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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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.

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%?

[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%?

[__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%?

[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%?

[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%?

[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.

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%!

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. ;-)

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.

Addressing the problem

[rocketman768]

... and how to effectively address it

Uh, stop using gadgets while driving?

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.