Slashdot Mirror
Smartphones More Dangerous Than Alcohol, When Driving
judgecorp writes "The Institute of Advanced Motorists in the UK has carried out live tests which prove that using smartphones impairs driving ability more than drug or alcohol use, making reaction times 37.6 percent slower (PDF). The result is a big concern since a quarter of drivers admit to sending texts from their phones while driving. 'Young people have grown up with smartphones and using them is part of everyday life. But more work needs to be done by the government and social network providers to show young people that they are risking their lives and the lives of others if they use their smartphones while driving.'"
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it. Drinking and driving is a minimal effort hobby.
Article translation: We overestimated the dangers of alcohol on driving.
I predict that factors like this will be the impetus for society ultimately being OK with switching over to computer driven vehicles. Not saying that's good or bad, just predicting.
Why not just disable sending and receiving messages while the phone is moving over a specified speed? The phone alerts you to the call or text but you can't view the text or answer the call until you pull over. Why is it that people seem to think that a phone call can't wait a few minutes? Make 911 / 999 calls exempt.
If you want to get hit by some idiot driver who is using their cell phone in a parking lot. Because that almost happened to me a couple of days ago, he would have hit me and then ran into a couple parked cars. If I hadn't noticed he was looking down at his phone and not looking forward. 3 mph or 30 mph, it doesn't matter, it still dangerous.
Society has now successfully established that reaction_time(drunken-driver) leads to more accidents (especially troublesome because you are not just injuring yourself with your stupidity, but other, innocent people are killed).
That's false. MADD proved .15 BAC lead to more accidents, then argued "lower is better" until the impairment from the legal limit is well below impairment from cell phones, radio, kids, rain on the windshield, and anything else ever measured. The conclusion should be that the current DUI levels are below measurable increase in risk.
Learn to love Alaska
Ah, obvious but well-debunked counter-argument #27.
Actual passengers usually have some basic level of situational awareness, and will instinctively shut up when the driver needs to concentrate. Someone on the other end of a phone line can't see the road ahead and be quiet when a hazard is coming up.
(Having misbehaving children causing trouble in the back of a vehicle is a problem for the same reason, but unlike using a phone while driving, it is not practical to prohibit ever transporting unruly children by car. We fight the battles we can win.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
it is a privilege, not a right to be able to drive a car
I disagree with your statement - specifically where you suggest that driving is a privilege. I hope that I'm not being too pedantic, but this notion is freely thrown around with very little thought, and it has always bothered me. As far as me being pedantic on a small point...this is Slashdot, after all...and besides, someone is wrong on the internet ;-)
Driving is as much a privilege as using a public library. Driving is not limited to a privileged class, and a drivers license cannot be arbitrarily revoked (or even suspended) without some sort of due process - even if it is only administrative due process. This is especially true in many parts of America where public transportation is nearly nonexistent - as are most forms of alternative transportation. In these remote areas, suspension of licensure for operating a motor vehicle on a public right-of-way can severely impact a person's ability to make a living - or even live on a day-to-day basis. For this reason (among others), suspension or revocation of drivers licenses is not to be taken lightly. This is the same for trade licensure - I wouldn't call being an electrician a privilege either.
Another way to look at it is that driving is no more a privilege than being free from incarceration. A person who breaks the rules risks losing their license to drive - similarly, rights to any other freedom can be taken away if societal rules are broken - e.g. sentenced to prison, where many rights are suspended. WIth this in mind, does that make living in a person's own home, or even walking on a sidewalk a privilege? I would argue that if driving is a privilege, then living where one chooses (within the law), free from incarceration is a privilege too.
This is something that we tell 16 year old children. As a minor - driving privileges, like television privileges, can be taken away arbitrarily. The reality is that with adults they cannot.
-Turkey