dr-exmedic.com

It drives me nuts to see the wrong conclusions taken from fairly simple data.  The latest example is in the popular press, which seems to universally believe that talking on the cell phone while driving is a huge evil.  (I’m not convinced it’s safe, but thus far, I remain unconvinced that it’s any worse than talking to the person next to you, eating, shaving, applying makeup, reading paperbacks, or any of the other distracting things I see other drivers doing, or have done myself.)  Note the lede to this story:

A very small percentage of the population can safely drive while talking on their cell phones, but chances are high that you’re not one of these “supertaskers.”

So what data brings the reporter to the conclusion that so few people can “safely drive” while doing complicated math problems?  Well, during simulated drives during a cell phone conversation

It took [drivers] 20 percent longer to hit the brakes when needed, and following distances increased 30 percent

So if you’re on the phone and allow more following distance because you know your reaction time is worse, that’s somehow “unsafe”?  To me, that’s a brilliant example of how people can adapt to what they’re doing, not a cause for alarm.

Keep in mind too that they were asking people do do math over the phone, not chat about the weather and what to pick up at the store–but that’s the fault of the study asking a non-real-world question, not the fault of the reporter.