PDA

View Full Version : A Test of Paying Attention Behind the Wheel


JOE
06-30-2003, 09:03 PM
New York Times
July 1, 2003

A Test of Paying Attention Behind the Wheel
By JOHN O'NEIL

Listening while driving seems to be safe, even if the listening is
absorbing much of the driver's attention. But talking while driving,
it seems, is a different matter.

A new study, released on Sunday, measured what happened when drivers
were sent out into traffic and given a variety of mental tasks to
perform. The researchers found that internal distractions - that is,
what was going on inside the driver's head - could impair visual
skills while driving as much as external distractions, like a baby
crying in the back seat. But they also found big differences in the
amount of interference caused by different kinds of mental activities.


The study, published in The Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, was conducted by researchers at the Public Administration for
Traffic Safety of Spain and the Complutense University in Madrid.
Twelve young adults with good driving records were sent on a four-hour
highway trip in a Citroën fitted with a camera that tracked their eye
movements to gauge how much attention they were paying to how much of
the visual field. The dashboard was also equipped with lights that
would turn on periodically; the drivers could turn them off by
pressing buttons near the steering wheel.

The researchers divided the mental tasks into two categories:
receptive, meaning passively absorbing information, and productive, in
which the drivers were asked to give answers to defined requests. The
drivers' performance in between these tasks was measured for purposes
of comparison.

For the receptive tasks, the drivers listened to two-minute taped
messages and were told to pay close attention, as they would be asked
about them later. Some of the messages related concrete information,
including descriptions of objects, while others concerned more
abstract data, like a narrative. The researchers found that this kind
of intent listening had almost no effect on how closely the drivers
paid attention to the road and the dashboard.

But when the drivers were asked to talk about what they had heard,
their ability to pay attention dropped by as much as a third. Even
relatively simple production tasks, like relating where they were and
what they were doing, had about as big an effect as requests that the
researchers considered more complicated.

The study found that the distraction levels were equally high when the
driver was talking to a passenger or into a hands-free cellphone.

One of the researchers, Dr. Luis M. Nuņes of the traffic agency, said
the findings should not be seen as an endorsement of using hands-free
phones while driving. For one thing, he noted, most conversations
involve talking as well as listening. For another, he said, the use of
cellphones of any kind involves movements that are less likely to be
automatic than features that have long been designed for easy access
in cars, like turning on radios.

An earlier study by the same researchers found that visual tasks
produced high levels of distraction for drivers. Putting the two
together suggests that a high-risk activity may be trying to remember
the landmark that tells you where to exit for a particular restaurant
while telling someone what you had the last time you ate there.

AZGuy
07-01-2003, 12:13 AM
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:03:26 GMT, eat@joes.us (JOE) wrote:
New York TimesJuly 1, 2003A Test of Paying Attention Behind the WheelBy JOHN O'NEILListening while driving seems to be safe, even if the listening isabsorbing much of the driver's attention. But talking while driving,it seems, is a different matter.A new study, released on Sunday, measured what happened when driverswere sent out into traffic and given a variety of mental tasks toperform. The researchers found that internal distractions - that is,what was going on inside the driver's head - could impair visualskills while driving as much as external distractions, like a babycrying in the back seat. But they also found big differences in theamount of interference caused by different kinds of mental activities.The study, published in The Journal of Experimental Psychology:Applied, was conducted by researchers at the Public Administration forTraffic Safety of Spain and the Complutense University in Madrid.Twelve young adults with good driving records were sent on a four-hourhighway trip in a Citroën fitted with a camera that tracked their eyemovements to gauge how much attention they were paying to how much ofthe visual field. The dashboard was also equipped with lights thatwould turn on periodically; the drivers could turn them off bypressing buttons near the steering wheel.The researchers divided the mental tasks into two categories:receptive, meaning passively absorbing information, and productive, inwhich the drivers were asked to give answers to defined requests. Thedrivers' performance in between these tasks was measured for purposesof comparison.For the receptive tasks, the drivers listened to two-minute tapedmessages and were told to pay close attention, as they would be askedabout them later. Some of the messages related concrete information,including descriptions of objects, while others concerned moreabstract data, like a narrative. The researchers found that this kindof intent listening had almost no effect on how closely the driverspaid attention to the road and the dashboard.But when the drivers were asked to talk about what they had heard,their ability to pay attention dropped by as much as a third. Evenrelatively simple production tasks, like relating where they were andwhat they were doing, had about as big an effect as requests that theresearchers considered more complicated.The study found that the distraction levels were equally high when thedriver was talking to a passenger or into a hands-free cellphone.One of the researchers, Dr. Luis M. Nuņes of the traffic agency, saidthe findings should not be seen as an endorsement of using hands-freephones while driving.

Of course not. Such an endorsement wouldn't be politically correct
even though he just proved that a HF Cell is no more dangerous then
talking to a passenger.
For one thing, he noted, most conversationsinvolve talking as well as listening.

Yeah, so does conversing with a passenger. So far they remain equally
"dangerous".
For another, he said, the use ofcellphones of any kind involves movements that are less likely to beautomatic than features that have long been designed for easy accessin cars, like turning on radios.

Might have been true 10 years ago. Now Cell phone use is as natural
as tuning a radio. Again, he's just trying to be politically correct
and downplay the obvious implications of his own study.

An earlier study by the same researchers found that visual tasksproduced high levels of distraction for drivers. Putting the twotogether suggests that a high-risk activity may be trying to rememberthe landmark that tells you where to exit for a particular restaurantwhile telling someone what you had the last time you ate there.

So, it's still the same situation whether you are using a cell phone
or have a passenger.

Marc
07-02-2003, 08:51 AM
AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote:On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 04:03:26 GMT, eat@joes.us (JOE) wrote:
The study found that the distraction levels were equally high when thedriver was talking to a passenger or into a hands-free cellphone.One of the researchers, Dr. Luis M. Nuņes of the traffic agency, saidthe findings should not be seen as an endorsement of using hands-freephones while driving.Of course not. Such an endorsement wouldn't be politically correcteven though he just proved that a HF Cell is no more dangerous thentalking to a passenger.

Nope. The level of impairment can be the same and the level of danger be
different.
For one thing, he noted, most conversationsinvolve talking as well as listening.Yeah, so does conversing with a passenger. So far they remain equally"dangerous".

I saw nothing about "danger." I saw something about impairment.

This is why statistics get such a bad name. You are extrapolating
something not investigated and declaring an answer to a question not even
addressed. And then you present it as fact.
For another, he said, the use ofcellphones of any kind involves movements that are less likely to beautomatic than features that have long been designed for easy accessin cars, like turning on radios.Might have been true 10 years ago. Now Cell phone use is as naturalas tuning a radio. Again, he's just trying to be politically correctand downplay the obvious implications of his own study.

I can turn on and off, adjust the frequency, switch to CD, change CDs
(within the changer, or physically swap those in the changer if I've
prepared with accessible CDs for swapping, as I've done for long trips),
and do just about everything with my stereo other than set the time. I
can't recall yet calling someone on the cell phone without looking at it
(excepting accidental calls because it was in a container without the keys
locked and buttons were pushed inadvertently). I glance at it to check
whether it is in a locked or unlocked state (I can switch between the two
easily without looking, but I need to know which it is in) and at the main
menu (as keys can take different functions if it was left in a menu). I
can dial the number without looking. I then give a confirmation glance at
the number. The absolute minimum of glances for me is two, more if I think
I may have made a dialing error (common when putting a 7 or 10 digit number
in while in a split attention scenario).

So, despite your protests to the contrary, I see a significant difference
in my ability to handle changing a radio station (no glances, little to no
thought) to dialing a cell phone (multiple glances, thought for the number
to be dialed, some thought about the dialing process).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

* Find more information on Traffic Laws.
Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements