Volume 180 - Issue 1
Mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers: a preventable exposure to injury risk
Authors: Graham J Chalker, Kenneth H Joyner and Kelly S Parkinson
Med J Aust 2004; 180 (1): 43-45. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05777.x
Published online: 5 January 2004
Published online: 5 January 2004
Graham J Chalker,* Kenneth H Joyner,† Kelly S Parkinson†
* Chief Executive Officer; † Technical Advisor, Health and Safety Committee, Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, PO Box 4309, Manuka, ACT 2603. kellyATkppr.com.au
To the Editor: The claim made in the recent article that mobile phone use while driving is more dangerous than drink driving is misleading.1
The 1997 study by Redelmeier is often misinterpreted and cited for the proposition that driving while using a mobile is the same as driving drunk. However, Redelmeier wrote to the New England Journal of Medicine to correct this inaccuracy, saying, “. . . alcohol circulates in the blood for hours, whereas a telephone call lasts only minutes. The cumulative risks associated with intoxication are greater than those associated with cellular telephones”.2
This is supported by a recent Australian study, which compared the blood alcohol levels of drivers involved in real car crashes, rather than driving simulators, and found the risk of an accident was increased by 25 times at a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08.3 Mobile phones have not been shown to present this level of risk in any research.
In 2002 in the United States, alcohol was a factor in about 41% of all fatal traffic crashes and in 6% of all crashes.4 In comparison, data collected by about 20 state highway authorities show that mobile phones were a factor in an estimated one half of one percent of all accidents in the US last year.
Furthermore, mobile phone subscribers provide the extra eyes and voice for police in reporting aggressive, reckless or drunk drivers, accidents and other road hazards. Almost a third of all genuine calls to 000 are made from mobile phones.5
A recent US survey found that at any given time only 3% of drivers are actively using their mobile phones,6 although it is legal to use a handheld phone in almost all states. Therefore, Taylor’s overall result that less than 2% of Melbourne drivers use a handheld mobile phone, while illegal in Australia and undesirable, is not unexpected.
However, the unrelated and misleading comparison made with drink driving is not supported by the facts.
No one is questioning that mobile phone use imposes physical, visual, and cognitive demands on the driver. Although technology can help to address physical and visual factors, education is required to address cognitive factors. The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association has developed 10 safety tips for mobile phones and driving (see www.amta.org.au) and, by adhering to these simple common-sense practices, drivers can make full, productive and safe use of mobile phones.
References
- Taylor DMcD, Bennett DM, Carter M, Garewal D. Mobile telephone use among Melbourne drivers: a preventable exposure to injury risk. Med J Aust 2003; 179: 140-142. x1
- Redelmeier DA. Cellular telephones and traffic accidents. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 127-129.
- Ryan GA. A road side survey of drinking drivers in Perth, Western Australia. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety; 2000 May 21-26; Stockholm, Sweden.
- National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2002 Annual assessment of motor vehicle crashes. Motor vehicle traffic crash fatality and injury estimates for 2002. Washington, DC: NCSA, 2003. Available at: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/2002annual_assessment/ (accessed Nov 2003).
- Australian Communications Authority. Mobile phone jammers. 2003. Available at: www.aca.gov.au/aca_home/licensing/radcomm/space_systems/papers/jamsrep.pdf (accessed Sep 2003).
- Utter D. Passenger vehicle driver cell phone use. Results from the Fall 2000 National Occupant Protection Use Survey. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2001. Available at: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2001/809-293.pdf (accessed Sep 2003).