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."

Comments

Re:Sure... .but

[RapmasterT]

according to accident statistics, talking to other people in the car is the #2 cause of driver distraction accidents. Second only to rubbernecking at stuff outside the car.

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.

Flawed methodology

[vanillaspice]

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.

Re:Incomplete study...

[boingo82]

It's not that old people get in fewer accidents, they get in cheaper, less fatal accidents.

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.

How do crashes involving older drivers differ from those of other drivers? Compared with younger drivers, senior drivers are overinvolved in certain types of collisions -- angle crashes, overtaking or merging crashes, and especially intersection crashes. The most common error made by seniors is failure to yield the right-of-way. Seniors are cited for this error more often than younger drivers.15

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.

How do crashes involving teenagers differ from those of other drivers? Teenagers have higher crash rates than older drivers, and their crashes differ. Analyses of fatal crash data indicate that teenage drivers are more likely to be at fault in their crashes. Teenagers' crashes and violations are more likely to involve speeding than those of older drivers, and teenagers are more likely than drivers of other ages to be in single-vehicle fatal crashes. Plus teenagers do more of their driving in small and older cars3 and at night, compared with adults. In 2004, 18 percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred between 9 pm and midnight, and 22 percent occurred between midnight and 6 am. Fifty-four percent of teenagers' fatalities occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday. For 16 year-olds, all these problems are heightened. The combination of inexperience behind the wheel and immaturity produces a pattern of fatal crashes among 16 year-olds that includes the highest percentage of crashes involving speeding, the highest percentage of single-vehicle crashes, and the highest percentage of crashes with driver error.

(From the IIHS's teenagers fact page.

Re:The usual response

[Anne Thwacks]

I have a UK HGV licence, and you definitely would definitely fail your test (HGV or otherwise) if you roll back. I would imagine you would be charged with dangerous driving if you rolled back and hit a car with a truck here, even if no damage was caused.

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!)