Cell phones and EMS vehicle operators.

[Dustdevil]

sitting at my CSL warrants no attention and no risk.

Minus 10 for unapproved abbreviations. :roll:

[tskstorm]

Minus 10 for unapproved abbreviations. :roll:

CSL = cross street location = place to nap ... erm rather place to post.

I don't think texting while my partner was subconscious risked anyones well being, or affected patient care.

[tskstorm]

Oh yea by the way dust you owe me one from a good post a few days ago !

[JPINFV]

Some people can use a hands free device while driving, and others can't....if it in any way effects your driving, it should be banned.....

Some people can drive with a hand held cell phone, others can't. Your point? The issue with driving and cell phones has nothing to do with handheld v hands free, which is where this thread is currently headed. It's conversation vs no conversation.

Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone

ABSTRACT

Dual-task studies assessed the effects of cellular-phone conversations on performance of a simulated driving task. Performance was not disrupted by listening to radio broadcasts or listening to a book on tape. Nor was it disrupted by a continuous shadowing task using a handheld phone, ruling out, in this case, dual-task interpretations associated with holding the phone, listening, or speaking. However, significant interference was observed in a word-generation variant of the shadowing task, and this deficit increased with the difficulty of driving. Moreover, unconstrained conversations using either a handheld or a hands-free cell phone resulted in a twofold increase in the failure to detect simulated traffic signals and slower reactions to those signals that were detected. We suggest that cellular-phone use disrupts performance by diverting attention to an engaging cognitive context other than the one immediately associated with driving.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

Cell Phones and Driving: Review of Research

Abstract:

Objective. The research literature on drivers' use of cell phones was reviewed to identify trends in drivers' phone use and to determine the state of knowledge about the safety consequences of such use. Methods. Approximately 125 studies were reviewed with regard to the research questions, type and rigor of the methods, and findings. Reviewed studies included surveys of drivers, experiments, naturalistic studies (continuous recording of everyday driving by drivers in instrumented vehicles), studies of crash risk, and evaluations of laws limiting drivers' phone use. Results. Observational surveys indicate drivers commonly use cell phones and that such use is increasing. Drivers report they usually use hand-held phones. Experimental studies have found that simulated or instrumented driving tasks, or driving while being observed, are compromised by tasks intended to replicate phone conversations, whether using hand-held or hands-free phones, and may be further compromised by the physical distraction of handling phones. Effects of phone use on driving performance when drivers are in their own vehicles are unknown. With representative samples of adequate size, naturalistic studies in the future may provide the means to document the patterns and circumstances of drivers' phone use and their effects on real-world driving. Currently, the best studies of crash risk used cell phone company billing records to verify phone use by crash-involved drivers. Two such studies found a fourfold increase in the risk of a property-damage-only crash and the risk of an injury crash associated with phone use; increased risk was similar for males and females, younger and older drivers, and hands-free and hand-held phones. A number of jurisdictions in the United States and around the world have made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held phones. Studies of these laws show only limited compliance and unclear effects on safety. Conclusions. Even if total compliance with bans on drivers' hand-held cell phone use can be achieved, crash risk will remain to the extent that drivers continue to use or switch to hands-free phones. Although the enactment of laws limiting drivers' use of all phones is consistent with research findings, it is unclear how such laws could be enforced. At least in the short term, it appears that drivers' phone use will continue to increase, despite the growing evidence of the risk it creates. More effective countermeasures are needed but are not known at this time.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tand...000002/art00001

Too long/didn't read? Cell phone use is cell phone use, regardless of how many hands are on the wheel.

[Medic117]

JPINFV,

You made some great points. Thank you for posting the research to back it up. That whas what I was hoping to get in this post. You've changed my opinion. I have been looking for such articles, and haven't found any reliable studies. I will use this to make my case. Hopefully the facts will open the eyes of the administration. Thank you all for your participation in the forum.. I think we should stick to no cell phones whatsoever while operating an emergency vehicle.

[JPINFV]

So here's a question, if there is no difference between hands free and hands on cellular phone use, then is there a difference between cellular phone use and 2-way radio use?

[tskstorm]

So here's a question, if there is no difference between hands free and hands on cellular phone use, then is there a difference between cellular phone use and 2-way radio use?

No there would not be, and in the services I've worked in or rotated in I have never seen communication devices such as 2 way radios in the back of the truck.

So I guess I'm never supposed to give a notification ? If i need to give a notification I would think my partners hands are tied in the back taking care of the patient... So who calls the notification to the ER when waiting on scene an extra few minutes to call it in is significant to patient outcome and possibly detrimental patient care?

[WolfmanHarris]

Any of the Ambulances I've been on in Ontario have a speaker for the radio and a phone type handset in the back. I'll have to check the Ambulance Act to see if that's required or just general practice. Now that doesn't mean that the medic in the back is the only one who I've seen use the radio, it seems that usually the attending medic will ask his partner to call dispatch to set up a patch, they pick up the mic and say "Lindsay, 4227 requesting a patch to PRHC." then puts the mic down. Dispatch sets it up on a tac channel and the medic in the back picks up the handset for the patch. They either do it that way or I've seen the medic in the back use the department issued cell for the whole thing.

[JPINFV]

The point that I'm trying to get at here is that a complete cell phone ban is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Personal business can always wait till after the call, on the other hand there are legitimate business uses for cell phones, and as such, I don't see the purpose of a complete driver cell phone ban as long as the driver is expected to operate the radio.

[WolfmanHarris]

I disagree. You're arguing from a position you don't need to. By accepting driver use of communication devices as a necessary evil, you're argument makes perfect sense, however, I believe that the vast majority of two way radio use by the driver can be eliminated by having the attending medic handle any communications to and from scene. One way communication may remain necessary, (such as notifying en route from scene, using the PA) but these do not carry the same distraction as two way. Further, unlike dialing a cell phone, you shouldn't need to take your eyes off the road to key the mic.

These aren't the only areas we can limit distraction and time with eyes off the road. For example, why do we keep controls for lights and sirens on the console and not move them onto the steering column. Military aviation has maintained hands on controls and HUD's as a key part of their design for decades. Emergency services should consider spending less effort on lighting and striping gimmicks to warn the other drivers on the road (with diminishing returns) and more on ways to enable safe driving and safety for the occupants in the module. This is not to say that well placed lights and proper markings aren't necessary but it seems every new ambulance design focuses on new and exciting ways to flash lights and alot less on how to keep the driver focused and the passengers safe. Part of this, I feel, stems from the fact that we continue to accept certain risks as a reality of the job and not as factors that can be eliminated. Driver use of radio is one of these.

- Matt

P.S. of course, I'm still a wet behind the ears student and could be totally off base, but hopefully I've learned enough from the experienced heads around me (both online and off) that I'm not totally ignorant.