Strayer et al.’s conclusion that their “cognitive distraction scale” for auditory-vocal tasks indicates “significant impairments to driving” is not supported by their data. Additional analysis demonstrates that slower brake reaction times during auditory-vocal tasks were fully compensated for by longer following distances to the lead car. Naturalistic driving data demonstrate that cellular conversation decreases crash risk, the opposite of the article’s assumption. Hence, the scale’s internal and external validities for indicating driving impairment are highly questionable.
AhlstromC.KircherK.ThorslundB.AdellE. (2015). Bicyclists’ visual strategies when conducting self-paced vs. system-paced smartphone tasks in traffic. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Advance online publication.
DrewsF. A.PasupathiM.StrayerD. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 392–400.
FitchG. M.SoccolichS. A.GuoF.McClaffertyJ.FangY.OlsonR. L.. . . DingusT. A. (2013). The impact of hand-held and hands-free cell phone use on driving performance and safety-critical event risk final report (No. DOT HS 811 757). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
6.
FoleyJ.YoungR.AngellL.DomeyerJ. (2013, June). Towards operationalizing driver distraction. Paper presented at the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Bolton Landing, NY.
7.
KircherK.AhlstromC.PalmqvistL.AdellE. (2015). Bicyclists’ speed adaptation strategies when conducting self-paced vs. system-paced smartphone tasks in traffic. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 28, 55–64.
8.
KircherA.VogelK.TörnrosJ.BollingA.NilssonL.PattenC.. . . CeciR. (2004). Mobile telephone simulator study. Linköping, Sweden: Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.
9.
KlauerS. G.DingusT. A.NealeV. L.SudweeksJ. D.RamseyD. J. (2006). The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data (No. HS-810 594). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
10.
McEvoyS. P.StevensonM. R.McCarttA. T.WoodwardM.HaworthC.PalamaraP.CercarelliR. (2005). Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A case-crossover study. BMJ, 331, 428–430.
11.
PlattenF.SchwalmM.HülsmannJ.KremsJ. (2014). Analysis of compensative behavior in demanding driving situations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 26, 38–48.
12.
RedelmeierD. A.TibshiraniR. J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453–458.
13.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A. (2004). Profiles in driver distraction: Effects of cell phone conversations on younger and older drivers. Human Factors, 46, 640–649.
14.
StrayerD. L.DrewsF. A.CrouchD. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381–391.
15.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.CooperJ. M.ColemanJ. R.Medeiros-WardN.BiondiF. (2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human Factors, 57, 1300–1324.
16.
TascaL. (2000). A review of the literature on aggressive driving research. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Advisory Group on Safe Driving Secretariat, Road User Safety Branch, Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
17.
VictorT.DozzaM.BärgmanJ.BodaC.-N.EngströmJ.FlannaganC.. . . MarkkulaG. (2015). Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Study data: Safer glances, driver inattention, and crash risk. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
18.
YannisG.PapadimitriouE.KareklaX.KontodimaE. (2010). Mobile phone use by young drivers: Effects on traffic speed and headways. Transportation Planning and Technology, 33, 385–394.
19.
YoungR. A. (2012). Cognitive distraction while driving: A critical review of definitions and prevalence in crashes. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars: Electronic and Electrical Systems, 5, 326–342.
20.
YoungR. A. (2014a). Self-regulation minimizes crash risk from attentional effects of cognitive load during auditory-vocal tasks. SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety, 2, 67–85.
21.
YoungR. A. (2014b). An unbiased estimate of the relative crash risk of cell phone conversation while driving an automobile. SAE International Journal of Transportation Safety, 2, 46–66.
22.
YoungR. A. (2015). Revised odds ratio estimates of secondary tasks: A re-analysis of the 100-Car naturalistic driving study data (SAE Paper No. 2015-01-1387). Detroit, MI: Society of Automotive Engineers.
23.
YoungR. A.SchreinerC. (2009). Real-world personal conversations using a hands-free embedded wireless device while driving: Effect on airbag-deployment crash rates. Risk Analysis, 29, 187–204.
