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?"
Indeed. And /. editors spell like dumb.
$6.21 is the number of the beast before sales tax. Meh.
Then what is the difference between talking to someone in your car, and talking to someone on a hands free headset.
--sig fault--
I bought a hands free system so I could talk on the cell phone in the car and IT DIDN'T WORK. As soon as I turned it on and let go of the steering wheel, the car drifted off the road and hit a Big Boy statue. What a rip off.
Unknown host pong.
Click here to order the ideal telephone for the "drunk talker" driver.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Driving while talking on the cell I almost ran a red light.....
I'm usually a very good driver. On the cell phone though.... Ok... From now on, no more talking and driving.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
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.
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.
I have always maintained that handsfree doesn't do squat... it's the split mental attention and not having both hands on the wheel.
Try this easy test... during the superbowl, call someone up on your phone (with headset or without, doesn't matter). During the conversation, after every play, write down the number of yards gained/lost and the number on the jersey of the player that gained/lost them. You'll probably experience "slave can't serve two masters" syndrome and have to dedicate more attention to one or the other, either by having to say "hold on" or "um, what was that?" to whoever you are talking to or missing play stats to keep up with the conversation. Unfortunately, priority in a car most often goes to the conversation.
They have no skills for paraphrasing. If the blurb was true I'd never drink alcohol again for fear of instant wrinkled skin, white hair, and random cancer.
What does anyone in the state of Utah know about drinking?
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
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
You know? I've always wondered about that...especially growing up in the highest insurance category (young male, unmarried, 2 seat sports car)...I'd ride with women, and be scared to death by the time I got out of the car...they drove faster and more recklessly than I did...and I drove pretty fast....but, they'd take chances turning sharp and in front of people I'd never try...
That, and I've never figured why they drop your rates if you get married. Frankly, the ones I see are so pissed when they leave they house, they floor it to get away as fast as possible...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"This supports the suggestion by Storie (1977) that men are more at risk from accidents involving high speed while women are at more likely to be involved in accidents resulting from perceptual judgement errors."
Social Research Centre Study
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Then you should see what I've had to deal with.
My favorite one was on a "Bingo" night...
I was at an intersection that also happened to be a railroad crossing (the pattern was like an astrix; 2 streets crossing at a right angle, with a railroad going through at 45 degrees). The train was coming through, so obviously both streets had the red light. When the train finally passed, it was me one 1 street, and a cadillac on the other.
My light turns green (that street always turns green after the train, and I had a witness to back me up). So I go, and almost get T-Boned by the cadillac full of elderly men and women. They got all angry and rolled down the windows to yell at the "young-en." Meanwhile, I turn my head and see that I was correct, I had the green and they had the red. There was no arguing with them, so I said to hell with it and drove off.
Even the other person in the car said we had the green, and the lights are so long at that intersection it's sickening... so it's not like it could have changed while they were yelling at us.
I have great respect for the elderly; my grandparents lived with me for most of my life (until I was 20). And I'm not saying all elderly are bad drivers as I've driven with some that were good, but there are a lot out there that aren't great at all, and god forbid anyone tell them that maybe they shouldn't be driving. The worst part is, they don't realize it and nobody in their family has "the heart" to say that it's dangerous for others when they're on the road.
Things I often witness
- A granny will just drift to the other lane even if someone's next to her. No turn signal either.
- Running a stop sign (not a rolling stop, but just go through like it was nothing).
- Flying (fast) through a parking lot, while not using the lanes. Just going through the parking spaces the entire length of the lot at like 25 MPH.
- STOP in the middle of a busy street for no reason so they can put on their glasses.
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.
You don't have competency testing for the elderly in the states? It's standard practice here in Finland. If the doctor says you're not fit to drive your licence is taken away. There are periodic checkups, and they are mandatory.
.: Max Romantschuk
Does this 0.08 "blood alcohol level" have any units?
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.
Which is quite ironic, considering who we're talking about here
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
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.
There should be a law against "Driving while Not Me", because everyone else on the road is a menace.
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.
Cell phone users also act like drunks. They stand in public places, yell very loudly and think that their conversation about whether it's pizza or Chinese tonight is so important we must all hear it.
The only thing missing is public urination, but I'm sure that's an add-on service.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Well, I have a Treo 650 and it's great because I can post on Slashdot while I drive and it's actually quite safe bec[NO CARRIER]
The perfect sig is a lot like silence, only louder
As far as having elderly people drive... my Grandmother is already at the point where I consider her a hazard to public safety, even though she's convinced that she's a good driver. My Aunts and Uncles are afraid to pressure her into quitting driving (they might make her MAD or something! the horror!). I told them that I would talk to her about it, because her independance is not worth the lives of the family that she might kill because she got distracted at the wrong time or couldn't react quickly enough in an emergency.
I've already told my own mother that I'm taking the keys away when she gets too old. If her reaction is any indication as to how it will go when I actually try, then I'm sure to be in for a fight on that one...
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
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 had an old guy slam the brakes to a FULL STOP in the MIDDLE lane of an Interstate (I-15 to be exact) because he missed his exit. This was 65-0 with tires locked up. I damn near rear-ended him and I had about 5 seconds between us. They car behined me almost hit me, etc.. It was damn near a chain-reaction accident. As it was, we had about 1/4 mile worth of cars backed up while he made a hard right to get on the off-ramp. I just about got out of my car to kick his ass for that one. Could have killed any number of people if everyone else on the road hadn't been paying attention.
Competency testing should be REQUIRED for ALL ages. I don't care if you're 16 or 90, if you can't drive safely, get the hell off the road! If we had cops watching more for this kind of shit and less sitting around eating donuts with thier radar on, perhaps the roads would get a little safer.
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!!
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?