Notes
These notes give the sources behind the claims in each chapter, and say where I'm giving my own interpretation. The book isn't legal advice, and the GOV.UK page on using a phone when driving is the source for anything said about the law, read on 26 September 2026. The examples throughout, the message about the parcel, the boss who says call me when you can, the friend asking if you're around, the water bottle in the back, are invented to illustrate and aren't drawn from real people or real crashes. No crash described or implied in this book happened to anyone.
Studies were checked on 26 September 2026 by reading their published abstracts, except Dingus and colleagues 2016, which was read in full. None carried a retraction or correction notice at that date. Simulator studies measure driving in a simulator and can't show what happens on a road. Naturalistic studies film real driving and can show association but not cause. Case-crossover studies compare each driver with themselves at another time, which removes some but not all of the differences between people. I've tried to say which is which each time.
Chapter 1. No sources. The terms are the book's own.
Chapter 3. Simons-Morton, Guo, Klauer, Ehsani and Pradhan, "Keep your eyes on the road: young driver crash risk increases according to duration of distraction", Journal of Adolescent Health 54, 2014, supplement pages S61 to S67. 42 newly licensed drivers over 18 months. Klauer, Guo, Simons-Morton, Ouimet, Lee and Dingus, "Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers", New England Journal of Medicine 370, 2014, pages 54 to 63. 42 novice and 109 experienced drivers. Caird, Johnston, Willness, Asbridge and Steel, "A meta-analysis of the effects of texting on driving", Accident Analysis and Prevention 71, 2014, pages 311 to 318. 28 experiments, 977 participants. The distances at thirty and fifty miles an hour are my arithmetic from about thirteen and twenty-two metres a second.
Chapter 4. Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Biondi, Behrends and Moore, "Cell-phone use diminishes self-awareness of impaired driving", Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 23, 2016, pages 617 to 623. A simulator study with hands-free conversation, sample size not given in the abstract. Atchley, Atwood and Boulton, "The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: behavior may shape attitude", Accident Analysis and Prevention 43, 2011, pages 134 to 142. A survey of 348 young adult drivers. The claim that the safe moment is judged by a mind already partly on the phone is my extension of both.
Chapter 5. Svenson, "Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?", Acta Psychologica 47, 1981, pages 143 to 148. No abstract was available to me and the finding is taken from the replication. Koppel, Andersson, Tinghög, Västfjäll and Feldman, "We are all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers: successful replication and extension of Svenson (1981)", Meta-Psychology, 2023. A preregistered replication with 1,203 participants. Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward and Watson, "Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking", PLoS One 8, 2013, e54402. University students, sample size not given in the abstract. The point about skill not being a reserve is mine.
Chapter 6. Redelmeier and Tibshirani, "Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions", New England Journal of Medicine 336, 1997, pages 453 to 458. 699 drivers, property-damage collisions, case-crossover with billing records. Weinstein, "Unrealistic optimism about future life events", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 1980, pages 806 to 820. 258 students in the first study. The earlier book referred to is It hasn't happened yet. The reasoning about a fourfold risk of a rare event, and the road-crossing comparison, are mine.
Chapter 7. Strayer and Johnston, "Driven to distraction: dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone", Psychological Science 12, 2001, pages 462 to 466. Strayer, Drews and Johnston, "Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 9, 2003, pages 23 to 32. Both simulator studies. Redelmeier and Tibshirani, as above, hands-free relative risk 5.9 against handheld 3.9, difference not significant. McEvoy, Stevenson, McCartt, Woodward, Haworth, Palamara and Cercarelli, "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study", BMJ 331, 2005, page 428. 456 drivers in Perth. Horrey and Wickens, "Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques", Human Factors 48, 2006, pages 196 to 205. 23 studies. Caird, Willness, Steel and Scialfa, "A meta-analysis of the effects of cell phones on driver performance", Accident Analysis and Prevention 40, 2008, pages 1282 to 1293. 33 studies, about 2,000 participants. Ishigami and Klein, "Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?", Journal of Safety Research 40, 2009, pages 157 to 164. A review. The remark about where the law draws its line is mine.
Chapter 8. Drews, Pasupathi and Strayer, "Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 14, 2008, pages 392 to 400. Charlton, "Driving while conversing: cell phones that distract and passengers who react", Accident Analysis and Prevention 41, 2009, pages 160 to 173. Both simulator studies.
Chapter 9. Strayer, Cooper, Turrill, Coleman and Hopman, "Talking to your car can drive you to distraction", Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 1, 2016, article 15. 257 participants, ten 2015 model-year cars. Strayer, Cooper, Turrill, Coleman and Hopman, "The smartphone and the driver's cognitive workload: a comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft's intelligent personal assistants", Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 71, 2017, pages 93 to 110. An instrumented car on suburban roads. The brand names appear only in the title here. The tap is mine.
Chapter 10. Strayer, Drews and Crouch, "A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver", Human Factors 48, 2006, pages 381 to 391. A simulator study. The point about categories is mine.
Chapter 11. The GOV.UK page, as above, for the 999 and 112 exception. The earlier books referred to are The news will manage without you, Sorry I'm late and The phone can wait. The claim that the itch isn't about the message is my interpretation, argued in full in The phone can wait.
Chapter 12. Atchley, Atwood and Boulton, as above. Nemme and White, "Texting while driving: psychosocial influences on young people's texting intentions and behaviour", Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, 2010, pages 1257 to 1265. 169 students, Australia, one-week follow-up. The claim that the hand doesn't check the file is mine.
Chapter 13. The GOV.UK page, as above. Dingus, Guo, Lee, Antin, Perez, Buchanan-King and Hankey, "Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 2016, pages 2636 to 2641. More than 3,500 drivers over three years, 905 crashes, read in full. The figure for reaching for a handheld phone is an odds ratio of 4.8. The observation about where a peek at the lights ends is mine.
Chapter 14. Dingus and colleagues, as above, for distraction in 51.93 per cent of ordinary driving samples and 68.3 per cent of crashes, handheld phone use in more than 6 per cent of driving time with an odds ratio of 3.6. Atchley and colleagues, and Nemme and White, as above. The claim that the norm is what the crash figures are made of is mine.
Chapter 15. The GOV.UK page "Using a phone, sat nav or other device when driving", read 26 September 2026. The THINK! mobile phones page at think.gov.uk, read the same day, for the March 2022 change. Penalties change and the page is the source.
Chapter 16. Strayer and colleagues 2016 and 2017, as above, for residual costs. Sanbonmatsu and colleagues 2016, as above. Nemme and White, as above. The rest of the chapter is my observation.
Chapter 17. No research sources. The earlier book referred to is Bored is fine. The chapter is my observation and is said to be.
Chapters 18 to 20. No research sources. The method is my suggestion. Drews and Charlton, as above, for the passenger navigating. The GOV.UK page for the cradle not blocking the view.
Chapter 21. Gollwitzer and Sheeran, "Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38, 2006, pages 69 to 119. Lally, van Jaarsveld, Potts and Wardle, "How are habits formed: modelling habit formation in the real world", European Journal of Social Psychology 40, 2010, pages 998 to 1009. 96 volunteers, 82 with usable data. The rule hasn't been tested as a package and what I say to expect is my expectation.
Chapter 22. No research sources. The earlier book referred to is Look up.
Chapter 23. Lally and colleagues, as above. The extension from a missed day to one peek is mine.
Looked up and not used. McCartt, Hellinga and Bratiman's 2006 review in Traffic Injury Prevention was read and is consistent with the studies cited, but the primary studies are used instead. Oviedo-Trespalacios, Haque, King and Washington's 2017 study in Traffic Injury Prevention found drivers on the phone chose somewhat lower speeds, which sits against Caird 2008's finding of no appreciable compensation, and the book prints Caird's finding only, so a reader should know the literature isn't unanimous on that point. Oviedo-Trespalacios and colleagues' 2016 systematic review had no abstract available to me. Klauer and colleagues' 2006 hundred-car study for the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration wasn't fetched, and the same group's 2014 papers cover the point. The Department for Transport's contributory-factor tables weren't read, so no British casualty figure appears. Dingus 2016's odds ratio for talking on a handheld phone, 2.2, is lower than the fourfold figures from the case-crossover studies, and the paper discusses why. The book uses the case-crossover figures in chapter 7 and the Dingus figures in chapters 13 and 14 without reconciling them, and a reader who wants the argument should read Dingus.