Advertisement

Transportation

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 223–236 | Cite as

Mobile phone use while driving: public opinions on restrictions

  • Dave Lamble
  • Sirpa Rajalin
  • Heikki Summala
Article

Abstract

This paper reviews two road-user surveys on the use of mobile phones on the road in Finland where the mobile phone ownership rate is highest in the world (70% in August 2000). From 1998 to 1999 the proportion of drivers that chose to use a mobile phone while driving rose from 56% to 68%, while the proportion of phone using drivers who experienced dangerous situations due to phone use rose from 44% to 50%. The proportion of drivers who used their phones in some way to benefit safety on the road remained at about 55%. The youngest, novice drivers had the highest level of phone usage of all age categories. Over 48% of the interviewees believed that the government should ban the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving, and another 27% believed that all types of mobile phone use should be banned while driving. Those drivers who used their phones the most each day were more likely to want some form of restrictions, than those who had lower usage. This is a strong message to the elected lawmakers and raises the problem of exactly how regulatory bodies would go about controlling the future growth of new driver support and non-driving related communication devices in road vehicles. It was concluded that legislating for hands-free use only would be a reasonable course of action. Mandating that the current generation of equipment should be optimized for hands-free use should result in future generations of in-vehicle equipment also being optimized for hands-free use as a minimum criterion.

age cellular phones legislation mobile phones motor-vehicle driver road safety 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alm H & Nilsson L (1994) Changes in driver behaviour as a function of handsfree mobile phones-a simulator study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 26: 441–451.Google Scholar
  2. Alm H & Nilsson L (1995) The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 27: 707–715.Google Scholar
  3. Brookhuis K & De Waard D (1994) Measuring driving performance by car-following in traffic. Ergonomics 37: 427–434.Google Scholar
  4. Dawson D & Reid K (1997) Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature 388: 235.Google Scholar
  5. Goodman MJ, Tijerina L, Bents FD & Wierwille WW (1999) Using cellular telephones in vehicles: Safe or unsafe? Transportation Human Factors 1: 3–42.Google Scholar
  6. Hancock PA & Scallen SF (1999) The driving question. Transportation Human Factors 1: 47–56.Google Scholar
  7. Holopainen A (2000) Matkapuhelin kuolemaan johtaneissa liikenneonnettomuuksissa-tutkijalautakuntien tutkimat onnettomuudet vv. 1991-1998. Helsinki, Finland: Liikenneturva (Central Organization for Traffic Safety in Finland). [in Finnish with English summary]Google Scholar
  8. Lamble D, Kauranen T, Laakso M & Summala H (1999) Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 31: 617–623.Google Scholar
  9. Lamond N & Dawson D (1999) Quantifying the performance impairment associated with fatigue. Journal of Sleep Research 8: 255–262.Google Scholar
  10. Ministry of Transport and Communication (2000) Another record in Finnish mobile telephones-Subscription density reaches 70 per cent. Press Release, 17.8.2000. Helsinki: Ministry of Transport and Communication, Finland. [http://www.mintc.fi/www/sivut/english/default.html].Google Scholar
  11. Powell NB, Riley RW, Schechtmen KB, Blumen MB, Dinges DF & Guilleminault C (1999) A comparative model: reaction time performance in sleep-disordered breathing versus alcoholimpaired controls. Laryngoscope 109: 1648–1654.Google Scholar
  12. Radiolinja (2000) Annual Report 1999. Helsinki, Finland: OY Radiolinja AB.Google Scholar
  13. Redelmeier DA & Tibshirani RJ (1997) Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine 336: 453–458.Google Scholar
  14. Redelmeier DA & Weinstein MC (1999) Cost-effectiveness of regulations against using a cellular telephone while driving. Medical Decision Making 19: 1–8.Google Scholar
  15. Sonera (2000) Annual Report 1999. Helsinki, Finland: Sonera Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. Statistics Finland & Central Organization for Traffic Safety in Finland (1999) Road Traffic Accidents 1998. Helsinki, Finland: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  17. Violanti JM & Marshall JR (1996) Cellular phones and traffic accidents: an epidemiological approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention 28: 265–270.Google Scholar
  18. Wikman A, Nieminen T & Summala H (1998) Driving experience and time-sharing during incar tasks on roads of different width. Ergonomics 41: 358–372.Google Scholar
  19. Williamson AM & Feyer A (2000) Moderate sleep deprivation produces impairments in cognitive and motor performance equivalent to legally prescribed levels of alcohol intoxication. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 57: 649–655.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dave Lamble
    • 1
  • Sirpa Rajalin
    • 2
  • Heikki Summala
    • 1
  1. 1.Traffic Research Unit, Department of PsychologyUniversity of HelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Liikenneturva (Central Organization for Traffic Safety in Finland)HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations