2.1 Introduction

The recent growth of cellular telephone use is a phenomena that crosses all age and gender boundaries. More than just the latest electronic gadget, cellular telephones have become integral parts of our business and personal lives. They are used to schedule appointments, broker deals, call for assistance, report emergencies and maintain contact with loved ones. Currently about 9 percent of the more than 50 million phones in use in the U.S. are owned by people less than 24 years old. Families are purchasing pocket size units as safety devices. Cellular telephones are rapidly becoming standard accessories for teenage dates, walks in the park and senior citizen motor trips. A number of surveys have been conducted by industry and other interested groups in attempts to characterize the role that cellular telephones play in American society.

Chapter 2 - Table of Contents

Document Table of Contents

Table 2-1: Motorola Cellular Impact Surveys Age of Respondents
Age	1991	1993
18-24	6%	6%
25-34	26%	30%
35-44	34%	30%
45-54	20%	23%
55-59	6%	3%
60 or older	4%	8%
No response	3%	0%

2.2 Demographics: Who is Using Cellular Telephones?

The Motorola Cellular Impact Survey1 was conducted by the Gallup Organization in the spring of 1993, and was sponsored by the Motorola Cellular Subscription Group. Telephone interviews were held with a nationally representative sample of 660 cellular telephone users. The survey was similar to one conducted in 1991, and comparisons were made between the responses. Within the samples about two-thirds of the respondents were male. The age distributions shifted a bit from the 1991 survey relative to the 1993 survey as shown in Table 2-1. Note that for 1996, the industry reports a continuation in the trend toward more users among the younger (under 25) and the older (55 and older) age groups.

The lower costs for phone purchase and monthly service have attracted users in lower income brackets as well as retired persons as shown in Tables 2-2 and 2-3. Future surveys may well include full time student as an occupation in addition to the homemakers and retired users reflected in Table 2-3.

Table 2-2: Motorola Cellular Impact SurveysIncome Distribution of Respondents
Income	1991	1993
Less than $25,000	N/A	15%
$25,000-$44,999	30%	27%
$45,000-$59,999	20%	16%
$60,000-$74,999	14%	7%
$75,000 or over	36%	28%

Table 2-3: Motorola Cellular Impact SurveysEmployment Status of Respondents
Employment	1991	1993
Full-time	83%	78%
Part-time	6%	5%
Homemaker	11%	4%
Self-Employed	N/A	4%
Retired	N/A	5%

2.3 Use Patterns: How are Cellular Telephones Being Used?

The Motorola and CTIA data shown in Table 2-4 were basically geared toward marketing considerations such as cellular telephone use patterns, attributes and beliefs. In terms of business versus personal use, the actual percentages vary somewhat between the two sets of data, but the trend away from strictly business to personal use is similar.

Length of time that a phone is owned appears to influence usage patterns. New owners use their units for business calls 48% of the time. Those who have owned a cellular telephone for 5 years or more use theirs for business 78% of the time. These statistics serve as a reminder that only a few years ago, cellular telephones were purchased primarily for business use, and long-time users may be likely to continue their usage patterns.

The popularity of cellular telephones among business users is reported in several ways in the Motorola survey. Nearly all respondents (97%) agreed that cellular telephone use increases their flexibility. Eight of ten respondents (80%) make business calls while commuting to or from work, and 57% of the respondents feel as if they can leave the office on time and make calls while traveling home.

Those subscribers who use the cellular telephone primarily for personal calls also report improved time management. Increased flexibility is cited by 94% of this group, while 52% have called for directions, 34% have ordered carry-out food and 6% have shopped with their cellular telephone.

The potential safety benefits of cellular telephone ownership are generally recognized and widely advertised. The Motorola survey highlights these benefits in Table 2-5. These findings point out the broad range of safety benefits identified by users and the general trend emphasizing such use as a basis for having a cellular telephone available in a vehicle. Of note are the implications of the findings for the growth of the user population, particularly for non-business users, young drivers and women. The sense of security that the availability of a cellular telephone provides and its use in reporting emergencies are clearly major factors in the accelerated growth of the industry and in the support generated among law enforcement authorities for industry efforts at promoting the safety benefits.

1991

1993

Called for help for another's disabled vehicle

38%

40%

Called for help for own disabled vehicle

25%

39%

Called for assistance for own medical emergency

7%

13%

Called for assistance for another's medical emergency

23%

28%

Called police to warn of hazardous road conditions

24%

28%

Considered buying another cell phone for other family member as safety precaution

N/A

52%

Have purchased an additional phone for other family member as safety precaution

N/A

28%

Encourage my teenagers to use phone while out at night

N/A

26%

Table 2-6: California Highway Patrol Report Cellular 911 Traffic Growth (California Highway Patrol)
Year	Total Cellular 911 Calls
1985	29,000
1986	94,200
1987	171,333
1988	333,600
1989	575,000
1990	747,500
1991	971,655
1992	1,400,000
1993	1,644,760
1994	1,829,077
1995	2,176,400
1996*	2,800,000
* estimate

2.4 Use of Cellular Telephones for Emergency Response

The principal safety relevant use of cellular telephones is to call in an emergency. Literally millions of cellular calls are being made to emergency dispatchers each year. In a 1996 member survey conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA) Potomac region (near Washington, D.C.), 86.6% of the respondents favor the creation of a uniform nationwide emergency number similar to "911". The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules that would guarantee access to "911" service from cellular phones. It also seeks technology changes from cellular companies that would enable emergency dispatchers to automatically locate cellular telephone callers. Unlike calls made using land lines, where-in over 90% of the callers can be identified as to their location, cellular calls cannot be traced back easily to specific locations. This presents a challenge for emergency responders to locate callers who may be disabled or unsure of their location. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on June 12, 1996, the FCC proposed that by April 1998, all cellular carriers must be able to relay a caller's Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and the location of the base station or cell site to the designated Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) for a 911 call. Under Phase II of this plan, all carriers would be required to have the ability to identify the location of a 911 caller to within 125 meters, 67% of the time by October 2001. These requirements are dependent upon the PSAP's ability to handle the additional calls, and the creation of a mechanism that will allow the carrier to recover its costs for such services.

The automotive industry is also addressing the issue of caller location identification, using a different technologic approach, as part of the Automated Collision Notification (ACN) program under the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) initiatives. Using global positioning system (GPS) technology, operational tests are now being conducted to assess the applications and utility of such technologies to improve emergency response.

The Cadillac Corporation has, in fact, already introduced their Onstar System in the 1997 model year. It links a hand-held, voice-activated phone with a GPS satellite device. Onstar allows dispatchers in customer service centers to locate Cadillac owners who are in distress, or who locked their keys in their cars. Emergency response can be dispatched from the Cadillac operated service centers.

In some states, including California, Colorado, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Texas and Florida, the cellular emergency calls are directed to the state police. The increase in the number of calls has been so great, that these states are attempting to build infrastructures to handle the volume of calls received.

Among these states, only California has attempted to aggregate information on the increase in emergency use calls from cellular telephones. Table 2-6 shows a growth factor of nearly 100 during the previous 11 years. These calls are directed to 24 regional communications centers and represent 30% of the total statewide telephone traffic handled by these centers.

The state police surveyed are generally appreciative of the quick notification capabilities afforded by cellular telephones. Problems arise, however, when numerous calls are made to report the same incident, or the emergency network is used frivolously. Even though only 20% of drivers currently use cellular telephones, many emergency response networks are being overwhelmed. Dispatchers report that the multiple incident notifications clog phone lines, and require personnel to continually tell concerned motorists that the problem has previously been reported.

Of greater concern are the 50%-60% of the 911 calls that do not reflect emergencies. Recent examples in California include reporting the theft of a plastic lawn chair, calling for directions or dialing 911 to test their phones. In September 1996, Maryland was the first state to introduce a "311" exchange for non-critical calls to emergency responders. This is an attempt to screen out non-emergency use of the "911" exchange.

Statistics on the number of "911" calls have not been maintained by other states surveyed. In Florida, the highway patrol has asked motorists to restrict their emergency calls to matters relating to drunk drivers, highway crashes and other threats to safety. The Florida police report that the emergency lines are too often used by motorists who want directions or help with their flat tires. Even when a serious mishap occurs, as many as 100 or more calls may be received simultaneously, which jam the lines, and prevent other emergency calls from being reported.

In Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Colorado, the state police report that they are considering establishing tracking systems for cellular telephone emergency calls. These states have received many requests for information related to such use. At the present time, cellular telephone calls are directed to the emergency communications centers which may have as few as 3 lines.

The misuse and overburdening of emergency exchanges is a problem that could be addressed through education and technology. In the spring of 1996, the majority of counties in Maryland have adopted statutes that authorize a $.50 monthly fee to all cellular telephone subscribers. These funds will be used to support emergency communications centers.

Table 2-7: Prtevention MAgazine, 1994 survey Distracting Activities Performed While Driving
Listen to music or news	95%
Drink Beverages	71%
Eat	66%
Change tape or CD	64%
Read a map	33%
Talk on cellular phone	18%
Comb hair	16%
Put on make up	14%
Read a newspaper or magazine	6%
Shave	4%
The percentages for each category were generally higher for drivers under 30 years of age.

2.5 Users Opinions: How Safe Is Cellular Telephone Use While Driving?

Prevention Magazine addressed the issue of cellular telephone use while driving in its surveys conducted in 1994 and 1995 and published as Auto Safety in America in 19952 and 19963. Each survey includes approximately 1260 adult respondents. The magazine reports that the demographics of its sample are representative of the U.S. population. The studies were conducted via telephone interviews by Princeton Survey Research Associates, Inc.

The results show that safety is an important concern for many respondents. In 1994, 64% reported that safety is at least as important as performance when selecting a new car. The majority of respondents (89%) believe that in recent years auto companies have increased their commitment to building safer cars. At the same time, the 1995 report also shows that most Americans do not believe that highway travel is safer today than it was in 1990. Although 73% of respondents reported wearing their seat belts, 55% exceed the speed limit and 17% admit to drinking and driving. When queried as to which activities they performed while driving which could divert their attention, the 1994 respondents provided the answers shown in Table 2-7.

Eighteen percent (18%) of the respondents reported that they talk on their cellular telephones while driving and they believe this activity is distracting. In the 1995 survey, 20% of the respondents reported that they had a car phone (Note: no distinction was made between installed and hand-held telephones). When asked about the frequency of phone use, the responses followed a broad pattern with only 15% of the drivers never using their phone while driving.

This suggests that cellular telephone use while driving is commonplace among some cellular telephone subscribers. Table 2-8 also indicates, however, that 61% of drivers use their cellular telephone infrequently, or not at all, while driving.

The survey measured the opinions of cellular telephone users as to whether talking on the phone was more or less distracting than tuning the car radio. Table 2-9 indicates that 70% reported that cellular telephone use was the same or more distracting, while only 14% believed it was less so. Drivers apparently attribute high distraction potential to cellular telephone use.

The Prevention survey for 1995 also attempted to determine the crash experience for cellular telephone owners versus non-owners. As shown in Table 2-10, 5% of the car phone owners admit to having had a "near miss" while talking on the phone. Table 2-11 shows that 9% of the respondents had a "near miss", and 2% were involved in a crash when someone else was driving while talking on a car phone. These results indicate a small percentage of cellular telephone users reported having experienced a tangible crash hazard associated with cellular telephone use while driving.

During the period of November 1996 through January 1997, NHTSA sponsored a Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey. A total of 4,022 respondents participated in this telephone survey. They were at least 16 years old, and were randomly selected from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The respondents were divided about equally by gender. As a part of the survey, a series of 5 questions relating to cellular telephone ownership and usage were posed to each respondent. The results were weighted to produce national estimates.

Table 2-8: Prevention Magazine, 1995 Survey Frequency of Car Phone Use While Driving
Response	% of Responses
Most trips	17%
About Half	10%
Less than half	12%
Very few	46%
Never	15%

Table 2-9: Prevention Magazine, 1995 Survey Cell Phone versus Radio Distraction
Response	% of Responses
More	25%
Less	14%
Same	45%
Never talk while driving	15%
Don't know/refused	1%

Table 2-10: Prevention Magazine, 1995 Survey Nearly had a car accident while using a car phone.
Response	% of Responses
Yes	5%
No	80%
Don't know/refused	15%

Table 2-11: Prevention Magazine, 1995 Survey Crash or near miss when someone else was using cellular telephone
Response	% of Responses
Crash	2%
Near miss	9%
No	89%

Among all participants, 30% reported having a car phone or carrying one in the motor vehicle they usually drive. No distinction was made as to types of phones. As shown in Table 2-12, of the 45-54 age group, 39% responded positively. The 65+ group is least represented among cellular telephone owners with only 16% of that age group currently subscribed.

Educational levels also seem to influence cellular telephone ownership, with 15% of the less than high school group owning phones followed by 26% of the high school graduates. Thirty percent of those with some college education purchase cellular telephones, while 40% of college graduates are cellular telephone owners.

The survey next examined the types of phones being used in automobiles. Among owners, about 1 in 7 have installed car phones, while the remaining 86% carry " portable phones." The distribution shown in Table 2-13 is slightly different for males and females. Seventeen percent of the males have installed phones, compared to only 11 % of the females. The 16-20 and 35 and above age groups were more likely to have installed cellular telephones, while the 21 to 35 year olds more often use portables.

Table 2-12: NHTSA Survey, 1997 Own or Use a Car Phone? % of Responses
Respondant Age	Yes	No
16-20	26	74
21-24	28	72
25-34	32	68
35-44	36	64
45-54	39	61
55-64	23	77
65+	16	84
Total	30	70

Table 2-13: NHTSA Survey, 1997 Installed or Portable Phones? % of Responses
Respondant	Installed	Portable
Gender
Male	17	82
Female	11	89
Age
16-20	17	83
21-24	7	93
25-34	8	92
35-44	16	84
45-54	18	82
55-64	21	79
65+	11	89
Total	14	86

Table 2-14 reviews the usage patters for respondents. Nine out of ten cellular telephone owners use them while driving. More of the males (16%), than females (5%) use their phones on most trips. Fifty six percent of the males, and 73% of the females, (65% of all respondents) replied that they talked on their phones on very few trips or never. See Table 2-14. These responses are very similar to those found in the 1995 Prevention Magazine Survey (Table 2-8).

The NHTSA survey also examined the use of cellular telephones for emergency calls. Over one third (36%) of all respondents reported an emergency from their phones. The types of emergency included automobile crash (68%), weaving vehicle (9%), car fire (4%) and hit and run (2%) as well as less urgent issues such as a disabled vehicle (9%).

Male

Female

Total

Most Trips

16

5

11

About Half

10

9

9

Less Than Half

17

12

15

Very Few

49

59

54

Never

7

14

11

2.6 Public Comment

An effort was made to solicit thoughts and observations from professional drivers and the general public with regard to the benefits and potential hazards of cellular telephone use by drivers. As described herein, focus groups were organized from various urban and rural police organizations, professional drivers were interviewed, and queries were placed in local publications and in relevant forums on the Internet. It must be remembered, when seeking informal and voluntary public comment, that responders tend to have strong feelings about the subject matter.

Many examples were provided of hazards created by driver inattention related to cellular telephone use. At the same time, the law enforcement community and the driving public recognized the benefits of allowing motorists to report drunk drivers, crashes and other hazards on a timely basis, and allowing drivers to seek directions or assistance from the presumed safety of their vehicles.

Although some of the information presented in this chapter is not scientifically based, it is useful in reflecting public attitudes and beliefs. It is interesting to note that many of the recorded comments offer observations not unlike those found in the research results presented later in this report. Driver inattention is a major concern for many individuals. The anecdotal case reports and the focus group comments also highlight the difficulty that law enforcement personnel face in obtaining accurate information on pre-crash circumstances that may involve cellular telephone use.

Police Focus Groups

The use of cellular telephones while driving is unregulated by state and federal governments, and there is very little recorded information on how such use affects real world traffic patterns. Police officers assigned to traffic operations are trained observers who have ample opportunity to monitor driving behaviors.

Focus groups were organized to provide an opportunity for these highway safety professionals to share their observations and experiences with regard to cellular phone use. Both urban and suburban police agencies were invited to participate. Officers of all ages and levels of experience were recruited in order to provide a broad spectrum of points of view. The following agencies were generous in providing staff and assistance in arranging logistics.

• Maryland State Police: Reisterstown, Ocean City, Salisbury, Forestville, Easton Barracks
• Baltimore County Police
• Baltimore City Police
• Virginia State Police
• Alexandria Police
• Fairfax Police
• Loudoun County Police
• Prince William Police
• U.S. Park Police

A total of eight focus groups were scheduled in locations convenient to the participants. Each session continued for approximately three hours. A question path (Figure 2-1) was informally followed by the two moderators. All sessions were recorded via video camera. Data reduction was completed at a later date by the moderators who independently reviewed the video tapes and quantified the results.

1.	From your observations, how common is driver cellular phone use?
2.	Do you notice a change in driving behavior among cellular phone users?
3.	Have you observed any hazardous situations relating to cellular phone use?
4.	Has anyone worked a traffic accident in which you think a cellular phone played a role? Please describe.
5.	Have you heard "horror stories" related to phone use?
6.	Do any of you own a cellular phone that you use while driving (business, personal, both)?

7.	Under what circumstances do you use your phone (anytime, light traffic, while stopped, haven't thought about it)?
8.	What kinds of calls are involved (business, family emergencies only, anything needed at the time)?
9.	Have you personally had any experiences in which cellular phone use affected your driving performance?
10.	How has cellular phone use changed your driving habits?
11.	Do you believe cellular phone use should be regulated for automobiles?
12.	Please notify DSI if you become aware of a traffic accident in which a cellular telephone played a role.

All participants had personal experience with cellular telephone use while driving. A few police cadets did not yet have professional experience in enforcement or crash investigation and were not able to provide responses to certain questions. A summary of the group discussions follows:

1. From your observations, how common is driver cellular telephone use?

Participants reported that cellular telephone use while driving is very common in the Washington metropolitan area. Individuals report that phone use has increased dramatically during the past 3 years. In Northern Virginia, phone use is judged to be about 50% among drivers1. While this figure seems high, it highlights the magnitude of the problem as perceived by this group of law enforcement personnel. The cadets believe that it has increased dramatically even among the 22-25 year old age group. Officers from Maryland's Eastern Shore reported that service has only recently been made available in this rural area, but phone use is increasing rapidly there as well.

2. Do you notice a change in driving behavior among cellular telephone users?

Driver inattention was cited by many participants as the main reason for aberrant driving behavior. Lane drifting or weaving was mentioned by half of the groups. One quarter of the groups said drivers speed up while using the phone, and one quarter of the groups said that drivers slow down during phone use. The reduction in lane tracking ability, and failure to maintain adequate headway especially in heavy traffic were special concerns when drivers were observed to be dialing their telephones.

3. Have you observed any hazardous situations relating to cellular telephone use?

One officer was following a woman who was talking on her phone. He watched the traffic light ahead change from green to yellow to red and the woman proceeded through the intersection four or five seconds after the light had turned red. As she was being given the citation, she stated that she did not realize that there was a traffic signal at the intersection. Dialing the telephone while traveling at high speeds on the highway was most frequently mentioned as a specific activity that could be hazardous. (Note that this reflects a presumed rather than observed safety problem.)

Driving too fast or too slow for conditions was also raised by about 25% of the groups. One participant stated that some people tend to "talk with their hands" and do not maintain adequate contact with the steering wheel.

4. Has anyone worked an automobile crash in which you think a cellular telephone played a role? Please describe.

Three officers provided specific responses. The first described a three-vehicle collision which was caused by a driver using a cellular telephone. Another driver reported the cellular telephone use. A second officer recounted a driver who had dialed a pay-per-minute adult entertainment phone service. He lost control of his vehicle and hit a dump truck head-on. He was fatally injured and died with the cellular telephone still in his hand. The investigating officer determined the nature of the call through the cooperation of the carrier. A third officer witnessed a crash in which a cellular telephone user drifted out of his lane and struck a vehicle in the center lane, which in turn struck a vehicle in the third lane.

Nearly half the participants stated that it is very difficult to determine if cellular telephone use was, in fact, a contributing factor to crashes. They said that witnesses are currently the best source of such information. Several mentioned that they have investigated crashes in which they believe that cellular telephone use may have played a role, but it was very difficult to verify cellular telephone use at that time.

5. Have you heard any "horror stories" related to cellular telephone use?

The majority of the officers did not mention any relevant incidents beyond their personal experience. Two participants did recount events about which they had been told. The first was the pay-per-minute adult entertainment incident described above. The second involved a driver who had stopped his vehicle on the roadway in order to talk on the phone and was subsequently struck by a dump truck. These accounts represent hearsay rather than personal observations.

6. Do any of you own a cellular telephone that you use while driving (business, personal, both)?

Over 75% of the participants regularly use a cellular telephone while driving. The Maryland State Police do not allow officers to use telephones in their police vehicles, but the other jurisdictions do allow such use at the operator's expense. One officer reported that he used his cellular telephone so frequently that he had to give it up because the expense was prohibitive. It is interesting to note that participating officers believe cellular telephone use while driving may be unsafe, but the majority, nonetheless, use their cellular telephones regularly.

7. Under what circumstances do you use your cellular telephone (anytime, light traffic, while stopped, haven't thought about it)?

The participants did not restrict their cellular telephone use to specific traffic conditions. Half of the respondents stated that they used their phones whenever they needed to. About 10% reserved phone use for what they considered to be emergency situations, but the majority of the users were about equally divided between using their cellular telephones for business purposes, such as retrieving messages, and using their cellular telephones for personal business.

8. What kinds of calls are involved (business, family emergencies only, anything needed at the time)?

About 50% of the group members report that they make all kinds of calls while driving. Some officers use their cellular telephones for outgoing calls only (which is understandable since they are not reimbursed for their cellular telephone use). A few individuals mentioned that they could hold private conversations with their dispatchers over the telephone. This is not possible using police radios. About 10% of the participants limit their calls to strictly business, and another 10% to strictly personal calls.

9. Have you personally had any experiences in which cellular telephone use affected your driving performance?

Most of the officers reported that they did not have any actual experiences in which cellular telephone use had an adverse effect on their driving. About 40% of the respondents did express concerns about potential difficulties with driving while they were dialing their cellular telephones. Comments included the fact that they try to be a little more careful at these times, and that their performance improved with practice. One officer stated that the installation of a "remote microphone" was helpful.

10. How has cellular telephone use changed your driving habits?

One group agreed that using a cellular telephone while driving made them more aware of the need to be careful. The remaining groups did not think that there has been any change in their driving habits. Two groups offered the comment that the driving habits of the general public are different. These changes were cited as both negative and positive. The lack of maintenance of lane position and other problems previously described were reiterated. The officers also noted that many people now report drunk drivers while they are in a position to identify both the vehicle and the exact location.

11. Do you believe cellular telephone use should be regulated for automobiles?

All groups were unanimous in their opposition to any regulation of cellular telephone use. Two groups pointed out that citizen band radios, taxi radios and police radios are not currently regulated, so it would be inconsistent, in their view, to attempt to regulate only cellular telephones. One of these groups did recognize, however, that dialing the telephone is an activity that is unique among these communications devices.

Half of the participants explained the public's use of cellular telephones to report crashes, drunk drivers and other hazards has been an asset to police. They appreciate the fact that more citizens are getting involved, on a quick response basis, from the safety of their own vehicles. One respondent believes that the cellular telephone manufacturers will address the shortcomings of current equipment by designing voice activated systems.

Additional comments from the participants include conflicting views on whether or not familiarity with cellular telephones will enhance performance. Some individuals believe that drivers will become more adept at using cellular telephones while in traffic just as police become more adept at using their radios.

Others offered the perspective that people do not get better at driving while using their telephones, they just become more relaxed while doing so. A number of the participants suggested that public service announcements would be useful in providing guidance to drivers on the safe use of cellular telephones.

Public Focus Groups

In an early study by Brand (1990), public attitudes towards advanced automotive display systems were examined using focus groups. Included in this study were discussions of vehicle communication systems, including citizen band radios and cellular telephones. Consistent with survey data, Brand found that many woman viewed the cellular telephone as a safety device, and little concern was expressed for receiving incoming calls or making calls, as long as the phone had speed-dialing capabilities. Non-owners of cellular telephones, however, were particularly nervous about calls being placed while the vehicle was in motion, a response that appears to have been based on observations of drivers using cellular telephones.

Brand further reports a general concern over safety, where holding a cellular telephone while driving was seen as limiting the "physical ability to control the vehicle in crises and near-crisis situations." It was agreed by nearly all respondents that use of hands-free cellular telephones was a solution to this problem.

Internet Queries

In order to provide an opportunity for members of the general public to describe their personal experiences with and observations of cellular telephone use, questions were posted on the Internet (see Figure 2-2). The Safetynet at CompuServe was selected along with the following newsgroups:

• rec.autos.driving
• rec.autos
• rec.autos.misc
• rec.autos.simulators
• rec.autos.sport.tech
• rec.autos.tech

Although two inquiries were posted at an interval of several weeks, only about 10 responses were received. One was from Italy and one was from the U.K. Some of the responses provided no useful information. The questions were designed to elicit narrative answers that would encompass any viewpoint or circumstance.

Among cellular telephone users, there were a number of positive experiences presented. One user notified authorities of three highway crashes (one in which he was involved). The same individual also frequently used his cellular telephone to ask for directions. Three cellular telephone users were especially pleased to be able to quick dial assistance or to have the phone available for emergencies. One individual uses call forwarding on his home line so that all calls are sent to his cellular telephone during business hours or when he is not at home.

The cellular telephones are often used for business and family purposes, but about 20% of the respondents reserve cellular telephone use for emergencies.

Four of the users firmly believe that the hands-free models were better suited for in-vehicle use. One individual stated that it is impossible to conduct a business conversation, read documents, control a vehicle and weave through traffic at the same time. A second individual learned to pull to the side of the road when using his cellular telephone because he could not hold the phone, shift gears and steer the vehicle simultaneously. About 1 in 5 reported no problems in using their cellular telephone while driving, but another respondent had 2 close calls in which he was so focused on his phone conversation that he pulled in front of on-coming traffic.

Figure 2-2:
Questions Posted on the Internet

1. If you use a cellular telephone while driving, what have been your experiences?
a.	Positive -- reported an emergency, etc.
b.	Negative -- near misses or traffic crashes.
c.	Special concerns -- only use cellular telephone while stopped in traffic.

2. If you do not use a cellular telephone while driving, what have been your observations?
a.	Positive -- were assisted during an emergency, etc.
b.	Negative -- witnessed near misses or an accident.
c.	Special concerns -- observed aberrant behavior of cellular telephone user.

Additional comments received from the user's group include the observation that some drivers seem to forget that they are in a car while engrossed in conversation.

Another individual stated that he sometimes asks those with whom he is speaking to hold while he changes lanes. Finally, one driver makes a point of dialing his cellular telephone only when he feels it is safe to do so.

Only one positive comment was offered by an individual who did not use a cellular telephone. He was assisted during an emergency by someone who called for help.

Observers were more apt to express concerns about unspecified dangerous driving behaviors, and avoiding being sideswiped on many occasions. The acceleration lanes extending from highway entrance ramps were mentioned as being especially hazardous areas for cellular telephone use. Some drivers were seen holding a phone with one hand and gesticulating with the other which supports the additional contention that some cellular telephone users are so absorbed by their conversations that they are unaware of the driving hazards that they create.

Three respondents did not identify themselves in terms of cellular telephone usage, but did offer observations. One believed that hands-free units with microphones should be used exclusively in motor vehicles. Another individual suggested that cellular telephones be rendered inoperable while the vehicles are in motion. He understood that his suggestion was not likely to be adopted, but wanted it to reflect the strength of his conviction in this regard. The final view was that speed limits should be restricted for drivers using cellular telephones as much as they are in some places for heavy trucks or cars towing trailers.

Solicited Observations

As an additional effort to elicit comments from the public, a notice, shown below, was placed in the Pennysaver consumer guide in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, in November, 1995.

Three responses were received. The first was from a woman who, along with her husband, is an enthusiastic cellular telephone user. They both regularly use their cellular telephones to keep in touch with family members and to help stranded motorists. The caller stated that drivers must be cautious when using their phones and recommended "speaker phones." The caller has occasionally seen people driving who did not appear to be paying attention to their driving tasks while talking on their cellular telephones.

The second female respondent was not a cellular telephone user. She observed a collision at a stop light during which a cellular telephone user struck a stopped vehicle in the rear. This caller endorses limitations on cellular telephone use while driving on urban highways, but believes that rural phone use is acceptable. She stated that business people in suits often seem focused on their conversations and are not attending to traffic. The caller's husband is a truck driver and he has noted erratic lane tracking among some cellular telephone users. A friend of the caller was in an automobile crash and used her cellular telephone to summon assistance.

The third respondent was a male. He had been nearly run off the road on two different occasions by drivers who were using cellular telephones. Both situations occurred in broad daylight on major highways. The drivers were using hand-held cellular telephones during their lane encroachment activities. This respondent feels strongly that phones should not be used by drivers while vehicles are in motion.

Anecdotal Crash Reports

Although anecdotal data are not verifiable, they can be useful in providing insight into specific problem areas and incidents. The National Transportation Safety Board, for example, often supplements its in-depth investigations with anecdotal data to provide additional insight into the causal factors associated with "accidents." NHTSA also uses anecdotal data, collected through its Hotline, for problem identification related to potential vehicle defects. It is the frequency of such anecdotal reporting, in fact, that ultimately provided motivation for this study.

During the course of this effort, extensive discussions with cellular telephone users and "observers" has taken place and helped guide the investigators in examining public sensitivities and concerns with regard to cellular telephone use and driving. Such data further served to guide the researchers in using more traditional sources of information. It should also be noted that public anecdotal experiences can frequently get the attention of authorities and ultimately influence policy, apart from rigorous scientific inquiry. While some of the anecdotal incidents identified in this study were unusual in nature, their description is provided here to further highlight the range of situations that can lead to behaviors resulting in cellular telephone related crashes.

The particular examples cited point out the importance of phone records and witnesses in establishing crash precursors as well as the difficulties that researchers and law enforcement personnel may experience while attempting to discern cellular telephone related pre-crash factors. A sample of several such cases follows.

• In Fairfax, Virginia a driver ran off the road and struck a pole fatally injuring himself. He died with a cellular telephone in his hand. The police determined through follow up investigation with the cellular carrier that he was using the phone at the time of the crash. This example highlights the importance of access to telephone records to verify cellular telephone use as a pre-crash factor.

• In Las Vegas, Nevada, an attorney reported an incident that apparently was widely discussed among local citizens. A driver (Vehicle 1) was observed talking on his hand-held cellular telephone when he struck a stopped vehicle (Vehicle 2) ahead of him, pushing it into a third vehicle waiting at the traffic signal (Vehicle 3). With the phone still in hand, the driver of Vehicle 1 jumped out of his car and ran to the driver of Vehicle 3 to whom he related that he saw Vehicle 2 strike him (Vehicle 3) and that he struck Vehicle 2 so it could not get away. The police, however, were able to determine that the driver of Vehicle 1 had been at fault in the crash on the basis of witness testimony!

• A businessman reported that he was in a right turn only access lane behind a stopped vehicle. He realized he was late for a meeting and placed a call using his installed car-phone in a hand-held mode. The vehicle ahead of him began to make a right hand turn, stopping again before completing the turn. Distracted by the phone, the businessman proceeded without stopping, and struck the rear of the lead vehicle. The culpable driver stated that this was an unnecessary call, and served to make him aware of how distracting cellular telephone use can be in a driving situation. The front of his vehicle was damaged moderately, but he did not report the crash to his insurance company.

• The final example occurred in 1988 in Prince George's County, Maryland. A bus, a Mercedes Benz and a truck were stopped in the left turn lane. An approaching BMW, with the driver talking on a cellular telephone, struck the rear end of the truck at approximately 40 MPH, setting off a chain collision. The driver of the BMW apparently was unaware of the impending collision (no brakes were applied). He still had the phone in his hand when he exited his vehicle.

It is interesting to note that while these four anecdotal cases are atypical, they share some important characteristics with the investigated crashes that will be presented in Chapter 3. In each of these instances, the cellular telephone user was the "at fault" driver of the striking vehicle. All phone types were hand-held and all drivers were talking on their cellular telephones at the time of their crash. Driver errors, again, fall into two categories: lane tracking and failure to stop. Additional discussion of human factors and pre-crash circumstances is included in Chapters 3 and 4

Chapter 2 - Table of Contents

Document Table of Contents

2.7 Conclusions

This section has emphasized the changing role of cellular telephones in our society and the associated changes in user demographics and patterns of use. Trends toward non-business use, expansion of the range of users and the emphasis on safety and security represent important considerations that must be balanced against concerns for any adverse safety consequences.

While users generally recognize that talking on a cellular telephone can be distracting, only 15 percent report that they never use the phone while driving. Survey results suggest that the extent of such distraction is comparable to or somewhat greater than that of the radio, but it must be recognized that a radio is manipulated for only a short period, while the phone may be in use for relatively extended periods of time. Thus, exposure may be far greater for the cellular telephone.

The extraordinary growth in cellular telephone use for reporting emergencies is viewed as an asset by many law enforcement and emergency response officials. Unfortunately, it has also created a significant burden on resources for some jurisdictions, many of which are receiving multiple calls for the same incident (increasing population exposure in potentially hazardous situations) or receiving calls that are not true emergencies (preventing other emergencies from being reported). Some localities have already reported in excess of one hundred "911" calls for a single incident.

With the accelerated growth in the number of cellular telephone subscribers, it is important to educate the public and develop strategies for addressing multiple notifications of an incident. State and federal government agencies are developing various approaches to meeting the demands of the public with regard to providing adequate facilities for emergency response.

The information gleaned from the focus groups shows that police officers clearly support the use of cellular telephones for emergency notification. Many participants cite dialing as a potentially distracting activity. They also note, however, that they have observed instances of driver inattention related to cellular telephone use that resulted in failures to stop, or to retain lane position. The majority of the focus group participants owned cellular telephones and are opposed to legislation that could limit their use by drivers.

Finally, although of little scientific value, the anecdotal cases do illustrate many aspects of cellular telephone use that are not readily apparent, the importance of access to phone records, the extreme nature of some individuals' use of cellular phones, and the difficulties in identifying cellular telephone use as a factor in crashes without witnesses.

Chapter 2 - Table of Contents

Document Table of Contents