Original Article
Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions
N Engl J Med 1997; 336:453-458February 13, 1997
- Abstract
Background
Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.
Methods
We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records.
Results
A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P<0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event.
Conclusions
The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.
Media in This Article
Figure 3
Consistency of Relative Risks Obtained from Different Collision Times.Figure 2
Time of Cellular-Telephone Call in Relation to the Relative Risk of a Collision.Article Activity
- Article
Motor vehicle collisions are a leading cause of death in North America; they are the single most frequent cause of death among children and young adults and account for one fatality every 10 minutes.1-3 During an average year, about 1 person in 50 will be involved in a motor vehicle collision; 1 percent of them will die, 10 percent will be hospitalized, and 25 percent will be temporarily disabled.4,5 Motor vehicle collisions often injure persons who are otherwise in good health. The causes of motor vehicle collisions are complicated, but error on the part of drivers contributes to over 90 percent of events.6
Cellular telephones can be used for placing and receiving telephone calls while in a motor vehicle. North American sales are enormous; for example, in 1995 the number of new subscribers in the United States exceeded the birth rate.7,8 Many believe that telephones may contribute to collisions by distracting drivers,9 and a few countries (such as Brazil, Israel, and Australia) have laws against using a cellular telephone while driving. Research with simulators suggests that use of the telephone can impair some aspects of driving performance.10-14 However, industry-sponsored surveys have found no increased risk associated with car telephones.15,16
The most rigorous experimental method for testing the effects of cellular telephones on motor vehicle collisions is to assess outcomes for persons randomly assigned to use or not use the devices, but such a study would be very difficult to perform and possibly unethical. Instead, we used an epidemiologic method, the case–crossover design, to evaluate potential associations between the use of a cellular telephone and the risk of a motor vehicle collision in real-world circumstances.
Methods
The study was conducted in Toronto, an urban region of 3 million people with no regulations against using a cellular telephone while driving. Persons who came to the North York Collision Reporting Centre between July 1, 1994, and August 31, 1995, during peak hours (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.) on Monday through Friday were included in the study if they had been in a collision with substantial property damage (as judged by the police). Drivers do not report to the center if the collisions involve injury, criminal activity, or the transport of dangerous goods. Drivers were excluded if they said they did not have a cellular telephone or if their billing records could not be located by May 1, 1996.
Use of Cellular Telephones
Consenting subjects completed a brief questionnaire about their personal characteristics and the features of the collision. We collected telephone records through each person's cellular-telephone number and verified each invoice by checking the subject's full name, mailing address, and calls made to his or her home telephone number. For each record, we analyzed all telephone activity on both the day of collision and the preceding seven days, with particular attention to the time, duration, and direction (incoming or outgoing) of each call. Special note was made of contact with ambulance personnel, police, or other emergency services.
Time of the Motor Vehicle Collision
The time of each collision was estimated from the subject's statement, police records, and telephone listings of calls to emergency services. We classified the times of collisions as “exact” when information from all three sources was available and consistent or when one source supplied no data but the remaining two agreed. Otherwise, we classified the times as “inexact” and used the earliest of the available two or three times to avoid misclassifying calls made after the collision as contributing to the event. Selecting the earliest listed time reduced the chance of finding spurious associations between telephone use and collisions. However, selecting an excessively early time could lead to the underestimation of the magnitude of any association.
Analytic Method
We used case–crossover analysis, a technique for assessing the brief change in risk associated with a transient exposure. According to this method, each person serves as his or her own control; confounding due to age, sex, visual acuity, training, personality, driving record, and other fixed characteristics is thereby eliminated.17 We used the pair-matched analytic approach to contrast a time period on the day of the collision with a comparable period on a day preceding the collision.18 In this instance, case–crossover analysis would identify an increase in risk if there were more telephone calls immediately before the collision than would be expected solely as a result of chance.
Definitions of Time Periods
We defined the hazard interval to include any telephone calls occurring during the 10 minutes before the estimated time of the collision, and tested the robustness of our results by analyzing intervals of 1, 5, and 15 minutes.19 In the primary analysis, we compared each person's telephone activity immediately before the collision (case) to his or her activity during a control period at the same time as the hazard interval on the day before the collision (crossover). In supplementary analyses we evaluated alternative comparison days and considered intervals of an hour leading up to the collision.
Alternative Comparison Days
We checked our estimates by repeating the calculations using four other control intervals. In the workday comparison we selected the day of the workweek preceding the collision; for example, the period just before a collision on Monday was compared with the same period on the preceding Friday. In the weekday comparison, we selected the same day one week before the collision; for example, Monday was compared with the preceding Monday. In the matching-day comparison, we selected the nearest day of the preceding week on which there was cellular-telephone activity in the predefined lead-up period before the collision. For the maximal-use-day comparison, we used the control interval from the preceding three days in which there was the greatest amount of cellular-telephone activity.
Accounting for Intermittency of Driving
Evaluating telephone activity on the day before a collision is appropriate only if driving occurred during the control interval on that day. A pilot survey involving 100 subjects indicated that 35 percent of them did not drive during the selected period; the rules of conditional probability suggested that this degree of intermittency of driving would inflate the apparent relation between cellular-telephone use and motor vehicle collisions by a factor of 1.5 (1 ÷ 0.65).20,21 Our estimates of relative risk were therefore divided by this factor as one way of adjusting for the intermittency of driving.
To examine the robustness of our analysis, we also tested a different adjustment that relied on individual driving patterns. To do so, between October 25 and November 28, 1996, we attempted to contact all subjects who had used their cellular telephones in the 10 minutes before the collision or the 10-minute control period. We asked each person to remember his or her driving pattern on both the day of the collision and the day before the collision. We then recalculated relative risks by limiting the analysis to subjects who were confident that they had driven a motor vehicle during both periods on both days.
Ethical Issues
The protocol was approved by the University of Toronto Human Ethics Committee, and all participants provided informed consent. Private industry supplied telephone records but otherwise had no involvement in data collection or analysis or funding the study. Individual billing records were obtained directly from cellular-telephone carriers who provided records for 100 consecutive days of telephone use for each person and who were not told which particular date was the day of the collision. Police reports were obtained directly from police departments; they, in turn, were not provided copies of the drivers' cellular-telephone records.
Statistical Analysis
The sample size was calculated to provide an 80 percent chance of detecting a doubling or halving of collision rates. Relative risks were estimated with methods for matched-pairs studies on the basis of exact binomial tests and conditional logistic-regression analyses.22 Confidence intervals for the relative risks were derived with the bootstrap bias-corrected method and accounted for the uncertainty in the adjustment for intermittency of driving.23,24 Modifications of the relative risks were assessed by comparing different subgroups, with particular attention to the prespecified contrast between hand-held cellular telephones and models that leave the hands free. All P values were two-tailed, and all relative risks were computed with 95 percent confidence intervals.
Results
We approached 5890 drivers, of whom 1064 acknowledged having a cellular telephone and 742 consented to participate in the study; the billing records of 699 of these drivers were located (Table 1Table 1
Characteristics of 699 Drivers and Collisions.). The collision times were exact for 231 subjects and inexact for 468. The group placed a total of 16,870 cellular-telephone calls and received 3643 calls during the week before the collisions (average, 3.4 calls placed and 0.7 call received per person each day). The average duration of the calls was 2.3 minutes, and 76 percent lasted 2 minutes or less (similar to cellular-telephone calling patterns elsewhere25). The monthly bill in U.S. currency for the average participant was $72, which was greater than that for the average subscriber in Toronto or the average subscriber in North America ($53 and $51, respectively).26-28 Overall, 170 subjects (24 percent) had used a cellular telephone during the 10-minute period immediately before the collision, 37 (5 percent) had used the telephone during the same period on the day before the collision, and 13 (2 percent) had used the telephone during both periods. The crude analysis indicated that cellular-telephone activity was associated with a relative risk of a motor vehicle collision of 6.5 (95 percent confidence interval, 4.5 to 9.9). The primary analysis, adjusted for intermittent driving, indicated that cellular-telephone activity was associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a motor vehicle collision (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5).
At follow-up in 1996, we located 145 subjects, of whom 72 (50 percent) were confident that they had driven during both the hazard period and the control period. Restricting our analysis to this subgroup yielded an estimated relative risk of 7.0 (95 percent confidence interval, 3.7 to 15.5) associated with cellular-telephone use. An analysis that included the entire cohort of 699 drivers and used alternative comparison days yielded similar estimates of the relative risk of a collision (Figure 1Figure 1
Relative Risk of a Collision for Different Control Periods.). All the alternative estimates of relative risk were adjusted for intermittent driving, and all were statistically significant (P<0.001).The relative risk of a collision associated with using a cellular telephone was consistent among subgroups with different characteristics (Table 2Table 2
Relative Risk of a Motor Vehicle Collision in 10-Minute Periods, According to Selected Characteristics.). Younger drivers were at a somewhat higher relative risk when using a cellular telephone than older drivers, although the trend was not significant. In no group did cellular-telephone use have a protective effect. In particular, subjects with many years of experience in using a cellular telephone still had a significant increase in risk. The highest relative risk was found among subjects who had not graduated from high school. Telephones that allowed the hands to be free did not appear to be safer than hand-held telephones.The increase in risk appeared to be greatest for calls made near the time of the collision, and was not statistically significant for calls made more than 15 minutes before the event (Figure 2Figure 2
Time of Cellular-Telephone Call in Relation to the Relative Risk of a Collision.). The relative risk was 4.8 for calls within 5 minutes before the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls more than 15 minutes before the collision (P<0.001). The risks were similar at different times of the day and of the week (Figure 3Figure 3Consistency of Relative Risks Obtained from Different Collision Times.). Estimates appeared robust when calculated with use of hazard intervals of 1, 5, or 15 minutes before the collision (relative risks, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.3, respectively), for data including exact rather than inexact times of collisions (4.0 and 4.5, respectively), and with only incoming calls or only outgoing calls included (3.0 and 3.8, respectively). The association appeared stronger for collisions on high-speed roadways than for collisions in parking lots, at gas stations, or in other low-speed locations (5.4 vs. 1.6, P = 0.014).A total of 5325 calls were placed and 960 calls were received on the collision days, of which the majority occurred after the event (68 percent and 64 percent, respectively). About 39 percent of the subjects used their cellular telephone at least once to contact emergency services immediately after the collision. The median number of calls made during the remainder of the day after the collision was substantially greater than the median number of calls made during an entire day before the collision (four vs. two, P<0.001). Of those who had not used their telephone on any day before the collision, 14 of 39 (36 percent) made at least one call in the aftermath of the event.
Discussion
We found that using a cellular telephone was associated with a risk of having a motor vehicle collision that was about four times as high as that among the same drivers when they were not using their cellular telephones. This relative risk is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit.29-31 We also found that cellular telephones have benefits, such as allowing drivers to make emergency calls quickly. A few drivers used their telephones only in the aftermath of a collision, thereby gaining some potential benefits and incurring no potential risks due to telephone use. In general, cellular-telephone calls were brief and infrequent, which explains why the rapid growth of this technology during recent years has not been accompanied by a dramatic increase in motor vehicle collisions.32
We observed no safety advantage to hands-free as compared with hand-held telephones. This finding was not explained by imbalances in the subjects' age, education, socioeconomic status, or other demographic characteristics. Nor can it be explained by suggesting that those with units that leave the hands free do more driving. One possibility is that motor vehicle collisions result from a driver's limitations with regard to attention rather than dexterity.33 Regardless of the explanation, our data do not support the policy followed in some countries of restricting hand-held cellular telephones but not those that leave the hands free.
Three weaknesses of this study should be pointed out. First, we studied only drivers who consented to participate. The fact that some persons chose not to consent might have caused us to underestimate the risks associated with telephone use if these people declined because of concern about personal liability. Second, people vary in their driving behavior from day to day — a fact that makes the selection of a control period problematic. However, it would be difficult to explain all our findings on the basis of different driving patterns, and in particular, this factor would not account for the similar results for those who remembered driving during both periods on both days. Third, case–crossover analysis does not eliminate all forms of confounding. Imbalances in some temporary conditions related to the driver, the vehicle, or the environment are possible, but we believe such factors are not likely to account for the magnitude of the association we observed.
Our study indicates an association but not necessarily a causal relation between the use of cellular telephones while driving and a subsequent motor vehicle collision. For example, emotional stress may lead to both increased use of a cellular telephone and decreased driving ability. If so, individual calls may do nothing to alter the chances of a collision. In addition, our study did not include serious injuries; hence, we do not know how — or whether — cellular-telephone use is associated with motor vehicle fatalities. Finally, the data do not indicate that the drivers were at fault in the collisions; it may be that cellular telephones merely decrease a driver's ability to avoid a collision caused by someone else.
We caution against interpreting our data as showing that cellular telephones are harmful and that their use should be restricted. Even if a causal relation with motor vehicle collisions were to be established, drivers are vulnerable to other distractions that could offset the potential reductions in risk due to restricting the use of cellular telephones. Regulations would also mean reducing benefits; in Canada, for example, half a million calls to 911 emergency services are made from cellular telephones each year.34 Yet proposals for regulation are not unreasonable, since poor driving imposes risks on others. Public debate is needed, given that cellular telephones contribute to improvements in productivity, the quality of life, and peace of mind for more than 30 million people in North America alone.
The role of regulation is controversial, but the role of individual responsibility is clear. Drivers who use a cellular telephone are at increased risk for a motor vehicle collision and should consider road-safety precautions. For them as for all other drivers, these include abstaining from alcohol, avoiding excessive speed, and minimizing other distractions. Additional strategies might include refraining from placing or receiving unnecessary calls, interrupting telephone conversations if necessary, and keeping calls brief — particularly in hazardous driving situations. Physicians should also learn to recognize patients who are at risk for a collision and who may benefit from advice regarding safety.35-40 Even limited success in reducing risk may prevent some of the death, disability, and property damage related to motor vehicle collisions.
Supported by a Career Scientist Award from the Ontario Ministry of Health (to Dr. Redelmeier), a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (to Dr. Tibshirani), and a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
We are indebted to Bell Mobility, Inc., Rogers Cantel, Inc., and the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department for their cooperation; and to the following people for help with specific aspects of the study: Mary Chipman, Ruth Croxford, Allan Detsky, Bradley Efron, Trevor Hastie, Mark Henkelman, Philip Lavori, Barry McLellan, David Naylor, Simon Min, Miriam Shuchman, and Amos Tversky.
Source Information
From the Departments of Medicine (D.A.R.), Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics (R.J.T.), and Statistics (R.J.T.) and the Program in Clinical Epidemiology and Health Care Research (D.A.R.), University of Toronto, Toronto; and the Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, North York, Ont., Canada (D.A.R.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Redelmeier at Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, G-151, 2075 Bayview Ave., North York, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
- References
References
1
Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States 1995: the national data book. 115th ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995:92.
2
Canada year book 1994. Ottawa, Ont.: Statistics Canada, 1993:149.
3
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica. Anuario Estadístico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos 1993. Aguascalientes, Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografía e Informática 1994:568.
4
Rice DP, MacKenzie EJ, Associates. Cost of injury in the United States: a report to Congress 1989. San Francisco: Institute for Health and Aging, 1989:208.
5
Ontario road safety annual report 1994. Downsview, Ont.: Safety Research Office, Ministry of Transportation, 1996:2-4.
6
McFarland RA ,Moore RC . Human factors in highway safety: a review and evaluation. N Engl J Med 1957;256:792-799
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
U.S. wireless industry survey results: more than 9.6 million customers added in 1995. News release of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1996:5.
8
Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States 1995: the national data book. 115th ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1995:849.
9
Violanti JM ,Marshall JR . Cellular phones and traffic accidents: an epidemiological approach. Accid Anal Prev 1996;28:265-270
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Brown ID ,Tickner AH ,Simmonds DCV . Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning. J Appl Psychol 1969;53:419-424
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Alm H ,Nilsson L . The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. Accid Anal Prev 1995;27:707-715
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
McKnight AJ ,McKnight AS . The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention. Accid Anal Prev 1993;25:259-265
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Brookhuis KA ,de Vries G ,de Waard D . The effects of mobile telephoning on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 1991;23:309-316
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Stein AC, Parseghian Z, Allen RW. A simulator study of the safety implications of cellular mobile phone use. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine, New Orleans, September 28–30, 1987. Des Plaines, Ill.: American Association for Automotive Medicine, 1987:181-200.
15
Smith VJ. What about the customers? A survey of mobile telephone users. In: 28th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference: conference record of papers presented at the 28th annual conference, Denver, March 22–24, 1978. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 1978:190-3.
16
Canete DW. AT&T cellular phone safety study: a survey of cellular phone owners located in the Baltimore/Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Parsippany, N.J.: AT&T Consumer Products, 1985:1-62.
17
Maclure M . The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:144-153
Web of Science | Medline18
Mittleman MA ,Maclure M ,Robins JM . Control sampling strategies for case-crossover studies: an assessment of relative efficiency. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:91-98
Web of Science | Medline19
Baker SP . Digit preference in reported time of collision. Accid Anal Prev 1971;3:77-80
CrossRef20
Efron B ,Tibshirani R . Statistical data analysis in the computer age. Science 1991;253:390-395
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol. 1. The analysis of case-control studies. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980:162-89. (IARC scientific publications no. 32.)
22
Marshall RJ ,Jackson RT . Analysis of case-crossover designs. Stat Med 1993;12:2333-2341
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Efron B . Bootstrap confidence intervals for a class of parametric problems. Biometrika 1985;72:45-58
CrossRef | Web of Science24
Better bootstrap confidence intervals. In: Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993:178-201.
25
Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research. Assessing real world cellular phone usage patterns. Vol. 2. No. 2. Cellular Telephone Update. Winter 1994:3.
26
1995 Annual report. Montreal: BCE Mobile Communications, 1996:53.
27
Annual report 1995. Toronto: Rogers Cantel Mobile Communications, 1996:32.
28
U.S. wireless industry survey results: more than 9.6 million customers added in 1995. News release of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, Washington, D.C., March 25, 1996:4.
29
Smith HW ,Popham RE . Blood alcohol levels in relation to driving. Can Med Assoc J 1951;65:325-328
Web of Science | Medline30
Simpson H . Polydrug effects and traffic safety. J Alcohol Drugs Driving 1985;1:17-4431
Vinson DC ,Mabe N ,Leonard LL , et al. Alcohol and injury: a case-crossover study. Arch Fam Med 1995;4:505-511
CrossRef | Medline32
Rothman KJ ,Loughlin JE ,Funch DP ,Dreyer NA . Overall mortality of cellular telephone customers. Epidemiology 1996;7:303-305
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline33
Kahneman D ,Ben-Ishai R . Relation of a test of attention to road accidents. J Appl Psychol 1973;58:113-115
CrossRef | Web of Science34
Staying in touch: spring 1996. Etobicoke, Ont.: Bell Mobility, 1996:1.
35
Counseling to prevent motor vehicle injuries. In: Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996:643-57.
36
Prevention of motor vehicle accident injuries. In: The Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The Canadian guide to clinical preventive health care. Ottawa, Ont.: Canada Communication Group — Publishing, 1994:514-24.
37
Kelly RB . Effect of a brief physician intervention on seat belt use. J Fam Pract 1987;24:630-632
Web of Science | Medline38
Reisinger KS ,Williams AF ,Wells JK ,John CE ,Roberts TR ,Podgainy HJ . Effect of pediatricians' counseling on infant restraint use. Pediatrics 1981;67:201-206
Web of Science | Medline39
Macknin ML ,Gustafson C ,Gassman J ,Barich D . Office education by pediatricians to increase seat belt use. Am J Dis Child 1987;141:1305-1307
Web of Science | Medline40
Redelmeier DA ,Blair PJ . Survivors of motor vehicle trauma: an analysis of seat belt use and health care utilization. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:199-203
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (190)
Citing Articles
1
Steven E. Stern, Benjamin E. Grounds. (2013) Cellular Telephones and Social Interactions. International Journal of Technoethics 2:1, 43-49
CrossRef2
Gail Blattenberger, Richard Fowles, Peter D. Loeb, Wm. A. Clarke. (2012) Understanding the cell phone effect on vehicle fatalities: a Bayesian view. Applied Economics 44:14, 1823-1835
CrossRef3
Leena Korpinen, Rauno Pääkkönen. (2012) Accidents and close call situations connected to the use of mobile phones. Accident Analysis & Prevention 45, 75-82
CrossRef4
Kristie L. Young, Paul M. Salmon. (2012) Examining the relationship between driver distraction and driving errors: A discussion of theory, studies and methods. Safety Science 50:2, 165-174
CrossRef5
Allison E. Curry, Jessica H. Mirman, Michael J. Kallan, Flaura K. Winston, Dennis R. Durbin. (2012) Peer Passengers: How Do They Affect Teen Crashes?. Journal of Adolescent Health
CrossRef6
2011. References. , 339-364.
CrossRef7
Giovanni Martinotti, Corrado Villella, Domitilla Di Thiene, Marco Di Nicola, Pietro Bria, Gianluigi Conte, Maria Cassano, Filippo Petruccelli, Nicola Corvasce, Luigi Janiri, Giuseppe Torre. (2011) Problematic mobile phone use in adolescence: a cross-sectional study. Journal of Public Health 19:6, 545-551
CrossRef8
Rim A. Hussein. (2011) Health effects of mobile phones. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association 86:5 and 6, 77-78
CrossRef9
Donald A. Redelmeier, Christopher J. Yarnell. (2011) Lethal misconceptions: interpretation and bias in studies of traffic deaths. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
CrossRef10
Rune Elvik. (2011) Effects of Mobile Phone Use on Accident Risk. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2236:-1, 20-26
CrossRef11
Paul Atchley, Jeff Dressel, Todd C. Jones, Rebecca A. Burson, David Marshall. (2011) Talking and driving: applications of crossmodal action reveal a special role for spatial language. Psychological Research 75:6, 525-534
CrossRef12
Jannette Maciej, Manuela Nitsch, Mark Vollrath. (2011) Conversing while driving: The importance of visual information for conversation modulation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 14:6, 512-524
CrossRef13
Richard A. Young. (2011) Cell Phone Use and Crash Risk. Epidemiology1
CrossRef14
Robert Rosenberger. (2011) Embodied technology and the dangers of using the phone while driving. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences
CrossRef15
Amardeep Sathyanarayana, Pinar Boyraz, John H.L. Hansen. (2011) Information fusion for robust ‘context and driver aware’ active vehicle safety systems. Information Fusion 12:4, 293-303
CrossRef16
Nikolaos Gkikas*, John Richardson. (2011) The impact of verbal interaction on driver lateral control: an experimental assessment. Behaviour & Information Technology1-12
CrossRef17
2011. Introducing Nanotechnology to the Public. , 21-38.
CrossRef18
Lerner, Barron H., . (2011) Drunk Driving, Distracted Driving, Moralism, and Public Health. New England Journal of Medicine 365:10, 879-881
Full Text19
Rebecca E. Trempel, Sergey Y. Kyrychenko, Matthew J. Moore. (2011) Døes banning hand-held cell phøne use while driving reduce cøllisiøns?. CHANCE 24:3, 6-11
CrossRef20
RYAN C. JOHNSON, KAITLIN M. KIBURZ, SONER DUMANI, EUNAE CHO, TAMMY D. ALLEN. (2011) Work-Family Research: A Broader View of Impact. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4:3, 389-392
CrossRef21
Lynn B. Meuleners, Janine Duke, Andy H. Lee, Peter Palamara, Janina Hildebrand, Jonathon Q. Ng. (2011) Psychoactive Medications and Crash Involvement Requiring Hospitalization for Older Drivers: A Population-Based Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 59:9, 1575-1580
CrossRef22
J. D. Boice, R. E. Tarone. (2011) Cell Phones, Cancer, and Children. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:16, 1211-1213
CrossRef23
Larry B. Nabatilan, Fereydoun Aghazadeh, Ashish D. Nimbarte, Craig C. Harvey, Suman K. Chowdhury. (2011) Effect of driving experience on visual behavior and driving performance under different driving conditions. Cognition, Technology & Work
CrossRef24
Gemma F. Briggs, Graham J. Hole, Michael F. Land. (2011) Emotionally involving telephone conversations lead to driver error and visual tunnelling. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 14:4, 313-323
CrossRef25
Allison E. Curry, Jessica Hafetz, Michael J. Kallan, Flaura K. Winston, Dennis R. Durbin. (2011) Prevalence of teen driver errors leading to serious motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43:4, 1285-1290
CrossRef26
Jennifer K. Ibrahim, Evan D. Anderson, Scott C. Burris, Alexander C. Wagenaar. (2011) State Laws Restricting Driver Use of Mobile Communications Devices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 40:6, 659-665
CrossRef27
Charlene Hallett, Anthony Lambert, Michael A. Regan. (2011) Cell phone conversing while driving in New Zealand: Prevalence, risk perception and legislation. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43:3, 862-869
CrossRef28
Linda Boyle. 2011. Analytical Tools. .
CrossRef29
Elena Gherri, Martin Eimer. (2011) Active Listening Impairs Visual Perception and Selectivity: An ERP Study of Auditory Dual-task Costs on Visual Attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23:4, 832-844
CrossRef30
Michael A. Regan, Charlene Hallett. 2011. Driver Distraction. , 275-286.
CrossRef31
Chris S. Dula, Benjamin A. Martin, Russell T. Fox, Robin L. Leonard. (2011) Differing types of cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 43:1, 187-193
CrossRef32
Natalie P. O’Brien, Arthur H. Goodwin, Robert D. Foss. (2010) Talking and Texting Among Teenage Drivers: A Glass Half Empty or Half Full?. Traffic Injury Prevention 11:6, 549-554
CrossRef33
Benjamin Hoffman. (2010) Teen Drivers: Inherent Risks, Protection Strategies. Pediatric Annals 39:11, 703-708
CrossRef34
Cynthia Owsley, Gerald McGwin. (2010) Vision and driving. Vision Research 50:23, 2348-2361
CrossRef35
Richard Fowles, Peter D. Loeb, Wm. A. Clarke. (2010) The cell phone effect on motor vehicle fatality rates: A Bayesian and classical econometric evaluation. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46:6, 1140-1147
CrossRef36
F. A. Wilson, J. P. Stimpson. (2010) Trends in Fatalities From Distracted Driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008. American Journal of Public Health 100:11, 2213-2219
CrossRef37
Daniel Sperber, Alan Shiell, Ken Fyie. (2010) The cost-effectiveness of a law banning the use of cellular phones by drivers. Health Economics 19:10, 1212-1225
CrossRef38
Charles M. Farmer, Keli A. Braitman, Adrian K. Lund. (2010) Cell Phone Use While Driving and Attributable Crash Risk. Traffic Injury Prevention 11:5, 466-470
CrossRef39
Heidi E. Nemme, Katherine M. White. (2010) Texting while driving: Psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention 42:4, 1257-1265
CrossRef40
George Yannis, Eleonora Papadimitriou, Xenia Karekla, Efrosyni Kontodima. (2010) Mobile phone use by young drivers: effects on traffic speed and headways. Transportation Planning and Technology 33:4, 385-394
CrossRef41
C. Collet, A. Guillot, C. Petit. (2010) Phoning while driving I: a review of epidemiological, psychological, behavioural and physiological studies. Ergonomics 53:5, 589-601
CrossRef42
Abdulbari Bener, David Crundall, Türker Özkan, Timo Lajunen. (2010) Mobile phone use while driving: a major public health problem in an Arabian society, State of Qatar—mobile phone use and the risk of motor vehicle crashes. Journal of Public Health 18:2, 123-129
CrossRef43
Anne T. McCartt, Laurie A. Hellinga, Laura M. Strouse, Charles M. Farmer. (2010) Long-Term Effects of Handheld Cell Phone Laws on Driver Handheld Cell Phone Use. Traffic Injury Prevention 11:2, 133-141
CrossRef44
Hernan E. Riquelme, Fawaz Saleh Al-Sammak, Rosa E. Rios. (2010) Social Influences Among Young Drivers on Talking on the Mobile Phone While Driving. Traffic Injury Prevention 11:2, 127-132
CrossRef45
Alexander G. Nikolaev, Matthew J. Robbins, Sheldon H. Jacobson. (2010) Evaluating the impact of legislation prohibiting hand-held cell phone use while driving. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 44:3, 182-193
CrossRef46
Muhannad Ismeik, Ahmed Al‐Kaisy. (2010) Characterization of cell phone use while driving in Jordan. Transport 25:3, 252-261
CrossRef47
Zahid A. Khan, Ibrahim A. Al-Darrab. (2010) Taguchi techniques-based study on the effect of mobile phone conversation on drivers' reaction time. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 27:1, 63-77
CrossRef48
Birsen Donmez, Linda Ng Boyle, John D. Lee. (2010) Differences in Off-Road Glances: Effects on Young Drivers’ Performance. Journal of Transportation Engineering 136:5, 403
CrossRef49
Hiroshi Nitta, Shin Yamazaki, Takashi Omori, Tosiya Sato. (2010) An Introduction to Epidemiologic and Statistical Methods Useful in Environmental Epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology 20:3, 177-184
CrossRef50
Akiko OH-UCHI, Jun-ichiro KAWAHARA, Likio SUGANO. (2010) ATTENTIONAL CAPTURE AND METAATTENTIONAL JUDGMENT: A STUDY OF YOUNG CHILDREN, PARENTS, AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. PSYCHOLOGIA 53:2, 114-124
CrossRef51
Mahtab Ghazizadeh, Linda Ng Boyle. (2009) Influence of Driver Distractions on the Likelihood of Rear-End, Angular, and Single-Vehicle Crashes in Missouri. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2138:-1, 1-5
CrossRef52
Motoharu Takao, Susumu Takahashi, Masayoshi Kitamura. (2009) Addictive Personality and Problematic Mobile Phone Use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 12:5, 501-507
CrossRef53
Peter D. Loeb, William A. Clarke, Richard Anderson. (2009) The impact of cell phones on motor vehicle fatalities. Applied Economics 41:22, 2905-2914
CrossRef54
Lina Lander, Gary Sorock, Terry L. Stentz, Ellen A. Eisen, Murray Mittleman, Russ Hauser, Melissa J. Perry. (2009) Validation of self-reported occupational exposures in meatpacking workers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 52:9, 707-715
CrossRef55
Kenneth J. Rothman. (2009) Health Effects of Mobile Telephones. Epidemiology 20:5, 653-655
CrossRef56
Suzan Abou-Raya, Leila Abd ElMeguid. (2009) Road traffic accidents and the elderly. Geriatrics & Gerontology International 9:3, 290-297
CrossRef57
ASHLEY R. HARVEY, RANDY L. CARDEN. (2009) DRIVING ERROR AND ANXIETY RELATED TO iPOD
mp 3 PLAYER USE IN A SIMULATED DRIVING EXPERIENCE 1. Perceptual and Motor Skills 109:1, 159-167
CrossRef58
(2009) Hands-Free Embedded Cell Phones and Airbag-Deployment Crash Rates. Risk Analysis 29:8, 1069-1069
CrossRef59
G. Mohammadi. (2009) Mobile phone and seat belt usage and its impact on road accident fatalities and injuries in southeast Iran. International Journal of Crashworthiness 14:4, 309-314
CrossRef60
Robert D. Foss, Arthur H. Goodwin, Anne T. McCartt, Laurie A. Hellinga. (2009) Short-term effects of a teenage driver cell phone restriction. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41:3, 419-424
CrossRef61
Erik Nelson, Paul Atchley, Todd D. Little. (2009) The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41:3, 438-444
CrossRef62
WILL KALKHOFF, STANFORD W. GREGORY, DAVID MELAMED. (2009) EFFECTS OF DICHOTICALLY ENHANCED ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION ON CRASH RISK AND PERFORMANCE DURING SIMULATED DRIVING 1,2. Perceptual and Motor Skills 108:2, 449-464
CrossRef63
D. Porat Ben-Amy, M. Littner, Y. Siegman-Igra. (2009) Are dental procedures an important risk factor for infective endocarditis? A case-crossover study. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases 28:3, 269-273
CrossRef64
Richard A. Young, Christopher Schreiner. (2009) Real-World Personal Conversations Using a Hands-Free Embedded Wireless Device While Driving: Effect on Airbag-Deployment Crash Rates. Risk Analysis 29:2, 187-204
CrossRef65
Christopher A. Kahn. (2009) Commentary: Blessings and Curses. Annals of Emergency Medicine 53:2, 268-269
CrossRef66
Yoshitsugu Yasui. (2009) A Brainwave Signal Measurement and Data Processing Technique for Daily Life Applications. Journal of PHYSIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 28:3, 145-150
CrossRef67
P LOEB, W CLARKE. (2009) The cell phone effect on pedestrian fatalities. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45:1, 284-290
CrossRef68
S CHARLTON. (2009) Driving while conversing: Cell phones that distract and passengers who react. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41:1, 160-173
CrossRef69
John F. Boylan, Brian P. Kavanagh. (2008) Emergency Airway Management. Anesthesiology 109:6, 945-947
CrossRef70
Allen C. Bluedorn, Kimberly S. Jaussi. (2008) Leaders, followers, and time. The Leadership Quarterly 19:6, 654-668
CrossRef71
F FERLAZZO, S FAGIOLI, F DINOCERA, S SDOIA. (2008) Shifting attention across near and far spaces: Implications for the use of hands-free cell phones while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40:6, 1859-1864
CrossRef72
J CAIRD, C WILLNESS, P STEEL, C SCIALFA. (2008) A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40:4, 1282-1293
CrossRef73
J. David Cassidy, Eleanor Boyle, Pierre Côté, Yaohua He, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Frank L. Silver, Susan J. Bondy. (2008) Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care. European Spine Journal 17:S1, 176-183
CrossRef74
Marcel Adam Just, Timothy A. Keller, Jacquelyn Cynkar. (2008) A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Research 1205, 70-80
CrossRef75
Leila Takayama, Clifford Nass. (2008) Driver safety and information from afar: An experimental driving simulator study of wireless vs. in-car information services. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66:3, 173-184
CrossRef76
S.L. Chisholm, J.K. Caird, J. Lockhart. (2008) The effects of practice with MP3 players on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40:2, 704-713
CrossRef77
Masao Ichikawa, Shinji Nakahara. (2008) Japanese High School Students' Usage of Mobile Phones While Cycling. Traffic Injury Prevention 9:1, 42-47
CrossRef78
J David Cassidy, Eleanor Boyle, Pierre Côté, Yaohua He, Sheilah Hogg-Johnson, Frank L. Silver, Susan J. Bondy. (2008) Risk of Vertebrobasilar Stroke and Chiropractic Care. Spine 33:Neck Pain Suppl, S176-S183
CrossRef79
Moran Ki. (2008) Theory and practice of Case-Crossover Study Design. Korean Journal of Epidemiology 30:1, 1
CrossRef80
C. Spence, C. Ho. (2008) Multisensory interface design for drivers: past, present and future. Ergonomics 51:1, 65-70
CrossRef81
C BRUSQUE, A ALAUZET. (2008) Analysis of the individual factors affecting mobile phone use while driving in France: Socio-demographic characteristics, car and phone use in professional and private contexts. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40:1, 35-44
CrossRef82
J NASAR, P HECHT, R WENER. (2008) Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40:1, 69-75
CrossRef83
M YOUNG, J MAHFOUD, G WALKER, D JENKINS, N STANTON. (2008) Crash dieting: The effects of eating and drinking on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 40:1, 142-148
CrossRef84
JACK NASAR, PETER HECHT, RICHARD WENER. (2007) ‘Call if You Have Trouble’: Mobile Phones and Safety among College Students. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31:4, 863-873
CrossRef85
S MCEVOY, M STEVENSON, M WOODWARD. (2007) The contribution of passengers versus mobile phone use to motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance by the driver. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39:6, 1170-1176
CrossRef86
JOY L. HENDRICK, JAMIE R. SWITZER. (2007) HANDS-FREE VERSUS HAND-HELD CELL PHONE CONVERSATION ON A BRAKING RESPONSE BY YOUNG DRIVERS 1,2. Perceptual and Motor Skills 105:2, 514-522
CrossRef87
Changxu Wu, Yili Liu. (2007) Queuing Network Modeling of Driver Workload and Performance. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 8:3, 528-537
CrossRef88
Steven J. Kass, Kerstan S. Cole, Claudia J. Stanny. (2007) Effects of distraction and experience on situation awareness and simulated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 10:4, 321-329
CrossRef89
David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews. (2007) Cell-Phone?Induced Driver Distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16:3, 128-131
CrossRef90
Anne T. McCartt, Laurie A. Hellinga. (2007) Longer-Term Effects of Washington, DC, Law on Drivers' Hand-Held Cell Phone Use. Traffic Injury Prevention 8:2, 199-204
CrossRef91
S THOMEE, M EKLOF, E GUSTAFSSON, R NILSSON, M HAGBERG. (2007) Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology (ICT) use among young adults – an explorative prospective study. Computers in Human Behavior 23:3, 1300-1321
CrossRef92
Joseph Gil Goldblatt, Iris Krief, Tal Klonsky, Daniel Haller, Victor Milloul, Diane M. Sixsmith, Isaac Srugo, Israel Potasman. (2007) Use of Cellular Telephones and Transmission of Pathogens by Medical Staff in New York and Israel • . Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 28:4, 500-503
CrossRef93
M. Esbjörnsson, O. Juhlin, A. Weilenmann. (2007) Drivers Using Mobile Phones in Traffic: An Ethnographic Study of Interactional Adaptation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 22:1-2, 37-58
CrossRef94
M. Eugenia Gras, Monica Cunill, Mark J.M. Sullman, Montserrat Planes, Maria Aymerich, Silvia Font-Mayolas. (2007) Mobile phone use while driving in a sample of Spanish university workers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39:2, 347-355
CrossRef95
H VEERARAGHAVAN, N BIRD, S ATEV, N PAPANIKOLOPOULOS. (2007) Classifiers for driver activity monitoring. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 15:1, 51-67
CrossRef96
JOY L. HENDRICK. (2007) HANDS-FREE VERSUS HAND-HELD CELL PHONE CONVERSATION ON A BRAKING RESPONSE BY YOUNG DRIVERS. Perceptual and Motor Skills 105:6, 514
CrossRef97
Allen C. Bluedorn. 2007. Polychronicity, Individuals, and Organizations. , 179-222.
CrossRef98
D NEYENS, L BOYLE. (2007) The effect of distractions on the crash types of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39:1, 206-212
CrossRef99
Bryan Reimer, Manbir Sodhi. (2006) Detecting eye movements in dynamic environments. Behavior Research Methods 38:4, 667-682
CrossRef100
C. P. Farrington, H. J. Whitaker. (2006) Semiparametric analysis of case series data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 55:5, 553-594
CrossRef101
Elaine C. Wirrell. (2006) Epilepsy-related Injuries. Epilepsia 47:s1, 79-86
CrossRef102
Sterling A. Bone, John C. Mowen. (2006) Identifying the traits of aggressive and distracted drivers: a hierarchical trait model approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 5:5, 454-464
CrossRef103
Anne T. Mccartt, Laurie A. Hellinga, Keli A. Bratiman. (2006) Cell Phones and Driving: Review of Research. Traffic Injury Prevention 7:2, 89-106
CrossRef104
M TOWNSEND. (2006) Motorists’ use of hand held cell phones in New Zealand: An observational study. Accident Analysis & Prevention 38:4, 748-750
CrossRef105
D.C. Voaklander, K.D. Kelly, B.H. Rowe, D.P. Schopflocher, L. Svenson, N. Yiannakoulias, W. Pickett. (2006) Pain, medication, and injury in older farmers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 49:5, 374-382
CrossRef106
Elihu D. Richter, Tamar Berman, Lee Friedman, Gerald Ben-David. (2006) SPEED, ROAD INJURY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH. Annual Review of Public Health 27:1, 125-152
CrossRef107
K BEEDE, S KASS. (2006) Engrossed in conversation: The impact of cell phones on simulated driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 38:2, 415-421
CrossRef108
A Bener, T Lajunen, T Özkan, D Haigney. (2006) The effect of mobile phone use on driving style and driving skills. International Journal of Crashworthiness 11:5, 459-465
CrossRef109
Tate T. Kubose, Kathryn Bock, Gary S. Dell, Susan M. Garnsey, Arthur F. Kramer, Jeff Mayhugh. (2006) The effects of speech production and speech comprehension on simulated driving performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology 20:1, 43-63
CrossRef110
Cécile Martha, M. Coulon, Marc Souville, Jean Griffet. (2006) Les risques liés à l'usage du téléphone portable et leur représentation médiatique : l'exemple de trois quotidiens français. Santé Publique 18:2, 275
CrossRef111
Manabu Tashiro, Etsuo Horikawa, Hideki Mochizuki, Yumiko Sakurada, Motohisa Kato, Takatoshi Inokuchi, Fran Ridout, Ian Hindmarch, Kazuhiko Yanai. (2005) Effects of fexofenadine and hydroxyzine on brake reaction time during car-driving with cellular phone use. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental 20:7, 501-509
CrossRef112
J STUTTS, J FEAGANES, D REINFURT, E RODGMAN, C HAMLETT, K GISH, L STAPLIN. (2005) Driver's exposure to distractions in their natural driving environment. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37:6, 1093-1101
CrossRef113
Michael Siegrist, Timothy C. Earle, Heinz Gutscher, Carmen Keller. (2005) Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks. Risk Analysis 25:5, 1253-1264
CrossRef114
Sirpa Rajalin, Heikki Summala, Leena Pöysti, Pasi Anteroinen, Bryan E. Porter. (2005) In-Car Cell Phone Use and Hazards Following Hands Free Legislation. Traffic Injury Prevention 6:3, 225-229
CrossRef115
ALEX CHAPARRO, JOANNE M. WOOD, TRENT CARBERRY. (2005) Effects of Age and Auditory and Visual Dual Tasks on Closed-Road Driving Performance. Optometry and Vision Science 82:8, 747-754
CrossRef116
Timothy J. Bungum, Charlene Day, L. Jean Henry. (2005) The association of distraction and caution displayed by pedestrians at a lighted crosswalk. Journal of Community Health 30:4, 269-279
CrossRef117
James Hunton, Jacob M. Rose. (2005) Cellular Telephones and Driving Performance: The Effects of Attentional Demands on Motor Vehicle Crash Risk. Risk Analysis 25:4, 855-866
CrossRef118
Ola Svenson, Christopher J. D. Patten. (2005) Mobile phones and driving: a review of contemporary research. Cognition, Technology & Work 7:3, 182-197
CrossRef119
Thomas H. Dinkelacker. (2005) Driving Distracted While In Your Employ: Liability Involving Cell Phones. The Psychologist-Manager Journal 8:2, 165-175
CrossRef120
Paul Dietze, Damien Jolley, Craig Fry, Gabriele Bammer. (2005) Transient changes in behaviour lead to heroin overdose: results from a case-crossover study of non-fatal overdose. Addiction 100:5, 636-642
CrossRef121
Ola Henfridsson, Rikard Lindgren. (2005) Multi-contextuality in ubiquitous computing: Investigating the car case through action research. Information and Organization 15:2, 95-124
CrossRef122
Steven K. Polevoi, James V. Quinn, Nathan R. Kramer. (2005) Factors Associated with Patients Who Leave without Being Seen. Academic Emergency Medicine 12:3, 232-236
CrossRef123
G. S. Anderson, A. Courtney, D. Plecas, C. Chamberlin. (2005) Multi‐tasking behaviors of general duty police officers. Police Practice and Research 6:1, 39-48
CrossRef124
Adriana Bianchi, James G. Phillips. (2005) Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use. CyberPsychology & Behavior 8:1, 39-51
CrossRef125
Wen-Shuan Tseng, Hang Nguyen, Jay Liebowitz, William Agresti. (2005) Distractions and motor vehicle accidents: Data mining application on fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) data files. Industrial Management & Data Systems 105:9, 1188-1205
CrossRef126
C. Bell. 2005. Community-based approaches to prevent obesity. , 448-468.
CrossRef127
Lee Humphreys. (2005) Reframing Social Groups, Closure, and Stabilization in the Social Construction of Technology. Social Epistemology 19:2-3, 231-253
CrossRef128
L POYSTI, S RAJALIN, H SUMMALA. (2005) Factors influencing the use of cellular (mobile) phone during driving and hazards while using it. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37:1, 47-51
CrossRef129
Enrique Regidor. (2004) The use of personal data from medical records and biological materials: ethical perspectives and the basis for legal restrictions in health research. Social Science & Medicine 59:9, 1975-1984
CrossRef130
Yaniv Barkana, David Zadok, Yair Morad, Isaac Avni. (2004) Visual field attention is reduced by concomitant hands-free conversation on a cellular telephone. American Journal of Ophthalmology 138:3, 347-353
CrossRef131
John Glass, James E Mitchell, Martina de Zwaan, Steve Wonderlich, Ross D Crosby, James Roerig, Melissa Burgard, Kathryn Lancaster, Janeen Voxland. (2004) Eating behavior and other distracting behaviors while driving among patients with eating disorders. Comprehensive Psychiatry 45:3, 235-237
CrossRef132
Mathew P. White, J. Richard Eiser, Peter R. Harris. (2004) Risk Perceptions of Mobile Phone Use While Driving. Risk Analysis 24:2, 323-334
CrossRef133
Klaus Mann, Joachim Röschke. (2004) Sleep under exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields. Sleep Medicine Reviews 8:2, 95-107
CrossRef134
Philip S Wang, Sebastian Schneeweiss, Robert J Glynn, Helen Mogun, Jerry Avorn. (2004) Use of the case-crossover design to study prolonged drug exposures and insidious outcomes. Annals of Epidemiology 14:4, 296-303
CrossRef135
D Eby. (2003) Driver hand-held mobile phone use and safety belt use. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35:6, 893-895
CrossRef136
C Laberge-Nadeau. (2003) Wireless telephones and the risk of road crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35:5, 649-660
CrossRef137
W Consiglio. (2003) Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35:4, 495-500
CrossRef138
P Hancock. (2003) The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35:4, 501-514
CrossRef139
R Matthews. (2003) The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and conversing. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35:4, 451-457
CrossRef140
D. R. Cox. (2003) Communication of risk: health hazards from mobile phones. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 166:2, 241-246
CrossRef141
B. Hocking. (2003) Update on mobile phones and health. Internal Medicine Journal 33:5-6, 235-236
CrossRef142
C. Spence, L. Read. (2003) Speech Shadowing While Driving: On the Difficulty of Splitting Attention Between Eye and Ear. Psychological Science 14:3, 251-256
CrossRef143
Jean Wilson, Ming Fang, Sandra Wiggins, Peter Cooper. (2003) Collision and Violation Involvement of Drivers Who Use Cellular Telephones. Traffic Injury Prevention 4:1, 45-52
CrossRef144
Joshua T. Cohen, John D. Graham. (2003) A Revised Economic Analysis of Restrictions on the Use of Cell Phones While Driving. Risk Analysis 23:1, 5-17
CrossRef145
David L. Strayer, Frank A. Drews, William A. Johnston. (2003) Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 9:1, 23-32
CrossRef146
K.-A. Hossmann, D.M. Hermann. (2003) Effects of electromagnetic radiation of mobile phones on the central nervous system. Bioelectromagnetics 24:1, 49-62
CrossRef147
P Cooper. (2003) The impact of hands-free message reception/response on driving task performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 35:1, 23-35
CrossRef148
Paul Treffner, Rod Barrett, Andrew Petersen. (2002) Stability and skill in driving. Human Movement Science 21:5-6, 749-784
CrossRef149
George R. Seage, Sarah Holte, Michael Gross, Beryl Koblin, Michael Marmor, Kenneth H. Mayer, William R. Lenderking. (2002) Case–Crossover Study of Partner and Situational Factors for Unprotected Sex. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 31:4, 432-439
CrossRef150
Manbir Sodhi, Bryan Reimer, Ignacio Llamazares. (2002) Glance analysis of driver eye movements to evaluate distraction. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34:4, 529-538
CrossRef151
T.E. Starner. (2002) Attention, memory, and wearable interfaces. IEEE Pervasive Computing 1:4, 88-91
CrossRef152
Carl J O'Kane, Douglas C Tutt, Lyndon A Bauer. (2002) Cannabis and driving: A new perspective. Emergency Medicine Australasia 14:3, 296-303
CrossRef153
M Vollrath. (2002) How the presence of passengers influences the risk of a collision with another vehicle. Accident Analysis & Prevention 34:5, 649-654
CrossRef154
Alan E. Stewart, Janice Harris Lord. (2002) Motor vehicleCrash versusAccident: A change in terminology is necessary. Journal of Traumatic Stress 15:4, 333-335
CrossRef155
L. Laflamme, K. Engstrom, J. Moller, M. Alldahl, J. Hallqvist. (2002) Bullying in the school environment: an injury risk factor?. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 106:s412, 20-25
CrossRef156
LARAMEE LYDA, VIRGINIA M. OSBORNE, PAMELA COLEMAN, BETH RIENZI. (2002) AGE AND DISTRACTION BY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN TASK PERFORMANCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR USE OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES WHILE DRIVING. Perceptual and Motor Skills 94:2, 391-394
CrossRef157
Martin Langham, Graham Hole, Jacqueline Edwards, Colin O'Neil. (2002) An analysis of 'looked but failed to see' accidents involving parked police vehicles. Ergonomics 45:3, 167-185
CrossRef158
JAMES W. JENNESS. (2002) EFFECTS OF MANUAL VERSUS VOICE-ACTIVATED DIALING DURING SIMULATED DRIVING. Perceptual and Motor Skills 94, 363
CrossRef159
LARAMEE LYDA. (2002) AGE AND DISTRACTION BY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION IN TASK PERFORMANCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR USE OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES WHILE DRIVING. Perceptual and Motor Skills 94, 391
CrossRef160
Marc Pomplun, Eyal M Reingold, Jiye Shen. (2001) Investigating the visual span in comparative search: the effects of task difficulty and divided attention. Cognition 81:2, B57-B67
CrossRef161
Jean-Paul Fagot, Maja Mockenhaupt, Jan-Nico Bouwes-Bavinck, Luigi Naldi, Cécile Viboud, Jean-Claude Roujeau. (2001) Nevirapine and the risk of Stevens–Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. AIDS 15:14, 1843-1848
CrossRef162
DARIO D. SALVUCCI. (2001) Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: an integrated model approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55:1, 85-107
CrossRef163
A Stevens. (2001) In-vehicle distraction and fatal accidents in England and Wales. Accident Analysis & Prevention 33:4, 539-545
CrossRef164
E. Petridou, H. Salvanos, A. Skalkidou, N. Dessypris, M. Moustaki, D. Trichopoulos. (2001) Are there common triggers of preterm deliveries?. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 108:6, 598-604
CrossRef165
Peter T. Donnan, Jixian Wang. (2001) The case-crossover and case-time-control designs in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 10:3, 259-262
CrossRef166
Thomas A. Wikle. (2001) America's Cellular Telephone Obsession: New Geographies of Personal Communication. The Journal of American Culture 24:1-2, 123-128
CrossRef167
Thomas A. Wikle. (2001) America's Cellular Telephone Obsession: New Geographies of Personal Communication. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures 24:1-2, 123-128
CrossRef168
Mark A. Bullimore. (2001) Are Cell Phones Bad for Your Health?. Optometry and Vision Science 78:3, 129
CrossRef169
D. Haigney, S. J. Westerman. (2001) Mobile (cellular) phone use and driving: a critical review of research methodology. Ergonomics 44:2, 132-143
CrossRef170
Brenda K. Wiederhold, Mark D. Wiederhold, Dong P. Jang, Sun I. Kim. (2000) Use of Cellular Telephone Therapy for Fear of Driving. CyberPsychology & Behavior 3:6, 1031-1039
CrossRef171
Kenneth J Rothman. (2000) Epidemiological evidence on health risks of cellular telephones. The Lancet 356:9244, 1837-1840
CrossRef172
E Petridou. (2000) Childhood injuries in the European Union: Can epidemiology contribute to their control?. Acta Paediatrica 89:10, 1244-1249
CrossRef173
Maria Blettner, Jörg Michaelis, Jürgen Wahrendorf. (2000) Workshop on Research into the Health Effects of Cellular Telephones. Epidemiology 11:5, 609
CrossRef174
Marc Green. (2000) "How Long Does It Take to Stop?" Methodological Analysis of Driver Perception-Brake Times. Transportation Human Factors 2:3, 195-216
CrossRef175
Jeffrey T. Berger, Fred Rosner, Pieter Kark, Allen J. Bennett, . (2000) Reporting by Physicians of Impaired Drivers and Potentially Impaired Drivers. Journal of General Internal Medicine 15:9, 667-672
CrossRef176
George L. Carlo. (2000) Radio waves, wireless signals, and public health: Is this the next silent spring?. Environmental Claims Journal 12:4, 55-77
CrossRef177
Robert Graham, Chris Carter. (2000) Comparison of speech input and manual control of in-car devices while on the move. Personal Technologies 4:2-3, 155-164
CrossRef178
M. Maclure, and M. A. Mittleman. (2000) Should We Use a Case-Crossover Design?. Annual Review of Public Health 21:1, 193-221
CrossRef179
MARCIA IRWIN. (2000) EFFECT OF THE INTENSITY OF WIRELESS TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS ON REACTION TIME IN A BRAKING RESPONSE. Perceptual and Motor Skills 90:3, 1130
CrossRef180
D Lamble. (1999) Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention 31:6, 617-623
CrossRef181
Nancy E Laurie, Robert O Andres, Donald Fisher. (1999) Increasing usability of voice activated dialing systems. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23:5-6, 621-627
CrossRef182
S Chapman. (1998) Lifesavers and Samaritans: emergency use of cellular (mobile) phones in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention 30:6, 815-819
CrossRef183
Desmond O'Neill. (1998) Benzodiazepines and driver safety. The Lancet 352:9137, 1324-1325
CrossRef184
F Barbone, AD McMahon, PG Davey, AD Morris, IC Reid, DG McDevitt, TM MacDonald. (1998) Association of road-traffic accidents with benzodiazepine use. The Lancet 352:9137, 1331-1336
CrossRef185
(1998) Article. Accident Analysis & Prevention 30:4, 519-524
CrossRef186
Robert Tibshirani, Donald A. Redelmeier. (1997) Cellular telephones and motor-vehicle collisions: Some variations on matched-pairs analysis. Canadian Journal of Statistics 25:4, 581-591
CrossRef187
Donald A. Redelmeier, Robert J. Tibshirani. (1997) Interpretation and bias in case-crossover studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 50:11, 1281-1287
CrossRef188
JM Violanti. (1997) Cellular phones and traffic accidents. Public Health 111:6, 423-428
CrossRef189
(1997) Cellular Telephones and Traffic Accidents. New England Journal of Medicine 337:2, 127-129
Full Text190
Maclure, Malcolm, , Mittleman, Murray A., . (1997) Cautions about Car Telephones and Collisions. New England Journal of Medicine 336:7, 501-502
Full Text
- Letters
