Slashdot Mirror
Cellphone Drivers Drive Like Drunks
TDavid writes "A University of Utah study claims that drivers who use a cell phone will be 'more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.' The study also says that use will turn a driver who is age 20 into age 70. Hands-free systems apparently don't help much either as they still require a driver to 'actively be part of a conversation.' What about in vehicle systems like OnStar?"
Then what is the difference between talking to someone in your car, and talking to someone on a hands free headset.
--sig fault--
Let's be fair here, cell phones turn SOME drivers into worse-than-drunk drivers. ANYONE with a .08 BAC is going to drive poorly, only some folks who talk on a cell phone while they drive will drive poorly.
I'm going to be preemptive here, the solution lies in education, training and responsibility, not prohibition.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
OnStar is nothing like a cell phone. If you're using OnStar, you have most likely already crashed. It's a system for helping you when you're in trouble, not a cell phone with speaker phone enabled. Slightly useful service :)
-b0lt
got sig?
When people are driving with cellphones, rather than realizing how hindered their attention is, they just continue on thinking their fine, because hey, they're not drunk!
And yes, I realize this is not the exact thought process, but my point was that for the vast majority of people, they do not see in-car cellphone use as a huge risk compared to say...drinking while driving. And good luck convincing people otherwise. People aren't going to like being told that they cannot talk to other people while driving. Thank god for cordless headsets and speakerphone.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Because the AARP is one of the most powerful lobbying groups there is, and they fight tooth and nail against anything that even resembles competency testing.
I believe the idea is probably that older people have slowed reaction times and limited senses in many cases. Similarly, you're less likely to notice and process something happening on the road ahead within an acceptable amount of time if you're concentrating on something else while you're driving.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
First off, I love the word "likely" which means that they really don't know.
Actually, it's very possible that they are using the word "likely" to refer to the probabilistic nature of the data they have. You can't say that everytime you are involved in a conversation there is a 100% chance that that you will be a poorer driver. "Likely" refers to "likelihood".
GMD
watch this
If police would do their jobs instead of sitting on their asses at speed traps, we wouldn't need cell phone laws, or studies like this.
Inevitably, anyone on a cell phone is breaking about 15 other driving laws because they can't concentrate. The drunkenness or cell-phone conversation is not the problem -- the swerving and going 20 miles an hour under the speed limit in the passing lane is. Pull them over for those things, and the idiot cell phone holding driver would quickly become a thing of the past.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Because that demographic has a high percentage of active voters, and no one wants to piss them off.
If it is a proven scientific fact that old people drive like they are drunk, why are they allowd to drive?
... a joke, I think, but that's how much driving meant to him.
Because they control the government: police, courts, armed forces, etc.
Because they run the economy -- banks, corporate boards, regulations. (Alan Greenspan is no spring chicken.)
Because they can -- or think they can -- continue to drive forever, and they don't want to stop.
I remember one old guy who'd been in an accident, mainly because his driving skills had eroded badly. When challenged, he stated that he would give it up when he killed somebody
-kgj
-kgj
why are they allowd to drive?
Silly question. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO.
How many world-class metropolitan cities in the U.S. have subway systems? How many lesser-class metros have comprehensive bus systems?
And how many corner stores, how many neighborhood main streets, have been eaten by suburban WalMarts?
For that matter, where is the nuclear family? You live in the same city as your parents? They live with you? And will your kids be there for you?
The U.S. transportation system is a basket case.
(Stated as it is announced that Amtrak will lose funding because it hasn't paid for itself. [And what transport system has? But no matter.]) I'll miss it.
1. Mothers must drive with children in the car from time to time. There is no conceivable reason you need to be driving and on the phone at the exact same time. Pull over, or STFU. Simple.
2. Actively concentrating on a distant voice coming from a person in a completely different environment is nothing like interacting with a person in your immediate presence.
3. Listening to music is a passive activity that can be and is immediately blocked out in an emergency.
Get the fuck off your goddamn phone and drive the motherfucking vehicle you stupid shit.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
By this logic, why require people to have driver's licenses? After all, if they're not qualified to operate a motor vehicle, then they're clearly going to be held for the consequences of their actions when they plow headlong into oncoming traffic, right?
The difficulty with this reasoning is that your actions can have direct and easily fatal consequences for the fifty-odd people sharing the freeway with you at any given moment. Yes, we can't outlaw everything because it might be a distraction to driving, but we can isolate things that tend to cause a person to drive significantly worse than they otherwise would--like DUI, cell phones, and dash-mounted television sets.
To point at the culprit and say "HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS" provides little consolation to the family of the guy he just killed in a wreck. There's nothing wrong with taking preventative action to minimize the risk of traffic accidents.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
As far as I'm concerned, the elderly can still drive only because we consider driving to be a pseudo-right since the pursuit of happiness apparently depends on it much of the time. One cannot help being elderly yet, the elderly still have the right to pursue happiness, and driving is (assume for the moment) necessary to pursue happiness. Ergo, the elderly must be allowed to drive even though they put themselves & others at undue risk.
Driving whilst participating in a casual cell phone conversation is not, however, necessary to pursue happiness, and thus should be regulated. The simple semantic attack on this: "Cell phone users should be allowed to pursue happiness" is invalid, because the cell phone use necessary to pursue happiness can easily be done at times when one is not driving.
Note that I tolerate this line of argument, but don't accept it completely. AFAIC, it would be a good idea to get the bad drivers in general off the streets. However, in order to not infringe on the general right to pursue happiness, this would necessitate substantial spending on public transportation, which is not going to happen any time soon.
Your final comment about the "triple whammy threat" is kind of ironic, because the research being discussed DISCREDITS it. I take the conclusion to mean something like "the reaction time penalty, which is a function of amount of reduced sensory awareness, saturates at level X" and has nothing to do with being older/younger.
I'm open to arguments that the elderly are not impaired drivers, but I doubt you'll find any support. Finally, note that I'm not concerned about the elderly, so much as I am about poor drivers in general. By no means do I mean to imply that it would be a good idea to force people off the road at age 50-whatever or 60-whatever. I mean only that everyone should be subject to rigorous competency checks.
If it's just having a conversation that impairs your driving, are we supposed to not speak with fellow passengers either?
When someone else is physically present, they are aware of what else is going on; they will make allowances for this in the conversation. It's naturally what we do.
Yesterday, for example, I was in a restraurant and there was a loud crashing noise from the kitchen. There was a group of guys at the table next to me, and one was talking. He paused for the sound, then resumed talking when it was over. Everyone understood what he said fine. It was an automatic thing.
If you're talking to someone on a cell phone in a car, they aren't aware, for example, if you're in heavy traffic and maybe they should let you focus on the driving. Compare car conversations to normal conversations the next chance you get.
2) Everyone is different. Some people are better drivers even when drunk or distracted than many of the idiots on the road are at the best of times. I think if you want to drive while talking on your cell, say, you should be able to take a special driving test that demonstrates you have the talent to do so safely, and get a special license that says so.
If it is a proven scientific fact that old people drive like they are drunk, why are they allowd to drive?
I can think of three reasons:
1. They paid for the road, built the road, designed the road....
2. Safer drivers don't vote.
3. We, as a society, choose to accept the added risk out of respect for our elders.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
If you're in a situation where you can't talk and drive at the same time, don't make phone calls and don't answer the phone. Your phone has voicemail and caller ID for a reason.
You are not available 24/7. If someone can't understand this, this is their problem. If it's your job to be available 24/7, get a hands free device or something.
If you have a passenger, have them make phone calls if possible.
Avoid lane changes while on the phone (unless you have tons of room). Even if it means following that truck at 60mph for a minute or two.
If you suddenly need to pay full attention to driving, do so. Being impolite is better than totalling your car.
If you were in a traffic jam, but aren't anymore, it's OK to tell the person on the other end of the line and say you need to hang up.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
Yeah, but high quality public transportation is bad for the auto industry.
Thats why Ford spent so much money lobbying to stop public transportation development in LA and Chicago.
He is right, and the reason that they are such a strong lobbying group is because old people vote.
Politicians care about one thing more than any other - getting rellected. If you look at all the lobbying groups that are successfull it is for two reasons - they have a large influence on a large voting block, or they make large contributions to the politician's campain funds. One of these is mostly good, as it represents the (politically active) people through proxy (and in a populace this large, it is impossible to get attention any other way). The other is mostly bad, as it only represents the will of a few wealthy contributers. Not all lobbying is equal.
In this case it is simply democracy in action - the majority of voters think that old people should be allowed to drive, so they are.
I've certainly tried using a cellphone in the car and it's really aparrent to me that I'm not driving as well as I should. So my cellphone stays off in the car. I'm a big time supporter of banning hands-on cellphone use by the drivers of moving vehicles.
But these studies that show that hands-free devices are also unacceptably dangerous make me worry about having another person in the car with me? If I have an 'active conversation' with a passenger as I drive, am I at the same risk as with a hands-free cellphone?
I've never used a hands-free cellphone - but I certainly don't *feel* like my driving is suffering when I talk with a passenger as I drive.
So if that's an accurate observation - and a hands-free phone conversation is somehow worse than chatting with a passenger - then what makes the difference?
Is it that a passenger notices when driving conditions require more of my attention and stops talking? Is it something to do with the quality of the audio from the phone? What?
Seems like a study of *THAT* distinction would provide interesting data on the nature of the problem.
www.sjbaker.org
Part of the problem is that here in the U.S., in many areas it is very difficult to live indepentently without a car. I don't just mean rural areas, I mean cities like my hometown of Baltimore with suck-ass mass transit. (Though some U.S. cities are great in this respect - I just got back from San Francisco with it's excellent Muni and BART systems.)
Take someone's licence away, and thanks to our automobile-centric planning they quite possibly can't even get to the grocery store anymore.
If the AARP was smart, they'd be lobbying for good public transportation - it would be a great benefit for senior citizens who can't drive safely.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A rant...
.08, Strayer and colleague Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology, found during research conducted in 2003.
A rant... (mainly cause it seems like they keep re-publishing this identical article every 3 months, and it gets annoying)
"If you put a 20-year-old driver behind the wheel with a cell phone, his reaction times are the same as a 70-year-old driver," said David Strayer, a University of Utah psychology professor and principal author of the study. "It's like instant aging."
In fact, motorists who talk on cell phones are more impaired than drunk drivers with blood-alcohol levels exceeding
What this really says article says...
Is that Elderly are a helluva a lot more dangerous than drunk drivers and should really be taken off the road.
Secondly, there is much question as to the validity of the tests.
"The study found that drivers who talked on cell phones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked."
The first part is in deed a concern. The second is not. The 17% increase length to regain speed is most likely due to a cell phone user being extra cautious after such an ordeal and double-checking before they regain speed. This is NOT a bad thing.
Anyways, how much time are we talking here?
"The numbers....come down to milliseconds"
"The new research questions the effectiveness of cell phone usage laws in states such as New York and New Jersey, which only ban the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. It's not so much the handling of a phone, Strayer said, but the fact that having a conversation is a mental process that can drain concentration."
First off, we have to start admitting that not everyone can multi-task. We also need to see the statistics on an individual level. If 1/3 showed minimal impairment, and 1/3 showed no impairment, and 1/3 showed dramatic impairment. What is the breakdown?
I know plenty of drivers who are often 'distracted drivers'. Particularly when they have people in the car. How do these statistics compare to the same driver with a passenger? with four passengers? And I am sorry....a cell phone user is NOT more impaired than a drunk driver. It is political BS. I refuse to buy it and no statistic will prove it to me. Simply put...I see tons of people driving on the cell phones - and driving fine. Sometimes a momentary reaction issue...yes. But when I see a drunk driver they are all over 2 or three lanes. They nearly hit everyone. They often run off the road. Somehow it is hard for me to accept that I can see a 100+ cell phone users who are supposedly "more impaired" and they don't perform as poorly as drunk drivers.
So let's look at the truth instead of the non-stop media propaganda bullcrap.
-
According to the American Automobile Association, wireless phones were not among the top five contributing factors in auto accidents. From the more than 32,000 accidents analyzed, wireless phones contributed to 1.5 percent of accidents, according to the AAA research published in May.
The most distracting was an outside object, person or event, which contributed to 29.4 percent of accidents analyzed. AAA also determined that cassette or CD players were more distracting than cell phones, resulting in 11.4 percent of accidents analyzed.
Distractions from another occupant in the vehicle, such as a chatty passenger or baby, contributed to 10.9 percent of accidents. Eating or drinking contributed to 1.7 percent, according to the AAA study.
-
Well, 1.5% compared 11.4% for CD players. Sure seems like car CD players should be banned before cell phones does it not. Let's ban whiny babies from cars as well.
In truth, I spend much of my time driving on the cell phone. And drive much better than most of my local area residents. Furthermore, it has helped me remain awake and vibrant on long road trips.
In truth, I've been bitched out on a few
Being a safe driver is more than just reaction times. It's being able to anticipate the need to react. IMHO, this is not something that is maximized after only 4 years of driving. The evidence that this is true comes from the insurance industry, who charge very high rates for anyone under 25. Why? Because even though a 20 year old (on average) probably has better reaction times than a 25 year old, the 25 year old has more experience to know to avoid certain situations that require the use of that reaction.
Which is why the older you get, the more likely (on average) you are to slow down. After driving for 20 years, you have a lot more memories of close calls than you do after driving for 1 year. After driving for 50 years, it's even worse. AND you know that your reaction times have slowed down so you compensate by trying to give yourself more time to react.
My point is that safe driving is a lot more than just reaction time. Scientific American Frontiers says so, too.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
On a side note, people claim that restricting the elderly from driving is age discrimination. However, we already practice that by not allowing 13-year olds to drive. The restrictions need to focus less on age (although I don't disagree with the minimum age requirements) and more on driving ability. I've seen dozens of first-hand accounts of where some very old person got in an accident either because they had horrible reaction time, or just plain didn't see something that they should have seen easily.
There was a news-documentary a few years ago about this elderly guy wearing a neck brace. He was totally unable to move his head to the left, at all. The reporter was in the car with him, and he asked her to check left. She asked what he does when hes alone in the car, and he replied that he just listens and hopes for the best.
I also witnessed an elderly woman who was standing in front of me at the BMV line fail her eye test 14 times (I counted) before she finally passed. I took my eye test, filled out my paperwork, and started pulling out of my car before she even finished getting IN her car.
The problem is, no legislation will ever pass to restrict this, for two reasons:
1) Most of congress would probably fall into this category
2) The highest percent of voters is the elderly. They would never vote to have their own licenses put in jeopardy.
And they said zombies weren't real!
I absolutly agree with you. By no doubt there are still teenage guys street racing, running red lights, and other things, but teenage girls are doing the exact same things now.
Maybe back in the 50's, girls were great drivers and acted like sugar, but now this is no where near the case. The insurance companies should update their statistics, and also take into account that guys cant cry or show a nipple to get out of a ticket.
"Insert Sig Here"
A drunk can't drop the phone or hang up and suddenly have his BAC drop back to normal if a situation starts to arise. It's rare that an accident is sudden, usually multiple things have to go wrong ahead of time for it to happen. Even on a cell phone you can notice this if you're not a complete retard. The drunk is impaired no matter what. He can't react to a stimulus and shed his impairment in a matter of seconds.
Why not drop all these nonsense and give reckless driving tickets to those who are driving recklessly. If someone elderly/on a cell phone/looking for an address/etc. is swerving or being troublesome then cite them for what they did wrong. If they can handle themselves in these situations then they're not harming anyone.
Funny how preemptive war is automatically bad, but preemtive limitations of our rights are a-ok.
I take it back, I was wrong. This is why I love /. People get on you when you're wrong about something.
I agree that it is no consolation to say "he is responsible for his actions." And I truly feel sorry for those who lose people to careless drivers. The fact remains that you cannot outlaw everything that is a distraction. DUI is not a distraction, it's a physical impairment.
Look, my point was you can't just outlaw everything tha'ts a distraction. There's a general law against driving recklessly. If someone is talking on a cell phone, and because of this, driving recklessly, they should be pulled over for driving recklessly. That's all.
It boggles my mind that the same community who gets outraged at every tiny little law that's passed that infringes on your right to be completely anonymous, no matter what the reason for that law, at the same time fights for these ridiculous limitations on our daily lives on a whim. It's hypocritical beyond belief.
In a free society, you are supposed to be allowed to do whatever you want UNTIL IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER. The mere act of talking on a cell phone DOES NOT DO THIS. Driving recklessly does, and that is the crime.
I really do see where you're coming from. And honestly I find it hard to say this while saying that DUI should be illegal, which it obviously should, but I think tehre is a significant difference between being physically impaired, and engaging in an action which has been shown to cause "distraction." Because next comes you can't listen to the radio while driving. And then you can't smoke a cigarette while driving. And then you can't speak to passengers. And if you believe that all of those rights should be taken away, I will fight you to my bloody death.
Libertarians support the highway system? Holy crap! When the heck did that happen? Do you have any references?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It holds true for the football analogy as well. I've never written down yards lost or gained, nor the number of the jersey. My brain isn't good at it, because it's never done it before, so naturally when I'm talking on the phone I wouldn't be able to do it.
That being said, I am not everyone. I've seen first hand, phones reducing drivers to gibbering swerving idiots.
I'm fine with stupid reports being made as long as stupid laws don't get put in place. There's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to talk on my phone while I drive because someone else does it poorly when they talk.
postmodernsideshow.com
is that a 0.08 BAC level is not very dangerous at all. Prettymuch anything is more dangerous then that, including actualy drinking, a regular beverage.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
A better example would be another motor activity combined with a cell phone conversation. Talking while cooking, talking while walking, talking while chewing gum (well, maybe not that one). While it is more distracting, it's not as onerous a task as you're making it out to be. You may miss reading some street signs, but the designers of those were smart enough to make the important ones recognizable even if you can't read.
It used to be you'd see people reading, brushing their teeth, checking their hair or even dancing. Now all the drunk looking drivers are on cell phones, except the very rare very extreme alcoholics (I hope they die alone).
I drive a long distance on a nasty interstate, through a couple of major cities, so I've seen all kind of driving styles (even seen a drunk hit someone) and cell phone problems are getting worse and worse. I don't think this problem will solve itself without some kind of government involvement. I wish we had a hand signal for "hang up and drive, you look drunk."
I admit I have my own problem, but I've finally convinced my wife that just because she wants to have a fight over the cell phone and I hang up, it isn't personal, since if she wants me to live long enough to fight again, I need to hang up and drive. I've exaggerating, I've never really had a girlfriend.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
Any distraction can impair driving.
I can think of lots of things just as distracting as cell phones:
* actively listening to the radio
* actively carrying on a deep conversation
* monitoring the kids in the back seat
* changing the radio station or CD track
* trying to remember the name of the next exit
* going over the meeting you will have with your client in 15 minutes
And the list goes on.
Some people can multitask well, others can't. Others can only on familiar roads.
Cell phones aren't the problem. People trying to multitask in situations that require full concentration is the problem.
The bottom line:
Don't ban or restrict cellphones for most users. DO restrict them for new drivers including teenagers. DO restrict them for drivers who have a recent history of careless driving which resulted in a ticket or accident. DO allow phone use to be considered in civil cases after an accident, but do NOT make it a presumption of fault: Give the cell-phone user a chance to show the court he can drive and talk at the same time.
If you do ban cell phones, ban kids in the car, radios, and anything else that might be a distraction to the driver.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I don't know if a 20 year old driver is less scary than a 70 year old. They both have poor driving vision and reflexes; the main difference is that the 20 year old drives faster. Why didn't they talk about good drivers, like middle-aged longtime commuters?
"An elderly man this morning had just merged onto the freeway at 35 mph (yes, 35 mph... in California) AND THEN immediately decided to move one more lane over in front of a car going around 70 mph."
I've driven in quite a few large cities where that's the attitude of most drivers regardless of age.
I've seen this argument a lot. Well, maybe not "drive like drunk", exactly, but there are piles of articles like this about how drivers using cell phones, even with hands-free setups, are worse drivers overally.
But what I don't see much difference in, and wish to be corrected if I'm wrong, is having a hands-free cell phone conversation while driving and having a conversation with someone in the car while driving.