25% of Car Accidents Linked to Gadget Use

BogenDorpher writes "In a recent study by the Governors Highway Safety Association (PDF), driving distractions such as cell phones and other electronic devices cause as much as 25% of all US car accidents. It is common knowledge that driving while distracted is not a safe thing to do, but now we have some scientific data that goes in-depth on the topic. From the article: '"Despite all that has been written about driver distraction, there is still a lot that we do not know. Much of the research is incomplete or contradictory. Clearly, more studies need to be done addressing both the scope of the problem and how to effectively address it," said GHSA Executive Director Barbara Harsha.'"

Comments

Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're NOT special.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[MindStalker]

I got into all my car accidents when I was young and foolish, well before I had a cellphone.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[cpu6502]

Ditto.

Early 90s - I was eating McDonald's french fries and I was looking at the container instead of the road. I didn't see the guy in front of me suddenly stop. Bang.

It's not smart to take your eyes off the road.
Even for a single millisecond.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Moryath]

Which is one of the jokes of this kind of "study": failure to identify and properly control for intervening factors.

Younger people (well that and illegal aliens) are most likely to drive drunk.
Younger people are more likely to adopt new tech (cellphone texting, cell email, etc).
Younger people are more likely to be Doing Other Things while driving.

Now, this isn't a 100% certainty. Certainly there are the soccer mom bitches who put on their mascara while driving, and there are the subhuman PHB MBA types who are on the phone talking about how they can cut staff and overwork more people while drinking coffee and doing 90 down the freeway in their BMW. But statistically, the vast majority of car crashes are simply caused by Inexperienced Drivers - and don't worry, the insurance industry has plenty of data to justify charging rates accordingly.

Take away the cellphone from a kid while driving and they'll still be distracted. Talking with a friend, staring at their date rather than the road, driving recklessly or doing crazy things merely because they can, failing to realize the limits of their own driving skill, conditions on the road, and abilities of their vehicle.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Lumpy]

90% of all young driver accidents are due to lack of education, and lack of common sense. I can make it in front of the train... Smoosh.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Lumpy]

I have seen people drive and play a trumpet.. when driving 696 in Detroit, you see all kinds of crazy crap.. Seeing someone read a book and drive was so commonplace it was scary.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[gfxguy]

I don't get it... are you saying cellphone use should be allowed while driving because younger drivers will be distracted anyway?

Obviously you can't eliminate all distractions, but that doesn't mean we should make it easier to be distracted.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[poetmatt]

actually here comes the a: showing that cops have been encouraged to link electronic devices to accidents for the greater part of 10 years and b: the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.

The reality is that even the radio can cause a distraction/accident. Yet when are we going to address having things we actually enjoy in our car? oh, right. I think this is when people trot out the protect the children argument.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[operagost]

I LOLed, because my old high school friend is a trumpet player and he admitted to me that he had played while driving before. The scary part is that he drives an 18 wheeler.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[inglorion_on_the_net]

Or maybe you have just been lucky so far.

Also, it is worth noting that accidents don't only happen because _you_ are doing something wrong. You could get into an accident because someone else does something stupid. Personally, I think that traffic safety is a game we play together, and you have to have a bit of margin for when other people mess up. I have never been in an accident while I was driving, but I have been in a couple of near accidents because people did stupid things, like changing lanes or crossing without looking.

I also think that traffic laws should be made so that the vast majority can get along safely. Maybe you are an above average driver and can handle higher speed and a higher level of distraction safely. But if that were the case, I bet you wouldn't want to have the rules relaxed so that everybody could do that, if the result would be massive traffic jams because of people who, in your words, can't control their cars.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[beelsebob]

Here's something for you. Overconfidence, is the cause of 99.9% of these accidents. The idiot who thinks "I can do it, it's all those idiots who can't control their cars that have crashes" who ends up pushing things too far and causing the crash. Well done for managing to fit the OP's stereotype so well though.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[TheCarp]

Make it easier?

What? Huh? You think having a law against something makes it harder to do? The question is not "should we make it easier" or "should we make it harder" that option was never on the table...its mere fantasy.

The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[gfxguy]

The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.

If you insist on that kind of hyperbole, then I'll just leave it as is and answer "yes," seeing how "persecute people 'for no other reason'" means "persecute people for creating an even more dangerous situation than driving already is."

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[jhoegl]

But what if you dont like the song on the radio, or the air is to hot/cold inside?

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[bkaul01]

are you saying cellphone use should be allowed while driving because younger drivers will be distracted anyway?

Not sure if he was saying that, but I would, out of agreement with this:

Obviously you can't eliminate all distractions.

I don't think that trying to come up with laws to cover every particular distraction is a good approach. We should through the education/licensing process encourage people to be more attentive drivers, and laws against distracted driving in general that can be applied whatever the distraction to reinforce this can be beneficial. But trying to single out some distractions (e.g. cell phone use) comes at the expense of others, implying that they're somehow safer. It's certainly more dangerous to be turned around yelling at your kids while driving down the interstate than it is to be texting while stopped at a red light, but being overly specific with our laws serves to reinforce the idea that the opposite is true, and creates the expectation that drivers can be irresponsible because they'll be told every thing they shouldn't do, rather than being required to behave as thoughtful, responsible adults.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's not smart to take your eyes off the road.
Even for a single millisecond.

It should, perhaps, be noted that in one millisecond, your automobile will travel about 1.3 INCHES (assuming you're driving at 75 mph) (that's 33.5 mm and 121 km/hr for you metric types).

A traffic accident that comes within 1.3 inches of being a non-accident won't even ding the paint of your car, much less kill anyone.

Exaggeration for effect is all well and good, but sometimes it's so over the top that it has the opposite of the intended effect.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[tenaciousj]

So can we make laws that make it illegal to:

Look in the back seat
Use the radio
Use the air conditioning
Use any kind of navigation device
Take your eyes off the road

What percentage of accidents could be reduced if these laws were in place? On paper probably a lot. In reality not many.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[gfxguy]

But is it not obvious that certain distractions are worse? That certain distractions are more distracting?

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Anonymous Psychopath]

According to the report, drivers reported engaging in these other types of distracting behaviors:

81% talked to other passengers;
66% changed radio stations or looked for CDs or tapes;
49% ate or drank something;
24% dealt with children riding in the rear seat.

So we should probably ban all that, too.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[gfxguy]

The difference is that you see someone blah-blah-blahing on the phone; glancing in the back seat or pushing a preset button on the radio is distracting for a split second, chit-chatting on the phone is constant until the conversation is over.

Surely you guys whining that there are other distractions see a difference between a constant distraction and a momentary one? They can both cause accidents, but an accident is caused by a confluence of events... the car in front of you stops short, for example - but you're distracted 100% of the time you're on the phone, making it much more likely to affect your reactions at that "unlucky" moment.

Of course, being in a car at all (or riding a bike or being a pedestrian) is never 100% safe, you take that tiny, fractional risk for the sake of convenience all the time... glancing at junior in the backseat, or pushing a preset on the radio (something that doesn't even require looking away) is not comparable to being distracted for minutes (or more) at a time.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[HTH NE1]

It's not smart to take your eyes off the road.
Even for a single millisecond.

Yes, we should ban the dashboard from cars. All those indicator lights and gauges are distracting. There's no reason why anyone needs to know empirically how fast they're driving.

Don't blink. Don't even blink. Blink and you're dead. Traffic changes fast, faster than you could believe. Don't turn your head, don't look away, and don't blink! Good luck.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[causality]

but being overly specific with our laws serves to reinforce the idea that the opposite is true, and creates the expectation that drivers can be irresponsible because they'll be told every thing they shouldn't do, rather than being required to behave as thoughtful, responsible adults.

I would like to see one new, specific law. Something saying that any idiot* who drifts over the double-yellow line on a curve shall be guilty of reckless driving and lose his or her license for six months to a year. This law should include a $500 bounty for the police officer who enforces it, just to properly motivate its enforcement.

* Typically these are the people who must drive the largest truck/SUV they can afford even though they never haul cargo, never have multiple passengers, and never drive off-road. I'm not entirely sure what's causing this enduring trend but I speculate that some drivers feel competent and relatively safe because of their level of skill, while others only feel safe when they have as much metal around them as possible. That would explain why the very worst and most careless drivers tend to gravitate towards SUVs and large pick-up trucks.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[hedwards]

Nearly 100% of crashes are the result of somebody doing something they shouldn't be doing. Which is why most instructors have stopped using the term "accident." You might not be able to control what the person behind you is doing, but whenever there's an accident somebody could have done something about it.

The types of accidents where nobody is at fault are pretty rare. Usually it pretty much takes a gaping hole to open directly under the car for that to happen.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[cyberchondriac]

Well said. Where accidents are concerned, it only takes one to tango. If you don't have your eyes and focus on the road at all times, even if you have good control, you're not driving defensively, and you can get taken out by someone who shouldn't be behind a wheel. I know I've had to swerve or slam on the brakes to avoid accidents, one just the other day when someone completely ignored the yield sign they had and kept coming.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[elsurexiste]

I'll lose my invested modpoint, but I can't let this juicy pass. :)

An instant is more like a tenth of a second, not a millisecond. Obviously, there's two orders of magnitude, but in human terms both are extremely short intervals. To lose attention for a millisecond, your muscles have to move and return, both actions requiring something like 100 milliseconds (otherwise, interpretations in prestissimo would be impossible). So we end up with 201 milliseconds if you want to look at other place just for that interval.

Both 100 or 201 are a literal blink. But to continue with your example, let's use the shorter one, just for the sake of the argument. Your 3.35 centimeters turn into... 3 meters. So GP poster is still right.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[hypergreatthing]

If you're a good driver (experience, knows how your car handles in dry/wet/snow etc) that's one half of the puzzle. Now if you're able to be extremely aware of other drivers and always prepare for the worst case scenarios you'll be more or less safe on the road except in those situations where there was nothing you could of done to avoid the accident.
Even when you have the right of way, always expect bad drivers to ignore that and cause dangerous conditions. If you have a green at an intersection make sure there are no cars trying to cross a red. Maintain a safe distance between the car in front of you at all times, unless in certain situations tailgating as close as possible is sometimes the safest (ex. badly designed ramps on highways that given the chance a driver who is at a complete stop will try and merge at the wrong speed (15 mph into traffic that's traveling at 60). You don't want to be the guy that rear ends him.

In those situations where an accident is unavoidable, a well maintained car (tread life on tires, good brakes, shocks, etc) will make the difference of how much damage was avoided.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Bellegante]

There are very few areas of this country where you can live without a car. You can make laws that say people can't drive, but they'll do it anyway. What you DO accomplish is that you criminalize a large portion of the population, while expanding and taxing the underclass. If you'd like proof this is the case look well.. anywhere in the US. Uninsured drivers are illegal in most places.. but they drive. 10% of Texans have active warrants for arrests , mostly for unpaid traffic fines. Not legal to drive. I'm all for responsibility, but if you expect people to lay down and die because they broke laws before.. its just not going to happen. http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-than-10-of-texans-currently-wanted.html

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[elsurexiste]

The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.

In that case, then yes, we should authorize them. The key part is that, in the end, answering an SMS is displaying a problem controlling your vehicle. If you are unconvinced, there's a study about it. RTFA.

Really, is it really a huge leap of faith to think that having a mobile phone in your hand and talking, or reading/writing an SMS, is detrimental to your attention, which should be concentrated in driving?

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[elsurexiste]

A lot of posts are coming that just say "You can't eliminate distractive element X!", implying that because a problem can't be removed it can't be mitigated. So, because we'll never have a law against LED on rotating gyroscopes all over your car and noise rock, we shouldn't enact this cell phone law.

It's funny how smart people can be ridiculous at times, but I guess it's the human condition... :P

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[beelsebob]

Yes, and oddly, professional drivers, especially ones that race are known to be the most likely to cause accidents and have insurance premiums to match. I wonder if it could be caused by overconfidence ;)

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[causality]

I'd be more than happy to vote for a bill that takes first offenders off the road for a month, 2nd for a year, 3rd for life. Get rid of speed limits, they help nothing. If you can't drive your car, get the hell off my road.

I never understood why "following too closely" and "failure to yield right-of-way" are minor violations, on par with a speeding ticket. They should be major violations comparable to reckless driving or DUI.

At least, if traffic safety is our goal then we should be getting these drivers off the road. However, if ticket revenue for the state is the goal, then you'd want them to keep driving so they can keep racking up violations. It's a no-win situation when the entity which benefits from ticket revenue is the same entity writing the laws.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[DerekLyons]

the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.

This is one of the odder bits of backwards logic I've ever heard - and it comes up in every discussion on the topic. You're essentially saying "yeah, these gadgets increase your chance of being in an accident, but its OK to continue using them because we had accidents before they came along". This makes no sense whatsoever. It amounts to saying "let's play Russian Roulette with *two* bullets rather than one".
 

The reality is that even the radio can cause a distraction/accident. Yet when are we going to address having things we actually enjoy in our car? oh, right. I think this is when people trot out the protect the children argument.

No, it's when people trot out the "apples/oranges" argument.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[elsurexiste]

If talking to other passengers is so common and accidents are not, I wouldn't include it in your sarcasm since it's obvious that the problem is elsewhere. As for the rest, do you know what they have in common, besides the 10%> part? You had only one hand on the steering wheel. Wow, what a weird idea, who would have thought that using just one hand on a dangerous situation would add more risk?

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[trum4n]

I agree with everything you say. Practicing at over 100 miles per hour makes traffic a breeze. Split second decisions on a racetrack tend to be a lot harder than on the road. My cars, except for my old ass dodge, are all in peak condition, to keep up with how i drive. I know what my cars can do, and don't exceed it on public roads.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[trum4n]

I have no accidents, and pay the lowest premium Erie offers to drivers my age. They also insure my race cars from theft. They know i race, and they know i have been trained to drive defensively and accurately.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[trum4n]

I agree. I feel tailgaters should be fined. Tailgating in a SUV should be a federal offense. My car stops from 60 in 110ft. Not amazing, but better than >200ft on some SUV's.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

No, the question is, should we institute an additional penalty if it's found that you were distracted by your cell phone, or other gadget, which caused you to crash.

And I say yes.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

Somebody could have been doing something, yes, but there are many accidents where neither of the vehicles involved would be at fault, but rather, a 3rd car.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Moryath]

Where you are a complete fucktard is the fact that pennicillin, while ineffective against some diseases, is very effective against others. The idea of "getting rid of it" is not a problem: for those cases where it's ineffective, we go to some other medicine.

Driving distracted, on the other hand, is a simple concept: those who are likely to be distracted, are going to find something to be distracted by or simply ignore the Fucking Impossible To Enforce laws.

Therefore, since outlawing various distractions (while leaving others alone) is meaningless, we should instead focus on proper driver education (something no state has any more) such that people are taught to use a little bit of common sense in not trying to do five things at once while they SHOULD be focusing on controlling their 1000+-lb vehicle.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

actually here comes the a: showing that cops have been encouraged to link electronic devices to accidents for the greater part of 10 years

[Citation Needed]

the reality of "distractions cause accidents" which is not limited to cellphones and gps, the supposed demon in the situation. How did people ever have accidents before gps and cellphones? oh, right.

Ahh, so even though the trend is showing that these devices are an increasing cause of the accidents, just because we can't stop *all* accidents, then we shouldn't even try? So since penicillin doesn't cure *all* disease, we shouldn't continue using it?

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

No, you're a lucky dumbass with an entitlement complex. You think that, even though all the data shows otherwise, you're that one special anomaly that the rules don't apply to.

You're gonna get a shitstorm, but from people who have been involved with you. You're not as good a driver as you think you are, and odds are you have caused accidents even if you haven't been a part of them.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

If you can't drive your car, get the hell off my road.

It's not your road. And you're a fool if you don't think speed limits help.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? Remember, the drivers you'll meet on those courses are generally going to be much better than the ones you'll meet on the 405 during rush hour.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

The thing with talking to passengers, is that generally, they are in the car with you, and can see when you need to concentrate more, so they know they need to shut the hell up. And if not, you just tell them to shut the hell up. Problem solved.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[sabt-pestnu]

Reminds me of the Dr Who T-shirt:

Staredown between the Weeping Angels and The Silence.
http://firelilycosplay.deviantart.com/journal/40648649/

The first one to blink loses.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[CrimsonAvenger]

An instant is more like a tenth of a second, not a millisecond. Obviously, there's two orders of magnitude, but in human terms both are extremely short intervals. To lose attention for a millisecond, your muscles have to move and return, both actions requiring something like 100 milliseconds (otherwise, interpretations in prestissimo would be impossible). So we end up with 201 milliseconds if you want to look at other place just for that interval.

Both 100 or 201 are a literal blink. But to continue with your example, let's use the shorter one, just for the sake of the argument. Your 3.35 centimeters turn into... 3 meters. So GP poster is still right.

GP poster used the word "millisecond". This certainly qualifies as "exaggeration for effect", but is still over the top.

While it's true that, in some circumstances, 100 ms is important, it's never true (as he asserts) that ONE ms is important.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[MindStalker]

Gah! That stoney stare!

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Shadow99_1]

Talking to the passengers in the car is just as distracting (if not more so) than the phone. However without a hands-free kit it does add to the issues lining up by having you drive with one hand.

The biggest problem is that absolutely everything not involved in directly driving the car (the foot pedals and the steering wheel) is a factor in accidents. Even those steering wheels and foot pedals can be as well when they fail. That means the dashboard displays, radio, passengers, sat nav, etc are all distractions.

Accidents happen when either:
A) The car fails
B) The driver fails
C) Acts of 'God'

A is something that can happen because we don't spend hours each day caring for each part of our vehicles, so they accumulate wear and tear and hence cause sudden accidents. Vehicle sports show us lots of spectacular examples of this type.

B are usually mitigated by one or more distractions. This sort of thing isn't exactly new, horse and buggies and ox carts require the same amount of effort to control and had accidents to. We just didn't have several tens of millions of them to keep statistics on. They always occur because the situation changes and the person controlling the vehicle simply doesn't change to match.

C includes things like giant hail smashing your vehicle as driving, spontaneous zero visibility conditions (heavy rain becoming a hurricane style sheet of water for a few seconds or minutes), large animals (like deer) running into you, etc. Btw a large animal running into your car implies it hits you in the side which you cannot avoid, rather than a animal simply being in the road which you can avoid. It could also include other people hitting you from behind as well, though I'll consider those to be accidents in type B because they involve human failings.

I'm not exactly surprised 25% of accidents fall into B and are considered linked to gadgets. I expect the breakdown in general would be 47.5% A, 47.5% B, 5% C.

That said I don't think we need to get our panties in a bunch over things in B. Unless we are all supposed to drive in single person cars, that don't let us see anything to the sides, and have no electronics, and refuse to continue moving if we don't constantly prove we are awake and not under the influence of anything, then B will happen. Stopping some B's is just silly if you aren't going to do away with all of them.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Shadow99_1]

Comparing disease to car accidents is very much apples and oranges.

What makes them strikingly different is that gps and cell phone use is not coming out of thin air for this 'increase' in accidents. It comes from the part already devoted to distractions. The pie isn't growing, it's just being sectioned differently. 'Eliminating' them won't get rid of part of the pie (ie it won't decrease accidents), it will simply decrease the portion of distraction accidents involving gps and cell phones.

This is why you see the argument above. It's also why these articles always fail to give a comprehensive view of what causes accidents with historical trends. Doing so would show that accidents aren't noticeably increasing compared to the number of vehicles and the expected accident growth due to busier roads.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[NeutronCowboy]

Let me ask you this - do you play with your computer while you race? Of course not - because it lowers your performance and reaction time. Then why the hell do you do it while in traffic? Because the speeds are lower? A nice rear-ending will still kill you. Because everyone drives in a straight line? All it takes is one idiot to ruin your life... for the rest of your life.

That's the reason why all the crap you're doing is dangerous: you are reducing the safety margin between you and the drivers all around you. The overconfidence everyone is talking about has nothing to do with driving skills, and all with reaction time.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Shadow99_1]

And you cannot tell someone on a cell phone to shut up? I have before...

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[hedwards]

If that happens then you're probably not driving defensively. Ultimately, whether or not the crash would be your fault, you're still supposed to be keeping an eye out for things that might lead to a crash.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[s73v3r]

You can. But usually passengers in the car don't need to be told, as they can see what's happening.

And if you're going to tell someone on a phone to shut up, you might as well not be talking to them.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[zippthorne]

We should just ban drivers Who wouldn't prefer an electronic chauffeur? Who wants to spend a significant portion of their day stressed out at maximum attention for fear of the slightest mistake causing their own or others' serious injury or death? I know I'd rather read a book, take a nap, watch a movie....any of a number of things are more compelling than the stress of the drive.

The future of roads is the same as the future of air travel. Every vehicle will be equipped with a trained dog, to bite the driver if he tries to touch the controls....

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[wondafucka]

No, you're NOT special.

I finally got a sense of why so many people feel this way (That *every* time someone uses a gadget while driving it is an unacceptable distraction). I recently visited the Massachusetts area where the roads were extremely curvy and you could not see hundreds of yards in advance like you can in the Midwest.

No, I am not special. I can, however, look at the road and figure out how much time I can not look at the road based upon my speed and the obstacles that are ahead. I think that two seconds to look down at my phone is reasonable on a highway when there are no other cars around. I think that it's terrible that so many people default to nanny government mode and pass a law that punishes competent drivers from making educated decisions that put very little additional risk to the situation.

Or, the phrase that precipitated you title: Just because you can't do it safely, and you have data to prove that other people can't do it safely, doesn't mean that everyone can't do it safely. It is within the bell curve of cognitive capability. I may be deluding myself, but there are people who are just that smart. I don't see it happening, but a reasonable compromise is a license to drive distracted.

And finally, my fallback comment that although completely truthful, is still intended on trolling: I really don't pay attention when I drive. Driving really isn't that hard. When I'm using my cell phone, I'm actually paying more attention. No, I am not the guy who drives too slow, or too fast, or the guy who cut you off. It's just not that hard to be a conscientious driver and not pay attention. Sorry.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[t2t10]

It's not smart to take your eyes off the road. Even for a single millisecond.

Sounds like you're not a very good driver. Good drivers anticipate and know when it's safe to, oh, look at the dashboard.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[shmlco]

Statistically, BMW drivers are the most aggressive.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[shmlco]

"But rather a third car..."

He said, "Nearly 100% of crashes are the result of somebody doing something they shouldn't be doing." Which applies to the 3rd car as well.

Idiot in car A, talking on a cell, drifts over the line. Car B brakes to avoid being hit by A, and is instead rear-ended by car C.

Car A and C are both at fault, even though the accident was caused by A. (A = distracted driving, C = maintain a safe distance.)

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[shmlco]

"The pie isn't growing, it's just being sectioned differently."

RIght. Because driving down the road texting with one hand and my eyes continually off the road is exactly the same as driving down the road listening to the radio and occasionally changing the station.

Some actions are riskier than others, hence the size of the "pie" is variable. In fact, the study itself notes that cell phone use INCREASES your overall risk.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[Anonymous Psychopath]

You had only one hand on the steering wheel.

The study clearly states that handsfree vs. headset is statistically meaningless.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[drsmithy]

But what if you dont like the song on the radio, or the air is to hot/cold inside?

If you can't operate your stereo or HVAC without looking at it, you shouldn't be driving.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[shmlco]

"Try professional driver."

Sorry, but you're no professional. Because "professional" drivers do everything possible to reduce and mitigate risk. They push the boundaries, yes, but they also know that accidents can happen to ANYONE. At any time.

Why INCREASE your risk? One split second of distraction at the wrong time, and you've gone from professional driver to a hot dog who's who's screaming in pain and severely testing the limits of their Nomex flame-retardent suit.

I hope you never have to regret those words. I hope when you're speeding down the road that you always see the little girl running into the street after her ball.

And for both our sakes, I hope to hell she's not mine.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[shmlco]

"I agree with everything you say."

Doesn't sound like it. He said, "Now if you're able to be extremely aware of other drivers and always prepare for the worst case scenarios." While you said, "I call, txt, eat, drink(not alcohol) and play with my computer/stereo in the car while speeding." One doesn't follow the other. A distraction is a distraction. If you're speeding and playing with your computer, you're not noticing that the idiot in right-hand lane just glanced into his side mirror and is preparing to jump into your lane.

Defensive driving is defensive driving. It's giving the road and your conditions your full attention. If you're splitting your attention, you're splitting your attention. Period. Now, maybe your "trained" reflexes are so damn good that you don't that extra half-second of warning.

Again, for your sake, for the sake of your passengers and parents and family, and for the sake of everyone else around you at that moment.

I really hope so. And if not, I really hope it was worth it.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.

If the (insert distraction here) = "talking on cell phone", then the answer is "yes".

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

Listening to the radio engages fewer cognitive functions, as you are merely listening. Plenty of cognitive overload studies related to adult learning and web page design (for example) show that humans can only manage a finite number of things at a time. Cell phone while driving exceeds this cognitive overload for most people, while listening to the radio doesn't. This is why there have never been rashes of car accidents blamed on listening to the radio, but there are plenty due to driving and talking on a cell phone. The cell phone phenomena is interesting in that normal conversation between two people in a car doesn't rate as a distraction, but the fact a "conversation between two people, with the introduction of a cell phone as a medium" puts cognitive overload into effect.

Using a navigation device generally doesn't exceed cognitive processing capabilities for most people, but depending on the ergonomics, could pose a risk while trying to operate one.

Looking in the back seat is something most non-retards can do safely, and have been doing long before the advent of cell phones.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

Or in the case of someone using their phone while driving; "any idiot going 10 mph or more under the speed limit or who fails to go on a green light within 5 seconds shall be guilty of lame driving and should lose their license forever".

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

Ahh, the defensive driving argument. That's why I drive fast...get ahead of all the bad drivers. The best defense is a good offense.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

When is the last time the guy in front of you drove 20 mph in the 45 zone, swerved back and forth in the lane for two miles, or stopped at a green light for 10 seconds or more when listening to the radio? Considering these three things are immediate indication of somebody using their phone, I'd say that's a horrible comparison.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

I do all 4 of those things pretty much every time I drive, yet they don't threaten my safety. I never talk on my phone or text, because it's an immense danger.

Did the report actually infer that these things cause accidents too or is your logic stretching to levels not intended to be reached?

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

I sometimes play a ukulele while waiting at red lights, but I would never try and do it while the car was moving.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[causality]

Or in the case of someone using their phone while driving; "any idiot going 10 mph or more under the speed limit or who fails to go on a green light within 5 seconds shall be guilty of lame driving and should lose their license forever".

Agreed, so long as we are talking about good conditions for the speed limit portion. The speed limits are already set too low, judging from the ease with which modest vehicles can exceed them with no valid concern whatsoever about losing control of the vehicle, failing to see an obstacle/hazard in time, etc.

Regarding the green light deal... apparently it's shocking news to many people that when you're doing something dangerous where one mistake could maim and kill, you really should be paying attention. At all times, not just when you're "pretty sure" nothing is going on.

For a good example of that kind of idiocy... ever notice that some drivers will tailgate you but they will back off and increase their following distance when you are approaching a stop sign or a red light? Their arrogance is their belief that they will always know in advance when you need to come to a stop. I suppose when they finally cripple or kill someone they'll stand a slim chance of reconsidering. This is why I want "following too closely" to be a major violation like reckless driving or DUI -- it is easily the most stupid, most careless, most easily preventable accident anyone could ever cause. People who do this simply cannot comprehend cause and effect.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[gfxguy]

Talking to the passengers in the car is just as distracting (if not more so) than the phone.

No, talking to passengers is not NEARLY as distracting; yelling at your kids might be, but normal conversation is not.

Source: Study Shows Phoning While Driving More Dangerous Than Talking to Passenger (this is much more recent than one claiming they are equally bad).

I'm not suggesting it's not distracting, but there are other factors involved in driving while talking to a passenger, of course - many people take their eyes off the road, but many don't. Passengers also react to road conditions; it's been shown they will often stop if there is something on the road that demands attention, for example, and they don't demand the drivers attention during such instances while the other person on the cellphone has no idea what's going on.

The studies show that hands free does little to help, though - the biggest part of the problem is the mental distraction; like the first poster said, "Here come the 'But not special *ME*! posts," anyone who has done any distracted driving, or thinks they are immune or special because they think they can "multitask" is just kidding themselves... if they haven't caused an accident yet, it's out of luck, not skill. Yes, that includes me - I'm not claiming innocence, but at least I don't fool myself into thinking I'm special.

That means the dashboard displays, radio, passengers, sat nav, etc are all distractions.

Yes, they are... but they are not constant distractions like talking on the phone. The degree to which they are distracting is NOTHING like when you are carrying on a conversation on the phone.

The point is we should all try to be distracted as little as possible - claiming something is just as bad as another thing is a ridiculous way to justify something bad.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[stewbacca]

Agreed, so long as we are talking about good conditions for the speed limit portion. The speed limits are already set too low, judging from the ease with which modest vehicles can exceed them with no valid concern whatsoever about losing control of the vehicle, failing to see an obstacle/hazard in time, etc.

 

Agreed that speed limits are too low, but I'm talking more about the inconvenience of a slow driver AND the sheer amount of traffic and havoc they cause by disrupting the normal flow of traffic. Plus, they are more of a hazard than they know because the difference in speed between two vehicles is often times the bigger danger than two cars going 15 mph over the speed limit (or in this case, everyone going 15 mph over the speed limit, for example).

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[bkaul01]

You make very good points there. I agree that the law is for the immature and irresponsible, and on general philosophical terms, you're entirely correct there.

When it comes to putting those principles into practice, I think there's an approach that would be more effective than what we're doing now, given that this is an issue of an activity that requires a license: keep the prohibitions broad (e.g. "distracted" driving, rather than listing each possible distraction), and the consequences with respect to one's license to drive more severe. Get a ticket for distracted driving, that's 6 points on your license (of the 12 that would trigger a suspension). Cause an accident because you were distracted, your license is automatically suspended. Get caught driving without a license, and face even more severe consequences, etc. It'll never happen, because our society is structured such that every idiot is expected to be allowed to drive on the public roads, but the way things are structured now, it's more that we have a tax on politically incorrect driving habits (e.g. speeding) than actual disincentives to discourage dangerous ones (e.g. inattentiveness).

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[digitalsolo]

I'd like to see a citation on that.

I have professional training in driving (though I don't race competitively currently) and have a great many friends who do as well. Nearly all of them are what I consider excellent drivers (aware of surroundings, courteous toward other drivers, always signal, etc). I know full well that my friends with racing experience have been in far fewer crashes (on the road, not the track) than my non-professional friends.

FWIW, I have been in 3 crashes myself. 1x equipment failure (brake failure on older car, managed to mitigate the severity of the crash a great deal due to my training), 1x rear ended, and 1x hit someone in the rear (was that or hit an elderly man head on at 60 mph, who had turned the wrong way on the highway).

I'm certainly not saying that professional drivers are above failure, but experience disagrees greatly with your suppositions.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[digitalsolo]

I agree with this very much.

I've spent a great deal of time trying to convince my wife to go out and "play" in the snow. There is NO substitute for practice when it comes to vehicle dynamics.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[poetmatt]

are you retarded? the "pie" is not variable. You have 100% of accidents being caused by something. Whether 10% is cellphones or 10% is something else, 100% of accidents are still caused by something.

Those two things do not matter - if one causes the accident over the other it's still a distraction causing an accident.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[causality]

Agreed, so long as we are talking about good conditions for the speed limit portion. The speed limits are already set too low, judging from the ease with which modest vehicles can exceed them with no valid concern whatsoever about losing control of the vehicle, failing to see an obstacle/hazard in time, etc.

Agreed that speed limits are too low, but I'm talking more about the inconvenience of a slow driver AND the sheer amount of traffic and havoc they cause by disrupting the normal flow of traffic. Plus, they are more of a hazard than they know because the difference in speed between two vehicles is often times the bigger danger than two cars going 15 mph over the speed limit (or in this case, everyone going 15 mph over the speed limit, for example).

Absolutely. In fact the federal Department of Transportation released a report a few years back about the leading primary causes of traffic accidents. Speeding was near the bottom of the list. Driving slowly (i.e. impeding traffic) was much closer to the top of the list. In fact this so embarassed the speed-enforcers that the report was suppressed for a while via bureaucratic processes before it was finally released. They definitely don't want the facts to interfere with the revenue collection of the states...The way I've heard it said is that speeding is not really illegal; it's just loosely taxed.

It makes absolute sense. Except for the very rare cases where someone is going so crazy-fast that the tires cannot stay on the road (i.e. on the curves), speed itself does not cause accidents. Almost all of the time, the self-preservation instinct will prevent someone from going so fast that speed alone is the primary cause of the accident. So, you still have to screw up and hit something. The screw-up will be the usual failure to yield, following too closely, improper passing, driving on the wrong side, etc. The amount of speed of course affects how much damage is done but it is not the cause of the accident.

I seriously wish police officers would stop worrying about speeding and start paying attention instead to the level of skill with which the vehicle is maneuvered. That, and I also wish you had to demonstrate actual skill with the vehicle before being allowed to have a license. Under the current system you hardly do anything more than memorizing a bunch of traffic laws. That's why the average driver I see can't understand even the most basic notions, like the fact that you have finite traction so you steer better if you are not also trying to brake, or the fact that banked curves are banked for a reason, or that long turning lanes are there so you can get off the main road _before_ slowing down so you don't hold up cars behind you needlessly.

Instead of worrying about laws concerning petty violations, I'd rather drivers spend more time acquainting themselves with the laws of physics.

Re:Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts

[UltraZelda64]

Sounds like you're not a very good driver. Good drivers anticipate and know when it's safe to, oh, look at the dashboard.

I agree... but what about the chance that you *do* get caught off-gaurd? For example, you hear a "ding, ding, ding" and look down to see that your "Check Engine Soon" or "Brakes" warning light came on, and meanwhile... some asshole decides to try to speed out into the road from a quickly-approaching intersection without waiting for a large enough time gap, causing a near-hit or an all-out wreck?

Sure, it's a little extreme, but it could damn well happen. I see people pulling this kind of shit all the time; all it takes is a very, very short distraction on your part and an impatient dickhead with poor judgment who shouldn't even be behind the wheel to cause some potentially serious damage. I'm *constantly* on the lookout for people pulling off stupid shit; if I didn't adjust for their own stupidity and dickheaded actions to prevent getting in "accidents" caused by them, I would have a hell of a crash record. Can't stop watching the morons out there on the road for a second, or you're in trouble.

*Note... the word "accident"... sorry, I don't buy it. You can't tell me someone driving drunk or driving while texting and then wrecking is an "accident". They had it coming, it's their fault, there is no "accident" about it. If they had common sense, they would know the dangers and never do it to begin with. They had the choice to pay full attention to the road and drive sober, but they didn't. Then they wreck. 100% preventable, and stupid at that. As if pulling into a parking lot and parking (if on the road) to send a text is really that big of a deal, or sending the message right when they get in the car or just before they get out of it is so hard to do.

But has it increased by 25%?

[Kanel]

Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25?

Maybe, but I have a feeling that what's happening is the number hasn't changed much, but before it was the radio and CD player. Something to consider: Cell phone bills will say very clearly whether or not it was involved, radios and CD players have no such tattling technology.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?

It would imply that they have increased by one third, not one quarter.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It would imply that they have increased by one third, not one quarter.

Yes, we all love Dilbert, too. Remember how he made himself unattractive to Alice with that comment?

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rrossman2]

I remember reading about how when cars were first getting radios, some people wanted them banned because they were a distraction and caused accidents. I guess it's only logical that the replacement and/or add-on devices would also receive the same stigma. That's not to say texting while driving isn't worse, but that any new gadget causes a bigger distraction when the operator isn't use to the unit.

An example is my old Motorola E815... with T9 and having used it enough, I could text (in any setting.. doesn't mean while driving) one handed without looking at the phone just fine. But when I first got it, heck no. I had to look to learn where the keys were, double check the spelling, etc.

Even some of the car systems out there now are just so involved and the nested layouts so horrid there's no way you could operate it without looking. For example the BMW iDrive system (or whatever it's called), with the big silver joystick on the center console by the shifter. Even if you were to look, it's still confusing and harder than heck to find what you're looking for. Now compare that to a simpler system such as a 91 civic where there was a button for every function. It took you no time at all to learn what needed to be pressed without looking.

Touch screen are another issue, because you can't "feel" the buttons and count or position the one you want easily. You tend to look to make sure your finger is where you need/want it to be. But the systems that also have hard buttons you can learn the feel/position in a few uses, and the "count" of each button becomes second nature (IE on my Pioneer AVIC-N3> Press the left most hard button and you know you'll change the source... if it's on radio you know if you press it once it goes to CD, again to iPod, again to DVD, again to XM, and then back to radio.. so you can learn the count. More than that you retract the flip-out screen and theres still enough hard buttons and a joystick on the far right so you can change source, track, or preset easily without looking at the radio.)

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[mark-t]

Actually, yes... I remember reading a report in the newspaper a number of years ago that indicated an unexpected and fairly rapid increase in the number of accidents that were happening as cell phone use started become quite popular, and that if one were to simply not count the accidents that were connected with cell phone use while driving, the number of remaining accidents were well within any increase that could be perceived of as typical. The actual percentage increase was not mentioned... only that it was unusually high and unexpected. It was then that I remember the notion of a law banning cell phone use while driving was first brought up where I live (and hotly debated).

While the problems caused can be equally generated by fidgeting with the radio dial or fumbling through the glove compartment for something, the statistics don't indicate that those activities are especially problematic. In truth, of course, any task that focuses one's attention away from driving can be extremely dangerous.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[vlm]

Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25?

It means its more socially acceptable to tell people you were distracted by an incoming SMS message than you were scratching your itchy rear.

It means its more socially acceptable to tell people its a terrible shame that your boss requires you to carry and respond to a cellphone, than to say you were just plain ole spacing out or staring at a hottie on the sidewalk.

It means its more socially acceptable to tell people your cellphone ringtone startled you, than to admit you were driving sleepy and nodded off.

Remember when the media told people that anytime a toyota crashed, it was because the accelerator stuck? The result of the reports was, the reported stats indicated toyota crashes were caused by stuck accelerators, until about a week after the media stopped chasing that ambulance, and the reports dropped to their normal just about zero...

I am certain if the media stopped reporting that gadgets magically caused accidents because they are evil voodoo totems straight from the devil leading us on the path to hell, the REPORTED gadget-caused accident rate would drop to just about zero and we'd return to the real, true causes... "I was spacing out" "I drifted off to sleep" "I was screaming at my kids in the back seat"

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[mark-t]

True... the thing that saved car radios was the invention of the preprogrammed station buttons that people now take for granted on car radios, and which made it possible for people to accurately tune them to their favorite stations without having to divert their eyes or attention from the road.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[__aaqvdr516]

My wife always wondered why I was so adamant about not talking to her when she'd call me while she was driving. About a year ago she was in some stop-and-go traffic next to a person who was both making calls and texting during the traffic jam. At one point the traffic picked up speed and then slowed again but they didn't notice as they were too busy pushing buttons. She watched as the person was decapitated during the impact. She doesn't call me while driving anymore.

It doesn't kill you 99.9% of the time but that one time is a doozy.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rtb61]

With 32,708 deaths on US roads last year, word games won't solve the problem.

Obviously analysing the cause of every accident and endeavouring to eliminate the greatest causes by percentage will have the greatest impact upon reducing road tolls.

The the current generation of youth addicted to cell phones and texting, in fact taking priority over every other activity (they will practically stop anything they are doing to answer the phone and their use has to be actively banned to prevent this occurring).

Whilst the telecom and their marketdroids benefit by this action, this distraction at critical moments whilst driving causes problems, problem that lead to death and debilitating injury. Obviously ensuring people remain as focused as possible upon driving will reduce car accidents. Perhaps greater personal liability for causing an accident is warranted, some time cooling your lead foot in a low security detention facility (something that insurance won't cover). Perhaps further reductions to speed limits. Perhaps subsidised taxi's. Perhaps expanded, safer and cleaner public transport. Perhaps, lateral thinking, like easier access to 'quality' high density housing to promote foot traffic.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[jandersen]

Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25?

No - the only reasonable meaning one can put into it is that they went through the data for a number of accidents and found that gadget use was involved in 25% of them.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Actually, yes... I remember reading a report in the newspaper a number of years ago that indicated an unexpected and fairly rapid increase in the number of accidents that were happening as cell phone use started become quite popular, and that if one were to simply not count the accidents that were connected with cell phone use while driving, the number of remaining accidents were well within any increase that could be perceived of as typical. The actual percentage increase was not mentioned... only that it was unusually high and unexpected. It was then that I remember the notion of a law banning cell phone use while driving was first brought up where I live (and hotly debated).

Hmm, quick check of the US Census data on automobile accident rates shows that they have been slowly declining since 1990.

Traffic death rates, ditto.

In other words, no real sign of a jump based on cell phone usage.

Oh, and it should be noted that if you assume that cell phone usage has been a problem since before 1990, the accident stats all show a big drop between 1980 and 1990....

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[bth]

If 50% of the accidents are caused by men, does that mean men shouldn't be allowed to drive? There are standards in the scientific community for how to do valid prospective and retrospective studies. You can then measure whether using or not using something actually increases (or not) your probability of experiencing the undesirable event.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Asic Eng]

Well the study states that "Laws banning hand-held cell phone use reduced use by about half when they were first implemented. [...] the laws appear to have had some longterm effect." and "There is no evidence that cell phone or texting bans have reduced crashes."

So the bans have an effect (fewer people use cell phones while driving) but the crash rate is not noticeably reduced as a result. That suggest that there is not much of a connection between cell phone use and car crashes.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Rob the Bold]

Does this mean that the number of car accidents has increased by 25? If not, what improvements have cancelled out the increase in accidents caused by cellphones and other gadgets? Are there fewer accidents caused by people fiddling for CDs in the glove compartment or trying to find a good AM channel? Are there fewer accidents caused by frustrated people trying to find their way on a fold-out map?

Hi, it's my first day here, so I read TFA and TFP. The paper addresses these issues:

Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000 additional traffic fatalities.

Fowles et al. (2010) studied the effects of cell phones on fatality rates from a “classical econometric” and quite technical point of view. They considered the effects of broad social and economic variables such as beer consumption, proportion of young males, seat belt laws, and the number of cell phone subscribers on annual fatality rates from 1980 to 2004. They concluded that fatality rates increased as cell phones first began to be used, then decreased as cell phone use rose, and finally increased again more recently. They attributed the positive effect of cell phones in the middle period to their use to call for emergency assistance at a crash. Now that cell phones are almost universal, their negative effects in distracting drivers overcome these positive effects. “The bottom line is that cell phones now have an adverse effect on motor vehicle fatality rates.”

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Asic Eng]

[...] found that gadget use was involved in 25% of them.

Which doesn't necessarily mean a lot, if gadget use is widespread. E.g. if 50% of people have AC running in their cars, then you'd have to expect that in 50% of cars involved in a crash the AC would be turned on. Measuring these 50% would only lead to the conclusion that AC use has no impact on car safety.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

It means that the submitter didn't appear to actually read the study.

From the study, page 26: "Flanagan and Sayer (2010) critiqued the National Safety Council’s study. They noted that NHTSA (2010a) estimates that 18-22% of all crashes are associated with (but not necessarily caused by) all forms of distraction while NSC estimates that 25% are caused by cell phone use alone. Using different values than NSC for the risk of cell phone use, the frequency of use while driving, the presence of multiple causes for many crashes, and the extent to which drivers reduce their cell phone use in more risky driving situations, Flanagan and Sayer concluded that cell phones may be associated with 3% to 4% of crashes."

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[PRMan]

These statistics are completely false. Anyone can download California's statistics right here: http://www.chp.ca.gov/switrs/ Notice they care about alcohol drugs as a special category despite being responsible for less than 10% of accidents, but not gadgets because they are even less than that.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[PRMan]

And here is the raw data where there is a column showing gadget use: http://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/RawData.jsp (You need to register) You will find it nowhere near 25%.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[modecx]

Yeah, now just imagine riding a motorcycle. These days, you basically must be prepared to lane split in the blink of an eye, so you don't get squished between the negligent driver behind you, and the bumper in front of you.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rickb928]

I don't just agree, I have a challenge;

US Census Bureau numbers seem to show a steady decline in the rate of accidents since 2000. Where's the beef?

I think this report, like a lot, are BS. More junk science to try and prove the government must step in and regulate even more of our lives. Would someone with more skills in manipulating the statistics care to prove me wrong in my assessment? I just don't see the evidence from this source.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rickb928]

Everybody is unattractive to Alice. Your point?

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[eth1]

I remember reading about how when cars were first getting radios, some people wanted them banned because they were a distraction and caused accidents. I guess it's only logical that the replacement and/or add-on devices would also receive the same stigma. That's not to say texting while driving isn't worse, but that any new gadget causes a bigger distraction when the operator isn't use to the unit.

An example is my old Motorola E815... with T9 and having used it enough, I could text (in any setting.. doesn't mean while driving) one handed without looking at the phone just fine. But when I first got it, heck no. I had to look to learn where the keys were, double check the spelling, etc.

The problem is, even if you can (using your example) type on your phone without looking, you still have to divert your focus away from whatever else you're doing and into composing a coherent message and typing it. It doesn't matter how much of a mental giant someone is, they have only 100% of their attention to use, and if they're not using all 100% on driving, they're being irresponsible and dangerous.

I suspect most people almost never focus 100% on driving in the first place. It's very obvious how distracting things are once you've trained yourself to focus 100% on something. When I'm driving, and my fiancee tries to talk to me, one of two things happens. Either I have NO idea what she just said (she loves this, really!), or if I pay attention to what she's saying, then when I refocus on driving I realize there's a major gap in my situational awareness due to the conversation.

Radios are a slightly different story, IMO. As long as you're not fiddling with it or trying to follow dialogue, music (for me, anyway) actually improves my ability to focus on driving.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

My point is contained with the cartoon we're both referring to, currently cruising at an altitude of 30,000 feet over your head.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[ljw1004]

Presumably so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

For the introduction of all road safety devices, people seem to adjust their behavior to be correspondingly more dangerous, to end up with the same overall risk level. Wikipedia cites studies on ABS, seatbelts, bicycle helmets &c. If the increased danger of cellphones didn't follow the same pattern, it would be very surprising.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Cro Magnon]

I once phoned my GF while she was driving, and her brother was in the car, so she just passed the phone to him, and I gave him the message for her. Later, she apologized for not talking to me herself, and I told her no problem. I'd much rather she let her brother talk to me and keep her attention on the road.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[causality]

An example is my old Motorola E815... with T9 and having used it enough, I could text (in any setting.. doesn't mean while driving) one handed without looking at the phone just fine. But when I first got it, heck no. I had to look to learn where the keys were, double check the spelling, etc.

Ok, sure. But I think you're glossing over the real question here. Until such time that you can use the device effortlessly without it causing a distraction, why the hell would you even consider using it while driving?

It's not a matter of getting used to a phone. It's a matter of stupid, self-centered decision-making that overemphasizes immediate gratification over the lives and safety of those around you. If the call/text is going to be a distraction, and you still think it's so important, such a drastic emergency that it cannot wait some minutes until you get to your destination, what's wrong with pulling over? Nevermind that most "emergencies" are actually a failure to plan ahead...

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rickb928]

Look up, my friend.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Nethead]

That's one that always gets me. Why is it if there is more than one adult in a car or truck, the driver is the one on the phone? Is it some type of boss man control issue?

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[registrationssucks]

With 32,708 deaths on US roads last year, word games won't solve the problem. Obviously analysing the cause of every accident and endeavouring to eliminate the greatest causes by percentage will have the greatest impact upon reducing road tolls.

No. A large percentage of accidents are what I term "single vehicle suicides". They may be DUIs or teens racing in a car. Often, they are not SV and become MV (multi vehicle). My concern would be decreasing the dealths amongst those people trying to stay alive. Otherwise, you confuse a safety/mechanical/design problem with a sociological/behavior problem (e.g., addictions, adrenaline junkies, just plain stupids). Seat belts that buckled themselves were a mistake and a reaction to government mandates to save the lives of those without the sense to take two seconds (which can be multi-tasked when starting the trip) to buckle-up. Don't give the guy who wants to die a gadget to save them from their stupidity. Give ME a better safety cage.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[DogDude]

You have to be a real idiot to ride a motorcycle in regular traffic in the US these days. The skill of the motorcycle rider is irrelevant, as are the laws. Dead is dead.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[LoganDzwon]

Because whenever I ask a passenger to answer my phone they feel I'm being lazy and rude by pushing them to handle something they feel I should be able to do, because, you know, "everyone else does it and doesn't have a problem."

I just don't telephone in the car anyway. To help with this I've taken to only buying rag-tops. It only takes 20 seconds on the phone before the other person realizes that when I reject her call I'm actually trying to NOT be rude.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[mark-t]

I don't recall specifics... it was an article in our local newspaper (either the Vancouver Sun or Vancouver Province, I don't remember which one) back around 2001 or so.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Mia'cova]

Also, rolling into someone at a red light because you were distracted is a lot different than rolling your car on the freeway. They're both accidents.. but which do we really care about? I'm pretty sure people are more likely to text at a red light than in heavy traffic at 75 mph.. An increase in fender benders doesn't worry me a whole lot. An increase in those collision avoidance radar systems will clear that right up...

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[zippthorne]

I thought alice was the lady engineer at Dilbert's company. I think it's unrealistic to think that should would depart significantly from the behavior of other engineers...

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I think it's unrealistic to think that should would depart significantly from the behavior of other engineers...

You should read the cartoon this conversation is about.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[gknoy]

The distraction is not necessarily the looking at the phone, but rather the thinking about composing a message. So, typing even with your eyes on the road is distracting.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[modecx]

Yes, that is the emotional argument everyone uses. Sure, riding is a more risky activity than walking down the sidewalk while chewing gum. Like any dangerous activity, if you have this in mind, and approach it with maturity, you can, and probably will come out alive just fine.

If you look at it objectively you see it's not all that bad. They say there are about 6.5 million motorcycles registered for road use in the US, and maybe 5,000 people die while riding. 25% of these poor folk die because they can't negotiate a turn, fall off, slide, and hit something hard. Most of the rest die while hitting a vehicle that's making a left hand turn, violating the rider's right of way. The remainder are probably squished in a rear-ender.

Rider experience, training, situational awareness, and good judgement can certianly go a LONG way in reducing all of these problems. i.e. There are old bikers, and there are stupid bikers... But there are no old, stupid bikers. Wearing the right gear also helps significantly, if all of the above fails.

And the data shows that people who don't wear gear, and do stupid shit on powerful bikes (especially 16-25 year old, inexperienced males fueled by testosterone), you're more likely to have your hobby bite your ass. Go figure.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[causality]

Because whenever I ask a passenger to answer my phone they feel I'm being lazy and rude by pushing them to handle something they feel I should be able to do, because, you know, "everyone else does it and doesn't have a problem."

I just don't telephone in the car anyway. To help with this I've taken to only buying rag-tops. It only takes 20 seconds on the phone before the other person realizes that when I reject her call I'm actually trying to NOT be rude.

Eh at some point people do have to understand that it's your phone and you answer it at your convenience, not theirs. At some point you have to explain to certain people that, in the face of a safety issue, you cannot be concerned with how much they might not like occasionally feeling like maybe they're not the very most important thing in the entire universe. Unless you happen to really enjoy rag-tops it makes no sense to alter your purchasing decisions to placate people who are themselves being rude and controlling by trying to tell you what you should do with your own property.

Someone who truly cares about you and respects you doesn't try to pressure you to conform to their idea of how you should be. If a reasonable level of assertiveness makes someone want to never speak to you again, you really haven't lost anything except maybe a liability.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Kanel]

Kudos to anyone who TFA and TFP.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[bostongraf]

The big difference between the gadget/cell phones situation and the Toyota situation is the results of the tests that have been conducted once blame was assigned.

Upon being reviewed by many non-Toyota related entities, the fault was determined to be driver-error instead of the many phantom problems that Toyota was being blamed for (with the exception of the floor mat not being ideal).

Yet, upon reviewing the impact of cell phones and other gadgets on driver awareness, there has beena steady and consistant result that a driver is impaired to a non-trivial degree when using these devices.

Perhaps the rate of accidents has not changed due to vehicles themselves being far safer contraptions that swerve, brake, and accelerate in a safer manner than their predecessors?

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rtb61]

Again with the silly word play, 100% of accidents are caused by people with eyes, completely and utterly meaningless as "the eyes" were not the cause of the accident. Just as maleness was not the cause of the accident. However distraction at critical junctures do cause accidents, whether it be billboards, mobile phones, passenger interactions etc.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[Shrike82]

I see your challenge and raise you a question:

Would the accident rate have declined faster if distracting gadgets were removed from the equation?

Yes less people are dying on the road but that is in no way evidence against gadgets causing accidents. That may simply be safer cars with better brakes, better designed road systems, or any number of things.

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[rickb928]

Well, my point was that our government would take this opportunity to further encroach on our liberties, even the liberty to act dangerously. Without any analysis of other distractions, or substantive research into accident rates without cell phone usage, I'm left asking if our government should be acting on this at all.

And while it is common sense to discourage phone use while driving, especially texting, shall we continue addressing other obvious driving distractions and close drive-thru windows etc.?

Re:But has it increased by 25%?

[doom]

Car "accidents" go up and down with the economy. The economy has veered between "sucks" and "suckier" throughout the naughts.

Even if the death-rate has been dropping, it could be it would drop even more if it weren't for the morons-with-gadgets. Anyway you look at it, cars are still killing over 40,000 people a year in the US. (We got into a "war on terror" when only a few thousand people were killed, where's the "war on cars"?)

If you include cars as devices

[pizza_milkshake]

it skyrockets to 100%

Re:If you include cars as devices

[L4t3r4lu5]

If you include motorcycles and trucks it's 125%!

Re:If you include cars as devices

[DarthVain]

Or radios, or cd players, or mp3 players, or any music playing device, or smoking, or drinking, or pretty much anything not included in either the definition of "driving" or "paying attention"...

I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[madhatter256]

Seriously, why do people do that? Talk to the person using your phone rather than texting.

I have hands free bluetooth built into my car with voice command. It's soo much easier than using a headset.

Although I'm all for natural selection....

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[inglorion_on_the_net]

I have hands free bluetooth built into my car with voice command. It's soo much easier than using a headset.

My guess is that people are too cheap to buy the equipment that lets them use their phones hands-free.

Also, a lot of people think that they _can_ safely use their phones while driving. They know that accidents happen when people do that, but they always happen to _other_ people, you know.

Some people are too stupid to realize the danger. Others are too intelligent. Others know it's dangerous, but it won't matter if you do it just this once. Taken together, I fear people who will text or talk on their phones while driving are a rather large percentage of all drivers.

Although I'm all for natural selection....

So am I. Now, if only there were a way to make it only apply to people doing stupid things ... The problem is, in traffic, it's common for innocent people to get harmed because others were being stupid.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[cpu6502]

>>>Talk to the person using your [hands-free] phone rather than texting

It's also more cost effective. 20 cents per minute of two-way conversation versus 15 cents for a short text. (Plus you get to hear her sexy voice.)

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[localman57]

Although I'm all for natural selection....

So am I. Now, if only there were a way to make it only apply to people doing stupid things ... The problem is, in traffic, it's common for innocent people to get harmed because others were being stupid.

I don't think natrual selection ever worked this way. I assume lots of the people over time who have been "unselected" took a bunch of others with them. Gotta take the good with the bad.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[localman57]

Your friend texted me too. It was your closet...

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[Idbar]

Talk to the person using your phone rather than texting.

There are some times that you can't afford to talk and quick messages can be very useful, just as it was push-to-talk some time ago for me.
Independently, well, the fact that people try to do it, and worst of all, hiding because it's not legal, make them even more prone to mistakes for keeping their eyes off of the road.

Although I'm all for natural selection....

Yes, what about one of them crash into you and you die? So much for natural selection!

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[gfxguy]

Hands free is not good enough. The major problem is not that you're holding the phone, it's that your mind is on the call instead of the road - you're not distracted because you're holding something with your hand, you're distracted because you're concentrating on the call, and for a lot of reasons it's more distracting than merely having someone in the car that you're talking to.

Source: Study: More Dangerous to Drive on Cell Phone than Chat with Passenger

Before you say you're capable of multi-tasking, see what's currently the first post (scores of 1+): Here come the "But not special *ME*!" posts.

Source: Hands-free phones no safer than hand-held: US study

Honesly, what's worse - holding a beverage cup in your hand and taking the occasional sip, or talking to someone on the phone, hands free or not? It's the mental distraction, not the physical one... you need to pay attention to the road, and hands free doesn't help you do that.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[vlm]

Also, a lot of people think that they _can_ safely use their phones while driving. They know that accidents happen when people do that, but they always happen to _other_ people, you know.

Naah, its more of a slippery slope thing. The media pounds it into your head that its terrifying and you'll kill people. You start with texting perfectly safely while using the car as an expensive chair, sitting in a parking lot, engine off and transmission in park. Once your heart rate is normal in that situation, you try texting with the engine running, but still in "Park". After that hurdle, you're texting at stop lights. Then you only need to enter one more word when the light turns green, so why not?

Next thing you know, you're going 80 MPH in dense fog weaving on the freeway while voting on american idol. After all, the media lied when they said it was dangerous to text in a car ... while its in "park" ... so they must be lying about texting while freeway driving, right?

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[schwinn8]

Exactly. The problem is ANY distracted driving. Once your mind is on something else, it's not on the task of driving. Hands-free doesn't even solve the problem, since you are still mentally distracted: Hands-free cell phone usage equally dangerous while driving

The point is, pay attention to the road first... not the phonecall or other person. The priority needs to be the road, not anything else in the car.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[bsane]

We obviously need to separate the driver from the passengers too- conversations with passengers is probably responsible for 60% of the other wrecks.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[gfxguy]

You should try reading the link I gave before getting snarky about it.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[Anonymous Psychopath]

My guess is that people are too cheap to buy the equipment that lets them use their phones hands-free.

The study is very clear that there is no statistical difference by using a cell phone hands-free. Hold it to your head, use a headset, or integrate it with your car, the risk is the same.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[PitaBred]

I can use my phone safely while driving. But it is a mindset thing. The first thing you need to do is realize that driving is your first priority, period. A lot of people forget that because they're having a fight with someone on the phone, bored, distracted, thinking about what they want to do when they get to where they're going, anything but the driving itself.

Then, use the handy things about the technology. I dictate texts all the time with Google's voice recognition on my phone. Much safer, and actually faster than typing it IMO. If I do have to type, I wait for a stoplight or pull over. As for why I think I'm safe, I've had a number of opportunities to be in accidents that wouldn't have been my fault and I still avoided them, as well as not being in an accident ever (15 years and counting) except for people rear-ending me while I was stopped at a stoplight.

I like to think that the main issue is that people don't know and don't have respect for physics, and don't realize how much energy they're handling and maneuvering, stopping and starting. They have no respect for the vehicle or the danger, so it's easier to ignore it.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[xaxa]

We obviously need to separate the driver from the passengers too- conversations with passengers is probably responsible for 60% of the other wrecks.

I don't drive, but I'm often a passenger. Since I was old enough to sit in the front seat I've somehow known when not to talk to the driver -- there are subtle (and less subtle) signals. A busy junction with the driver reading all the signs and working out what lane, or him pausing before replying, or just saying "hang on...".

There's also the second pair of eyes -- my shout when I was about 13 alerted my dad to a speeding (ridiculously) car as he was about to pull out of a junction.

Someone on the end of a phone misses all this.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[bsane]

Read your link!? I can't even read the anchor!

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[dontmakemethink]

Speaking to the other person means you're both engaged in conversation simultaneously rather than texting sequentially. If you're both driving, sure it makes sense. If one person's driving and the other is at a rock show, bluetooth ain't gonna help. There are many more situations where calling isn't feasible than situations where texting isn't feasible. Driving is a glaring exception.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[LoganDzwon]

I've never understood this argument. I'm much more distracted by trying to have meaningful conversation in real time then I am reading or writing a one line txt message. I can read it when I have a moment, think about it when I have a moment, think of a reply when I have a moment, then type it when I have a moment. No moments, no worries, it can wait. I can not do that in a real time live conversation.

Re:I don't see the point of texting while driving?

[zippthorne]

Maybe they drive convertibles, so that having an audio conversation is impractical (even with the top up, quite a lot of road noise still gets in. Much more so than in a hard-top vehicle. One of the reasons why convertible owners tend to have greater than average hearing loss.)

Turn it off?

[wsxyz]

Does that mean I shouldn't be reading Slashdot while driving then?

Re:Turn it off?

[Overzeetop]

Not if read by the robotic overload, but you probably shouldn't have posted while driving. ;-)

Re:Turn it off?

[rolfwind]

No, it just means you shouldn't be posting... wait why is everyone going the wrong way on this highw-

From The Report

[Anonymous Coward]

How does distraction affect crash risk? The limited research suggests that:
** Cell phone use increases crash risk to some extent but there is no consensus on the size of the increase.
** There is no conclusive evidence on whether hands-free cell phone use is less risky than hand-held use.
** Texting probably increases crash risk more than cell phone use.
** The effects of other distractions on crash risk cannot be estimated with any confidence.

Sounds really cut and dried.

Notice....

[TheCarp]

How the highway safety folks....

A) Always lead with the high side number. 15-25% so its either this number, or as low as half that. Yes, clearly the high number is the one to report, alone.
B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.
C) Mention that banning cell phones or texting doesn't change this, and fail to connect the dots to ask the question as to whether this has been true since the freaking radio was installed

Course, if they did any of that, it may not make their jobs sound very relevant.

Re:Notice....

[Moryath]

C) Mention that banning cell phones or texting doesn't change this, and fail to connect the dots to ask the question as to whether this has been true since the freaking radio was installed

Ironically, attention to What The Fuck They Are Doing While Driving has been going down since the automatic transmission was invented. People don't have to pay attention to the state of their car (speed AND tachometer reading and associated gear choice), they just go "ooh put it in drive, gas=go, vroom vroom."

Likewise, in cars and also (ironically) in Football, an increase in the number of safety devices in the vehicle has caused an increase, not decrease, in the number and severity of crashes/injuries. The problem? In both cases, a significant portion of the population involved behave even more recklessly, believing that they are now "safe" to do so because the "safety devices" will save them.

Antilock brakes, for instance, led to far more rear-end collisions on freeways at higher speeds, because most of the idiots out there thought "ooh, I have antilock brakes, I can stop on a dime" when antilock brakes actually don't cut your stop distance that much, they just help make a safer stop by (within limits!) allowing you to maintain control rather than going into an uncontrolled skid.

Re:Notice....

[Rob the Bold]

How the highway safety folks....

B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.

Actually, yes. From TFP:

NHTSA estimates that 16% of fatal crashes and 20% of injury crashes in 2009 involved at least one distracted driver (NHTSA, 2010a).

From a another study quoted in the paper:

Farmer et al. (2010) combined the fourfold increase in crash risk while using a cell phone from the McEvoy et al. and Redelmeier and Tibshirani studies with the 7% cell phone use rate while driving obtained in a telephone survey to conclude that cell phone use caused 1.3 million crashes in 2008, or about 22% of all crashes, 19% of all fatal crashes, and 23% of all injury crashes. The National Safety Council (NSC) (2010a, 2010b) used similar methods to produce a similar estimate: 25% of all crashes are caused by cell phones.

And as to the question (in a nearby thread) of additional accidents due to distraction by gadgets . . .

Wilson and Stimpson (2010) compared trends in distracted driving fatalities recorded in FARS with trends in cell phone subscriptions and text message volume. They observed that distracted driving fatalities and text messaging both increased substantially from 2005 to 2008. Their multivariate regression analysis estimated that increased texting since 2001 produced over 16,000 additional traffic fatalities.

Re:Notice....

[blueg3]

Where is it that the highway safety folks "lead with the high side number"? Or are you thinking of the Slashdot summary or the article (not the report) -- neither of which were written by "highway safety folks"?

Re:Notice....

[PitaBred]

Pretty sure George Carlin talked about having all safety devices removed and replaced with a huge metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel pointed right at the driver ;)

Re:Notice....

[w_dragon]

I learned to drive on a standard, and I never figured out why people think it makes you pay more attention. It takes longer to learn properly, yes no question, but once you really know it it's all unconscious. I learned on a vehicle without a tachometer (82 Datsun pickup), you listened to the engine and felt how responsive the gas was to figure out when to shift. When I drive standard now it's no different than automatic for me. My hands and feet know what to do and I can pretty much ignore the car as much as I can in an automatic once I figure out where everything is.

Addressing the problem

[rocketman768]

... and how to effectively address it

Uh, stop using gadgets while driving?

Re:Addressing the problem

[inglorion_on_the_net]

Uh, stop using gadgets while driving?

That may work, but you saying it on Slashdot probably isn't going to help implement that solution.

I'm actually curious: what is the penalty you get for causing an accident by being involved in activities other than driving while you're in control of the vehicle? This is a case where I suspect that steep penalties may actually help, e.g. "Don't use your phone while driving, or your driver's license will be revoked if you get into an accident."

Re:Addressing the problem

[operagost]

So you would like to prioritize this over other reasons to have an accident, like speeding, driving without corrective lenses, driving with an injury, driving while drunk, and driving while sleepy?

Re:Addressing the problem

[inglorion_on_the_net]

So you would like to prioritize this over other reasons to have an accident, like speeding, driving without corrective lenses, driving with an injury, driving while drunk, and driving while sleepy?

Not necessarily, no. Apologies if I gave that impression. I think the prevailing principle should be that if you are in control, you are responsible for the safety of your passengers, yourself, and everyone else. Given that, you should not be driving if you can't see well enough, are too sleepy, etc.

As far as enforcement goes, it gets a little trickier, because what exactly is "too sleepy", how do you establish that, and how do you deal with the fact that it is basically a judgment call, and there are various things that affect that judgment (for example, feeling less sleepy because you've had coffee)? However, some things are rather clear cut, such as, for example, having inoperative brakes or lights on the car, breaking rules such as which side of the road to drive on, red lights, etc.

I think that if someone does something clearly wrong, that they knew to be wrong, and got into an accident because of it, they have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to drive safely, and revocation of their license would be appropriate.

Why do police get exempted then?

[whoda]

If it's so bad and causes so many accidents, why are police allowed to use their personal cellphone while driving?
Don't tell me it's their driver training, plenty of civilians can attend those classes and that doesn't exempt them.

Re:Why do police get exempted then?

[characterZer0]

So cities do not have to pay out when pigs on cellphones hit people.

Re:Why do police get exempted then?

[Toam]

It kind of bothers me that the same rules apply to the same people (read: civilians) regardless of driver training.

Re:Why do police get exempted then?

[Lumpy]

"Don't tell me it's their driver training, plenty of civilians can attend those classes and that doesn't exempt them."

Really? lots of civilians attend police drivers training courses? I dont see many civillians taking training on skid pads or defensive driving.
I think you just have no clue as to what kind of training cops get.

Re:Why do police get exempted then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do laws apply to authority?

Re:Why do police get exempted then?

[hedwards]

Police officers being exempted doesn't bother me too much as there's that camera there if they're driving stupidly and get in an accident. What does bother me is that they aren't the only group exempted from the requirement. And given that the rules around here allow you to use the phone with a headset, I'm not really sure why commercial drivers should be given an exemption.

Clearly, more studies need to be done...

[countertrolling]

Absolutely! Gotta keep that money flowing to study the clearly obvious..

What is needed is an autopilot for cars.. Driving is the distraction

Just like alcohol related accidents.

[VortexCortex]

If anyone in the car has been drinking, or there's a 3 week old empty beer can in the bed of the truck -- It's an alcohol related accident; Even if the driver is sober/designated, and/or those open cans are in-route to the recyclers.

I was once made to perform a field sobriety check at a DUI checkpoint because a passenger, my brother, was intoxicated (I was assumed drunk by relation, I suppose) -- I noted the officer's mention of my Sansa Media player to another, apparently this was a Gadget related 4th amendment violation.
--
Mrs. Doubtfire: He was quite fond of the drink. It was the drink that killed him.
Miranda: How awful, he was an alcoholic?
Mrs. Doubtfire: No, he was hit by a Guinness truck, so it was quite literally "the drink that killed him".

Re:Just like alcohol related accidents.

[fritish]

In my experience cops have been more accommodating.

I had an accident where my car flipped over on a highway*. Among other things, I was transporting some home-brew beers other alcohol. Some were in the trunk, but there were two cases in the backseat. As the car flipped, one of the cases broke open and a couple beers broke and the car reeked of beer.

By the time a cop got there, one of the first things I told the cop was that I was transporting beer and a bottle broke when the car flipped and that's why the car smelled like beer. The cop just said something like "oh, OK." and wrote me up for "driving too fast for conditions". There was nothing in the report about alcohol.

I dunno, maybe the cop was just lazy, but I wasn't tested or anything for alcohol.

* It was last Christmas, I was taking a bunch of beer/wine/liquor back to my family and was driving on a country highway. Light rain, freshly paved road, trunk with lots of weight in it--the car slid out in a turn and I lost control and the car went out and flipped over. I was driving under the speed limit and noone else was involved. Much to my astonishment, I was fine, but confused as to how to remove my seatbelt without falling down onto the roof. But not even bruising or soreness afterwards. I just lost two bottles of beer and a car.

Gadgets are not just cell phones

[Overzeetop]

And gadgets have been around forever. How many accidents are caused by people messing with their radio? Touch screens are really, really a bad idea, and I'm always disappointed when there are so few, good head units that have physical knobs for adjusting playback and volume.

The article seems to be more focused on the even more general "distractions":

...distractions affect our driving performance and how drivers are typically distracted most of time. One thing that stood out of the report was the claim that being distracted was the cause of 15 to 25% of all accidents

Duh. Passengers talking, kids doing practically everything kids do, Billboards, airports (I fear for my life when my former Air Force father-in-law passes a military airport), food, parcels shifting around, or just plain daydreaming. It doesn't have to be modern electronics causing the issues, they just add to the cacophony of distractions that exist.

Re:Gadgets are not just cell phones

[SirWhoopass]

Working in the field of transportation safety research (including distraction) my observation is that people over-estimate the control of the device as a problem (punching in the phone number), and under-estimate the mental resources dedicated to the task (the conversation). This is why radios, fast food, and other "distractions" don't generally produce the same level of effect as cell phones.

It doesn't make a lot of resources to push the button (assuming you already know how to operate the device) or shove a cheeseburger in your mouth. This is why hands-free shows the same level of distraction as hand-held phones, and both are worse than other tasks.

As to why in-car conversations are less of a problem than cell conversations... no one has any convincing proof. One is the difference between self-paced and forced-pace tasks. Others theorize a "day dreaming" state in which the person dedicates a lot of mental resources to put themselves into the remote conversation. Adults are the best at safely maintaining in-car conversations. Teenagers are significantly more dangerous with other teens in the vehicle.

Your comment about your father-in-law is interesting, and (in my opinion) a great example of distraction. He isn't operating a gadget, he is getting lost mentally. This is the issue with phones.

Re:Gadgets are not just cell phones

[mark-t]

"How many accidents are caused by people messing with their radio?"

Statistically, not as many as are caused by that as are by cell phone use.

Also... while it is true that the introduction of car radios resulted in an increase in accidents, this increase subsided when preprogrammed station buttons were invented, which made it possible for people to adjust their radio to their favorite stations wholly by tactile sensation, and they did not have to divert their eyes and attention from the road.

Of course, *ANY* task that diverts one's attention from driving is problematic... it's actually entirely unrelated to cell phone use, in particular... however, I remember reading a report a number of years ago that was discussing the unforeseen recent rise in the number of accidents and noted that if one discounted the accidents that were connected with cell phone use while driving, then the remaining number of accidents was well within any increase that would be considered typical. Since the general public does not seem to have the mental wherewithal to make intelligent decisions about what activities are safe to do while driving, laws prohibiting the most problematic ones were created.

Expect this situation to happen again when other new technologies are invented which have a statistical impact in the number of distracted drivers.

I always find it interesting....

[Capt James McCarthy]

That even though I live in a 'hands free driving' state, that whenever I pass a police officer, they have a cell phone up to their ear. So there is a law in place and I don't think I've seen it enforced. Does talking on the cell phone or texting while driving affect the driver? For most folks, hell yes. I can't count the times that I've come up on a driver who's going too slow in the far left lane, or going outside their lane, and passing them only to see them talking on their phone.

But the true 'root' cause of these accidents is stupidity, not the device itself. They were not paying attention. Be it a cell phone, reading a paper, putting on make up, or looking for their lighter. Looking away from the road for anything can cause an accident.

Re:I always find it interesting....

[Lumpy]

Cops are exempt from the law.

Re:I always find it interesting....

[gfxguy]

That even though I live in a 'hands free driving' state, that whenever I pass a police officer, they have a cell phone up to their ear. So there is a law in place and I don't think I've seen it enforced. Does talking on the cell phone or texting while driving affect the driver? For most folks, hell yes.

Yes, I see cops violating the law all the time... speeding when they obviously are not on a call, failing to signal, tailgating... As for your last sentence, it's not "most follks," it's everybody .

But the true 'root' cause of these accidents is stupidity, not the device itself. They were not paying attention. Be it a cell phone, reading a paper, putting on make up, or looking for their lighter. Looking away from the road for anything can cause an accident.

It's not just looking away, though. Your eyes can be on the road and you still not paying attention because your brain is processing the phone conversation you're having. I gave links above, I won't repeat them - hands free, for example, does little to stop the distraction.

Re:I always find it interesting....

[jittles]

If you're referring to the great state of California, then yes, the cell phone law is enforced. I moved away from California a few months after the law was introduced. I have a hard time remembering not to answer the phone when I go home to visit, because I am not used to it. I do have occasion to visit military installations, which also prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. But for some reason, I never forget there. Interestingly enough, on a military installation you cannot even legally use a bluetooth headset. You may only use speaker phone for phone calls on a military installation.

Re:I always find it interesting....

[PitaBred]

Hehe. So naive. You didn't think the laws applied to the cops, did you? They look out for each other unless it's something they can't hide. And even then they often try.

No, not all departments or officers are like that. But enough are that it's scary as hell.

Re:I always find it interesting....

[tompaulco]

But the true 'root' cause of these accidents is stupidity, not the device itself.
You can't outlaw stupidity. We don't have enough jails.

If you're looking for a distraction...

[Thruen]

...you'll find it. I don't think the issue is the availability of gadgets that drivers will distract themselves with, I think it's drivers who look for something better to do while they're driving. It's easy to pin it on gadgets now because everyone has one and it's the go-to distraction, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who's witnessed the occasional morning driver with one hand holding a coffee and the wheel while the other holds the newspaper to the steering wheel. Now, as for how to address the issue, I'm at a loss. Without having a police officer in every passenger seat, I don't see any way to enforce any laws against distracted driving in general.

Re:Control Group?

[black soap]

Those people who distract themselves with gadgets and get into accidents are probably the bad drivers who would have managed to get into accidents anyway.

Bait and Switch study

[Attila Dimedici]

The study talks about the fact that distracted driving involves more than just cellphones, then most of their recomendations involve restricting the use of cellphones while driving. When they talk about the only objective basis they have for analyzing the impact of distracted driving (the actual accident reports) they lump all distracted driving into one category and do not give you any idea of what percentage of those involve cellphone use and what percentage involve other things (like changing the radio station). This is the problem I see with all attempts to push laws increasing restrictions on cellphone use in cars, they either do not point out all the other things that people do routinely while driving that are just as big of a distraction as cellphones, or if they do, they use the impact of those things on the incidence of accidents to support restrictions on cellphone use while driving.
The thing is, driving is dangerous. People need to be reminded on a regular basis that they need to pay attention to what is going on around them when they are driving. New laws are not needed.

Too general

[Toam]

Note: I've not read the pdf as it isn't loading for me.

I hate when studies like this consider accidents due to "cell phone use". That is far too general. You need to split it up into talking and texting. As much as I'm sure that talking on a phone does increase your risk of having an accident, that effect would be trivial when compared to the risk increase due to texting. However, people text with their phones in their lap, so it can't be seen from a passing police car so they have a blanket ban on phone use and fine people for talking on their phones when that isn't really the problem.

Not just cellphones

[Tx]

FTA: "Distracted driving definitions. Distracted driving immediately brings to
mind cell phones and texting, and perhaps use of other electronic devices.
But there are many more driving distractions: activities like eating, changing
a CD, or talking to other passengers; billboards or other objects outside the
car; even planning the day’s work, rehashing an emotional moment from the
previous night, or just daydreaming. It is useful to begin by defining what
distracted driving means. "

Glad to see this study acknowledges that there are an awful lot of distractions other than cellphones, most of which can't reasonably be banned. It also mentions that there's no evidence that cellphone or texting bans have any effect on accident rate. So focussing all attention on banning cellphone usage is not the solution, or at least not the only solution. Personally thing most likely to distract me is incompetent drivers who don't know which lane they're supposed to be in, when to signal, or when to join a roundabout. Learn to drive, people.

Re:Not just cellphones

[djlemma]

Glad to see this study acknowledges that there are an awful lot of distractions other than cellphones, most of which can't reasonably be banned. It also mentions that there's no evidence that cellphone or texting bans have any effect on accident rate. So focussing all attention on banning cellphone usage is not the solution, or at least not the only solution. Personally thing most likely to distract me is incompetent drivers who don't know which lane they're supposed to be in, when to signal, or when to join a roundabout. Learn to drive, people.

I think you bring up a good point. More thorough driver training and testing could probably do a much better job at reducing accident than enacting a bunch of laws that may or may not work. I was fairly shocked at the contrast between motorcycle license exams and regular car exams, for instance- On my bike, I had to demonstrate my ability to do figure 8's, emergency stops, S-curves (with a stopwatch to make sure I didn't go too slowly) and a bunch of other stuff. When I got my regular car license all I had to do was drive around the block and do a rudimentary maneuverability test that wasn't even parallel parking.

I know folks here in the USA see driving as a right, or at least a personal freedom, I still think it would be worthwhile to raise the education standards a bit.

Re:Not just cellphones

[hedwards]

A lot of that isn't preventable though the way that cell phone usage is. People who exhibit the sorts of behaviors you're pointing to are most likely just not from around there. You probably have a point about roundabouts, but the rest of it is largely a function of familiarity with the region. And really, that's why people should be given defensive driving lessons as a condition of getting a license. I've never been in an accident while driving about the streets because I was taught to look out for erratic drivers and because in times that I myself have lapsed the other parties were engaged in defensive driving.

Around here what we really need is better parking enforcement. There's just way too many places where one has to pull out blind because some jackass was parked too close to the corner with a line of sight blocking vehicle.

Re:Not just cellphones

[hedwards]

It's not so much a right as a necessity. Around here the bus system sucks. It's hard to go anywhere via mass transit that isn't going to take at least an hour. And rather than fix the problem, the mayor has decided that it's more important to clog up traffic with excessive bike lanes.

I take the bus or walk most places, but I had to find a new job when I wasn't able to get downtown on time for work because buses don't operate anywhere that early on a Sunday. Not to mention how much time it takes to go by bus if you're trip doesn't naturally go through downtown.

Re:Not just cellphones

[Nethead]

..the mayor has decided that it's more important to clog up traffic with excessive bike lanes.

Live in Seattle, do we?

And Snohomish County Community Transit doesn't even run on Sundays.

Re:Not just cellphones

[djlemma]

I agree, I suppose my point is that even as a necessity, the testing should reflect the driving circumstances that one would actually encounter during normal driving. Having a test that doesn't require (or even allow) one to go above 25mph, doesn't require parallel parking, and doesn't even remotely touch on hazard awareness or avoidance is a problem. People that drive out of necessity SHOULD be able to deal with all these situations easily, so why not test for them?

That said, I am also a big proponent of both bike lanes and public transit. It's too bad that the standard way of implementing bike lanes seems to be to put some paint on the road inside an already existing lane for car traffic, rather than widening the road a bit to accommodate bikes..

Reading on a kindle while driving

[angel'o'sphere]

A few days ago I over took another car on a high way and the driver had a kindel on his stearing wheel.

Obvioulsy he was driving and reading same time ...

Scary!

Re:Reading on a kindle while driving

[Cro Magnon]

Before kindles, idiots were trying to read newspapers or books while driving (I actually saw some of that).

Re:Reading on a kindle while driving

[jittles]

I kid you not, I literally passed someone playing a trumpet while driving a few months ago.

Re:Reading on a kindle while driving

[Idarubicin]

Before kindles, idiots were trying to read newspapers or books while driving (I actually saw some of that).

One memorable evening, my uncle saw a vehicle weaving across a multilane highway. He assumed that the driver was drunk, until he got close enough to discover that she was actually knitting.

Re:Reading on a kindle while driving

[modecx]

My dad and I were passed on the right, by a guy playing the flute, and driving with his knees. True story. If I wasn't there to see it, I wouldn't have believed it myself.

More Research Warranted

[inglorion_on_the_net]

Despite all that has been written about driver distraction, there is still a lot that we do not know, Much of the research is incomplete or contradictory. Clearly, more studies need to be done addressing both the scope of the problem and how to effectively address it

This is somewhat surprising, given that governments around the world have taken steps to ban gadget use (especially talking on the phone) while driving. You would think they would do this based on evidence that it actually posed a significant safety risk, but if that were the case, you would also expect that research would clearly show this. Clearly, something is fishy here.

Personally, I like to focus on driving when I'm at the wheel, because I can't bear the thought of getting into (not necessarily even causing) an accident because I wasn't paying attention. Clearly, other people are not so worried. And, apparently, it's difficult to clearly established if they should be.

Why is it even necessary to argue this point?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The replies to articles like this one always confuse me. It might be because I'm a gauche European, but I wonder what's wrong with Americans: a quick calculation shows that per billion km travelled, 3 Dutch (I used that for comparison 'cause that's where I'm from) people die on average each year. 7 Americans do. If you can't see that texting while driving interferes with your ability to drive, and think that prohibiting you from doing so is depriving you of your 'freedoms', I sincerely hope you hit a tree, and not some oncoming motorist...

Re:Why is it even necessary to argue this point?!

[inglorion_on_the_net]

That's a big leap, from "more Americans than Dutch die per billion km traveled" to "texting while driving is so dangerous that statements like 'I hope you hit a tree' are appropriate".

Re:Why is it even necessary to argue this point?!

[hedwards]

It's more complicated in some respects. We can't crackdown too much on licensing like they do in parts of Europe because our mass transit systems are typically wholly inadequate for the needs of the people. I say that as an avid bus rider, but there's times when I've had to choose between a job and taking the bus. The bus will typically add an additional half hour each way to my commute, assuming that I don't need to transfer. And good luck making a quick stop to pick up groceries on the way home.

Re:There, I fixed that for you...

[nedlohs]

Great so now the driver opens their window and holds their cell phone out of it. That'll improve things.

Re:Alternate Take on News Flash

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

News Flash: 93% of Drunk Drivers get Home Just fine:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-93-of-drunk-drivers-get-home-just-fine,6250/

Aside from the fact that it's in the onion, this is almost certainly true. It's actually probably higher. There are high-functioning alcoholics who regularly commute while drunk, whose drunk driving likely is the majority of drunk driving.

The problem is that it's so easily for something to go horribly, horribly wrong. A high success percentage doesn't help if the low failure percentage has nasty consequences, like lots of death.

Just remember

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Just remember:
People in cars cause accidents.
Accidents in cars cause people.

Re:Worse than DUIs?

[gfxguy]

You make a good point; I think that while a lot of us think driving while using a cellphone (either talking or texting) is just incredibly stupid, so many people from all walks of life are guilty, and they know they won't stop if penalties are increased, so don't want to make it potentially worse on themselves (as if killing someone isn't bad enough). I bet a lot of those MADD drivers use cellphones while driving, as do their husbands and older kids - but talking on a cellphone is also not morally objectionable like drinking alcohol is to some people.

Re:Control Group?

[vlm]

Those people who distract themselves with gadgets and get into accidents are probably the bad drivers who would have managed to get into accidents anyway.

... by being distracted by hottie on sidewalk, by being distracted by billboard advertising their favorite TV show, by being distracted by screaming at their kids in the back seat, by being distracted by the music on the radio...

The problem isn't the good drivers are being distracted, the problem is bad drivers who can be distracted by ANYTHING. Take away the gadgets, they'll find another way to create mayhem on the roads.

Re:gadget while driving == driving while intoxicat

[dgatwood]

Translation: "As far as I'm concerned, the danger posed by a drunk/high driver are the same as any other driver, and the penalties should be equivalent. Needless to say, this would be a very unpopular ruling despite the fact that the dangers are equivalent."

It would be unpopular because they aren't comparable. When you are distracted while driving, you're distracted for a few seconds. An accident only occurs if something happens to occur during those few seconds. When you are drunk, you are incapacitated for the entire duration of your trip. This makes drunk driving much worse than distracted driving.

Also, everyone gets distracted once in a while by something, whether it's texting on a cell phone or shouting at the person you disagree with on talk radio. So in effect, you're arguing that one particular distraction should be singled out, when there's no evidence that it won't simply be replaced by other distractions.

Put another way, 25% of car accidents are linked to gadget use. Better than one in ten drivers are using cell phones at any given moment. This means that this is only a mere 2.5x more likely than you'd expect by purely random chance, and probably less than that if you take into account that teen drivers are much more likely to use cell phones, and are much more likely to have accidents. In short, it is quite likely that this correlation can be explained away completely as mere chance. Probably not completely, but most of it—so much so that passing laws on the subject is unlikely to have a significant impact on accidents.

This is borne out by California's passage of an anti-texting law. Although traffic fatalities went down, they went down by roughly the average amount that they have been dropping each year for the decade prior, suggesting that such laws have minimal impact.

Hurry up and produce auto-driving cars.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Accidents will go down by 25%.

Re:Hurry up and produce auto-driving cars.

[Ogi_UnixNut]

We call them trains, or buses and taxis (who generally have a professional who is paid to drive and not do anything else). I never got this attitude. I drive because I love driving, I have very little in the car to distract me (only a Radio, and a silent GPS I can glance at to confirm my route). We are getting there as far as self-driving cars, but we already have equivalents now. Sure they are not automatic, but taxis/minicabs in particular already provide the same level of service, just with a human at the wheel.

If you (in general, not parent) are getting distracted by driving, then don't. Get someone else to do it for you.

I'm all for auto-driving cars, as long I'm not forced into using them :P Let them be personal taxis for those for who driving is not that interesting.

Re:Hurry up and produce auto-driving cars.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

See, that's the problem. Where I live, there are no trains, buses or taxis, and driving ANYWHERE of interest takes half a day.
Believe me, if there was a good train or bus system, I'd be riding that every single day.

Re:Hurry up and produce auto-driving cars.

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Um, out of curiosity, where on earth do you live?! And surely if there is nothing around within half a days drive, then a lot of the issues people complain about when driving don't apply. Things like congestion, or morons (if there are any, there will be far fewer as it's a sparsely populated area). What major distractions exist? Anywhere that doesn't have taxi/bus/train service must be really sparsely populated, no?

Gadgets are not the cause of accidents

[grimmjeeper]

Drivers are the cause of the accidents.

Drivers were getting into accidents long before there were any gadgets in the cars, even radios. Drivers let themselves get distracted by a lot of different things. They can even get distracted by nothing at all. Driving along in your mundane commute, it's easy to start daydreaming and not pay attention to what goes on around you.

But it's not just distracted driving that causes accidents. Overconfidence and impatience are both big factors. People who think they can drive so much faster with a cell phone in one hand and a latte in the other, just because they haven't crashed lately, cause a lot of accidents. People in too much of a hurry to drive safely cause a number of accidents as well. Let's not forget intoxication though. That too contributes significantly.

The thing is, though, that none of this is really new. These problems have existed since the invention of automobiles. And they all have a common source. The driver. Drivers cause accidents. Aside from the occasional mechanical failure allowing a car to roll down a hill on its own, cars don't get in accidents by themselves. There's (almost) always a driver behind the wheel when the car is in an accident.

I don't think it makes sense to blame the gadget for the accident. The idiot using the gadget would be distracted for some other reason if they weren't using the gadget.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Alternate Take on News Flash

[AngryDeuce]

If they stuck to weed, it be more like 99%.

Of course, it will take them 4 hours to get home as they creep along at 15 mph...

Re:Control Group?

[Bengie]

But GPSs make driving so easy. All your do is solve the maze puzzle on your screen, and you're there. It turns driving into a game, so much more fun than staring blankly out your windshield.

One more reason to ride public transportation

[JeffTL]

On the bus, train, or streetcar, or an airplane if you're going between cities, you can use any device you want except a music player without headphones (which is against the rules on probably most systems). I take the Chicago Transit Authority's buses and trains all the time, plus Metra trains on occasion, and loads of people are always using newspapers, books, Kindles, smartphones, iPods, iPads, you name it. They had to crack down on the drivers using phones a while back, but for everyone else it's not a problem.

Re:One more reason to ride public transportation

[grimmjeeper]

That's great. Until the texting idiot in his car hits your bus or train...

Summary is wrong

[SkOink]

The actual study says that 25% of accidents are caused by distracted driving, not by gadgets per-se. Their list of distractions include (among other things):

1) Vehicle controls/displays.
2) Food.
3) Scenery / roadside features.
4) Daydreaming.

Smart Phones Vs. Stereos

[Petersko]

When you listen to the stereo, or talk to a passenger, you keep your eyes on the road. Now, perhaps your responses are slightly diminished, but not by much.

When you look down at a smart phone and text somebody, looking up periodically for a moment is nearly useless. When you've broken the continuous processing of deltas in a scene, and you try to reestablish that understanding by looking up, the first few seconds are used by your brain to figure out what everything is and where it is... not "what's evolving in my surroundings".

Devices that completely divert viisual attention are much more dangerous than those that can be handled "blind".

Getting close to the target.

[Gription]

The fact is there were already laws on the books against distracted driving. The problem is that it isn't an "exciting" infraction to enforce.

Cops have a really thick book of possible tickets to write but if the infraction isn't exciting or "sexy". the cops aren't writing tickets. Far and away the most common root cause of accidents works out to failure to yield right-of-way. This can be from obliviousness (cells and whatnot), aggression, stupidity, ignorance, etc. When this driving behavior is witnessed a police officer is more likely to just give a warning. And this is what is killing people.

If it is a "sexy" infraction the cops are all over it. Speeding which is a root cause in accidents in very low rates (I have seen figures listed on the high side at 4% and on the low side at about 1%). Why is this the vast majority of tickets written? Because it is exciting. Cell phones have been given such a big public blitz (for good reason) and it is easy to see so it is now a big enforcement item. Seatbelts became a huge item in most places even though that doesn't cause accidents because of intense media/public pressure (making sure you don't have the freedom to do something to injure yourself is very important...)

Very simply: To do some good we need to be getting police traffic enforcement focused on the core issue of failure to yield right-of-way with people that can't seem to realize they are driving a 2-ton kinetic energy weapon. And the supposed idea that, "Driving is a privilege not a right"... If people demonstrate that they can't consistently follow the rules of right-of-way then it criminal negligence on the government's part to continue to let them drive.

Re:Getting close to the target.

[mpe]

Cops have a really thick book of possible tickets to write but if the infraction isn't exciting or "sexy". the cops aren't writing tickets. Far and away the most common root cause of accidents works out to failure to yield right-of-way. This can be from obliviousness (cells and whatnot), aggression, stupidity, ignorance, etc. When this driving behavior is witnessed a police officer is more likely to just give a warning. And this is what is killing people.
If it is a "sexy" infraction the cops are all over it. Speeding which is a root cause in accidents in very low rates (I have seen figures listed on the high side at 4% and on the low side at about 1%). Why is this the vast majority of tickets written? Because it is exciting.

It's also very easy to make a machine which can detect speeding.

Cell phones have been given such a big public blitz (for good reason) and it is easy to see so it is now a big enforcement item.

But quite possibly against traffic laws 40 plus years old.

Re:Getting close to the target.

[shmlco]

"Far and away the most common root cause of accidents works out to failure to yield right-of-way."

Had to take a friend to traffic court about a year ago, and "far and away" the most common citation was for "failure to assure a safe distance, resulting in an accident".

In other words, the driver wasn't paying attention, and rear-ended the preceding vehicle.

Though in several cases, the car that was rear-ended was the one at fault. The light changed, the idiot texting her BFF didn't notice, and the car coming up from behind assumed that the stopped car would in fact eventually proceed through the now green light. It didn't.

"... people that can't seem to realize they are driving a 2-ton kinetic energy weapon."

With you on that one. I have no problem with some distracted teenage idiot texting someone and running into a tree. Darwinism in action and all that. I do, however, have a problem with some distracted teenage idiot texting someone and running into ME!

Re:Getting close to the target.

[stewbacca]

In regards to the speeding thing (bear with me a second, my wife is an actuary)...

Less than 1-4% of accidents are caused by speeding, yet nearly all accidents are chalked up to "speeding". When you are traveling 25 mph in a 35 mph zone, cops will cite cause of accident as "failure to control speed" when they have nothing else to go on. In other words, if you were going slower, you would have stopped in time to avoid a collision.

The majority of accidents, according to my real-life actuary wife is "failure to yield". This generally has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with lack of education and courtesy.

Re:Getting close to the target.

[stewbacca]

It's also very easy to make a machine which can detect speeding.

I've never understood this. It's even easier to use the already installed dashboard camera to film: illegal lane changes, failure to yield, texting while driving and any myriad of other real-world threats.

Re:Getting close to the target.

[stewbacca]

Had to take a friend to traffic court about a year ago, and "far and away" the most common citation was for "failure to assure a safe distance, resulting in an accident".

Hah! You've fallen for great lie #2 (#1 being speed is the #1 cause of accidents). What you've cited is a lazy cop-out by law enforcement. Yeah, if you were going 2mph, you wouldn't have run into that other car.

Most accidents (somewhere in the 60% range in places without round-a-bouts) occur in intersections and unmarked parking lots. These are all due to failure to yield. The second most frequent cause of accidents is "following too closely" which gets bundled (erroneously) in with "failure to control speed". Think your average fender-bender rear-ender here. But since most of those never get reported, their numbers are lower. I imagine if every paint scratch rear-ender were reported, it would be the #1 cause.

Re:Getting close to the target.

[Shrike82]

Though in several cases, the car that was rear-ended was the one at fault. The light changed, the idiot texting her BFF didn't notice, and the car coming up from behind assumed that the stopped car would in fact eventually proceed through the now green light. It didn't.

No, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no. The idiot in the car that "assumed" is way more to blame for that than the moron sitting at a green light. Both are idiots. Both of them would get me swearing and questioning their parenthood/intelligence/fitness to exist but if you make an assumption about the actions of another driver you are setting yourself up for an accident.

Never assume that the guy in front of you doing 70mph with a clear road ahead will continue to do 70mph. If you follow so closely that his braking causes you to hit the back of him that's more your fault than his. Never assume the woman in front of you will pull out into traffic because YOU judged the gap to be large enough for her. She may feel differently. In the example you mentioned, at least in Britain, YOU are required to maintain enough distance to brake safely before you hit the back of that car. At no time should you ever get so close to someone that if they slam on the brakes you can't stop short of hitting them. If everyone followed this common sense approach we'd have way, way less car accidents worldwide, and if you believe the traffic analysts we'd actually all get to where we're going faster on average as there'd be less sharp braking, less accidents, more room to change lanes without having to cut in or slow down the people behind you etc.

OK, rant over.

Re:Control Group?

[Idarubicin]

Those people who distract themselves with gadgets and get into accidents are probably the bad drivers who would have managed to get into accidents anyway.

I've found that a pretty good way to identify the "bad drivers" is by looking to see which ones are fiddling with their cell phones, Blackberries, or GPS receivers.

The drivers who use these devices but think they are driving well are generally just sufficiently distracted not to notice all the errors that they're making. I don't think anyone gets into their car in the morning and says "I'm going to do something dangerous today that might kill myself or others", and yet we still have thousands of people dying in car accidents.

This Slashdot discussion is an excellent study in seeing how people resolve cognitive dissonance. Everyone likes to see themselves as a good driver. Using a cell phone is a serious distraction. The logical conclusion is that people who use cell phones while driving are not good drivers. The dissonance is resolved by carving out personal exceptions ("Sure, some people can't handle the phone, but I'm a really good driver") or dismissing the evidence ("I'm sure the study is flawed, because the people who got into the accidents were bad drivers anyway").

Re:Control Group?

[black soap]

Exactly. Just the other day a woman almost ran me off the road because she was eating chips. The bag of chips was in her left hand, which was also holding the steering wheel. Every time she reached into the bag for another chip, she turned the wheel to the right so she could reach deeper into the bag, causing her to leave her lane. She contined doing this all the way down the road, even after swerving towards several other cars, each of which honked at her. She didn't care that she was driving poorly. I suspect even without the bag of chips, she would have been driving poorly.

Did anyone at Slashdot even read the study?

[tipo159]

The headline is "25% of Car Accidents Linked to Gadget Use", but that is a high figure from another study (from the National Safety Council). The study quoted here also mentions another study (Flanagan and Sayer) that says it is more like 3-4%. Most of the studies that I have seen seems to be approaching the situation "knowing" that cell phones are the problem. Other distractions are downplayed and/or ignored. Changes in society that impact individual's approach to driving and the amount of time spent in the car are ignored. It looks like more politics than science to me.

Re:Worse than DUIs?

[PitaBred]

MADD doesn't need any more power. They're already a neo-prohibitionist organization. Even the founder quit because they started becoming nuts. The "war" against drunk driving has effectively been "won". Only the highly stupid do it, and they're typically punished fairly strongly.

Two questions.

[liquidweaver]

1.) What exactly does "linked" mean? If it's not causal, who gives a shit? 2.) What was their data set, how did they calculate 25%? I RTFA - and by the way, it reads a whole lot like and ad. Bonus points, skimming through the citations at the bottom you will find a comprehensive list of insurance companies' shell "safety" organizations (you know, the kind that tell you about Officer McNab on the radio or how about cops are "cracking down")

Darwinism at work, here.

[CrowdedBrainzzzsand9]

This is Darwinism at work. Let the expired drive-by tweeters and texters be declared, en masse, the next Darwin Awards winners.

Re:Darwinism at work, here.

[SleazyRidr]

The problem is the frequency with which they take out other drivers with them, so it doesn't really function as enough of a driving force for evolution to actually happen.

Naturalistic Driving Study

[ptmartin01]

There is a great work in progress in collecting real data about drivers. Very intrusive but if you're interested in being part of the database check out "http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Pages/The_SHRP_2_Naturalistic_Driving_Study_472.aspx"

BINGO: Kids in the back seat!

[davidwr]

Now we know the REAL reason kids have to wear seat belts:

It's not to save THEM from being hurt IN a crash.

It's to cut down on driver distraction when Jenny yells "Jimmy's on MY side again!" ... again.

So yes, buckling up kids does save lives.

--

Seriously, when properly used with a good booster seat or child-adapters on the shoulder belts, seat belts do reduce overall death and serious injury in car crashes. Buckle those kids up EVEN if they are little angels who will not distract you.

new car time!

[erica_ann]

And now car manufactures want to give you more electronic conveniences in your car .. even if you dont take eyes off road, you can *still* be distracted by thoughts.. zoning out during a phone conversation (handsfree) or listening to messages.. to a degree, it may never be as safe on the road as it was before there were cellphones (maybe even before pagers too)

Course their were bag phones and satellite phones.. but the ratio of people having those was way less than ration of drivers to cell phones now.

Next time you're on the bus

[neosaurus]

Look out of the window at the cars passing by. One in ten will be fidgeting with their smartphones with one or no hands on the wheel. Not only does this behavior increase accidents, it contributes to slowing flow and causes jams. And then we shift the onus of safety from us onto the vehicle and go buy a big SUV to be 'safe'.

Neither is hands-free calling

[dontmakemethink]

The hands-free issue is moot:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2008/10/17/cellphone-handsfree.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012393/Distracting-hands-free-devices-dangerous-mobile.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
http://www.tgdaily.com/mobility-features/57097-hands-free-calls-could-be-just-as-dangerous-on-the-roads
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jun/30/mobilephones.uknews
http://socialtimes.com/distracted-driving-dangerous-but-no-evidence-hands-free-laws-help_b69790
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/hands-free-cell-phone-usage-equally-dangerous-while-driving/
http://news.yahoo.com/hands-free-cell-phone-usage-equally-dangerous-while-170124007.html
http://www.infoniac.com/offbeat-news/hands-free-phones-more-dangerous-for-drivers-than-alcoholic-drinks.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012393/Distracting-hands-free-devices-dangerous-mobile.html
http://www.iol.co.za/motoring/industry-news/hands-free-phoning-just-as-dangerous-1.1096622

Seems it was published everywhere except mainstream US media, which strongly indicates that it's true but contrary to corporate interests. I guess more accidents translates to more car sales. Ideally cars should be as safe as possible for the driver and passengers, but difficult to drive (i.e. small windows, confusing/distracting features, controls, and meters), and most importantly more likely to be written off from even minor collisions. Sounds about right. Too bad about the bad wrecks that kill people, but hey, business is business.

Correlation != Causation

[Jane Q. Public]

There. Somebody had to state that, but in this case there is actual evidence behind it..

I've been reading about this correlation for years. But the fact is that nobody has shown a causative effect. In fact some studies have very strongly suggested otherwise.

For example, where bans on cell phone use have gone into effect, studies have shown that the accidents rates did not go down. Further, in those areas where the laws were later repealed, accident rates did not then go up. (Notice also that with all this news of 25% of accidents being caused by cell phones, nobody is reporting that total accident rates are up by 25% since cell phones have become popular.)

So, the actual explanation is likely to be a separate primary cause, something like this: people who already tend to be distracted drivers, tend to be talking on their cell phones when they get into accidents. But if they weren't talking on their cell phones, they'd be doing something else to distract themselves and still get into accidents. (We know that because the studies show that they do... accident rates do not go down.)

Further yet, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that holding a cell phone up to your ear is no worse than using hands-free devices, when it comes to distracted driving. So all these laws against holding a phone to your ear but allowing hands-free devices are completely worthless, and therefore bad laws.

Yet another study showed that laws banning texting can actually increase accidents because people continue to text, but put the phones in their laps to do it so they don't get caught.

How to address it...

[holophrastic]

Accept risk at the same levels as you accept it in general. Being safer means not driing at all. That's not an option. A certain amount of risk is acceptable. Especially because being distracted by one device displaces being distracted by some other scenario. So removing one distraction doesn't necessarily help.

So how about this. Since every racecar driver uses, in addition to a radio (i.e. phone), a few dozen gadgets; and every fighter jet pilot also uses plenty of distraction-consistent devices, how about we solve this problem the same way we solve those problems. Training.

If using a phone is so typical these days, why not make it a part of the drivers' test? And just like the eye test, maybe your licence says you need glasses, and maybe your licence sense you can't use a phone. Or maybe it says that you can.

You know, if a person can't do something, you teach them how to do it -- a novel concept.

Re:Alternate Take on News Flash

[s73v3r]

Yes. For most of those drunk drivers (and I would question whether they are the majority, but I would agree that they are probably a significant amount of the drunks on the road), as long as conditions remain the same, they kinda go on autopilot, like I would imagine most of us do while driving to and from work. It's when something changes, however, that their hampered ability to react and adapt comes out, and bad things happen.

Equivalent training is available for non-cops

[brokeninside]

It's expensive. But it's well worth it.

I'd rather be in a train or on a bus than in a car

[brokeninside]

That distracted driver is going to have to be going pretty fast to do any damage to a train.

That said, distracted train operators and bus drivers is also a real problem. About a year ago, the DC area had a spate of videos showing up on YouTube giving proof positive that bus drivers send texts, talk, and even read newspapers while driving.

Get the media on board...

[advocate_one]

It would help greatly if Hollywood and the TV studios didn't keep showing stars using cellphones etc. while driving... Seriously folks... it's JUST PLAIN STUPID... people see it done in the movies and TV and don't realise just how dangerous it is... if they are going to show it being done, then they should script in the true consequences, as a public message...

Re:I'd rather be in a train or on a bus than in a

[grimmjeeper]

It doesn't take as much as you might think to derail a train. Especially a commuter train that's going at a pretty good clip.

Re:I'd rather be in a train or on a bus than in a

[grimmjeeper]

That distracted driver is going to have to be going pretty fast to do any damage to a train.

That said, distracted train operators and bus drivers is also a real problem. About a year ago, the DC area had a spate of videos showing up on YouTube giving proof positive that bus drivers send texts, talk, and even read newspapers while driving.

Almost forgot. To deal with inattentive train operators, the government mandated Positive Train Control a few years back. The practical upshot of it is that there is coordination between the central office and all locomotives on a track. If it looks like they're going too fast or going to hit, the system sends a warning to the engineer. If there's no response, the system kicks in and stops the train automatically. It won't help with idiots who park their cars on the track or other problems like that but it will help prevent most, if not all train/train collisions.

Sounds about right to a motorcycle rider

[Swarley]

If you've never ridden a motorcycle, then you really don't appreciate how distracted you are while driving a car. No phone calls, texting, talking to a passenger, no radio to adjust, no AC to adjust, no seat position to adjust. Nothing. Nothing but the road and traffic. It literally amazed me every time I rode just how different it was from the car environment.

Re:Sounds about right to a motorcycle rider

[djlemma]

I guess you weren't riding on a Goldwing. I'm surprised they haven't come out with one of those that has AC. :)

Re:Sounds about right to a motorcycle rider

[Swarley]

They sort of have AC. They have air intakes in the front that direct the air to adjustable vents "inside". But yes I wasn't counting the Goldwing because I don't consider it a motorcycle. It's basically a vehicle for people too stupid or too stubborn to realize that they ought to just buy a convertible instead.

The "practical upshot" is that systems fail

[brokeninside]

It wasn't all that long ago that the train I normally take to and from class crashed catastrophically despite having one of those federally mandated positive train control systems. Google for DC redline collision. So far as the resulting investigation can tell, operator distraction wasn't a factor in that collision. The "operators" on the Metro rarely actually operate the train save for opening and closing the doors.

That said, the train usually is far safer than travel by automobile.

Re:The "practical upshot" is that systems fail

[grimmjeeper]

I did as you suggested and googled that event. Everything I read about the investigation into that accident pointed to a lack of maintenance of older equipment. So the fault was not with the train control system. Faulty equipment will eventually lead to an accident whether or not there's any kind of train control systems on board.

However, the system used in the Redline is not the same as the PTC system I mentioned above. The PTC system that was mandated in 2008 uses more than just the track circuits that failed on the Redline. It uses wireless transponders and network communication along with GPS technology to better coordinate information between the central office and each locomotive. With those newer systems, the train gives a lot more information about where it is and how fast its going than the older track circuits can. Along with added central office software, each train has a better idea of what's in front of it and when it needs to stop. The newer PTC systems would have had a much better chance of stopping that Redline train in time.

Nevertheless, you are right. Train travel is still far safer than with the automobile. The frequency of accidents is much, much lower. But, like airlines, the consequences of a single accident is usually much more significant. When the accidents do happen, many more people are hurt and killed than in the average automobile accident.

Are you sure about that?

[brokeninside]

How much might I think it takes to derail a train?

As a regular rider of the DC metro and Maryland commuter rail (MARC), I'm well aware of the frequency at which derailments and collisions occur.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[grimmjeeper]

Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean a train can't be derailed easily. There's a lot of work that goes into maintaining the track. There's all of the equipment at grade crossings to keep the idiots from stopping on the track. The railroads are good at being proactive in avoiding accidents. As a result, you don't see them often. But the frequency of accidents doesn't have anything to do with how difficult it is to get a train to derail.

Re:Are you sure about that?

[brokeninside]

That is true, but the frequency of collisions that result in a train derailment does have something to do with it. So does the frequency of derailments that end in damage to the trains and/or harm to the passengers.

Maybe random braking should be banned.

[NeoMorphy]

While I understand there are times when you have to slam the brakes, I wonder how many times an accident is caused by someone hitting the brakes hard when there are no traffic lights or pedestrian crossing. I've been rear-ended twice when someone slammed the brakes, then the next cars slams the brakes, I barely stop in time, then the person behind me doesn't stop in time.

Maybe it would be easier to blink if some drivers didn't test our reflexes so much.

If you drive

[diego.viola]

1- Don't drink.
2- Turn off your gadgets.

I've seen you driving and talking on the cell

[ToddInSF]

I couldn't help notice, you were going 20 in a 35 zone and straddling both lanes. I'm not saying you're a bad driver, no; just a really stupid and dangerous one. It's our road too.