|
|
|
|
URGENT
LEGISLATION UPDATE! |
Carnegie Mellon
Study Shows Just Listening To Cell Phones Significantly Impairs
Drivers
Brain Imaging Reveals Drivers Are Distracted Even if They Don't Talk
PITTSBURGH: Carnegie Mellon University scientists have shown that
just listening to a cell phone while driving is a significant
distraction, and it causes drivers to commit some of the same types
of driving errors that can occur under the influence of alcohol.
The use of cell phones, including dialing and texting, has long been
a safety concern for drivers. But the Carnegie Mellon study, for the
first time, used brain imaging to document that listening alone
reduces by 37 percent the amount of brain activity associated with
driving. This can cause drivers to weave out of their lane, based on
the performance of subjects using a driving simulator.
The findings, to be reported in an upcoming issue of the journal
Brain Research, show that making cell phones hands-free or
voice-activated is not sufficient in eliminating distractions to
drivers. "Drivers need to keep not only their hands on the wheel;
they also have to keep their brains on the road," said
neuroscientist Marcel Just, director of the Center for Cognitive
Brain Imaging.
Other distractions, such as eating, listening to the radio or
talking with a passenger, also can divert a driver. Though it is not
known how these activities compare to cell phone use, Just said
there are reasons to believe cell phones may be especially
distracting. "Talking on a cell phone has a special social demand,
such that not attending to the cell conversation can be interpreted
as rude, insulting behavior," he noted. A passenger, by contrast, is
likely to recognize increased demands on the driver's attention and
stop talking.
The 29 study volunteers used a driving simulator while inside an MRI
brain scanner. They steered a car along a virtual winding road at a
fixed, challenging speed, either while they were undisturbed, or
while they were deciding whether a sentence they heard was true or
false. Just's team used state-of-the-art functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) methods to measure activity in 20,000 brain
locations, each about the size of a peppercorn. Measurements were
made every second.
The driving-while-listening condition produced a 37 percent decrease
in activity of the brain's parietal lobe, which is associated with
driving. This portion of the brain integrates sensory information
and is critical for spatial sense and navigation. Activity was also
reduced in the occipital lobe, which processes visual information.
The other impact of driving-while-listening was a significant
deterioration in the quality of driving. Subjects who were listening
committed more lane maintenance errors, such as hitting a simulated
guardrail, and deviating from the middle of the lane. Both kinds of
influences decrease the brain's capacity to drive well, and that
decrease can be costly when the margin for error is small.
"The clear implication is that engaging in a demanding conversation
could jeopardize judgment and reaction time if an atypical or
unusual driving situation arose," Just said. "Heavy traffic is no
place for an involved personal or business discussion, let alone
texting."
Because driving and listening draw on two different brain networks,
scientists had previously suspected that the networks could work
independently on each task. But Just said this study demonstrates
that there is only so much that the brain can do at one time, no
matter how different the two tasks are.
The study emerges from the new field of neuroergonomics, which
combines brain science with human-computer interaction studies that
measure how well a technology matches human capabilities.
Neuroergonomics is beginning to be applied to the operation of
vehicles like aircraft, ships and cars in which drivers now have
navigation systems, iPods and even DVD players at their disposal.
Every additional input to a driver consumes some of his or her brain
capacity, taking away some of the resources that monitor for other
vehicles, lane markers, obstacles, and sudden changes in conditions.
"Drivers' seats in many vehicles are becoming highly instrumented
cockpits," Just said, "and during difficult driving situations, they
require the undivided attention of the driver's brain."
The project was funded by the Office of Naval Research. Other
members of the research team included post-doctoral research
associate Timothy Keller and research assistant Jacquelyn Cynkar.
For information on the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging, or to
download a copy of this research paper, visit http://www.ccbi.cmu.edu
... or simply click here:
http://tinyurl.com/ywa8zz
|
Bills ABATE of Illinois OPPOSES:
SB2801: Sen. Don Harmon - Helmet age
16 and under.
Minor child must wear a helmet unless parent purchases a $1,000 per
child permit to NOT wear helmet.
HB5185: Rep. Paul Froehlich
- Motorcycle Registration
Prohibits registration and titling of a motorcycle unless you have an
M-classification.
Bills ABATE of Illinois SUPPORTS:
HB1845: Rep. Brandon Phelps -
Motorcyclists Public Accommodation Act, prevents motorcyclists from
being discriminated because we ride motorcycle. |
|
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY TRAINING FUNDS UNDER ATTACK
PICKERINGTON, Ohio--U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters reaffirmed
her desire to lobby states for mandatory helmet-use laws in testimony
before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Transportation
Subcommittee on March 6, the American Motorcyclist Association reports.
Peters' testimony follows letters she sent in February to U.S. House and
Senate leaders urging Congress to allow states to divert federal money
away from motorcycle safety training and awareness programs and instead
push for mandated helmet use.
Under federal law, the U.S. Transportation Department is barred from
lobbying for or against specific state laws. That measure was passed by
Congress at the request of motorcyclists who specifically wanted to
prevent the federal government from lobbying for mandatory helmet laws.
But when asked whether she would support an exemption to the law to
allow her department to lobby the states for mandatory helmet laws, she
said she would.
"I support giving the information to states so that they can act on
those laws," Peters testified. "And I certainly have made myself
available to a number of states, and, in fact, have called governors
when I see substantial increases in the number of motorcycle deaths in a
state, especially a state that has repealed a helmet law."
Peters is pushing to move funds out of motorcycle safety training and
awareness even though the money was specifically approved by Congress at
the request of motorcyclists who wanted to beef up the nation's
motorcycle safety training and awareness efforts.
In February, in response to the letters Peters wrote, Ed Moreland, AMA
vice president for government relations, expressed concern that
diverting federal motorcycle safety funds to mandate helmet use could
harm rider training courses and motorcycle awareness programs that are
already underfunded in many states.
At that time, he also expressed concern that Peters' proposal could
contradict sections of transportation bills passed in 1998 and 2005 that
ban the use of federal motorcycle safety funds to lobby state
legislatures in favor of mandatory helmet laws and could effectively
reverse that ban.
"Banning the federal government from lobbying for mandatory state helmet
laws was the very reason Congress passed this measure in the first
place," said Moreland. "What Peters is asking for is not an exception to
the rule, it's an example of an exception completely circumventing the
rule."
Moreland believes Peters is willing to push for mandatory helmet laws at
the expense of rider training and awareness programs designed to teach
motorcycling skills that would prevent crashes from occurring in the
first place.
"This latest testimony reaffirms our fears--that the U.S. transportation
secretary wants to lobby for mandatory helmet laws by diverting funding
specifically set aside for motorcycle safety training and awareness to
further her mandatory helmet-use agenda," Moreland said.
"Helmet use is certainly one part of a comprehensive approach to
motorcycle safety, but the use of motorcycle helmets is already
advocated in existing motorcycle safety training programs," Moreland
said.
"Congress decided to fund motorcycle safety training and awareness
programs at the request of the motorcycling community. This effort by
Secretary Peters to divert money away from those programs is an attempt
to circumvent the wishes of Congress and those motorcyclists nationwide
who wanted to specifically augment rider training and awareness
programs," he said.
|
|
|