The Risk of Using a Mobile

Phone While Driving

Foreword

RoSPA would like to express its gratitude to the Department for Transport, Local Government
and the Regions for commissioning and funding this report.
The report can be downloaded from RoSPA’s website www.rospa.com
Extracts of this report may be photocopied or reproduced without prior permission providing
that the source is acknowledged.
Contents

Foreword

1 Introduction 1

2 The Use of Mobile Phones 2

3 Does Using a Mobile Phone While Driving Impair Driver Performance? 3

4 Does Using a Mobile Phone While Driving Increase Accident Risk? 8

5 Previous Reviews 13

6 Local Authority and Police Questionnaire Surveys 14

7 Legislative Approaches to Preventing Drivers Using Mobile Phones 16

8 Employers’ Policies on Staff Use of Mobile Phones While Driving 21

9 Conclusion 24

10 Recommendations 27

11 References 28

Appendix A – Survey Questionnaire 31

1 Introduction

Mobile phones first appeared in Britain Cognitive Distraction

during the 1980s, but were expensive and When mental (cognitive) tasks are performed concurrently,
bulky. However, modern mobile phones are the performance of both tasks is often worse than if they
small, compact, easy to use and have become were performed separately, because attention has to be

an essential part of life for many people. divided, or switched, between the tasks and the tasks must
compete for the same cognitive processes. When a driver is
They enable people to maintain contact
using a hand-held or hands-free mobile phone while driving,
with family, friends and business associates. she or he must devote part of their attention to operating the
As well as the general communication phone and maintaining the telephone conversation and part
benefits, access to a mobile phone also to operating the vehicle and responding to the constantly

provides safety benefits by enabling people changing road and traffic conditions. The demands of the
phone conversation must compete with the demands of
to alert breakdown or emergency services
driving the vehicle safely.
when necessary.
This Review examines the effects that using a mobile phone
However, there is considerable concern that using a mobile
while driving has on driving performance and on accident
phone while driving creates a significant accident risk, to the
risk. It comprises:
user and to other people on the road, because it distracts the
driver, impairs their control of the vehicle and reduces their ■ a review of published research about the effects of using

awareness of what is happening on the road around them. a mobile phone while driving

■ a survey of Local Authorities and Police Forces seeking

Physical Distraction information about accidents in which mobile phone use

has been implicated, and about education and
When using a hand-held mobile phone, drivers must remove
enforcement campaigns
one hand from the steering wheel to hold and operate the
phone. They must also take their eyes off the road, at least ■ a survey of laws restricting or prohibiting the use of

momentarily, to pick up and put down the phone and to dial mobile phones while driving

numbers. While using a hand-held phone, the driver must ■ a sample of employer policies on the use of mobile
continue to simultaneously operate the vehicle (steer, change phones by their staff while driving for work purposes.
gear, use indicators, etc) with only one hand.

Although the physical distraction is far greater with hand-held

phones, there is still some physical activity with hands-free
systems. Even though they do not need to be held during the
call, the driver must still divert their eyes from the road to
locate the phone and (usually) press at least one button.

1
2 The Use of Mobile Phones

In Great Britain, the use of mobile phones has High mileage drivers were much more likely to use a mobile
phone while driving: 78% of high mileage drivers said they
increased dramatically over the last few
used a phone while driving, compared with 37% of all drivers.
years. By the end of the 1980s less than 1%
They are also much more likely to use a mobile phone ‘often’
of the UK population had a mobile phone. while driving: 45% compared with 12% of all drivers.
By April 2000, there were approximately
Young drivers were slightly more likely (45%) to use mobile
25 million mobile phone subscribers (40% of phones while driving than all drivers (37%). Female drivers
the potential market) and this is expected to (30%) were less likely to use a mobile phone while driving
grow to 45 million (75% of the potential than male drivers (44%).
6
market) by 2005.1 An annual motoring survey found similar results in that
1 39% of drivers admitted to making phone calls from their
A similar pattern of growth exists in Europe and other
cars. Over three-quarters of company car drivers used a
countries. In the USA, the number of mobile phone users has
2 3 mobile phone while driving and over half (55%) of young
grown from 500,000 in 1985 to over 120 million in 2001.
drivers (under 24 years) also used a mobile while driving.
Most drivers who use a mobile phone use a hand-held phone,
Drivers’ Use of Mobile Phones even though 75% of them acknowledged that this is very
Exact figures on the number of drivers in Great Britain who often extremely dangerous.
use a mobile phone while driving have not been collected. 7
In a 1997 NOP survey carried out for RoSPA , 92% of people
4
However, in recent observational surveys at road junctions, thought that it was unsafe for drivers to use hand-held
27,900 drivers were observed, 2% (558 drivers) of whom were mobile phones, and 55% felt it was unsafe to use a
using a mobile phone. The vast majority (85%) were using hands-free mobile phone while at the wheel. 70% said they
hand-held phones. had seen mobile phone users driving in a way which they
5
A survey of 1,000 drivers and motorcyclists found that 37% felt was dangerous.
used a mobile phone while driving, one third of whom did 2
Surveys in the USA found that over one quarter (27%) of
so ‘often’. However, 88% said that using a hand-held mobile drivers used a mobile phone while driving on ‘most’ or ‘about
phone while driving should be illegal and 45% said that using half’ of their trips, and a further 58% used one on ‘less than
any phone, hand-held or hands-free, should be illegal. 3
half’ or on ‘very few’ trips. A more recent estimate is that
73% of the USA’s mobile phone subscribers use their phone
while driving.

2
3 Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Impair
Driver Performance?
A considerable number of studies have 12-foot wide lane, and 12% would veer out of a 10-foot wide
lane, when dialling a telephone number. In more complex,
examined whether and how using a mobile
real-life driving conditions (roads with bends and junctions,
phone while driving affects various aspects of
rougher road surfaces, poorer visibility) it is likely that the
driving performance. Studies have been incidence of lane deviation would be considerably higher.
conducted in a variety of ways, either during
Interviews with nine people who regularly used a hands-free
a simulated driving task, on a driving 12
mobile phone for work-related calls while driving revealed
simulator, driving a real car on an off-road that they did not believe that using the phone affected their

track or driving a real car on roads in actual driving performance because they could adapt their speed or
end the call if necessary. However, when they participated in
traffic conditions.
simulated driving tasks of varying complexity on a computer
8
As early as 1969, a study investigated the effects of divided (not a driving simulator) and had to respond to mobile phone
attention on drivers’ ability to drive safely. While responding calls, their performance was significantly worse during both
to a verbal reasoning task on a telephone headset, 24 male simple and more complex phone conversations. So, although
drivers attempted to drive through gaps of various widths, they did not believe using the phone affected their driving,
some of which were wider than their car and some of which in reality it did.
were not wide enough. They made more errors in judging the
There is evidence that older drivers require more glances to
gaps when they also had to use the telephone, although this
instrument panels to retrieve necessary information, require
was only statistically significant for the gaps that were
more time to complete instrument tasks and require more
‘impossible’. Drivers also took longer to complete the driving
time to move their eyes between the road and an instrument
circuit when telephoning, because (the authors suggested)
display. Therefore, using a mobile phone while driving may
they were trying to gain more time to handle the additional 13
cause more problems for older drivers than younger ones.
workload. The study concluded that using the telephone
14
while driving had little effect on automised driving skills, but A study of 40 drivers (half male, half female) on an advanced
impaired perceptual and decision-making tasks. driving simulator, investigated the effects of using a hands-
free mobile phone while driving on an easy, straight route
A 1985 study involved 60 male truck drivers who undertook a
and on a difficult, winding route. Using the mobile phone
long distance (7 hour) simulated driving exercise during which
while driving increased drivers’ reaction times and reduced
they had to respond to voice communication at regular
their speed level, but only when the driving task was easy.
intervals and their perceived fatigue levels and alertness were
9 The drivers’ lateral (lane) position was also affected on the
measured. Voice communication seemed to help maintain
easy, straight road in that the subjects drove closer to the side
the drivers’ alertness but increased their fatigue and seemed
of the road. No difference was found concerning the variation
to induce higher stress levels.
in lateral position. Using the mobile phone increased the
10
A study using a driving simulator found that dialling a long mental workload of the drivers on both the easy and difficult
telephone number significantly interfered with the driver’s routes. Surprisingly, using the phone impaired driving
ability to follow the road in an optimal manner, and led to a performance more on the former than on the latter, perhaps
significant increase in accident risk. Manually dialling a long because the subjects appointed the telephone task as the
number caused more problems than adjusting the car radio, primary task when driving was easy. When the driving
although memorised numbers and voice activated dialling task became more demanding, the subjects may have
caused fewer problems. This study found that placing the regarded driving as the primary task and the telephone
phone on the dashboard within the driver’s visual field task as secondary.
reduced, but did not eliminate, the increased accident risk.
Twelve drivers drove a car in three different traffic conditions
11
In a 1988 study, 20 drivers were asked to dial a long (light motorway traffic, heavy major road traffic and city
telephone number when driving in a straight line at 40 mph traffic) while using either a hand-held or hands-free mobile
15
on an unused airport runway. The results showed that even in phone. Their mental workload increased when using a
ideal, traffic-free situations, 2% of drivers would veer out of a mobile phone, but this effect decreased as they became

3
 Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Impair
Driver Performance?
more accustomed to using the phone while driving. were driving than when they were not driving, and than
Surprisingly, the variations in lateral position (swerving) were when talking to a passenger in the car.
less while using the telephone than when not, especially
In another study, 150 subjects observed a video of driving
while driving on the motorway. This may indicate that drivers
sequences containing situations to which drivers would be
increased their alertness to compensate for using the phone. 19
expected to respond. Each situation occurred when the
However, using a mobile phone delayed the drivers’
subjects were placing a mobile phone call, conducting a
adaptation to the changing speed of the vehicle in front and
simple conversation on a mobile phone, conducting a
lengthened their reaction time to the appearance of brake
complex conversation, tuning a radio, and with no distraction.
lights of the lead vehicle (although the latter was not
All the distractions led to significant increases in both the
statistically significant). Dialling a telephone number in city
number of situations to which the subjects failed to respond
traffic conditions significantly impaired steering wheel and the time it took to respond to them. Complex phone
movements. As with other studies, this one concluded that conversations created the greatest distraction and simple
using a mobile phone while driving had little effect on simple, conversations the least. The likelihood of a driver failing to
automatic driving skills, but did impair drivers’ traffic skills notice and respond to a highway-traffic situation ranged
and responses to other vehicles. from 20% when placing a call or holding a simple phone
The effects of receiving a call on a hands-free mobile phone conversation to 29% for holding a complex phone conversation.
while driving on a real motorway under moderate traffic Subjects over 50 years old were significantly more likely to fail
16 to respond than younger (17-25 years) subjects.
conditions were monitored in one study. This study did not
reveal evidence that receiving the calls impaired the drivers’ Using a driving simulator,
20
twelve drivers operated a
behaviour. Neither vehicle control, manoeuvring (lane change, manually-dialled and a voice-activated mobile phone while
overtaking) nor speed choice were influenced by telephone driving. Using both the manual and the voice-activated
use. However the drivers’ perceived workload was increased phones was found to cause larger deviations in lane position
when using the phone and was described as ‘moderately high than not using one. However, the effect was larger when the
effort to attain adequately safe driving’. The authors argued drivers had to manually dial the numbers than when using
that even the combination of easy driving with simple verbal the voice activated phone.
tasks can increase drivers’ mental workload to a level where
Seventeen drivers drove a simple route on a driving
they begin to feel unsafe. 21
simulator, while holding a phone conversation. Two of the
17
Another study involved 24 drivers driving on real roads seventeen subjects were able to use the phone and maintain
while holding a conversation (a role-play negotiation) on a a constant speed. A further nine had problems doing the two
hands-free mobile phone, holding a conversation with a car things simultaneously, but coped by reducing their speed to
passenger, and a control condition of just driving. Holding a give themselves more time. The remaining drivers faced
conversation at the same time as driving increased the ‘mental overload’ and failed to maintain a constant speed.
drivers’ mental workload and their stress and frustration They seemed unable to do the two tasks (driving and using
levels. The drivers also took longer to complete their driving the phone) simultaneously and so tended to switch between
routes while holding the conversations, possibly because them, sometimes giving greater importance to the phone
they reduced speed to be able to devote more of their conversation and sometimes to driving. In some cases this
concentration to the conversations. The stress caused by resulted in a speed decrease, in others a speed increase.
negotiating on the mobile phone was significantly higher 22
In a pursuit-tracking task that simulated driving twenty
than that caused by negotiating with the passenger.
subjects (10 male and 10 female) in two age groups, 19-26
Research which included both laboratory tests and driving a years and 40-51 years, drove while (i) holding a simple
car on urban and rural roads examined how using a mobile telephone conversation, (ii) holding a difficult conversation,
phone while driving affects the phone conversation (rather and (iii) tuning and listening to a car radio. Half of the driving
18
than the driving performance). The participants had was done on a simulated firm road surface and half on a
significantly greater difficulty in remembering and correctly slippery road surface. When driving on the firm road surface
interpreting information from the phone calls when they and not having to do a secondary task, the drivers were

4
Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Impair
Driver Performance?
generally able to maintain a correct road position. Neither using mobile phones the students’ reaction times were
a hands-free mobile phone nor tuning the radio caused any significantly slower.
significant difference. However, when driving on a slippery 26
An on-road study analysed the duration and number of
road, manipulating the radio and using the phone led to
glances made by 23 experienced and 24 inexperienced drivers
greater deviations from the correct road position, and, in this
as they changed a radio cassette, dialled a mobile phone
study, tuning the radio caused more problems than using the
number, or tuned a car radio while driving on a highway or
phone. As one would expect, holding a simple phone
motorway. Glances away from the road were longest when
conversation caused less trouble for the drivers than holding
the drivers were tuning the radio and shortest when
a difficult conversation. The study concluded that a simple
changing the cassette tape. Experienced drivers were better
conversation on a hands-free telephone while driving does
at allocating their visual attention between driving and the
not in itself impair performance. However a difficult
secondary task, probably due to their greater driving
conversation may affect driving adversely, and any prolonged
experience. Whereas novice drivers made more short,
manipulation of the telephone impairs performance,
ineffective glances and more long, risky glances. Almost half
particularly in more difficult driving conditions.
(46%) of the inexperienced drivers took their eyes off the road
23
Another simulator study investigated the effects of a mobile for more than 2.5 seconds, compared with only 13% of
phone on following distances. Forty drivers (30 male, 10 female) experienced drivers.The long glances away from the road made
drove a long, fairly straight route on the simulator, which also by the novices resulted in large deviations in lane position.
showed a continuous stream of on-coming traffic and traffic
Thirty people received and conversed with an incoming call
in front of the driver several times during the drive.The drivers
on hand-held and hands-free mobile phones while driving
received a call on a hands-free mobile phone during some, 27
either a manual or automatic car on a driving simulator.
but not all, of the car-following situations. During some calls
The drivers’ performance was assessed before, during and
the vehicle in front braked. Using the mobile phone slowed
after the call, and their heart rate was monitored throughout
the drivers’ reaction time, especially older drivers. The drivers
the exercise. Drivers’ maintenance of speed was significantly
did not compensate for their slower reaction times by
impaired when using either a hand-held or hands-free mobile
increasing their following distances, perhaps because they
phone when driving both manual and automatic cars.
were unaware that using the phone was slowing their
This reduced responsiveness continued for at least 2.5 minutes
reactions. The authors calculated that the drivers in the study
after the call. Drivers’ also significantly reduced their following
would not have been able to avoid a collision if the vehicle in
distance from the vehicle in front when using either hand-
front had braked sharply.
held or hands-free phones and they continued to ‘tailgate’
A study investigating the effects of concurrent use of a mobile after the call. Participants’ heart rates rose significantly during
telephone and an adaptive cruise control (ACC) was undertaken the calls, indicating increased stress.
24
in an advanced driving simulator. The cruise control could be 28
An on-road study investigated drivers’ ability to detect and
set to operate automatically or be driver-operated, and a
respond to a car ahead decelerating, while using a mobile
control condition without cruise control was included. A visual
phone. Nineteen participants aged between 20 and 29 years,
secondary task was used to study the driver’s attention
drove at 80km/h, 50m behind another car on a 30km section
distribution. The presentation of a visual stimulus, (a red
of motorway in normal traffic. During each trial, the lead car
square on the screen) resulted in a tendency towards shorter
started to decelerate while the test driver either looked at the
reaction times when using the ACC compared with not using
car in front (control), dialled numbers on the phone (divided
the ACC but only when the telephone was used. When the
visual attention) or performed a cognitive task (non-visual
telephone was not used, a tendency in the opposite direction
attention). When drivers were dialling or doing the cognitive
was found (i.e. longer reaction times when using ACC).
task, they were slower (by about 0.5 second) to detect the fact
Twenty-five college students aged 18-25 years participated in that the car ahead had begun to decelerate and their time to
a simulated driving task (not a driving simulator) which collision was impaired by about one second. The report
measured visual tracking and hand-eye co-ordination while concluded that using even hands-free or voice-activated mobile
25
talking on a hand-held mobile phone. When using the phones while driving still impairs drivers’ ability to drive safely.

5
 Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Impair
Driver Performance?
A comparison of the effects of using a mobile phone while were slower and they swerved around them at greater
driving on real roads and on a driving simulator was conducted speeds, when the message was being played than when not
to assess whether the results found on driving simulators responding to the taped message. When turning left, drivers
were indicative of the results that could be expected on took significantly riskier decisions when listening and
29
actual roads. Six male and six female drivers drove on a responding to the messages. The study concluded that
freeway route while periodically making calls on a hand-held listening and responding to relatively complex messages
mobile phone, and then drove a similar route on a driving (such as when using a hands-free mobile phone) were found
simulator while also periodically making calls. Using the to ‘significantly degrade driving performance’.The impairment
mobile phone reduced the driving precision (lane position and was related to the complexity of the driving task, such that
speed control) of all the subjects, both on the road and on the using the phone would cause more problems in more
simulator. Although the variations in maintaining lane complex driving situations.
position were more exaggerated in the simulator than on the
Fifteen subjects were asked to drive on a driving simulator
road, results still showed that the simulator provided a valid
for 15.5 miles on a single carriageway rural road with traffic
indication of the effects that would occur on the road. It was 33
in front of and behind them and on-coming vehicles.
also notable that drivers aged 60 years and over faced greater
They were told to observe the speed limits and expect some
problems than younger ones.
severe weather conditions. They were asked a series of
30
Another study involved 27 drivers who drove on a questions on a hands-free phone during the drive, and their
combination of city, urban and rural roads while talking with reaction times, braking profiles, lateral position, speed, and
a passenger, and separately holding a conversation on a situational awareness were measured. Reaction times were
hands-free mobile phone. Unlike most other studies, this one significantly slower during the early part of the phone
did not find that using a mobile phone affected driving conversations, but improved as the phone call proceeded.
performance, with the exception that more navigation errors However, when using a mobile phone the drivers took an
were made by drivers when they were using the telephone. average of 200 metres longer to respond to a change in the
Drivers experienced greater mental workload when using a speed limit. The simulation was stopped at various points
mobile phone and when talking to a passenger than when and the drivers were asked questions about the traffic
driving alone, but appeared to adapt to the increased conditions. Using the mobile phone resulted in a significant
cognitive demands of the conversations. deterioration of the drivers’ awareness, to such an extent that
31 they had very little awareness of what was happening on the
Another driving simulator study involved 20 drivers who
road around them.
were asked to judge whether simple sentences were
34
meaningful, and recall the first words of each sentence on a A recent USA report contrasted the effects of using a hand-
hands-free mobile phone when (a) not driving, (b) driving an held and hands-free mobile phone on responses to traffic
easy route, and (c) driving a difficult route. Using the mobile signals on a simulated driving task. Sixty-four students
phone while driving on both the easy and difficult routes performed a pursuit tracking test on a computer (to simulate
resulted in a significant deterioration of both recall and driving) while either listening to a radio, listening to an audio
judgement. The study was repeated with a further 24 drivers tape, using a hand-held or a hands-free phone. When using
and similar results were found. either a hand-held or hands-free phone, the students’
32 responses to the traffic signals were significantly slower, and
Canadian research on an off-road test track assessed drivers
they were significantly more likely to miss the signals
who listened and responded to taped messages while driving.
altogether. Listening to the radio or tape did not have any
They periodically encountered traffic lights, pop-up targets
significant effects. The study concluded that using a mobile
around which they had to swerve and had to turn left into a
phone while driving creates a serious distraction which is
traffic stream. When responding to the taped messages, the
caused by the driver’s active engagement in the conversation
drivers were more likely to stop (rather than ‘run’ the lights)
rather than the physical interference of holding the phone.
when the traffic lights changed, possibly to allow themselves
to divert their attention to the phone task. When the drivers
had to react to the unexpected pop-up targets, their reactions

6
Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Impair
Driver Performance?
Fifty drivers, included ten driving instructors, drove around an On average, drivers’ reaction times were 50% slower when
off road test track at 40-50 km/h with a vehicle in front of them using a hand-held mobile phone than under normal driving
35
and another behind. The test subject drove while listening conditions, and 30% slower than when under the influence of
to a cassette tape, while using a hand-held phone and while alcohol. It took hand-held mobile phone users half a second
using a hands-free phone. Using a mobile phone, especially a longer, on average, to react than normal, and a third of a
hand-held one, increased the drivers’ braking reaction times, second longer to react compared to when they had drunk
although they increased the distance from the car in front, alcohol. At 70 mph, this is equivalent to travelling an additional
and slowed their speed, to compensate for this. When using a 46 feet (14m) before reacting to a hazard on the road.
mobile phone, especially a hand-held one, the drivers were
When using a hands-free phone drivers took an extra 26 feet
more likely to deviate from their lane position. Those drivers
to stop at 70 mph than when not using a phone.
who had to pick up the phone from the passenger seat to
answer it took their eyes off the road for almost 2 seconds. Drivers were also less able to maintain a constant speed and

There was also a tendency for the driver to stare straight found it more difficult to keep a safe distance from the car in

ahead while using the phone and to look around less. front when using a mobile phone in comparison to the other
conditions. In addition, drivers using either a hands-free or
Research in Taiwan included a driving simulator study,
hand-held mobile phone, missed significantly more road
interviews with members of the public and an analysis of
36
warning signs than those who were not.
accident records. 390 drivers drove on a driving simulator
while sometimes using a hand-held mobile phone and Conclusion: Does Using A Mobile Phone While
sometimes talking to a passenger. Five different traffic Driving Impair Driving Performance?
situations occurred randomly during the drive: traffic signal
The simple answer is ‘yes’.
change, obstacle falling in front of the driver, pedestrian
stepping into the road, a vehicle emerging in front and a Many studies, using a variety of different research techniques,
vehicle in front braking abruptly. The results showed that have reached the same conclusions. Using a mobile phone
using a mobile phone while driving significantly increased the while driving adversely affects driver performance in a number
time it took drivers to respond to the various traffic situations. of different ways. It impairs:
The response times of older drivers were affected to a greater ■ Maintenance of lane position
extent than those of younger drivers.
■ Maintenance of appropriate and predictable speed
As part of this study, 500 members of the public were
■ Maintenance of appropriate following distances from
interviewed about their views on drivers using mobile
vehicles in front
phones. Over three-quarters (77%) thought it was unsafe to
use a mobile phone while driving, but less than half (44%) ■ Reaction times
thought a law should be introduced to prohibit it.
■ Judgement and acceptance of safe gaps in traffic
37
In a recent UK study, twenty drivers drove on a driving
■ General awareness of other traffic.
simulator in four road conditions:
Much of the research has assessed using hands-free phones
■ on a motorway with moderate traffic
and demonstrates that these still distract drivers and impair
■ maintaining a safe distance when following another vehicle safe driving ability, even when driving automatic cars, which
are arguably easier to drive than the manual transmission
■ attempting to negotiate a bend
cars predominantly used in the UK.
■ on a dual carriageway with traffic lights.
There is also evidence that using a mobile phone while
Before the drives, the subjects consumed either an alcoholic driving causes greater problems for those drivers who already
drink to take them up to the UK legal drink drive limit of 80 have a higher accident risk, namely young, novice drivers and
mg/100 ml or a similar looking and tasting placebo drink. elderly drivers.
During each drive the drivers answered a standard set of
questions and conversed over a mobile phone.

7
4 Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Increase
Accident Risk?
41
Experimental evidence shows that using a An analysis of police reports of 5,740 fatal road accidents in
Great Britain between 1985-1995 found that in-vehicle
mobile phone while driving impairs driving
distraction was reported as a contributory factor in about 2%
performance in a number of safety critical
of the fatal accidents (although this figure may be a
ways. The next question is does using a conservative estimate). The analysis identified the various
mobile phone while driving actually increase causes of distraction as interacting with passengers,
accident risk in real-life driving, and if so to operating in-car entertainment systems, eating and drinking,
smoking and using a mobile phone.
what extent? There is much less data and
42
research to answer this question, largely A case-control study of data from 223,137 traffic accidents
(1,548 of which were fatal) between 1992 and 1995 in the USA,
because it is rarely recorded whether or not
compared the accident characteristics and use of mobile
drivers were using a mobile phone at the phones in fatal crashes with non-fatal ones.There was a mobile
time of an accident. However, some studies phone in 4% of the vehicles involved in a fatal accident, and in
have been conducted. these crashes, almost 8% of the drivers were using the phone
38 at the time of the crash. Drivers who were using a mobile phone
A USA study of 699 drivers who had a mobile phone and
were nine times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident
who had been involved in a damage-only road accident
than drivers who were not. (Just the presence of a mobile
examined their mobile phone records on the day of the
phone in the vehicle resulted in the accident risk being doubled).
accident and during the preceding week. Statistical analysis
indicated that the risk of being involved in a collision was four Drivers who used a mobile phone while driving were more

times higher when using a hand-held or a hands-free phone likely to cause an accident by wandering out of their lane,

than when not using one. This finding has been criticised, more likely to hit a pedestrian and more likely to overturn
39
but in a recent review of their study, the authors have their vehicle. This report also stated that using a mobile
phone while driving increases the risk of a fatal accident three
concluded that their findings were robust, and if anything
times more than being drunk. However, concerns about the
under-estimated the risk.
43
reliability and findings, of this study have been raised .
An analysis of accident data from the USA’s Fatal Analysis
An analysis of a sample of police-reported crashes between
Reporting System (FARS), National Automotive Sampling 44
1995-1999 in the USA sought to identify the major sources
System (NASS) and police crash reports from individual
40 of driver distraction and their relative importance as a crash
States identified that the use of mobile phones by drivers
cause. 8% of the drivers were identified as distracted at the
appeared to be a growing factor in crashes (although little
time of their crash, and the specific sources of distraction were:
data was available). Accident investigations found that the
majority of these drivers were talking on their phones, rather Outside person, object, or event 29.4%
than dialling, at the time of the crash. The ‘overwhelming Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4%
majority’ of drivers who had a crash while using a mobile
Other occupant 10.9%
phone ran into another vehicle or object that was clearly
visible. The report also suggested that accidents caused or Moving object in vehicle 4.3%
contributed to by in-car distraction are likely to increase as Other device/object 2.9%
more in-car technology is introduced.
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8%
The same report analysed crash data in Oklahoma (one of
Eating and/or drinking 1.7%
only two states that records the presence or use of mobile
phones after crashes) and found that about 10% of the mobile Using/dialling mobile phone 1.5%
phones present in vehicles were being used at the time of the
Smoking related 0.9%
crash. This study also reports on crash data from Japan that
Other 25.6%
indicates mobile phone usage was involved in less than
1% of crashes. Unknown 8.6%

8
Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Increase
Accident Risk?
Young drivers (under 20 years old) were the most likely to be (4%) involved drivers who were using a mobile phone at the
involved in distraction-related crashes as a whole. Certain types time of the accident. Nearly 20% of drivers who had a mobile
of distraction were more prominent in certain age groups, phone and been involved in an accident, had been using their
for example, adjusting the radio, cassette or CD was a more phone when the accident occurred.
common crash cause among the under 20-year-olds.
The same study showed that in Taiwan between August 2000
Distraction caused by other occupants (e.g., young children)
and March 2001, 2,407 traffic accidents were caused by drivers
was more common among 20-29 year-olds; distraction
using mobile phones and these resulted in 14 people being
caused by outside objects and events was more common
killed and 443 being injured. Nine deaths and 354 injuries
among those aged 65 and older.
occurred in accidents where the driver was using a hand-held
The amount of time spent talking on a cellular telephone phone, and four deaths and 89 injuries occurred in accidents
per month by 100 randomly selected drivers who had been where the driver was using a hands-free phone.
involved in an accident was compared with a control group
A search of the North Carolina Accident database records for
of 100 randomly selected drivers who had not been in an
45
1989 and the first four months of 1992 was performed to
accident. Approximately, 13% of the accident-involved
assess ‘the effects of driver visual allocation into the vehicle
drivers and 9% of the non-accident involved drivers, used a 46
on accident rates’. The results showed that drivers’ visual
mobile phone when driving. Those who talked on a cellular
allocation within their vehicle is a significant contributory
phone in their vehicle for more than 50 minutes per month
factor in accidents. Radio usage was often associated with
were over five times more likely to have a traffic accident.
accidents. The search also indicated that between 1989 and
The mobile phone users who had been involved in an
1992 the use of cellular phones became an increasing
accident were younger and less experienced than those who
contribution to accidents. In 1989, cellular phones were
had not been involved in an accident, and spent twice as long
mentioned just 11 times in the accident database, but, by
talking on their phones per month (not necessarily when
1992, they were mentioned 27 times.
driving) and their conversations seemed to be more intense.
36
RoSPA has collected reports of 20 fatal road accidents where
Over a four-month period, in three cities in Taiwan, the
the use of a mobile phone by a driver (and in one
accident report forms recorded whether the involved drivers
case a pedestrian) was reported to have been a factor.
had a mobile phone in their vehicle at the time of the
The information below is taken from press reports of police
accident, and whether it was being used. Over 3,000 road
investigations and coroner’s inquests.
accidents occurred during this period, of which 676 (22%)
involved drivers who had a mobile phone in the car and 133

9
 Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Increase
Accident Risk?
Mobile Phone Related Deaths

Date Circumstances Sentence

1988 (actual date unconfirmed) Driver leaned across to answer his mobile phone Fined £100 after admitting driving
Reported: Oct 20, 1988 – and swerved into the path of another car, without due care and attention.
Birmingham Evening Mail whose driver died instantly.

September 1994 Driver listening to messaging system on phone, Jailed for six months for causing
Reported: May 24, 1997 – Times; crossed to the wrong side of the road and collided death by dangerous driving.
Scotsman; May 26,1997 – Express head-on with a van on a bend, killing the driver.

September 1996 Driver using his mobile when he collided Fined £250 and ordered to pay £35
Reported: April 28, 1999 – Daily Mail; with and killed a child pedestrian. costs after admitting careless driving.
May 1, 1997 – Western Daily Press

September 1996 Lorry driver was trying to hang up his mobile Fined £250 and given six penalty
Reported: July 28, 1997 phone when he hit a car, killing the driver. points after admitted careless driving.
– Evening Mail

October 1996 Driver was killed when he turned right while using Verdict = accidental death.
Reported: May 21, 1997 – Telegraph; a mobile phone, and was hit by another car.
Liverpool Daily Post Believed to be using the phone for work purposes.

1997 (actual date unknown) Pedestrian crossing a dual carriageway was Fined £540 and given nine
Reported: December 1, 1997 hit and killed by a driver using a hands-free penalty points.
– Daily Mail mobile-phone.

February 1998 Head-on collision involving two cars, one of Jailed for two-and-a-half-years
Reported: May 18, 1999 which was travelling on the wrong side of and banned for five years.
– Eastern Daily Press the road. The driver who was killed may have
been speaking on a mobile at the time and had
been tailgating another motorist moments
before the collision.

March 1998 Driver pulled out to overtake, travelling Jailed for 12 months and banned
Reported: February 4, 1999 at 70 mph while using a mobile phone. from driving for a year.
– Daily Mail; Daily Express; Times Collided with an on-coming vehicle, killing its driver.

November 1998 Articulated lorry hit two cars waiting at Admitted causing death by dangerous
Reported: Jan 17, 2000 traffic lights. One of the car drivers was killed. driving and sentenced to 240 hours
– Daily Mail community service. Banned from
driving for two years and ordered to
pay costs of £1200.

March 1999 Driver died when his car veered off the road
Reported: Sep 1, 1999 and into a tree while talking on a mobile.
– Western Daily Press/Daily Star

March 1999 Truck driver was speeding while using a Jailed for 18 months and banned
Reported: Jan 20, 2000 hands-free mobile phone. He hit a stationary from driving for four years.
– Daily Record, van which was shunted into another car,
Jan 21, 2000 – BBC News online killing the occupant,
– UK Scotland

10
Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Increase
Accident Risk?

Date Circumstances Sentence

April 1998 Driver killed while talking on a mobile. He was
Reported: April 8, 1998 – Daily Mail; travelling at 104mph on a motorway when a rear
August 26, 1998 – Daily Mail tyre punctured and he lost control.

February 9, 2000 Truck driver distracted when his mobile phone Charged with driving without due
Reported: May 5, 2000 rang. He took his eyes off the road but didn‘t care and attention. Fined £500 for
– Daily Mail; Telegraph; answer phone. Hit a cyclist who was lack of attention.
killed instantly.

March 2000 Driver reading his map while talking to his Verdict of accidental death recorded.
Reported: June 5, 2000 – Times boss on a mobile phone. Hit back of parked lorry
carrying gas cylinders. He died in the fire.

March 2000 Driver said (by witnesses) to be driving at 70mph Jailed for three years. Banned from
Reported: September 1, 2000 in 30mph zone, talking on mobile phone and driving for three years from the
– Times website overtaking. Hit and killed a pedestrian. Driver time of his release.
had only recently completed ban for driving
without due care and attention. Driver pleaded
guilty to causing death by dangerous driving.

April 18 2000 Pedestrian talking on a mobile phone stepped Verdict = Accidental death.
Reported: July 13, 2000 – Times into the road without looking and was hit and Coroner said that the mobile phone
killed by a car. Friend shouted warning but was a factor in distracting her from
pedestrian did not hear. noticing the car.

May 2000 Driver overtaking another vehicle at up to Recording a verdict of accidental

Reported: August 25, 2000 90mph in heavy rain. Lost control and hit tree. death, coroner said:“A message had
– The Sun When Police officers checked the phone they been accessed. It may have diverted
found a message that was three pages long and his attention”.
had been received two minutes before the crash.

June 2000 Truck driver composing a text message veered Jailed for five years for causing
Reported Feb 2001: Independent, into a lay-by, and hit a man standing by his death by dangerous driving.
Telegraph, Mail, Express parked car. Denied composing a text message,
but admitted he may have glanced
at phone to see if he had a message.
Judge said “In many ways it
is difficult to imagine a more blatant
act of such cold blooded disregard for
safety on the roads.

November 2000 A driver was killed when he pulled out in

Reported: BBC News Online front of a police car that was travelling at
October 2001 80mph with its lights and sirens on.
The driver had received and sent two text
messages minutes before the crash.

August 2001 A driver was killed when she drove head-on Verdict of accidental death.
The Sun into a truck as she used her mobile phone. The coroner said it was ‘probable’
She had just sent a text message when she that she was distracted by her phone.
lost control of her car.

11
 Does Using a Mobile Phone while Driving Increase
Accident Risk?
Conclusion: Does Using A Mobile Phone While
Driving Increase Accident Risk?
Again, the answer is ‘yes’.

One study suggests that the risk of being involved in a

collision is four times higher when using a mobile phone than
when not using one. However, it is difficult to quantify the
increased risk because of the lack of accident data concerning
the use of mobile phones. This is due to the fact that in the
UK, and most other countries, the presence or use of a mobile
phone in a vehicle is not recorded, except sometimes in very
serious accidents. The number of States in the USA that are
beginning to record mobile phone use in their accident data
systems is increasing, and, consequently, it seems likely that
better data will become available.

Despite the lack of data, there is nevertheless evidence from

epidemiological studies and from accident reports that
drivers who use mobile phones while driving have higher
accidents rates than those who do not.

As the use of mobile phones is growing so rapidly, it is very

likely that they will become an increasingly common cause of
road crashes.

12
5 Previous Reviews

49
A number of reviews of the available research In 1997, TRL concluded that there is evidence that using a

into the effects of using a mobile phone mobile phone while driving impairs driving performance and
“evidence of an association between mobile phone use
while driving have been conducted, and
(even of the hands-free type) while driving and higher
have generally reached similar findings as accident occurrence.”This review suggested that hand-held
this review. mobile phones cause considerable distraction, but this effect
47
A 1993 review concluded that holding car-phone may be reduced with hands-free phones, although there is

conversations while driving increases drivers’ mental still some cognitive distraction caused by the mental effort of

workload and stress levels and impairs their driving telephone conversation with advanced aids. The authors

performance, particularly by slowing their response times. concluded that brief casual conversations under light traffic

However, this review suggested that mobile phones may conditions have a small impact on a driver’s mental workload

develop to such an extent that integrated in-car systems and so are unlikely to have a discernible safety effect.

would monitor driver behaviour and the traffic situation and However, manual dialling and intense telephone

when necessary, alert the driver and the person to whom she conversations cause considerable distraction and this could

or he is speaking, and even terminate the call if necessary. impact on safety.

Another review
48
published in 1995 claimed that the risks More recently, the Independent Expert Group on Mobile

associated with mobile phone use when driving are not Phones, formed by the British Government to review

simply limited to physical and mental distraction. They also “concerns about the possible health effects of mobile
1
involve more aggressive driving, manifesting itself in phones” concluded that “there is one substantial established

tailgating other drivers to intimidate them to move over, risk to health from mobile phone technology, namely through

dangerous overtaking and lane changing. the increased incidence of motor vehicle accidents when

40
drivers use mobile phones. Since the chance of an accident
A 1997 USA review found consistent evidence that manual
appears to be equally elevated for hands-free and hands-held
dialling (i.e. using a hand-held mobile phone) impairs drivers’
use, this effect is almost certainly due to the distracting effect
vehicle control (especially lane position and maintenance of
of the conversation”.
appropriate speed) and reduces drivers’ traffic awareness,
resulting in slower reaction times and less use of mirrors.
This review concluded that using hands-free mobile phones
has less effect on drivers’ vehicle control, but does decrease
their situational awareness and increase their braking
reaction times.

13
6 Local Authority and Police Questionnaire Surveys

Given the lack of data about the involvement In most cases, the initiatives were conducted by partnerships
involving the Local Authority Road Safety Department, local
of mobile phones in road accidents, a
Police, DTLR , a local health board and hospital and (in one
questionnaire (Appendix 1) was devised to
case) with major mobile phone retail outlets. In three cases,
seek details from Police Forces and Local the campaigns were conducted solely by Local Authority Road
Authorities about road accidents where a Safety Departments.
driver or other road user was using a mobile The campaigns consisted mainly of distributing publicity
phone, and about education and enforcement resources (usually the leaflet ‘Mobile Phones and Driving’
campaigns that have been conducted. which the DTLR supplies free of charge), issuing press releases
and giving media interviews. In one case, advice about mobile
Sixty questionnaires were sent to the Senior Crash
phones and driving was emailed to all Council employees.
Investigators’ Conference held in October 2001 where they
were distributed to all the Police Collision Investigation Units Target groups varied from all mobile phone users to specific
in Britain. A further 219 questionnaires were posted to groups such as local businesses, council employees, people
Road Safety Officers based in police and local authorities in taking part in driver improvement courses or participants in
England, Scotland,Wales and Northern Ireland. Only 38 internal training courses such as minibus training.
questionnaires were returned, which represents a low return Publicity materials were distributed to a wide range of outlets,
rate of 13%. The results are presented below. including petrol stations, Police stations, local businesses,
mobile phone retailers, taxi and car hire companies, driving
Accident and Injury Information schools and test centres, doctors’ surgeries, leisure centres and
libraries. Some Road Safety Departments also included mobile
Most of the respondents noted that they were unable to
phone leaflets in education packs prepared for use in joint
supply any accident or injury information because it was not
road safety officer/police officer roadside checks on other
collected on the STATS19 form. (This may be a reason for the
issues, such as drink drive, speed and seat belt wearing.
low response rate).

Only four were able to supply any accident and injury data
Enforcement Campaigns
relating to mobile phone use. Between them, these
respondents had records of one serious accident and 17 Three respondents had also conducted enforcement activities
slight accidents involving the use of a mobile phone by a targeted at drivers using mobile phones.
driver, plus one slight accident involving a pedestrian who In one 30-day campaign in January 2001 in Gwent (Operation
stepped into the path of a reversing vehicle while talking on Ringtone), 65 drivers were stopped for using a mobile phone
a mobile phone. while driving, 22 were cautioned and 43 were issued with a
fixed penalty notice.
Education Campaigns In another campaign conducted periodically over an eight
Twenty-eight (74%) of the respondents had conducted month period in Bedfordshire, 91 drivers were issued with a
education and publicity initiatives to discourage mobile fixed penalty notice.
phone use while driving. In 18 cases, this involved regular, The third campaign was conducted over a two-month period
on-going distribution of publicity materials, sometimes in in Norfolk in 2001, during which 132 drivers were issued with a
co-ordination with national campaigns, and sometimes as fixed penalty notice.
part of general mail out activities to libraries, health centres
and other distribution points. Seven of the respondents
reported that they had conducted specific ‘mobile phone’
educational campaigns.

14
Local Authority and Police Questionnaire Surveys

Another respondent reported that in four London Boroughs

over a four-month period, 287 verbal warnings and 45 fixed
penalty notices were issued to drivers for being ‘not in a
position to have proper control’. This respondent noted that
“these are most usually related to mobile phone use”.

No Campaigns
Ten of the respondents reported that they had not conducted
any education or enforcement campaigns targeted at
discouraging drivers from using a mobile phone while driving.
One gave the reason that their road safety activities were
data led (i.e. based on STATS19 data) and since this does not
record mobile phone use in driving casualties, they could not
justify devoting resources to education or publicity initiatives
on this issue.

Conclusion: Local Authority and Police Survey

There was a low response to this questionnaire survey.

The results show that there is very little hard data on the
number of accidents or injuries involving someone using a
mobile phone while driving, riding or walking on the road.
The lack of data is largely due to the fact that the STATS19
form does not include a box to record the presence or use of a
mobile phone. The lack of this data may be one reason for the
low response to the questionnaire survey.

The questionnaire responses received indicate that some local

education and publicity initiatives are being conducted,
usually by Local Authorities and Police working together, and
sometimes in co-operation with other groups.

Those respondents who were not conducting education

initiatives are deterred from doing so by the lack of
accident data.

15
7 Legislative Approaches to Preventing Drivers Using
Mobile Phones

UK Legislation your attention from the road. It is safer not to use any telephone
while you are driving – find a safe place to stop first.”
In the UK, there is no specific offence of using a mobile phone
Several Private Members Bills to prohibit the use of hand-held
while driving. However, drivers doing so may face a number of
mobile phones have been introduced in the House of
careless or dangerous driving charges.
Commons and the House of Lords in recent years. The latest
Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
was introduced by Janet Anderson MP in November 2001.
“A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously To date, none has been passed into law.
on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence”.
The British Government’s view is that the Police have
Section 3 states: sufficient powers to deal with drivers using mobile phones,
although it is committed to keeping the need for new
“If a person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle 50
legislation under review.
dangerously on a road or other public place without due care
and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other
persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence”. International Legislation
Section 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) An international survey by e-mail and website searches was
Regulations 1986 states: conducted to identify which countries have introduced, or
were considering, legislation to prohibit the use of mobile
“No person shall drive or cause or permit any person to drive a
phones while driving.
motor vehicle on a road if he is in such a position that he
cannot have proper control of the vehicle or have full view of Many countries have enacted legislation banning the use of
the road and traffic ahead.” mobile phones by drivers while in control of their vehicle.
In most cases, the legislation prohibits the use of hand-held
The Highway Code (Rule 127) states:
phones, but does not apply to hands-free mobile phones.
“You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Two exceptions were identified. New Delhi in India and
Never use a hand-held mobile phone or microphone when Portugal have banned the use of both hand-held and
driving. Using hands free equipment is also likely to distract hands-free mobile phone by drivers.

Countries that restrict or prohibit the use of mobile phones while driving

Country or State Legislation Penalty (Where known)

Australia The ‘Australian Road Rules’; as approved by the Australian Transport Varies between States – fines
Council includes the following rule on the use of hand-held mobile phones: of up to $200 Australian.

“Use of hand-held mobile phones

The driver of a vehicle (except an emergency vehicle or police vehicle) must
not use a hand-held mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary
but not parked, unless the driver is exempt from this rule under another law
of this jurisdiction.”

Every state and territory has enacted this as legislation and so prohibits
the use the hand-held mobile phones in a moving vehicle or even when
stopped at traffic lights. The vehicle must be properly parked with the
engine turned off, before a driver can legally use a hand-held mobile phone.

In Victoria in 2000, 18,696 drivers were issued with a fixed penalty notice
for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Drivers are permitted to use a mobile phone in a motor vehicle if they use
a hands-free device.

16
Legislative Approaches to Preventing Drivers Using
Mobile Phones

Country or State Legislation Penalty (Where known)

Austria Prohibits the use of hand-held phone while driving. Fines up to 300 ATS.

Belgium It is illegal to use a phone while driving, without using a hands free kit.
A hand-held phone can be used in a stationary vehicle, but not where the
vehicle is stationary at traffic lights or in a traffic jam.

Brazil Prohibits use of hand-held phone while driving.

Czech Republic Enacted legislation to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones while
driving on 1st January 2001.

Chile Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Denmark It has been illegal to use a hand-held phone while driving since 1 July 1998. Fines of up to 300 kroner.
The use of hands-free equipment is allowed.

Eire From March 2002, the use of hand-held phones or similar apparatus such as Maximum penalties of 435
CB radios while driving is prohibited.Their use is allowed when the vehicle is Euros and/or up to three
parked. Hands-free phones are allowed. months imprisonment for
third offence.

Germany From 1st of February 2001 the use of a hand-held phone was prohibited Since April 1st 2001 non
for drivers, motorcyclists and pedal cyclists. The use of hand-held phones compliance is subject to a
is allowed where the vehicle is stationary with the engine switched off. fine of 60 DM for drivers or
The use of hands-free phones is allowed. motorcyclists and 30 DM for
a cyclist.

Greece Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Hong Kong Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Hungary Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. However very Fine up to 10,000ft.
little enforcement, so little effect.

Israel Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

India From 1 July 2001, the use of any mobile phones when driving, whether
(New Delhi only) hand-held or hands-free, has been prohibited.

Italy Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. Fine of 66,600-242,000 Lira.

Isle of Man Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving Fine of up to £1,000 + 3
– since 1 July 2000. penalty points.

Japan Since November 1st 1999 the use of a portable hand-held telephone Penalty of up to 3 months
device by a driver is prohibited, unless the vehicle is stationary or it is in prison or fines of up to
an emergency. 50,000 yen.

Jersey Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving Fine of up to £500.
– from February 1998.

Jordan Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving

– from October 2001 .

Malaysia Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving – since 1998. Fines of up to RM300.00
Compliance rate is estimated at 85%. and penalty points.

17
 Legislative Approaches to Preventing Drivers Using
Mobile Phones

Country or State Legislation Penalty (Where known)

Norway Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. Fine of 5000 NOK.

Philippines Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Poland Prohibits the use of hand held mobile phone while driving. Fines of up to 5000 Zloty.

Portugal Prohibits the use of a hand-held or hands-free mobile Fines of up to 5000 Esc.
phone when driving.

Romania Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Singapore Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Slovak Republic Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. Fines of 300 SlKr.

Slovenia Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. Fine of 105 DM.

South Africa Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

South Korea Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving Fine of US$47 + 15 points
– from July 2001.

Spain Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. Fine of up to 100,000 Pts.

Switzerland Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving. Fine of 100 SF.

Taiwan Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Thailand Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

Turkey Prohibits the use of hand-held mobile phone while driving.

USA
Arizona A school bus driver shall not wear an audio headset or earphones or
use a cellular telephone whenever the school bus is in motion.

California Rental cars with cellular telephone equipment must include written $100 for first violation rising
instructions concerning its safe use. to $250 for third and
subsequent violations
within same year.

Florida Cellular phone use is permitted as long as it provides sound through $35 for each violation.
one ear and allows surrounding sound to be heard with the other ear.

Illinois A single-sided headset or earpiece is permitted with a mobile phone No penalty

while driving.

Massachusetts No person shall operate a moving school bus while using a mobile $35 for first violation rising
telephone. Cellular phone use is permitted as long as it does not interfere to $150 for third and
with the operation of the vehicle and one hand remains on the steering subsequent violations.
wheel at all times.

New York Drivers prohibited from talking on hand-held mobile phone while operating Fine of up to $100.
a motor vehicle. At least 13 municipalities (e.g. Santa Fe) have used City
ordinances to ban the use of mobile phones while driving within their
City limits.

18
Legislative Approaches to Preventing Drivers Using
Mobile Phones

Effectiveness of Legislation
The only country contacted which was able to provide
statistical evidence on the effectiveness of their Mobile Phone
Use While Driving Legislation was Japan.

Effectiveness of Japanese Legislation51

12 months 12 months % change

before enforcement after enforcement
Nov 1998 to Oct 1999 Nov 1999 to Oct 2000

Number of traffic accidents with drivers mobile 2,830 1,351 –52.3%

phone use.

Injured persons from traffic accidents with drivers 4,118 1,925 –53.3%
mobile phone use.

Fatalities from traffic accidents with drivers 25 20 –20.0%

mobile phone use.

These figures show a significant change in the number of accidents and casualties in collisions involving mobile phone use after
the introduction of the legislation prohibiting the use of hand-held phones while driving.

Countries Considering Legislative Action

France The French Highway Code requires that drivers be in control of their vehicle at all times.
Prosecution may occur if a driver has an accident while using a mobile phone.

The Court of Appeal confirmed in October 2001 that phoning during driving is in
contravention of the provisions of article R 412-6 of the French traffic rules which
stipulates that “every driver should hold themselves constantly in a state and in
a position to execute comfortably and immediately all the operations which
fall to them”.

The driver who uses a mobile phone while driving may be fined 35 Euros;
this corresponds to a second class infringement. However, a driver committing
this offence can be presented in front of the police court, where the fine may
be up to 150-Euro.

The public prosecutors of Bobigny and Marseilles asked that offenders are systematically
charged and presented in front of the police court.

French road safety organisations are campaigning for the introduction of specific
legislation on mobile phone use while driving.

Finland Finland is debating proposed legislation which if passed could be enacted by the
middle of 2002.

19
 Legislative Approaches to Preventing Drivers Using
Mobile Phones

New Zealand Submissions to a consultation paper on mobile phone use while driving are being
analysed at the moment. Current legislation section 7. (Drivers not to be reckless or
dangerous) and section 8 (Drivers not to be careless or inconsiderate) of the
Land Transport Act 1998, has been used to prosecute drivers.

In addition, if a driver on work-related business has a crash because of mobile phone

use, both the driver and the employer may be liable for prosecution under the
Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (sections 15, 16 and 19).

USA Since 1995, at least 45 States in the USA have proposed Bills concerning the use of
52
cellular phones in automobiles, some of which were intended to prohibit the use of all
mobile phones while driving, some were restricted to hand-held phones and some were
concerned with requiring the use of mobile phones to be recorded on accident report
forms or with increasing the penalties imposed on drivers who are involved in crashes
when using a mobile phone.

In 2001, approximately 140 bills regarding mobile phones and driving were proposed in
43 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Many failed to be passed as law and
others are still making their way through the legislative process.

Conclusion: Mobile Phones and None of the several attempts to introduce legislation to
prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones have been
Driving Legislation
successful. The British Government believes the Police
At least 35 countries, plus many States or Districts within already have sufficient powers to deal with drivers using
countries, have introduced legislation to prohibit drivers from mobile phones, but are keeping the need for new legislation
using mobile phones while driving, and several more under review.
countries are considering such legislation. In the vast majority
Public opinion surveys in Great Britain indicate broad
of cases, the legislation applies only to the use of hand-held
acceptance of the need for legislation. The RAC 2002
mobile phones, although in two cases, using hands-free 53
Motoring Survey found that 42% of drivers felt that the
mobile phones while driving is also banned.
Government’s main priority to reduce accidents should be to
Only Japan has published an evaluation of the effect of its ‘stop the use of mobile phones’. However, only 5% thought
legislation on accidents involving drivers using mobile they were the main cause of accidents or that they should
phones. Its results show a substantial reduction in accidents stop using their own phones while driving.
involving mobile phone use (–52%), in the number of people 54
A survey of a small sample of police officers of different
injured in such accidents (–53%) and the number of people
ranks in Scotland and England, magistrates, CPS prosecutors,
killed in mobile phone accidents (–20%).
Procurators Fiscal and Crown Court judges showed support
In the UK, there is no specific offence of using a mobile phone for making the use of mobile phones whilst driving a
while driving. However, drivers doing so may face a number of potential Fixed Penalty Notice offence, with a suggested fine
careless or dangerous driving charges. The Highway Code of up to £1,000.
states that drivers MUST be in proper control of their vehicle
at all times. It advises drivers never to use a hand-held mobile
phone when driving, and to avoid using hands-free equipment.

20
8 Employers’ Policies on Staff Use of Mobile Phones
While Driving
Many drivers who use a mobile phone Company Policy
while driving do so for work purposes. 1 No definitive policy statement but staff are
Some employers provide mobile phones for issued with mobile phones and have hands-free
kits installed in their vehicles as standard.The use
certain staff and others reimburse staff for
of a mobile without hands-free is prohibited.
work related calls made on their private
Even with a hands-free kit, use of the phone while
mobile phones. travelling should be restricted to the receipt of
Health and Safety Legislation in the UK places legal duties on messages and brief conversations. Company lorry
employers to provide their employees with a safe working drivers are prohibited from the use of mobile
environment and to take all reasonably practicable measures phones; any infringement by them is
to ensure the safety of their staff and of others that they gross misconduct.
come into contact with while working. This applies to 2 Company car drivers are issued with a pack of
employees driving or riding on the road in the course of their information, including the DTLR Leaflet “Mobile
55
employment. Phones and Driving”and a company booklet which
As part of their overall management of work related road states,“Do not use a hand-held telephone or
safety, employers should, therefore, be providing their microphone while driving. Stop at a safe
employees with clear guidance on the use of mobile phones place first.”
while driving. 3 This company prohibits the use of hand-held
A survey was conducted to assess the policies of a small phones while driving on company business.
sample of companies. They can only be used when safely parked.
Policy recommendation that Line Managers provide
Firstly, fifty-four large companies who were thought likely to
hands-free kits for employees who regularly use
have mobile phone policies were contacted for copies of their
a mobile phone at work. However, these should
policies. Seventeen companies replied.
be used with the greatest of care and automated
Secondly, a random selection of 100 businesses found in pre-programmed dialling should be used.
Thomson’s Directory were contacted by letter and asked if Mobile phone conversations should only take
they had a mobile phone policy and if so what it was. place when traffic conditions make it safe to do
This received a tiny response – only two replied. so. If it is not safe, calls should be ignored or
terminated. It is preferable for calls to be taken
Large Companies by the answer phone function and replied to when
the driver has reached their destination.
Fifty-four large companies were contacted and seventeen
responded. Fourteen of those who responded had policies on 4 This policy covers and prohibits a list of driver
restricting the use of mobile phones while driving, and three distractions including the use of hand-held mobile
did not. Those companies that had policies were aware of the phones or microphones. Use of hands-free
risks of staff being involved in an accident when using a mobile equipment is confined to emergency calls and
phone while driving and of the legal consequences which incoming calls of short duration. Outgoing calls
could ensue both for the member of staff and the company. must only be made when the vehicle is parked.

The policies varied in detail but there were strong similarities 5 Drivers are asked to use a landline where possible
overall. Nearly all of them prohibited the use of hand-held and not to use a hand-held phone while driving.
mobile phones and some required mobile phones to be When using a hands-free kit they are asked to
switched to a message service and for messages to be picked avoid long or distracting calls.They should tell any
up and responded to only when the vehicle was safely parked. caller that they are driving, keep the call short
One company’s policy prohibited a list of activities that it and if necessary find a safe place to park for the
considered to be distracting when driving. duration of the conversation.

21
 Employers’ Policies on Staff Use of Mobile Phones
While Driving
Company Policy 12 The use of hand-held phones by drivers is
prohibited and hands free should only be used
6 Drivers are prohibited from using hand-held
to take a message on incoming calls. The vehicle
mobile phones.The phone should be switched off
should be safely parked if a discussion is required.
and the answer facility used. Hands-free kits
should be used only for incoming calls and where 13 The policy prohibits the use of mobile phones of
they will not distract the driver from the driving all types by drivers who are company employees,
task. Calls should be kept brief and where or are driving a company vehicle. If there is no
necessary the call terminated and only one in the car with the driver who can take
reconnected when the vehicle is safely parked. telephone calls then the phone should be set to
message taking or standby and any messages
7 This company’s policy states that mobile phones
responded to at the next rest break.
must be switched off while the vehicle is in
motion. Breach of this policy attracts 14 Company mobile phones are provided with a
disciplinary action. hands-free facility but this must only be used to
receive incoming calls. It is prohibited to pick up
8 Drivers are advised to consider switching off
the handset. Calls should only be taken where
mobile phones while the vehicle is in motion and
traffic conditions are favourable and drivers
only make or receive calls when the vehicle is
should not make notes or refer to documents
safely parked. Staff are supplied with a correctly
while driving.
fitted hands-free kit and can receive incoming
calls. But outgoing calls are prohibited, unless
the vehicle is safely parked. Use of a mobile
phone in an emergency where the driver’s Companies with no policy
personal safety is compromised is allowed, but
Of the three companies who responded to say that they did
only when the driver does not cause risk to
not have a policy on their staff using mobile phones while
themselves or others.
driving, one gave no reason for this and one said that they did
9 This policy strongly discourages the use of not provide company cars or mobile phones for their staff and
mobile phones while driving. The use of hand so had no need of a policy. The third respondent said that they
held phones are prohibited while hands free kits had a working party examining all work travel issues.
should only be used to receive short message
calls. Drivers should only make a call or check
Random Survey
voice mail when the vehicle is parked.
One hundred businesses selected at random from the
10 Staff are prohibited from making or taking
Thomson Directory were contacted by letter asking if they
mobile phone calls while driving. Calls should be
had a policy on mobile phone use while driving, and if so,
diverted to the message centre while the vehicle
what the policy was. Only two responses were received.
is in motion and the driver should find a safe
place to park before making or responding to One company provided its staff with both vehicles and mobile
a call. phones for business use and said its policy was that mobile
phones should be used while driving, both hand-held or
11 This company prohibits the use of mobile phones
hands-free were permissible – “whatever was necessary to do
while driving. Phones should be switched off
the job”.
and any missed calls responded to when the
driver reaches their destination. This applies to The second company did not provide company vehicles or
both hand-held and hands-free telephones. mobile phones to their staff and so felt no need to have a
policy statement on mobile phone use while driving.

22
Employers’ Policies on Staff Use of Mobile Phones
While Driving
Conclusion: Company Policies
The large companies who responded had, for the most part,
policies to ban or restrict the use of mobile phones when
driving for work purposes. They were well aware of their legal
responsibilities, and of the risks created by using a mobile
phone while driving.

Most of these companies restrict the use of hand-held mobile

phones while driving. However, many provide hands-free kits
to enable their staff to use phones while driving under
limited conditions. This suggests that while employers
recognise there is some risk in using a hands-free phone
while driving, they believe the risks can be managed in some
circumstances. Or they may be balancing the risk against the
business needs of the company and concluding that the risk
of using hands-free phones is not sufficiently large to
completely ban their use when driving.

However, some large companies prohibit the use of any

mobile phone while driving for work purposes, and require
staff to use their phones only when parked in a safe place.

Although the two small firms who responded to the random

survey cannot be regarded as representative, they both had
little interest in this matter. One regarded the use of mobile
phones while driving as important for business efficiency and
was unaware of or chose to ignore, the risks involved.

23
9 Conclusion

The growth in the use of mobile phones has Gap Acceptance

been phenomenal, and extremely rapid. Using a mobile phone also impairs drivers’ judgement of
Mobile phones provide a wide range of acceptable gaps in traffic streams, leading to drivers entering
important social and work benefits, and, in or accepting gaps that are not large enough.

some circumstances, are an important safety

feature, allowing users to summon help or Mental Workload
report accidents. Most of the studies show that using a mobile phone while
driving increases drivers’ mental workload, often resulting in
However, using a mobile phone while driving
higher stress and frustration levels. There is evidence that
creates a significant accident risk. Many drivers have to switch their attention between driving and
studies, using a variety of research using the phone, sometimes giving more attention to the
techniques including simulated driving tasks, phone call than to the road situation.

advanced driving simulators, real driving

on off-road circuits and driving on real roads, Situational Awareness
provide evidence that using a mobile phone Using a mobile phone reduces drivers’ awareness of what is

while driving impairs driving performance happening around them on the road. Some evidence
indicates that when using a phone drivers have little
in many ways.
awareness of whether or not there is other traffic around
them and what it is doing.
Lateral Position
The majority of research indicates that drivers’ maintenance Age and Driving Experience
of a constant appropriate lane position is impaired when
There is evidence that undertaking secondary tasks while
using a mobile phone.
driving, such as using a mobile phone, causes greater
problems for inexperienced drivers (who already have a
Maintenance of Speed higher accident risk) than experienced ones. There is also
The majority of research indicates that drivers find it more evidence that older drivers find it more difficult to conduct
difficult to maintain an appropriate and predictable speed two tasks concurrently, and their response times are
while using a mobile phone which sometimes leads to particularly impaired.
reducing their speed and sometimes to increasing it.
Accident Risk
Reaction Times Although few studies have been conducted to assess the
The evidence indicates that drivers take longer to detect and increase in accident risk caused by using a mobile phone
respond to changes, such as a vehicle in front decelerating, when driving, those that have confirm that the impairment
which leads to slower braking times. created by using a mobile phone does result in an increased
likelihood of being involved in an accident.

Following Distances However, the lack of a system to record whether or not drivers
who are involved in an accident have a mobile phone in the
When using a mobile phone, drivers are more likely to reduce
vehicle and if it was being used, means that it is difficult to
their following distance from the vehicle in front. When this
calculate the increased risk and to estimate the level of
effect is coupled with slower reaction times, the risk of a
accidents caused, or contributed to, by drivers who are using
collision is even greater.
mobile phones.

24
Conclusion

There is currently no facility in the STATS19 form completed by the UK to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones, but
police officers to record mobile phone use. However, during none have been passed as law. The Government’s view is that
the quinquennial review of the STATS19 form several existing legislation is sufficient, although it is keeping the
organisations, including RoSPA, have recommended that the need for new legislation under review.
form be amended to record mobile phone use.

Where crash investigators are involved in reconstructing fatal Hand-held and Hands-free Phones
and sometimes serious accidents they use witness evidence, Most of the studies in this review have involved the use of
reconstructive evidence and data from mobile phone bills to hands-free phones. The evidence clearly shows that manually
check whether a mobile phone was in use during or dialling telephone numbers, especially long numbers, is a
immediately prior to the accident. significant mental and physical distraction. Hands-free phones
The main USA review of mobile phones and driving has also reduce the physical distraction, and speed dial facilities or
recommended that data is collected on a national scale, as voice-activated systems reduce time required to dial numbers.
the first, most important step to accurately evaluating the risk However, even these systems still cause substantial cognitive
associated with mobile phone use. distraction, resulting in significant driver impairment.

Mobile Phones and Other Distractions

Driving Legislation The evidence indicates that talking to a passenger does not
cause the same level of distraction as using a mobile phone,
At least 35 countries, plus many States or Districts within
perhaps because of the visual communication clues that
countries, have introduced legislation to prohibit drivers from
accompany a face-to-face conversation and because a
using mobile phones while driving, and several more
passenger can see the traffic situation and adapt the
countries are considering such legislation. In the vast majority
conversation accordingly. When using a mobile phone has
of cases, the legislation applies only to the use of hand-held
been compared with tuning a radio or changing a tape
mobile phones, although in two cases, using hands-free
cassette, the results usually show that the mobile phone
mobile phones while driving is also banned.
causes more problems. However, tuning the radio has also
Only Japan has published an evaluation of the effect of its been found to distract drivers and impair their performance.
legislation on accidents involving drivers using mobile
An area of increasing concern is the growth in the number
phones. Its results show a substantial reduction in accidents
and complexity of electronic devices being fitted in cars:
involving mobile phone use (–52%), in the number of people
navigation devices, internet computers, fax machines, even
injured in such accidents (–53%) and the number of people
small televisions. While some devices, such as navigation
killed in mobile phone accidents (–20%).
equipment, may aid safe driving, most of these items are
Public opinion surveys in Great Britain indicate broad unnecessary additions and should not be used while driving.
acceptance of the need for legislation. The RAC 2002 But, just as drivers use mobile phones while driving, many are
Motoring Survey found that 42% of drivers felt that the likely to use other devices as they drive. The distraction and
Government’s main priority to reduce accidents should be to accident risks seem likely to be similar to those created by
‘stop the use of mobile phones’. However, only 5% felt mobile mobile phones.
phones were the main cause of accidents.

In the UK, there is no specific offence of using a mobile phone Local Authority and Police Surveys
while driving. However, drivers doing so may face a number of
There was a low response to this questionnaire survey.
careless or dangerous driving charges. The Highway Code
The results show that there is very little hard data on the
states that drivers MUST be in proper control of their vehicle
number of accidents or injuries involving someone using a
at all times. It advises drivers never to use a hand-held mobile
mobile phone while driving, riding or walking on the road.
phone when driving, and to avoid using hands-free equipment.
The lack of data is largely due to the fact that the STATS19
Several attempts have been made to introduce legislation in form does not record the presence or use of a mobile phone.

25
 Conclusion

The lack of this data may be one reason for the low response
to the questionnaire survey.

The questionnaire responses received indicate that some local

education and publicity initiatives are being conducted, usually
by Local Authorities and Police working together, and sometimes
in co-operation with other groups. Those respondents who
were not conducting education initiatives were deterred from
doing so by the lack of accident data.

Company Policies on Staff Using

Mobile Phones While Driving for Work
A small survey of large companies indicates that many have
policies which ban or restrict the use of mobile phones while
driving. They are well aware of their legal health and safety
responsibilities, and of the risks created by using a mobile
phone while driving. Most restrict the use of hand-held
mobile phones while driving, but provide hands-free kits to
enable their staff to use phones while driving, although only
in limited circumstances. This suggests that the risks caused
by the cognitive distraction of using a hands-free mobile
phone while driving are recognised by employers,
but they believe the risks can be safely managed in some
driving situations. Smaller firms seem to have less interest in
this matter, and may be more concerned with financial
pressures and regard the use of mobile phones as purely a
business consideration.

26
10 Recommendations

Education As part of their Management of Occupational Road Risk,

employers should adopt, implement and monitor clear
Government (both Central and Local), Police and other agencies
policies to ensure that their staff do not use mobile phones,
should continue to conduct education and publicity campaigns
hand-held or hands-free, while driving for work purposes.
to raise awareness of the dangers of using a mobile phone,
Where employers provide mobile phones, or re-imburse staff
whether hand-held or hands-free, while driving.
for work calls made on private mobile phones, they should
ensure the phones are able to record messages, and that
Data employees only use the phone when parked in a safe place.

The lack of accident data is preventing an accurate assessment Where employers provide mobile phones for staff to use for
of the number of people killed or injured in accidents involving work purposes they should seek to develop ways of checking
the use of a mobile phone by a driver. Therefore, methods to whether drivers are using mobiles when driving, and
record whether drivers involved in accidents had a mobile awareness of the policy among their staff.
phone with them, and whether it was being used at the time
When an employee who has a mobile phone provided by the
or shortly preceding the accident, should be developed and
employer is involved in a road accident while driving for work,
implemented.
the employer should check the phone records to ascertain
The STATS19 Form should be amended to record data about whether the driver was using the phone at the time.
mobile phones, although it will often not be easy for the
Police to identify whether a driver was using a phone, as any
Other Distractions
who were doing so are unlikely to readily admit to it.
A review to quantify and qualify the relative levels of
Specific research studies should be conducted to assess and
distraction caused by the wide range of activities that drivers
quantify the involvement of mobile phones in road accidents
do while they are driving, including mundane activities such
in the UK.
as eating and drinking as well as using in-vehicle technology
The surveys to record mobile phone use by drivers recently for work purposes. This should seek to establish:
commissioned by the Government should be continued on a
■ the range of non-driving tasks that drivers undertake
regular basis.
while driving

■ the reasons for these activities

Legislation
■ the relative levels of distraction caused by
The effect of legislation in other countries to prohibit or restrict
different activities
the use of mobile phones whilst driving should be analysed.
■ drivers’ perceptions of risk in relation to them
A wide-ranging survey of Police Officers, of all ranks, should be
conducted to assess their experience and views about the ■ the actual relationship between the identified activities

extent of their existing powers to deal with drivers who use a and accident risk.

mobile phone while driving. This should also canvass their

views about the need for more specific legislation to prohibit
the use of mobile phones by drivers.

Employers
Guidance for employers to raise awareness of the dangers of
their staff using a mobile phone, whether hand-held or
hands-free, while driving for work should be developed.
This should include an explanation of the employer’s legal
responsibilities and potential liabilities, and advice on
developing and implementing appropriate policies.

27
11 References

1 Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (Chairman: 16 Parkes et al, “Car phone use and motorway driving”,
Sir William Stewart), “Mobile Phones and Health”, 2000, UK Research Institute Loughborough, Leicestershire, 1991

2 Cain and Burris, “Investigation of the use of Mobile Phones 17 Fairclough et al, “Effects of hands free telephone use on
While Driving”, Center for Urban Transport Research driving behaviour”, HUSAT Research Institute UK, 1991, UK
College of Engineering, University of South Florida, 1999
18 Parkes, “Drivers Business Decision-making ability Whilst
3 M Sundeen, “Cell Phone and Highway Safety: 2001 State Using Carphones”, HUSAT Research Centre, 1991, UK
Legislature Update”, National Conference of State
19 McKnight & McKnight, “The effect of cellular phone use
legislatures, August 2001, USA
upon driver attention”, National Public Services Research
4 Parliamentary Answer, David Jamieson MP, Minister for Institute, 1991, USA
Road Safety, Hasard, 9 January 2001, UK
20 Serafin et al “Car phone usability: a human factors
5 “The Green Flag Report on Safe Driving” Green Flag, laboratory test” Proceedings of the Human Factors and
2000, UK Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, 1993, USA

6 RAC Report on Motoring 2001, RAC Motoring Services, UK 21 Pachiaudi & Chapon,“Car phone and road safety” XIVth
International Technical Conference on the Enhanced
7 RoSPA, NOP Survey, 1997, UK
Safety of Vehicles, No. 94-S2-0-09. 1994, France
8 Brown et al, “Interference between concurrent tasks of
22 In Briem & Hedman. “Behavioural effects of mobile
driving and telephoning” Journal of Applied Psychology,
telephone use during simulated driving” Ergonomics,
53(5), 1969, UK
38(12), 1995, Sweden
9 Drory, A. “Effects of rest and secondary task on simulated
23 Alm & Nilsson, “The effects of a mobile telephone task on
truck-driving task performance” Human Factors, 27(2), 1985
driver behaviour in a car following situation” Accident
10 Department of California Highway Patrol, “A Special Report Analysis and Prevention, 27(5), 1995
to the Legislature on the Findings of the Mobile Phone
24 Nilsson and Nabo, A “Evaluation of application 3:
Safety Study”, 1987, USA
Intelligent cruise control simulator experiment. Effects of
11 Zwahlen et al, “Safety aspects of cellular telephones in different levels of automation on driver behaviour,
automobiles” Proceedings of the ISATA Conference, workload and attitudes”, VTIsartryck No. 266 (Reprint of
1988, USA Chapter 5 in the evaluation of results deliverable No. 10,
12 Boase, M., Hannigan, S., & Porter, J. M. “Sorry, can’t talk DRIVE II Project V2006 “EMMIS”), Swedish National Road
now… just overtaking a lorry: The definition and Transport Research Institute, Linkoping, 1995
experimentation investigation of the problem of driving 25 Cremades et al “Hand-held Car Phones and Driving
and hands free car phone use” In E. D. Megaw (Ed.). Performance: Projected Risks and Implications for
Contemporary ergonomics, London: Taylor and Francis, Prevention”, Journal of health Education 28 (2), 1997, USA
1988, UK
26 Wikman et al, “Driving Experience and Time Sharing
13 Hayes et al “Age-related Decrements in Automobile During In-car Tasks on Roads of Different Widths”,
Instrument Panel Task Performance” Proceedings of the Ergonomics 41 (3), 1998
Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting, 1989, USA
27 Haigney, “Mobile Phone Use Whilst Driving: The Safest
14 Alm & Nilsson, “Changes in driver behaviour as a function Set-up?”, RoSPA and Aston University, 1998, UK
of hands-free mobile telephones: a simulator study”
28 Lamble et al, “Cognitive load and detection thresholds in
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26(4), 1990
car following situations: safety implications for using
15 Brookhuis et al, “The effects of mobile telephoning on mobile (cellular) telephones while driving”, Accident
driving performance”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Analysis & Prevention 31, 1999
23(4), 1991

28
References

29 Reed and Green “Comparison of Driving Performance 44 Stutts et al, “The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic
On-road and in a Low-cost Simulator Using a Concurrent Crashes”, University of North Carolina Highway Safety
Telephone Dialling Task”, Ergonomics 42(8), 1999 Research Center, for AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, USA

30 Noy and Cassidy “Quality of Driving with Cellular 45 Violanti and Marshall, “Cellular phones and traffic accidents:
Telephones”, Transport Canada, 1999 An epidemiological approach”, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 28 (2), 1996
31 Radeborg et al, “The Effect of Concurrent task difficulty on
Working Memory during simulated driving”. Ergonomics 46 Wierwille and Tijerina, “An Analysis of Driving Accident
Vol 42 No 5, 1999 narratives As A Means of Determining Problems Caused by
In-Vehicle Visual Allocation and Visual Workload”, Vision In
32 Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, “The Impact of
Vehicles, Ed A Gale, 1996, USA
Auditory Tasks (as in Hands-free Cell Phone Use) on Driving
Performance”, November 2000, Canada 47 Parkes, A. M. “Voice communications in vehicles” In Franzer,
S. and Parkes, A. (Eds.), Driving future vehicles (pp. 219-228).
33 Parkes and Hooijmeijer, “The influence of the use of mobile
London: Taylor and Francis. 1993, UK
phones on driver situation awareness”
48 S Petica, “Risk Assessment of In-Car Radiotelephone Use”,
34 Strayer et al, “Does Cell Phone Conversation Impair Driving
Institut National de Recherce sur les Transport et leur
Performance?”, National Safety Council, Injury Insights,
Securite, 1995, France
Aug/Sept 2001, USA
49 Stevens A and Paulo DAO The Use of Mobile Phones while
35 T Ishida et al, “The Effect of Cellular Phone Use on Driving
Driving: a Review TRL Report 318, 1997, UK
Performance”, IATTS 25(2) 2001, Japan
50 D Jamieson MP, Minister for Road Safety, Parliamentary
36 T Woo and J Lin, “Influence of Mobile Phone Use While
answer, Hansard, column 195W, 23 October 2001, UK
Driving:The Experience in Taiwan”, IATSS 25(2), 2001, Taiwan
51 Figures supplied by Japanese Directorate General for
37 Direct Line Insurance, “The Mobile Phone Report”, 2002, UK
Policy Planning and Co-ordination, Cabinet Office
38 Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J. “Association Between
52 M Sundeen, “Cell Phone and Highway Safety: 2000 State
Cellular Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions”,
Legislature Update”, National Conference of State
The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336,
legislatures, May 2001, UK
Number 7, 1997
53 RAC Report on Motoring, 2002, RAC Motoring Services, UK
39 Redelmeier and Tibshirani, “Car Phones and Car Crashes:
Some popular Misconceptions”, Canadian Medical Journal 54 Department for Transport, Local Government and the
164(11) May 2001 Regions,“Road Safety Research Report No.26 Dangerous
Driving and the Law”, 2002, UK
40 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
“An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wireless 55 The Work-related Road Safety Task Group, “Reducing at-
Communications in Vehicles,” November 1997, USA work road traffic incidents – Report to Government and the
Health and Safety Commission”, November 2001, UK
41 Alan Stevens, Roy Minton, “In-vehicle distraction and fatal
accidents in England and Wales”, Accident Analysis &
Prevention 33(4), 2001

42 Violanti, J. M., “Cellular Phones and Fatal traffic Collisions”,

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 30 (4), 1998

43 Cher et al, “Cellular telephone Use and fatal traffic collisions:

a commentary”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 1999

29
A Appendix A
Mobile Phones and Driving
As part of our DTLR grant funded work We are also interested in education and enforcement
campaigns that have been conducted, including data on the
programme, RoSPA is conducting research
number of drivers stopped, cautioned or fined for using a
into “The Effects of Using Mobile Phones
mobile phone.
While Driving”. The aim is to review evidence
It would be extremely helpful if you were able to complete as
about the level of distraction caused by using
much of this short questionnaire as possible and return it by
a mobile phone while driving, and the Friday 28 September 2001 to:
consequent effect this has on accident risk.
As you know, it is not possible to gather information about
Linda Morrison Allsopp
mobile phone use from normal road accident (STATS19) data.
Road Safety Project Manager
Therefore, we are seeking information from a number of
RoSPA
other sources:
Edgbaston Park
■ an extensive review of published literature on this topic 353 Bristol Road
Birmingham B5 7ST
■ a review of press reports
Tel: 0121 248 2037
■ a short questionnaire to Local Authority Road Safety
Fax: 0121 248 2001
Departments, Police Forces and other organisations,
seeking details of road accidents where a driver or other [email protected]
road user was using a mobile phone.

30
Appendix A
Contact Details
Name: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Organisation: ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Address:......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Email: .............................................................................................................................. Tel. No:............................................................................................................

Accident and Injury Information

Mobile Phone used by

Driver Motor Cyclist Pedal Cyclist Pedestrian Total

Number of fatal accidents

in which mobile phone use
has been implicated

Number of serious accidents

in which mobile phone use
has been implicated

Number of slight accidents

in which mobile phone use
has been implicated

Number and Type of injuries caused (e.g. 1 fatal, 2 slight) ....................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

In what way is the use, or suspected use of a mobile phone recorded? (e.g. witness evidence, result of reconstruction)

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

How is it investigated? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

31
 Appendix A
Education and Enforcement Campaigns
(Please complete a questionnaire for each campaign)

Campaign Name (if any) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

When did the campaign take place? From .......................................................................... To ......................................................................................

Please give details of any partners involved in the campaign ............................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Did the campaign target a particular geographical area? YES NO

If YES please give details......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Did the campaign target a sector of population? YES NO

If YES please give details......................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Did the Campaign Include? (please circle correct answer)

Enforcement only Education only Both

Enforcement

Mobile Phone used by

Driver Motor Cyclist Pedal Cyclist Pedestrian Total

Number of road users stopped

for using a mobile phone

Number of road users

cautioned for using a
mobile phone

Number of road users sent

for prosecution for using
a mobile phone

Number of road users given

a fixed penalty for using a
mobile phone

32
Appendix A
Education
Campaign Name (if any) ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Campaign Materials

What materials were used? (please include copies of news reports, campaign materials etc. where available)

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

How were the education materials distributed?

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Who were the target groups?

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Was the Campaign Evaluated? YES NO

If YES please give details of results ..................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

33
 Notes

34
The Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents,
RoSPA House,
Edgbaston Park,
353 Bristol Road,
Birmingham B5 7ST

Telephone: 0121 248 2000 / 0870 777 2171

Fax: 0121 248 2001 / 0870 777 2199

Registered Charity No. 207823

VAT Registration No. 655 1316 49
ISBN: 1 85088 033 6

www.rospa.com