Slashdot Mirror
Cell Users As Bad As Drunk Drivers
An anonymous reader writes "News.com reports on a cell-phone use study which confirms that talking on your cell is as bad as being drunk, when it comes to driving skill. The researchers studied 40 volunteers in a driving simulator." From the article: "[The subjects were observed] while undistracted, using a handheld cell phone, using a hands-free cell phone and while intoxicated to a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level--the average legal level of impairment in the United States--after drinking vodka and orange juice. Three study participants rear-ended the simulated car in front of them. All were talking on cell phones and none was drunk, the researchers said."
This was already on MythBusters...
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
cell phones barely make the list. According to anecdotal evidence, they're the #1 cause of "almost had an accident", but for real accidents they barely make the list.
The study's been done, and the answer is "no": the passenger usually has the sense to shut up in dangerous situations.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
If you look at the study methodology, it's quite large enough. They didn't divide it up into several smaller groups, they tested each participant under four different conditions: undistracted, talking on a hand-held phone, talking on a hands-free phone, and drunk.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
So the researchers at the University of Utah determined that using your phone is worse than having a BAC of 0.08, the equivalent of one drink, not the equivalent of being drunk. How does the rubric stand up to two drinks? Four? As it is, the data don't suggest much. And don't be fooled by the "alcohol is involved in 40 percent of the 42,000 annual traffic fatalities" statistic, either. Most states derive that number from whenever any party, regardless of fault, has a BAC of 0.01 or more. In other words, you could eat a cherry cordial and a sober person could plow right through you and the state would consider your death an alcohol-related traffic fatality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(season_2 )#Cell_Phones_vs._Drunk_Driving
Adam and Kari drove normally, then while talking on a cell phone and also while drunk. They had officers taking breathalyzer tests to get their BAC. In the show they determined that they where equally bad at driving using a cell phone as they where while drunk. Scores where done by a driving instructor in the car with them during all the tests.
Fiddling with the radio in any significant way really does make a noticable difference in how much attention I pay to traffic. If the radio's pissing me off and traffic's kind of bad I'll just reach out and turn the damn thing offf rather than try to locate a channel that doesn't suck.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I was reareneded 5 times by a guy in a BMW behind me on a hill at a light. I let out the clutch rolled back and nailed his hood with the Pintel hitch. This happened at every light up the hill. when the guy got around us to flag us down (we had no idea, big truck = cant feel anything.) and pull over the cop gave him the ticket for beign too close to us. we not only caved in the front of the hood but ripped the metal from the repeated impacts.
There is a law that you must allow roll back room for the car in front of you, too bad most people are too stupid to understand those laws or learn to stay away from the truck in front of them after the first few times they get hit. (we rolled back 6 -12 inches.)
He did not have a cellphone in his ear, just a lack of IQ.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Old people tend to get into slow crashes. Parking lot crashes are a biggie, and they get into many more accidents while making left turns than do younger drivers.
From the IIHS's facts on old people page..
Teenagers, on the other hand, tend to get in single-vehicle, higher-speed collisions. They're more susceptible to distractions, such as passengers and cell phones.
(From the IIHS's teenagers fact page.As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
There is a law that you must allow roll back room for the car in front of you, too bad most people are too stupid to understand those laws or learn to stay away from the truck in front of them after the first few times they get hit. (we rolled back 6 -12 inches.)
Uh... roll back room? I'm a bit confused; here in the UK, one of the standard driving test procedures is the hill start; if you roll back at all, you fail. (At least when I took it. They might have changed things.)
Unless this is something to do with automatics, but you said you drive a truck, and they tend to use manual gearboxes...
GP is correct you would not feel it if you hit a BMW- you could probably crush it flat and not feel it - hence the need to not roll back.
This does not eliminate the need to stop suficciently far behind the vehicle in front that you can pull past it if the driver stalls (or runs out of fuel waiting at the lights - it happens!)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The basic premise of the "roll back room" law in the US actually has nothing to do with rolling back. If a person rearends another person for any reason other than something such as a drastic lane change, it is considered follow too close. If, for example, I got rearended myself and hit the car in front of me from the momentum, the second accident is my fault because I was "following too closely". The rule of thumb in the US (California, at least) is you should be able to see the bottom of the person's tires in front of you when you come to a stop. This generally gives about half a carlength which is more than enough for rollback or a low velocity collision. Or at least, that is what I have been told.