanisms.

Characteristics of driver cell phone use and their influence on driving performance: A naturalistic driving study

Cell phone use while driving is becoming a key problem in traffic safety as it causes visual-manual distraction and has been linked to increases in crash rates. The use of hand-held phones has been banned in several countries, yet research comparing the safety of hands-free phone use with hand-held has produced inconsistent results. Analysis of specific phone use characteristics could help move this traffic safety problem toward a solution, but few studies have considered the influence on driving performance of specific sets of phone use characteristics in combination with other factors such as driving context and driver demographic characteristics. The main objective of this paper is therefore to identify and analyze these factors to determine their effects on driving performance indicators such as speed changes. To this end, 1244 phone events were collected from 52 drivers from the Shanghai Naturalistic Driving Study (SH-NDS), the first naturalistic driving data in China. Because subtasks within a phone event may cause different visual-manual distractions, a hierarchical coding structure for phone events was built. A total of 5662 eyes-off-road (EOR) cases and 4237 subtasks were extracted. The results showed that on average, the participating drivers used the phone for 6.08 % of their driving time; for 17 % of phone use time, drivers used both hands to manipulate the phone; and their average EOR time was 3.16 s, which is equivalent to driving blindly for 22.82 m at an average speed of 7.22 m/s, or 26 km/hr. The effect of phone use on driving performance, including speed, headway, and lane offset, was analyzed with ANOVA. Results showed that standard deviations (SD) of all three parameters were significantly lower during phone periods than during baseline periods. The speed SD during phone use was 0.95 lower than baseline, the headway SD was 2.48 lower, and the absolute lane offset SD was 685.72 lower than baseline. These lower SDs indicate that drivers operated their vehicles with less fluctuation during phone use. While we were unable to find similar differences in mean speed and mean headway, mean lane offset was also significantly lower with phone use than without. A decision tree was developed to identify the factors influencing driver speed change. Results showed that drivers increased, decreased, or maintained speed depending on the type and duration of phone tasks, the duration of the trip, and the type of roadway. Greater understanding of the specific aspects of phone use and their influences on driver distraction and performance will permit the development of more effective countermeasures, including legislation, enforcement, blocking technologies, social norms education, and sending Do Not Disturb messages to callers, all of which will be required to mitigate continued deaths and injuries from phone use while driving.

Misuse of mobile phone conversation while driving: Driver distraction a major public health problem

Aim: The aim of the present study is to determine the frequency of mobile phone use while driving and associated factors in a sample of road traffic among Turkish drivers in Istanbul. Design: This is a cross-sectional study design. Subjects and Methods: The study included a representative sample of 1200 drivers. However, 891 drivers agreed to participate and completed the driver behavior questionnaire (DBQ). Methods: The Manchester DBQ was used to measure the aggressive and aberrant driving behaviors causing accidents in terms of sociodemographics, driving attitudes, and behaviors, adherence to traffic laws, and mobile phone use. Results: The present study expressed that the frequency of mobile phone use while driving was very high among Turkish drivers who were involved with traffic crashes. There was a significant difference found between mobile phone users and nonusers while driving in age group (P < 0.01), education (P < 0.001), occupation (P < 0.001), seat belt use (P < 0.001), vehicle type (P < 0.001), and excessive speed (P < 0.001). Furthermore, attempting to overtake, missing give way signal, and turning right/left nearly hitting other car were reported as errors. For lapses, there was no significant association found between correct and incorrect parking for drivers in all of the DBQ items. The data showed that the drivers reported higher mean scores of violations such as driving close to the car to go faster, running a red light, disregarding speed limit at night or early in the morning. Conclusion: Together, the results provide important insights into mobile phone use and its related factors among Turkish drivers. The type of vehicle, excessive speeding, occupational status, educational level, age group, seat belt use, and crossing a red light were statistically significant associated with mobile phone use among drivers who were involved in the road crashes. When drivers use a mobile phone, there is an increased likelihood of the road accidents that result in injury. There is no doubt that hands-free phone use while driving may not minimize the risk totally. In fact, advancing technology will increase mobile phone use in motor vehicles so it may cause more crashes and fatalities.

Dangers of Distracted Driving

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal

Embodied technology and the dangers of using the phone while driving

Contemporary scientific research and public policy are not in agreement over what should be done to address the dangers that result from the drop in driving performance that occurs as a driver talks on a cellular phone. One response to this threat to traffic safety has been the banning in a number of countries and some states in the USA of handheld cell phone use while driving. However, research shows that the use of hands-free phones (such as headsets and dashboard-mounted speakers) also accompanies a drop, leading some to recommend regulation of both kinds of mobile phones. In what follows, I draw out the accounts of the driving impairment associated with phone use implicit in research and policy and develop an alternative account grounded in philosophical considerations. Building on work in a school of thought called postphenomenology, I review and expand concepts useful for articulating human bodily and perceptual relations to technology. By applying these ideas to the case of driving while talking on the phone, I offer an account of the drop in driving performance which focuses on the embodied relationships users develop with the car and the phone, and I consider implications for research and policy.

Look Who's Talking! A Roadside Survey of Drivers’ Cell Phone Use

Objective: The objective of this study was to quantify Melbourne drivers’ rates of handheld and hands-free phone use and the driver, vehicle, site, and time characteristics associated with phone use. Additionally, this study sought to examine any change in the prevalence of handheld cell phone use by Melbourne drivers between 2006 and 2009. Method: Observational survey of vehicle drivers at various times of the day and week at 3 sites across metropolitan Melbourne during May 2009. Results: A total of 195 (3.4%) of the 5813 drivers observed were using handheld phones and 81 (1.4%) were using hands-free phones. This represents a significant increase in handheld phone usage rates compared to those found in an earlier study conducted in Melbourne in 2006. Cell phone use was associated with a range of driver, vehicle, site, and time characteristics. Handheld phone users were predominately young or middle-aged drivers who drove cars or 4-wheel-drive vehicles (4WDs), and this activity was more likely to occur in the late afternoon. Use of hands-free phones did not differ significantly across gender, age group, vehicle type, observation site, or time of day; however, use of hands-free phones was higher on weekdays compared to weekends. Conclusions: Despite legislation being in place, drivers’ handheld cell phone use is still a major road safety concern, particularly for young and middle-aged drivers. The effectiveness of other strategies for decreasing handheld usage rates, including increased surveillance and tougher penalties, need to be ascertained.

Driving and telephoning: Relative accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free mobile phones

Experimental research shows that using mobile phones while driving leads to impaired driving, and it has been suggested that this driving impairment to a large extent is a result of cognitive, rather than physical, distractions. This notion is partly supported by empirical data showing that use of hands-free phones is associated with impaired driving in much the same way as use of hand-held phones. In the present study, accident risk when using hand-held and hands-free phones was investigated in a sample of 4307 drivers who were involved in accidents in 2007. In addition, data from a similar survey from 1997 ( N = 5007) were used in order to get more observations. Relative risk was estimated using “quasi-induced exposure” in multiple-vehicle accidents. Results from the two surveys combined showed a significant increase in accident risk for hand-held mobiles and for hand-held and hands-free phones together. A non-significant tendency towards increased risk for hands-free mobiles was also detected. However, analyses of data from 2007 separately did not result in statistically significant relative risk estimates for any of the mobile types. Hand-held users were more inclined to attribute the accident to mobile phone use than were hands-free users.

Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?

Introduction Although it is becoming more and more accepted that driving while talking on a cell phone can be hazardous, most jurisdictions are making handheld phone use illegal while allowing hands-free phone use. Methods The scientific literature exploring the effects of these two types of cell phone use on driving and driving-related performance is reviewed here. Results Our review shows that talking on the phone, regardless of phone type, has negative impacts on performance especially in detecting and identifying events. Performance while using a hands-free phone was rarely found to be better than when using a handheld phone. Some studies found that drivers compensate for the deleterious effects of cell phone use when using a handheld phone but neglect to do so when using a hands-free phone. Impact on Industry Current research does not support the decision to allow hands-free phone use while driving.

Longer-Term Effects of Washington, DC, Law on Drivers' Hand-Held Cell Phone Use

Objectives. To determine whether the substantial short-term declines in drivers' use of hand-held phones achieved in the District of Columbia (DC) were sustained 1 year after a ban. Methods. Drivers' daytime hand-held cell phone use was observed in DC and nearby areas of Virginia and Maryland, states without bans. Observations were conducted several months before the ban, shortly after, and 1 year later. The number of vehicles observed in all three surveys combined was 51,945 in DC, 36,796 in Maryland, and 43,033 in Virginia. Results. The rate of talking on hand-held phones declined significantly from 6.1 percent before the law to 3.5 percent shortly after; when measured 1 year later, use was 4.0 percent, still significantly lower than baseline. Based on increases in rates of talking on hand-held phones in Maryland and Virginia, longer-term phone use in DC was estimated to be 53 percent lower than would have been expected without the ban. Declines in DC were identified for drivers of vehicles registered in all three jurisdictions. Conclusions. In DC, there was an initial decline of about 50 percent in drivers talking on hand-held cell phones following a ban, and this decline was sustained about 1 year later. After a similar ban in New York, there was an initial decline in phone use comparable with the initial decline in DC, but the decline a year after the New York ban took full effect was only about 21 percent and not statistically significant. The potential difference in sustained effectiveness for the DC ban may reflect tougher enforcement in DC. Even if full compliance with hand-held phone bans can be achieved, the risks from drivers' use of hands-free phones will remain.

The Effect of Hands-Free Cellular Telephone Conversation Complexity on Choice Response Time in a Detection Task

This paper presents the results of a study addressing the effect of hands-free cellular phone conversation complexity on choice response time in a detection task. The study utilized an open-loop simulation technique to study four different levels of the secondary task of using a hands-free cellular telephone and their effect on the primary task of responding to stimuli presented through a driving scene. Results from the study showed that the inclusion of the secondary task had a significant effect on choice response time. Also, choice response time associated with complex conversations involving visual scanning was found to be significantly different from that when the phone was not used. The implications of the use of hands-free phones are also discussed.

Reducing drivers’ mental workload by means of an adaptive man–machine interface

Modern in-vehicle information and communication devices are changing the nature of the driving task. Drivers take it for granted that they are able to divide their attention between the primary task of driving and secondary tasks like monitoring information displays or using mobile phones. While it is commonly accepted that driver information overload can compromise traffic safety, attempts to introduce attention management within the vehicle are nowadays limited to restrictive decisions by legislative bodies. In an increasing number of countries, the use of hands-free phones is enforced by law. In some countries, the use of phones while driving is prohibited altogether. We argue that there is a more intelligent solution to the information overload issue, namely an adaptive man–machine interface that filters information presentation according to situational requirements. We implemented such a filter as a projective real-time computational workload estimator which is based on the assessment of traffic situations detected from an on-board geographical database. Workload estimates are refined by data from sensors that monitor the traffic environment and variables of driving dynamics. The prototype system is operational in a demonstrator vehicle. Whenever the workload estimate exceeds a threshold value, incoming telephone calls are automatically redirected to the telephone mailbox without notifying the driver. An evaluation field experiment that employed objective and subjective methods of assessing workload yielded promising results in terms of the possibilities of reducing workload by means of the adaptive interface. The results are in favour of the idea of a futuristic, situation-aware vehicle which has the potential to enhance comfort and safety while driving.