Another Talk on Handheld and Handsfree

Road SAFETY ARTICLE

If you missed the opening of my piece on the same topic, you do not have to worry. For some reasons, I have chosen to run through some parts of the same piece from the beginning. I know this might sound boring to those who read it last week. But I need my readers to trust me as it is a deliberate ploy by me to refresh the memory of my readers, including those who read the first part last week.

Remember, I once told you that what inspires me to piece together these information even when I am sharing the views of others is simply to avert the kind of tragedy that occurred during the just concluded Sallah celebration? I must confess that despite my years in service, I couldn’t find the courage to watch the litters of dead bodies, including children.

These innocent victims before departing for their trip, prayed for journey mercies. Some sowed seeds or gave alms to the less privileged as a way of seeking heaven’s divine direction and protection. Those married hugged and kissed loved ones with promises that they will see them soon after the celebration. Despite all these preparations and spirituals, almost all ended their dreams and aspirations because of the blunder of one man.

Yes, I mean the blunder or mistake or the error of one man; one driver. Report filed by my friend Ckn has it that the tragedy struck when a truck belonging to Dangote Industry which was heading to Benin from Lagos lost its brake and rammed into a fully loaded bus killing all its passengers. The report further says a KIA car, as well as a Toyota Hiace bus were all involved in this multiple crash. I hear there were children too or just a child; an innocent child who died all because of the blunders of an adult.

The blunder that led to this crash is equal to the blunder we adult commit daily all in the name of modernisation and advancement in technology. In the real sense, it is the sheer abuse of modern technology and irresponsible behaviour by some who indulge in showing off their technological acquisition, forgetting the consequence on other road users.

One of such blunders are the continuous and flagrant use of the phone while driving, riding and even walking. What is your rating on the Federal Road Safety Corps in the daily battle to curb the craze called driving and phoning? I am talking about the enforcement against the use of phones while driving which carries the paltry sum of N4,000 and a four penalty-point. Its failure to fully address this resulted in the birthing of the novelty called emotional evaluation introduced to deter offenders.

I do not know if you are a believer in the school of thought that supports the use of hands free? Are you aware that our laws prohibit the use of hands free or handheld, as well as the use of in-built bluetooth. A friend once ‘yabbed’ me saying I should wake up to the reality of the new age and improvements in technology, only because I cautioned him against its use.

It is common to hear other offenders argue that they were using hands free and as such are not liable. There are others who would say sorry, “I wasn’t using my mobile phone but was using the Google Map to locate my destination.” This case was celebrated by a female offender who went bizarre calling the Corps all names including unlettered for daring to arrest her for using Google map which as the law says is a component of the mobile phone.

Some would even argue that they merely checked to know who was calling while there are those who would say they were merely holding the phone in their hands. Those in this category forget that driving with one hand is an offence because of the potential danger it portends. One lately asked me if it was a traffic offence to use the phone while waiting at a traffic light, stressing that “after all, the vehicle was not moving.”

What you are about to read this week again is not my piece but a culled piece that I believe would shed better light on this argument by the recalcitrant drivers who would rather break the law and risk the life of a loved one. One thing I know which is constant with all mobile phone manufacturers is the warning on the need to obey traffic laws in peculiar countries.

This is similar to what car manufacturers also do with respect to the use of seat belts as well as car restraint cautioning that the airbag has the potential of hurting or killing. While phone manufacturers place theirs on the manual, car manufacturers place theirs on the front passenger mirror as well as the drivers warning on the dangers of being killed by an airbag in case of a road traffic crash in the absence of a seat belt used appropriately.

Last week, I shared an opinion from some experts in the United Kingdom, as well as snippets of some from experts from Germany. Today, I wish to run the last part of the German experience hoping the diehard phone users on wheels will learn. A similar study was conducted in Germany on their driving behaviour especially with regards to use of smartphones. The report reminds us of the current state of road traffic collisions as the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 15–29, according to the World Health Organization.

This study investigated one of the primary reasons for the high fatality rate amongst Young Novice Drivers (YNDs); their use of smartphones while driving. It gathered responses from a representative sample of YNDs on their behaviour while driving using an updated version of the ‘Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale’.

Survey responses totalled 700 YNDs situated throughout Germany. From these responses, the report examined the prevalence of certain driving behaviours that are described as ‘distracting’ and compared these driving behaviours to the respondents’ use of specific smartphone features. The responses report that music-related activities (e.g. changing music on a smartphone) are most common amongst YNDs. Speaking on the phone is seldom-reported, although more males than females indicated engagement in this behaviour.

The study further carried out a correlation and correspondence analysis. On that basis we found that those who report speaking on a smartphone are significantly more likely to engage in driving behaviours’ with potentially fatal consequences, such as speeding and driving while impaired by prohibited substances (drugs, alcohol). The study proposed that the results could be used by policymakers for public information implications and to tailor financial penalties for those engaging in smartphone behaviours that are linked to harmful driving behaviours. In addition, our findings can also be used in a Usage-based Insurance (UBI) context to financially incentivise safer driving.

Let us navigate back to the UK piece. Over the last 30 years, research has demonstrated the impact of phone use on driving performance by measuring aspects such as hazard detection ability, reaction times and eye movements. Findings reveal that regardless of whether a phone is used handheld or handsfree, phone-using drivers are four times more likely to be involved in a collision than undistracted drivers, and this increased risk persists for around five minutes after a call has ended. 

Phone-using drivers (again, whether handheld or handsfree) demonstrate poor hazard detection ability – even for hazards which occur directly in front of them – and take significantly longer to react to any hazards they do notice, leading to increased stopping distances. Such research has highlighted that the key issue with phone use is the cognitive distraction it imposes, rather than simply the manual and visual distraction of holding and looking at a phone.