27 October 2005 Driving and Cell Phones: Perhaps we should be licensed to do both – Opinion editorial by Professor Jake Rose

The role of cell phones in road crashes is a contentious issue. Several countries have banned the use of hand-held cell phones while driving, but recent evidence indicates that hands-free cell phones are equally dangerous to drivers.

It's a big issue, given that around 85 per cent of drivers with cell phones will engage in cell phone conversations while they are driving, and research shows that the risk of a collision is four times higher for drivers using cell phones. Telecommunications companies have responded vigorously, insisting there is no more risk from using a phone while driving, than from talking to a passenger.

While the correlation between cell phone use and vehicle crashes is clear, there has been a lingering uncertainty about whether the mental demands of conversing on a cell phone or the act of holding a phone is the underlying cause.

Recent research by Lincoln University and Bentley College, Massachusetts, indicates that all cell phone conversation, either hands-free or hand-held, significantly affects driver attention, because cell phone conversations lack non-verbal cues. Up to 93% of communication is non-verbal, including gestures, facial expressions and posture. When those communication clues are absent, the person doing the listening has to compensate by devoting extra attention. In addition, people talking to drivers using a cell phone are unaware of the driving conditions, and they can unwittingly place extra demands on the driver at the most dangerous times.

Our experiment disproves claims by the telecommunications industry that driving and talking on a hands free phone is no different than driving and talking to a passenger. However the study also goes further, by suggesting a new regulatory response to the use of phones while driving. The findings suggest a possible alternative to an all-out ban on using cell phones behind the wheel: those who want to do so must receive driver education specifically aimed at training drivers to converse on a cell phone while safely handling a moving vehicle.

The potential benefits of driver training were derived from an experiment in which drivers with and without communication training completed a simulated city driving course, while involved in one of three conversation modes: no conversation, conversation with a seated passenger, and conversation on a hands-free cellular telephone. We chose airline pilot students as the perfect 'trained' study participants, since they safely fly airplanes while 'virtually' conversing over the radio with air traffic controllers.

Pilots are trained to recognise the importance of each task, such as radio communication, monitoring gauges and manoeuvring the aircraft, and directing more mental resources to the most critical ones. (A 1998 report by Boeing says listening and conversing are two of the most critical skills for preventing a crash).

By comparing drivers with and without pilot training, and using the same three levels of attention requirement (driving alone, driving with a passenger and driving and talking on a hands-free phone) we now see that communication training can reduce driving accident risks significantly. While cell phone use increases the accident rate more than four-fold for non-pilots, the increase for pilots is only doubled. The increased risk for pilot-trained drivers is still substantial, but it is a lot less than the increase for drivers with no pilot training.

Interestingly, when we examine drivers thought processes we see that non-pilots have a significantly higher desire to see the other person while speaking on a cell phone relative to pilots. In addition, pilots expend significantly less mental energy trying to visualise the person with which they are speaking. In essence, the pilots have learned to conserve mental resources for the piloting task.

From this experiment we can conclude that prior training in the simultaneous use of hands-free communication equipment and operating a vehicle can decrease the negative effects of talking on a phone while driving. Given that communication is so vital in business and the economy, the findings suggest there is an alternative to cell phone bans which ought to be considered.

Existing legislation requiring hands-free cellular telephones in vehicles will fail to promote public safety, because the physical manipulation and handling of the phone is not the cause of higher accident rates. The act of conversing on a cell phone is the true problem. Unless governments are willing to ban all forms of hands-free communication devices in all vehicles, regulation will not reduce accident rates.

Pilot training reduces the demands placed on cognitive resources for cell phone conversation, which results in improved driving performance. A more effective response to road safety goals may be to require split-attention training, similar to pilot training, for people needing (or wanting) to drive and talk on the phone simultaneously.

Sometimes prohibition isn't the best option, and it is unlikely that governments will be willing or able to ban all new communication technologies in vehicles. Instead of saying 'communication technology is dangerous and should be banned', we have said, 'let's examine how we can lessen the dangers associated with the use of communication technology'. If bans on technology are not feasible, then training programmes could be the answer to improving road safety. Such training programmes could even become revenue generators for governments.

It is now clear that driving and talking with an unseen person is a skill that can be learned and integrated into driver education, as it is for pilots. Future research will be necessary to determine if specific driver training is economically feasible and how to design training programmes specifically for drivers.

Professor Jake Rose, specialist in the effects of training and technology on learning, Lincoln University's Commerce Division, Canterbury, New Zealand