IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013 - 56

on controlled roadways [14], [19],
[25], naturalistic observation of
subjects through in-cab video
cameras [29], and the development
of sophisticated driving simulators [2], [4], [5], [27]. Across
these studies, the general pattern
uncovered clearly demonstrates
that phone usage-independent
of phone type, handheld or handsfree-accompanies a significant
drop in driving performance. Epidemiological studies have found
crash risk to increase fourfold for
drivers on the phone [15], [20]. The
level of impairment associated
with cellular phones has even been
compared to that of drunk driving
[27]. And evidence is emerging

phone itself somehow constitutes
the distraction responsible for
the drop in driving performance?
Through the outlaw of only handheld-and not hands-free-phone
conversation, the existing legislation appears to ascribe to the former explanation related to holding
the device. The empirical evidence,
contrarily, supports the latter conclusion, related to the distraction of
the conversation itself.
If we ascribe to the general explanation supported by the empirical
evidence that understands phone
conversation itself to cause driving
impairment, then there are at least
two useful ways to conceive of cellphone-related distraction. The first

This disagreement between science and
policy is ultimately over how cell phone
usage results in driving impairment.
that conversation with a passenger
does not result in the same decrements to driving performance; the
impairment is specifically linked
to phone usage [4], [5]. These data
lead many researchers to suggest that limiting regulation only
to handheld phone usage at best
overlooks a major contributor to
phone-induced driver distraction, i.e., the threat introduced
by the hands-free modality. At
worst, such regulations may even
encourage dangerous hands-free
cell phone usage while driving
by the implication that hands-free
cell phone use is safe compared to
handheld phone conversation.
This disagreement between science and policy is ultimately over
how cell phone usage results in
driving impairment. Is it that holding a handheld cell phone inhibits a
driver's ability to grasp the steering
wheel with two hands, and that this
physical impediment causes the
impairment? Or is it instead that
engaging in conversation over the
56

theory can be abstracted from the
ways in which many scientists frame
these data. A second theory can be
based on the philosophical description of the user experience of the cellular phone. Together, these accounts
can shed light on the dangers specific
to no-look texting while driving.
Many researchers cast their findings broadly within a context of
speculation about brain functioning. The act of using a phone while
driving is often presented as an
example of a "dual task scenario,"
and the resulting driving impairment is understood to be due to a
person's inability to safely perform
at the same time the two tasks of
driving and of conversing over the
phone. Driving impairment within
this dual task scenario is often
claimed to be the result of an inherent limitation in the brain's ability to
multitask. The units of brain capacity employed vary somewhat from
article to article, but common examples include "cognitive resources,"
"attention," "information processing

ability," and "mental workload."6
The general explanation that can be
abstracted from these formulations
is that driver distraction associated
with cell phone conversation is
caused by the brain's inability to
allocate its limited resources adequately across two demanding tasks.
In my own work, I build on
the tradition of phenomenology to
develop descriptions of the experience of using the phone while driving. These descriptions imply an
explanation of cell-phone-induced
driving impairment that is at once
consistent with both the research
data and the researchers' criticisms of the narrowness of existing traffic policy measures, and at
the same time does not rely on a
framework of background assumptions regarding the capacity limits
of the human brain [21], [22].7 My
contention is that the drop in driving performance associated with
phone conversation may result
from long-developed habits of perception related to phone usage.
A phenomenological exploration
of the phone would ask how this
device influences what a user finds
meaningful. When using the phone,
what things stand forward as significant and in need of devoted attention? What things instead recede
into the background of awareness?
For example, like a pair eyeglasses
perched on the face, the phone
itself fades into the background of
6

For example, as Kristin E. Beede and Steven J.
Kass summarize, "it is believed that the effects
are a result of competition for limited cognitive
resources" [2]. Tova rosenbloom puts it this way,
"the results are in line with the theory of inherent limited capacity of human attention ..., which
predicts that the attentional resources allocated
to one task (talking) come at the expense of the
other (driving)" [25].

This account of the experience of cell phone
usage has developed thorugh ideas central to a
school of thought called postphenomenology. The
postphenomenological perspective combines the
insights into human experience of the phenomenological tradition with the anti-foundational
epistemological commitments of the American
pragmatist tradition, and focuses on user relations
with technologies [10], [11], [22], [23], [28].

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SprING 2013

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2013