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 can text, check my Facebook, AND drive with no problems. I think I'm one of only about 20 world-wide that can do it.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
All driving is more dangerous in the UK, because they insist on driving on the wrong side of the road.
Isn't using your phone in any fashion without a hands-free kit already illegal in the UK? If you must, enforce it.
Education does nothing. Young kids don't really care if what they do is dangerous, in fact, thats often why they do it.
While what happened in this story is tragic, she knew the consequences. I don't agree with the parent's response of lobbying for new laws, either- theft is illegal, but that doesn't mean people don't steal.
Siri, how close is the nearest hospital? Is it too far to walk there with one leg broken from a car accident?
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Does this risk change if you consider a sufficiently long period of time? Presumably for a given trip you spend more time intoxicated than you do checking or responding to a message on your phone.
It absolutely HAS been an issue, with many lawsuits related to it, and many people injured by cops texting, using their laptop, speeding -- without their sirens on.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Really? The headline reads "Trooper was on laptop moments before crash"
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Hasn't Mythbusters already covered this? Hasn't "common sense" already covered this? And what in the world is an "Advanced Motorist?"
Stop the planet, I want to disembark, thanks!
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
How about for non-smart phone users?
Does it help if you don't have to hold the phone with both hands to type?
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it.
Clearly you need to start drinking better beer.
I don't stare at my beer or have a conversation with it.
Clearly you need to start drinking better beer.
Or just more of it.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
The Mythbusters showed that years ago. It was actually quite shocking how similar the test results were between someone who was substantially drunk and someone just talking on the phone (got even worse when they were texting).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've on occasion attempted to text while driving. Yes, I know, bad me, but unlike others I do realize how terribly risky it is. So I only do it at red lights now. However there are a few things that make it even more tempting to do while in motion:
Swype keyboard (and others) - with decent enough recognition, you can almost thumb-swype a whole message without looking. Corrections are a pain though.
Dictation (Siri, Evi, and speech-to-text) - actually works quite well.
But they all take more concentration from the road than they should.
I think combining a HUD with dictation might just be the way of the future. We need to get these systems developed and studied before we blanket-ban messaging and driving.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Easy solution -- don't smartphones drive.
Until they get a bit smarter, at least...
I'd rather have the phone be driving than most people on the road, to be honest.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I've heard that it is or was common for Japanese domestic cars to have TVs installed. It seemed strange to me when I heard about it, because I certainly couldn't keep attention to both a TV screen and the road. On the other hand it would probably be easier to regulate attention to that versus a phone conversation where I'm actually pressured to perform two tasks at the same time.
Emotions! In your brain!
Why the focus solely on young people? I see plenty of so-called "adults" that are texting and jabbering incessantly behind the wheel.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I think it just says
reaction_time(smartphone-user) > reaction_time(drunken-driver)
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).
The logical conclusion is that the danger of smartphones is large and people are not aware of it (unlike with drinking or phoning). While we are also now kindof aware that calling while driving is a bad idea, those two don't have a real stigma yet (like NZ ads "If you drink and drive --- you're a bloody idiot").
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
More laws on the way - I can't wait
Already laws. Just get them enforced.
Couple days ago I'm sitting in my car in a parking lot and nearly creamed by an SUV-driving phoner. Tricky enough on the street, but parking lots are mazes where unpredictable things are the norm - people walk out of nowhere, car suddenly backs out, car suddenly comes around blind corner, etc. You need to be on your toes there - besides, parking lot accidents are paid for by YOU -- fault, in my experience is never assigned on private property or public parking lots. Tough beans, even if you were not at fault. If you are at fault, you may find yourself taken to court for whatever your insurer is unwilling to cover.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And similar to having a drunk person on the road, the consequences often end up ruining the lives of people who were not making the horrendously bad decision. The problem, of course, is proving it when something bad hasn't happened. This is why so many people get away with sending text messages while driving, because they don't get caught doing it. Unfortunately it gives them the false belief that they can do that safely.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
I don't dispute the importance of road safety.......
But what is it with the obsession with taking away motorists rights? They can be pulled over for any reason that the police might make up. The thrust of policy seems to be making their lives more miserable, encouraging congestion, raising prices to drive, lowering local speed limits etc.
And if you care about saving lives - why not care about the current NHS reforms which I am sure will mean a worse level of service for those who cannot afford private care. Undoubtedly people will die as a consequence.
People also die when they are homeless or don't have adequate access to housing - caused by draconian zoning policies (extreme green belt laws mean that you need to be very well off to buy a home in the south of the UK - now middle class people buy ex council flats.)
People die because of the war on drugs - why not deal with that?
Disabled people have a nasty habbit of dying especially when you cut their already miserly disability benefits.
People have short life expectancy when they are poor - why not deal with increasing income inequality?
Instead we overly obsess about the roads. Maybe it useful for governments because it distracts from more important issues.
A little smart phone is probably worse than a little alcohol.
Maybe a heap of smart phone is still worse than a heap of alcohol.
I doubt that a whole whopping bunch of smart phone is proportionately worse than a whole whopping bunch of alcohol.
Though, I could be wrong.
If you are talking/texting you can always put down the phone it you encounter a difficult situation.
If you are drunk, you can't just stop being drunk just because you want to.
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.
This is BS. I'm posting this from my mobile phone while speeding down the freeway at 80 mph, and look no problems whatsoev (*&$&*# NO CARRIER
...since I use it extensively as a GPS/navigation aid, as do many other people. It allows me to focus on the road more when I am driving in unfamiliar places.
For many, it is also a music player (which has been a standard component in cars for decades). I doubt that hitting a "play" button to launch a playlist with thousands of songs *once* provides more distraction than going through a CD wallet every hour.
On the other hand, SMS messaging has been present on pretty much cell phones since the beginning, and you could access the WAP web over GPRS from an old Siemens over a decade ago.
My point is that many people use smartphones in a car in a way that doesn't make their driving any more dangerous, whereas you could use an old phone in a way that does. Don't blame the device, blame the activity (e.g. communicating by text while driving). While the article actually delivers this point, the title of the article (and the post) does not. The title should have been Using social networks while driving is more dangerous than alcohol.
Stuff which distracts a driver's attention could be dangerous?
Now there's a surprise!!!
There are indeed a lot of bad/populist/NIMBYist laws about driving in the UK.
Banning using a phone while driving is not one of them. It's just a shame it only covers handhelds.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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
There is a mountain of evidence that driving and using a phone at the same time is highly dangerous, and it has been growing steadily for a long time. This is about as clear-cut and one-sided an issue as you can get, and innocent people are getting seriously hurt and even killed as a direct result of the dangerous behaviour. Outlawing that behaviour isn't draconian, it's making good law in the interests of society based on a rock solid empirical evidence base. Please take your FUD elsewhere.
This is already illegal in the UK, BTW. The problem is more one of enforcement in this case.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0LCmStIw9E
Then again, what teen watches TV anymore?
Silence is a state of mime.
If you are talking/texting you can always put down the phone it you encounter a difficult situation. If you are drunk, you can't just stop being drunk just because you want to.
RTFA. You are the cause of the "difficult situation" you're not trying to avoid someone else who's texting while driving.
Can't folks find the OFF switch or AIRCRAFT MODE or just lock the damned phone in the boot (aka trunk) of the car. You can update FB when you get to a rest area and not while you're driving.
I don't have this problem for two reasons: 1. I'm that stupid fella on the bicycle that you're just about to attempt to kill and 2. I don't have or need a smartphone.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
Why not reframe the question? If I where an operator of a gantry crane and you worked in very close proximity to me. Would you want me texting while I was moving two tons of metal near you? Would you not fire someone for being drunk while operating that same crane(instead of making them take classes)? Wouldn't you at least give the operator a tongue lashing for operating the crane unsafely, even when no-one was hurt?
Cars are extremely dangerous, more dangerous than guns because people operate them very frequently and at least some people operate them with little or absolutely no thought of what is safe. I could spout a hundred anecdotes about how I and other operated cars in a manner that was unthinking and unsafe. It is a miracle that people don't die more often in car accidents.
What would you say about someone who brandished a handgun in order to get someone to get out of the way? Then think of the same thing the next time you or someone you know creeps up on a pedestrian in a crasswalk because the driver is in a hurry or just doesn't like being made to wait four second.
The reason car driver's 'rights', which I can only assume you mean the 'right to drive fast and ignore proscribed procedures', are taken away is because people are stupid and ignorant and need to be told what to do because we are self-destructive by nature. Especially when we get a little adrenaline rush from driving fast or narrowly avoiding an accident.
That's why they invented software like Vlingo for smartphones! and Bluetooth headsets for talking. A Smartphone is only as smart as the person using it.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Studies show that new laws improve state revenue.
Unfortunately there is little or no effort in trying to actually reduce the laws out there, because there is so much revenue is finding Law Breakers.
For example those No-Turn on Red Signs places right in the spot where if you are stopped at a red light the sign is parallel to your view so you cannot see the sign, so you may just turn on red, vs. putting them next to the red light, like they do in areas where there is actually a major safety concern for turning on red.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
When I drive, or more correctly ride, I answer phone calls all the time with the hands free Bluetooth system built into my motorcycle helmet (Don't even take my hands off the handle bars, Phone tells me who's calling in a robotic voice and I just have to say answer or ignore) I don't find that the "Added distraction" of having to talk while on the bike is any worse than having a passenger in a car, and even less than having someone on the back of the bike. So, where are we going with this? Are we going to say that since passengers are distracting all drivers must be locked in the driving cone of silence with there eyes pried open so they can't blink. It's call acceptable risk, when you get behind the wheel of a car, in the passenger seat, or on a motorcycle you are choosing to gamble that you have higher odds you will arrive safely at your destination than not. But it's still a gamble. We will never make cars 100% safe and I still think the most dangerous thing on the road is some wanker who can't bother to check his mirrors before changing lanes.
Right. "All laws that take away rights are bad, except the ones I like, those are fine." Gotcha.
Just because a behavior is bad doesn't automatically mean that a law baning it is good. Will the law actually reduce the frequency of the behavior? To an extent that really outweighs the accompanying loss of freedom? And the misuse of the law by malicious government/cops/etc? And the cost of enforcement? It needs to be a net gain, with full understanding of all the ways it costs us when we goven more power to the government.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
When I was in High School (30+) years ago, Drivers Education spent a lot of time going over police video/film from accident scenes. Un-cut. All the gruesome results in brilliant full color. Most of us learned that 4000+ pounds of steel and glass + high velocity + inattention = gruesome consequences.
Those reels should be mandatory for every driver. Not everyone will "get it", but enough will.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Very irresponsible, implying that a slower reaction time means a worse driver.
Plenty of older folks have very poor reaction times (and I'm not talking senile oldies), and almost all young folks have great reaction times. Clearly, a lot of practice and knowledge and judgment goes into driving.
Alcohol impairs much more than just reaction times. Alcohol can't be switched off.
Here's a story:
"The other day when driving home, I was drunk as all hell, but there was hardly any other traffic around. But when I hit I-225, the traffic was suddenly jam packed and hectic, so I suddenly cancelled my drunkenness instantly for the duration of that road."
Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense. But the actual version of that story, with a phone, fucking does. If I have to text (or talk) while driving, you can bet I'm in the right lane during that part with a great following distance and good future knowledge of what's going on. If shit is buzzing around me or there's some motorcycle doing some crazy shit, I'm not going to let myself get distracted. But if you get behind the wheel wasted, you've accepted limits on your peak and average levels of performance over the whole drive. It's a completely different pickle.
A safety inspection.
Old enough to start driving (a very long time ago), apparently I looked suspicious and was pulled over.
"Your rear lights were flashing, let's look in the trunk and see if it's the wiring", the cops says.
So pulled over and searched for no reason other than a safety inspection; which I "passed" and was sent on my way.
Oh ya, any time they wish.
The law of natural selection is already operating at peak efficiency.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Bullshit. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
If you put the phone on your lap you're still going to be picked up by the police. Your argument doesn't even stand up to the basic tests of logic. By your rationale, murder laws make it harder for people to murder, so it makes it worse. Seriously, are you off your face? Do you neocon/libertarians even get how laws work?
If you want to live in a country with no laws, go spend some time in DRC or another war torn country, you can text to your heart's content while driving, just mind the rifles being fired at your face.
Apparently you're new here too; like I replied to the other person, this means nothing. All distractions are dangerous; but how dangerous are they? The GP asked about "Risk Change", not "Is this 'dangerous'?"; since that has such an obvious answer.
Simply remembering that I replied this way to your message may be a distraction to your driving tomorrow. Does that mean I'm a danger to your driving, and that you should be fined £50 for thinking of me?
Or should this only apply to smoking? Or to eating? Or for having passengers? Or singing to yourself? Do you see my point?
1) statistics can back-up the premise, but I don't know that it can be strongly determined.
2) it's more like saying making the penalty for child-rape death increases child-murder, as killing the victem reduces odds of getting caught
May or may not be true, either, but at least it's an accurate analogy.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Accident statistics in the U.S. do not seem to support the supposed danger of driving while talking on cell phones. During the period when cell phones became wildly popular here, the automobile accident rate has dropped sharply. According to the Centers for Disease Control http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/mmwr_achievements.html/ "From 2000 to 2009, while the number of vehicle miles traveled on the nation's roads increased by 8.5%, the death rate related to that travel declined from 14.9 per 100,000 population to 11.0 and the injury rate declined from 1,130 to 722." Yes, there were other factors, like seat belt laws, but if cell phones were such a major danger, it's hard to believe deaths could have fallen that much at the exact same time they became ubiquitous.
I think it just says
reaction_time(smartphone-user) > reaction_time(drunken-driver)
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).
The logical conclusion is that the danger of smartphones is large and people are not aware of it (unlike with drinking or phoning). While we are also now kindof aware that calling while driving is a bad idea, those two don't have a real stigma yet (like NZ ads "If you drink and drive --- you're a bloody idiot").
That's ridiculous.
Reaction_time needs to be a function of the object, not a global function. Oh god, don't tell me this study wasn't object oriented...
Most death in the UK is from cardiopulmonary related issues. These are often not preventable (something one can delay, or trade for another category) - typical human end of life stuff. After that is cancer - some of this is access to care (particularly early access), but much of which is still luck of the draw. Government can sponsor research, and it can improve access to care, but a lot of current cancer related death isn't something that can be impacted by the government very easily. Accidents however are something that is, by comparison, dead easy to influence from the government perspective (new laws, enforcement of existing law). So, of the examples you've listed and the stat's I've linked to here - it's a dumb simple selection for traffic as the most effective point of government interaction. Not that the other (and harder) problem's shouldn't be addressed, but I would think traffic is a logical emphasis rather than an illogical obsession.
Related to where I live, the UK does rather well compared to the US - about half of the accidental death rate as ours (5%).
"Motorists rights"?
Perhaps you are in a different country. In my state in the U.S. I have to prove competency with written and driving tests and if passed I get a license to operate a motor vehicle for a specified length of time.
Just double checked and the Bill of Rights has no reference either so I'm pretty sure there is no "right to drive a car" in the U.S.
No this access to taxes paid for roads is not a right. Multi-thousand pound moving vehicles have proven to be somewhat dangerous and so "we" as a society have tried to minimize some of the risk. As such, drivers tests, seat belts, insurance, helmets, cell phones etc. are all perfectly within the purview of the government(s) to limit/define as to protect the masses if you want this privilege. (Some people actually have their license revoked! Pretty hard to do that with a right.)
I for one, support this approach.
It is sad however that many Americans don't understand this.
AC you responded to speaking. Here's an example source for you: http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr092810.html
Show me the massive increase in accidents and fatalities that have come along with the massive increase in cell phone usage. Then I'll believe there's a real correlation. The results of a controlled test designed to yield a certain result isn't useful data.
Here's the fatality list through 2009. It shows steady decreases in fatalities per mile driven.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
Of course, that's 3 years old now, but still... there's been an increase in cell phone use through 2009, so if using a cell phone is as dangerous as drunk driving, I'd expect to see a big increase in the fatality rate, not a decrease.
And here's another flawed study (2010)... http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx
They estimate that 25% of crashes involve the use of cell phones. Based on that, I would expect accident rates to increase (to a degree) along with cell phone usage. But they don't. Many states have banned cell phone use by drivers. In those states, shouldn't see a big decrease in accidents? Do we? I doubt it.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I was thinking along the same lines.
Every time I hear about some activity impairing more than being legally intoxicated (driving with 1 hour sleep deprivation, driving with crying babies, driving while talking on a mobile, etc) I always wonder whether that says more about the activity, or the limits of what is considered legally impaired.
Or another way of looking at it, obviously alcohol impaired drivers need to drink more!
We are talking about TEXTING while driving. That requires not just your hand and your mind but your eyes too. How do you drive a car when you can't see the road?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
A law against using a phone would just be used to harass people who are cheeky to the police, or because they are black.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
At least drunks go when the light turns green. And there are far fewer of them out there.
Once, while sitting in line at a stop light just turned green, I noticed my young neighbor hadn't noticed the light change and was also texting. I tooted my horn and did a "wake-up/look ahead" gesture while mouthing "put the phone down". I'm not sure what she thought I said, but she chased me for miles and tried to run me off the road all while trying to take pictures of me and my car with her phone. You can't tell these kids anything. I would say let darwinism flesh these lunatics out if they didn't also endanger everyone on the road around them.
I see a lot of complaints about books, but I want to see the studies about:
Reading books while driving.
Reading maps while driving.
Shaving while driving.
Eating while driving.
And, surprisingly enough, I'd love to see a study about Reading a map while taking notes on a notebook while driving a delivery truck. (Yes, I've seen this happen)
The thing is, yes using your phone actively while driving is dangerous, so are a million other things. What we need is rather than one at a time passing laws to limit each dangerous thing, is to start again requiring actual TESTING of people before we license them to drive. I mean when I got my first license I had to prove I could drive on actual roads with actual lights and traffic. I found out a few years ago, that where I live now does the driving test on a -closed- course. It made it very clear why no one out here knows how to act at a four way stop. We also need actual enforcement of traffic laws besides speeding. I mean my god, I've watched cops ignore cars in front of them making illegal u-turns on a RED light right in front of them. Not to mention law enforcement who apparently no longer obeys any traffic laws, so much for setting examples.
I can text, check my Facebook, AND drive with no problems. I think I'm one of only about 20 world-wide that can do it.
Yo dawg, I heard you like crashing into things, so I put Angry Birds on your phone so you can crash into things while you crash into things.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
agreed.. they just need to enforce it for real. What i dont get. is those lame people with expensive cars that do not have bluetooh built into their stereo cant go out and spend $20 on a head set? i mean really now.. I have 5, two in each car and one back up at home. my new car has bluetooth built in so i dont even need the 2 in there, they are just there to give to silly people that dont have them. I see more and more accidents early in the mornings now than ever and i am sure it is because people are checking their status updates as they are drving to work. join me in the FBT4All (Free BlueTooth for all). and dont drive too close to me, as i will have my Jammer on, no GPS or Cell activity by me on the way into work.
You need to be on your toes there - besides, parking lot accidents are paid for by YOU -- fault, in my experience is never assigned on private property or public parking lots. Tough beans, even if you were not at fault.
I can confirm that. I got broad sided in a supermarket parking lot some years ago by a guy in an SUV driving what seemed like 55 mph right though an intersection that had STOP painted on the pavement. The cop that arrived on the scene pointed out that, not only was that STOP on the pavement not a legal stop sign, the issues was moot, as the laws in general do NOT apply in parking lots. He could have been driving 100 mph. Ever since then I have an extra special disdain for anyone driving fast in parking lots...by which I mean that I get tempted to chase them down and beat the living shit out of them.
I'm pretty sure staring at anything other then the road while driving is more dangerous then alcohol.
I've never been sympathetic to cell phone use (talking and texting) while driving because it's always been obvious that those people were far worse then you typical drunk driver. But yours is an important distinction. My pandora classical channel calms me down and makes me a safer driver. The navigation app keeps me from constantly taking my eyes off the road to review some hand written directions. A smart phone can be used responsibly, but at least half the people out there don't yet seem capable of it.
I don't think it's practical to legislate between the two types of use. We just need more of these studies to hammer it home to people so that they'll start changing their behavior on their own.
Sorry, not buying it unless there is a specific breakdown of exactly what driving + whatever is "dangerous". Lumping any and all "using a phone" into a single grouping is disingenuous at best.
Texting while driving? That's both stupid and dangerous -- outlaw that for sure. But making all phone usage while driving against the law is an over-reaction. The freeway clogs unexpectedly and I need to hands free make a quick phone call -- and that's breaking the law? Come on! I see a dangerous drunk driver (or texting driver) that I want to report? Nope, breaking the law. Even hands free? Nope. I'm using the navigation app on my phone to get me to my destination? Nope, "using phone while driving". Here's your ticket.
Yeah, there's a "mountain" of evidence about "using a phone" so let's outlaw all "using a phone" now-now-now!
How about some intelligent solutions? Oh, noes, that takes too long! Panic! FUD!
TEXTING while driving. That requires not just your hand and your mind but your eyes too
You can't text without looking at the phone? I can.
Sure, I have to glance at what I punched in before I send it to make sure I said what I intended to say, but it's not hard. Do you look at the keyboard while you type too?
Well, technically either there is a right to drive or the states have co-opted the granting of that right for themselves. As drivers licenses have never been ruled unconstitutional, I guess it's the latter. But the absence of such a right in the U.S. Constitution actually implies that it might be a right, not that it isn't one!
Raisey-raison wrote :-
we overly obsess about the roads
News to me. I always had the impression that individuals (from the way they drive), the authorities and (most importantly) the media hardly gave a f@#k about road accidents unless one is particularly spectacular. If you worked in the industries I have (shipbuilding, railways and power) you would be struck by the contrast between the fanatical pursuit of safety at work (such as putting up a "Do not kick the fir cones!" sign by a group of fir trees on site), and the free-for-all on the roads outside.
There is a sign as you enter the site where I work : "Safety starts here". I once suggested to our Site Safety Officer that it should say "Safety Stops Here" as you drive out, because it does for most people.
A fatal road accident is unlikely to get more than a couple of column inches in a local paper, yet a railway accident (for example) killing anybody, or even no-one, is the subject of national news headlines for days, if not still coming up years later [Eg: The case of the Darwin Award contenders at Elsenham 7 years ago). Basically, it is because most people think they are too "clever" to have a road accident themselves, but on a train they feel at the mercy of the railway.
Nope. The article was about using a phone while driving. Any use. Lumping all possible usage of a phone into the same category as texting is a recipe for draconian laws that go too far. Texting while driving is incredibly stupid, but that isn't a reason to outlaw all phone usage.
In fact I make sure the movie starts playing before I put the car in drive.
> 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).
In addition to what was posted just above by AK Marc regarding .15BAC, this is not really true. While slower reaction times do cause a slight increase in accidents, it's rather insignificant. The need to react to unexpected stimuli is actually pretty uncommon in driving, and can not come up at all in many trips. Severe accidents are instead caused by lack of attention or simply bad judgement. For example, you won't run a stop light because of a bad RT (since you have >=3s of warning with a yellow), but you will if you aren't paying attention.
In short, looking a reaction times is incredibly misleading.
haven't you seen the movie In Time? you're supposed to die, so the rich can stay rich. your_time == their_money. so hurry up and die because you're wasting their money.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Bullshit. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
Applies to your entire post.
If you put the phone on your lap you're still going to be picked up by the police.
How do you expect that to work? Can the cops see your lap or where your eyes are?
By your rationale, murder laws make it harder for people to murder, so it makes it worse.
No, that's not what he's saying. He's not necessarily right but whether he is or not depends on evidence. It's not a logical argument, it's a hypothesis that needs testing. In the case of murder, he would have to be saying: laws against murder make people more likely to murder.
It really depends on the law in question. In this case, he's guessing that the people hiding their texting will cause a greater risk of accidents relative to the benefit of the people who will stop texting. Can't logically determine how all that will work out. Seems to be saying: people will mostly continue to text but now will be even more distracted to hide their phones.
Do you neocon/libertarians even get how laws work?
Do you know what words mean? Neocon != Libertarian.
If you want to live in a country with no laws, go spend some time in DRC or another war torn country, you can text to your heart's content while driving, just mind the rifles being fired at your face.
Stop making up bullshit. He didn't say he wanted to live in a country with "no laws". He was simply questioning whether this particular law would actually benefit society on average.
Also, neither libertarians nor neocons believe we should have "no laws".
37.4 percent slower reaction times while texting, 26.5 percent while having a hands-free phone conversation, 21 per cent while under the influence of cannabis and 12.5 percent while at the legal limit for alcohol.
Furthermore, if there is no "right" to drive while drunk, and there is evidence showing that texting while driving is even more dangerous than drunken driving, why is there a persistent notion that there should still exist a "right" to text and drive?
It isn't using your hands that is the issue as much as the fact they are in an extremely distracting conversation with someone who can't go "Hey, watch the road."
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Everybody who does something else than drive while driving is an idiot.
Here in the Netherlands, just *holding* a phone will cost you 180 euros. I really do not understand why people think it is OK to text and drive.
-- The Internet is a too slow way of doing things, you'd never do without it.
The "real solution" is one nobody wants. An in-car monitoring system of breathing, heart rate, eye movement, and driving behavior that can set minimum standards for sober driving (get the incompetent grannies off the road) as well as measure actual impairment (slower and less frequent eye movement, delayed and exaggerated corrections). But who would put such a monitoring system in their car? Only TomTom or whatever would want such a system, so they can make them for a good profit. Well, and a few reasonable people like myself who would like to be warned when we are tired enough that it's affecting our driving.
Learn to love Alaska
Whether or not laws against murder actually deter murder doesn't matter to whether or not their should be laws against murder. If an 27 year detention period is a detriment, but a 25 year one not, then you're having a useful discussion.
Texting while driving is really f'n dangerous to you, and to everyone else on the road. It kills people and causes significant material losses, so pretty obviously it warrants rules against it (those laws in many cases already exists, a study like this merely clarifies that they should apply to those existing laws). Beyond that it is a matter of degree as to what should or should not be done to keep people off the road. Texting while driving should be illegal, the question is what is the most effective enforcement mechanism to reduce it. A $7 fine? A $170 fine? a $1700 fine? Roadside seizure? (where the car is towed but still owned by the driver they can pick it up later), confiscation? Jail (for how long?).
If you can't reasonably decide if something is bad (e.g. swearing) then you can't reasonably compose laws about it, sure. But in the context of what you can do while driving, texting, talking on the phone (hands free or otherwise) it's clear it shouldn't be allowed.
This has significant implications for car manufacturers, which is less about criminal laws and more about regularly compliance. If you using a hands free phone while driving should be banned well car companies need to stop making hands free cell integration into their vehicles, *or* find a way that it will reduce the distraction effect.
Science is useless in the hands of stupid people. Based on how many people use cell phones while driving. Compared to drunk driving. We should have hundreds of thousands dead from cell phones.
A much more likely scenario is that the prohibitionists have lowered the blood alcohol level for drunk driving so low that it doesn't really equate to drunkenness. And we are arresting people who pose no real risk.
Now get people drunk, really drunk. Not oops they had one glass of wine. Then do this test and you'll get a much different result.
But let's be honest. What this study really shows is every 3 months dumb fuctards will post this same baseless study and drive us insane.
We should run over those who resubmit this topic more than once a year.
Let's try some actual references with, you know, facts, and stuff.
Instead of just making stuff up.
Well if your "reasoning, depth perception and peripheral vision" are impaired at .06 BAC [src], things arguably relevant to driving, it makes sense to put the limit somewhere around .05 BAC. ... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src]
Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control
DUI is not exactly a new phenomenon that doesn't have enough studies yet.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Don't worry, it's a method of the population.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I dont think talking is going to distract me (but i am well above average in every aspect) . And if you cant talk and drive at the same time, then your license should be taken away. that should be part of all the new driving tests. you have to call and talk to a memeber of your family for 10min while navigating the streets of San Francisco.
I don't care how above average you think you are. My car his been hit by people I'd consider very good drivers, but their attention was divided for just the amount of time necessary where opportunity to smash into my car was present. Nothing asserts reality like standing around waiting for the cops, while an angry motorist is glaring at you for your bone-headed driving distractions you bring upon yourself and ultimately inconvenience you and other unwilling participants.
Really. I've heard it time and again, and there isn't a day goes by around here where someone is hit or hitting. Often in the places you'd think it wouldn't happen - sitting in a stationary vehicle at a light when another ploughs into the back of you.
I'd like to see driving bans for the first offense. Try riding the bus for three months as a reminder it is a privilege, not a right to be able to drive a car.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This study compares the cases, it would be interesting to do the correlation with drunk people using smartphones!
Not so much.
Seat belt laws in the USA date from the 80's and 90's. In general, the effect they'd have had had already happened by 2000.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Completely unrelated.
A motorist retains right as a person. If you cannot bar a persons right to speech in a park on the street etc. can you ban it when they are driving? This goes to the falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre argument, and you do not have a right to that. In this case any speech at all creates a significant danger to other motorists.
Think of it this way: A person is a motorist. You cannot take away their right to have "I hate /.ers" bumper stickers - that's a non infringing free speech.
Whether or not there is a 'right' to use roads has been clearly long settled. You could get into a question of rights if the government could prohibit you from taking a driving test because you're say black, or a woman. But as it is there is a universal right to be considered to the same standard as everyone else for driving or a passport or the like.
The problem is driving is not a right but they hand out driving licences like candy so actually there are a lot of people on the road that shouldn't be and they have no incentive to improve. The odds of them losing their licence is almost nil so long as they don't drive drunk.
Drivers can cry all they want about their rights but there are the rights of the people walking and cycling around them too. Driving is serious business and imo they need to stop handing out licences so easily and make it easier for irresponsible drivers to lose their licence and have to go through the whole process again after a certain time period.
After that then there isn't much need to make laws for specific issues. People who want to keep their license will think twice and those that don't are taken off the road.
Yes, "Smartphones" are more dangerous than alcohol when driving. Just owning a smartphone makes you a bad driver. Those evil smartphones! Ban them all!
So the real answer to smart phone use is bluetooth enabled adaptive cruise control, that when the proximity alarms go off sends a message to the cell phone "ALERT!!! YOU ARE ABOUT TO CRASH AND BURN YOU SHITHEAD!"
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
While you may have a right to travel, there is no right to drive and there never will be.
Driving is a privilege with the highest of responsibility, requiring you to never harm peoples lives or property.
Police have the right to pull any driver over for dangerous driving. Any reasonable distractions can be considered dangerous by the police and they should have full discretion on defining the risk posed by a distracted driver.
So the point of these new laws, is more to clarify and inform drivers that common behaviors are distractions that are considered illegal while driving.
If you need to be distracted, use a phone, text, or use any device other than the driving controls of your car, Do not drive.
Otherwise you will be making a premeditated decision to risk the lives of all the pedestrians and other drivers around you i.e. Murder not manslaughter.
Driving is the leading cause of accidental death by massive margins.
Maybe there isn't a law banning juggling while driving, but it will get you pulled over just the same.
Then if you double the risk of accidents at 0.05 BAC, and triple it at 0.1 BAC, with 0 BAC as a control ... what more argument do you need to put it the DUI levels where they are now? [src]
I actually bothered to look up that source - and I don't mean the graph on Wikipedia. It looks like this.
Basically (after finding a very slight correlation between drivers who had been drinking and drivers who were speeding - although the correlation was only a few km/h): they tried to take drivers who were both drunk and speeding, and then statistically explain how much of their risk was due to speeding, and how much was due to the alcohol, based on the accident rates of non-intoxicated people who were also speeding.
IMHO it's not a very convincing study. There were too many variables and it's not at all obvious to me that their assumption was valid. The effects of speeding and alcohol together may be cumlatively worse than the combined total of the two.
Just the opposite -- if you make driving onerous enough, people will get around some other way, which usually involves more physical activity. More exercise means reduced deaths from CP disease can (somewhat) reduced deaths from cancer. It might not be the intended effect of the laws, and it might take really draconian and obnoxious laws (that would likely be repealed by an angry mob of voting drivers), but the estimates of death-from-car-induced-lack-of-exercise are higher than the estimates of deaths from car crashes. (Links, I know, you want them. Sigh. Later. I have to DRIVE home to transport a kid to soccer practice, maybe she'll let me use the bike to get her there, no irony in my life, no, not at all.)
If I have to text (or talk) while driving,[...]
You don't.
Course I do!
I suppose I could "choose" not to drive at all as well, for cleverly chosen values of "choose".
Exactly. The only way to really solve the problem is to make it impossible to text while driving.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I worked for a company where we had to dispatch drivers and stay in constant contact with them. Since we served the entire Northeast, the most practical way to do this cheaply was a cell phone for each employee. We'd usually pay some (or all) of their bill. If the phone they owned was terrible we'd buy them a new one.
From a business standpoint, we need to be able to reach them at all times. Sometimes they're on the road for four hours - they're not gonna like it if they get to Pennsylvania and we've been trying to call them since New Jersey so they can reroute to Connecticut for an emergency call.
The one thing that would make this whole law very, very fair is to make it legal to pull over onto the shoulder at any time for any reason. A lot of places have "Emergency Stops Only" signs, so under these laws our guys only have a choice between which ticket they would get.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
DUI is not exactly a new phenomenon that doesn't have enough studies yet.
There are almost no studies on DUI. The US federal government defines "alcohol related" (the stat used for almost all studies of real-world fatalities taken from US numbers) as including crashes where uninvolved passengers are drunk, even if the driver was not. So, if you are the designated driver and you stop at a red light, and the elderly near-blind driver behind you falls asleep and rams you, killing you, them, and your passenger, then that is 3 fatalities caused by alcohol.
With methodology like that, there's no wonder every crash in the US is caused by alcohol, inflating and confusing all "risk" numbers.
Learn to love Alaska
So we've proven that diverted concentration is worse than lowered ability. I'll take the 'drunk' who can 'sober up' immediately thank you very much.
Reaction times might be slower, but the 2nd and 3rd and 4th reaction are going to be much much better than any drunk. It may be that the 1st is too much of a loss to be counteracted by the subsequent reactions, but someone who 'can' be in control would seem to a better bet than a drunk who simply can't be in control.
Besides cops do this every day, with the radio, laptops and overall observations of everything around them. The difference between cops and everybody else?
Training to do the multitasking properly. Adding new gadgets without any training is always going to cause problems.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I've seen studies that I wished I'd copied because they were later (mostly successfully) disappeared by the US govt.
There was a study done to show drugs were as bad or worse than drinking. The "conclusion" was that stoned drivers were safer than sober ones. So the government buried the study they commissioned.
I've read the "facts and stuff" for 20+ years and have come to the conclusion that the government will lie about risk to further the agenda of "important" supporters, and nobody likes a mad MADD.
Learn to love Alaska
The other thing I've never seen studied is sleeping while driving. Most alcohol crashes happen late at night. Alcohol acts as a depressant. So it'll increase your chances of falling asleep. But the studies are all done at noon in the sun, so not applicable to the most common alcohol crashes. Perhaps alcohol doubles you chances of inadvertently falling asleep, but the other effects have no direct effect on crash risk. But nobody will ever study that. It's not what the government or MADD wants to hear, so there'll be no funding for that study.
.08, I mean .05 that we measure things against and realize that we are intellectually inconsistent.
I wish someone looked at and measured "accpetable risk" and then tried to find the alcohol level that met that, and kids, radio, phones, ect could be applied to that standard. Instead, we have the moving standard of
Learn to love Alaska
Dang, that is a fantastic idea about license suspension for 3 months. Wish I had mod points.
I like your banning idea. works great, but add in 3 strikes and your DL is gone forever! and then people would actully listen and be better.
oh & my supurb driving skills have landed me wins in local races at Infineon raceway, as well as never have been in an accident that was my fault. only been hit once and that dude was drunk.. but i saw him coming and avoided a bad accident to where his car was totaled and I could drive away with my minor rear end damage. i guess those days at the race tracks have paid off.
I'm only guessing, but I'm thinking you weren't on your phone while driving at Infineon.
All it takes is once.
A good friend was runover by a driver, on a street with speed bumps. Speed isn't the only factor in accidents, just provides more kinetic energy. Try navigating a parking lot on Saturday afternoon while on a phone. I find it requires maximum alertness.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Over 10 years doing internet tech support and having to multitask talking, looking at the computer etc... and I still won't talk/text and drive even though I can do it with ease.
--- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
Whether or not laws against murder actually deter murder doesn't matter to whether or not their should be laws against murder
Of course that matters! How can you even say otherwise? If the law somehow increased the number of murders, it would be a stupid law. With murder it's hard to imaging such a law, but that's been a legitimate discussion with some of the drug laws.
The worst thing we do in societies these days is outlaw stuff on the basis that it's "icky". I don't want to see it, so let's make it illegal (so even if there's then more of it, at least it will be hidden). It's a terrible, harmful way to govern.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Of the things you mentioned, almost every one has been the subject of specific controlled experiments.
Speaking on the phone has, for both hand-held and hands-free devices. Some of that research was the justification for the driving+mobiles ban in the UK, for example.
Obviously texting has been, because we're having this discussion right now.
There has been increasing concern about posting to social networks with the increased prevalence of smartphones, but on this one I haven't personally seen any controlled studies yet (which doesn't mean no-one has done them, just that I haven't looked recently). I'm not sure I'd want to be the guy arguing that posting to Twitter/Facebook/whatever is safe given the dramatic increase in risk known to result from regular texting, though.
So you're right that we should not generalise unreasonably to any use of a phone. However, all of the most common uses have been investigated and found to be highly dangerous.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I don't think that is the only "real solution".
Why can't an effort to create reliable and safe self-driving cars be the "real solution"? I think in theory, not only could this increase safety, but it could also be implemented in ways that it could help overall congestion and efficiency.
Or why can't the "real solution" (to the texting/phone distraction problem) be to develop better interfaces to these gadgets in order to reduce the amount of interaction that is required to use them? Devices that are hands-free, voice activated, and give audio feedback could potentially be less distracting.
Those are off the top of my head, I imagine there are other approaches as well.
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
You need to be on your toes there - besides, parking lot accidents are paid for by YOU -- fault, in my experience is never assigned on private property or public parking lots. Tough beans, even if you were not at fault.
... as the laws in general do NOT apply in parking lots. He could have been driving 100 mph...
In most states, certain laws do pertain to parking lots. The two that I can think of off the top of my head are DUI/DWI laws (which even pertain to your own driveway), and reckless driving (where a person is subject to citation/arrest for breaking contact with the pavement, loss of control, and excessive speed). In your case, a charge where a civilian witness sees a person driving 100 MPH would be difficult to substantiate, since it does not come from a person trained in speed detection (e.g. a police officer). Further, in your situation, while the officer would not criminally cite the other person, the police report should detail that they ran a stop sign, and violated right-of-way. This would make them civilly liable.
IANAL
-Turkey
When I read these studies, I often wonder how many variations were tried. Usually some mention is made of "even hands free", but I suppose that means a set of earphones. The first time I ever tried to use a cell phone while driving, I immediately found that he voice dancing around my head as I moved my head around (looking various ways for turning, lane changing) was highly disorienting. I'm used to the person I'm talking to staying in one place. If I hold the phone still in front of my mouth while I talk, I don't have that problem.
Have they tested policemen and truckers using CB radios to see how distracted they are? What about a "hands free" set up where the voice of the person you're talking to comes through the radio speakers?
One thing I think is distracting that doesn't get much talk is the fact that the person you're talking to doesn't see the same thing you do. This means that when something drastic happens and you have to cut off the conversation for a few seconds, the person on the other end of the phone doesn't know why - so your tendency to be polite will cut into your tendency focus on the road when the need arises. You don't have this problem with someone the car with you- they saw the same thing you did and how you had to react. This might acount for a fraction of a second reduced reaction time. Odd as it sounds, perhaps a video and audio link would be safer than a audio-only link. Another advantage to a video link is that part of your brain wouldn't be occupied trying to imagine the other person.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
However, all of the most common uses have been investigated and found to be highly dangerous.
This one statement I would object to rather strenuously. I sincerely doubt that "all" were found to be "highly dangerous".
"Some are highly dangerous" I would buy. "Most are highly dangerous" would have me questioning the science. "All"? No. That's not good science -- and I doubt any real scientific research would ever make such a claim.
That's just my point. A statement that "all were found to be highly dangerous" is just FUD. FUD always comes with an agenda that you're not supposed to inspect very closely.
The Mythbusters proved that if you are forced to continue a conversation on a cell phone while driving through a test course, your driving skills would suffer. In real life, the experience would've went something like "Hey, I'm going to have to call you back. I'm going to be driving through an obstacle course. Bye."
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
1 - *I* don't drive and phone/text at the same time. Part of the reason is that it is illegal in my country.
2 - I am not denying the fact that using a smartphone is dangerous, I am questioning the fact that using a smartphone is more dangerous than being drunk.
3 - WTF are you doing on the motorway with your bicycle ? (in the article, none of the road sections tested look bicycle-friendly)
I would argue that the most common uses for phones are making calls (which in this context could be either hand-held or hands-free) and sending/receiving texts. Those have each been properly studied, by multiple independent groups in each case, and typically they impair driver performance at least as much as being over the legal drink-drive limit where I am. (The pattern is not uniform: some categories of drivers perform much worse when so impaired than others, though that is not surprising because driver performance generally is highly variable with levels of experience, education, etc.)
In that context, I think it is fair to say that (a) all of the most common uses have been investigated, and (b) all were found (independently) to be highly dangerous. This is not to say that other uses, such as a phone that can be configured as a voice-activated sat-nav tool for example, would necessarily also be dangerous; as you say, the same research does not necessarily support that conclusion.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I'll take the 'drunk' who can 'sober up' immediately thank you very much.
I'll take neither, and not make excuses for anybody, thank you very much.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
If the law somehow increased the number of murders, it would be a stupid law. With murder it's hard to imaging such a law, but that's been a legitimate discussion with some of the drug laws.
So are you insinuating that texting laws increase the amount of texting while driving? If not, then how is your analogy relevant to the discussion whatsoever?
The worst thing we do in societies these days is outlaw stuff on the basis that it's "icky"
Yeah, that's not what's going on here. There is quantifiable damage done (to others) by people who abuse their phones while driving. Those that choose to engage in reckless (to others) activities should have to pay for their damage. Personal responsibility and all that.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Worse. You can return from the store only to find your car split in two. It's YOUR fault for being there in the first place according the insurance companies. So you have two choices.
1. Take the hit on your premiums going up.
or
2. Beg and plead for a copy of the parking lot video footage showing exactly who hit you. If you're able to track down the person whom hit you (not likely), you can take them to court. Better hope they have the money to sue, otherwise you're not only out of pocket in legal fees, but also lost a day or so out of work.
People need to be careful in parking lots. Not only for others safety, but for themselves as well. There are violent people who don't like to reason.
Life is not for the lazy.
The sign placement you describe is done by the highway departments (at least up here in Mass.), not the police departments. I am pretty sure we're dealing with plain old incompetence (i.e., most of the signs up here are stupidly located), and not some vast conspiracy to separate upstanding motorists from their money.
And if it really bugs you, drive to rule. When I can't tell what I'm supposed to do at an intersection (because some clown hid the sign, or simply didn't put one up), I make conservative assumptions. I'll stop till I'm sure it's safe, or slow down till I can be sure that I see all the signs. Sometimes people honk their horns, but the conservative assumption is that the horn is signalling a safety problem that I was unaware of, and if you don't know anything about the danger, best plan is to slow down, or stop, till you can tell what is wrong (that's not always the safest thing to do, but it is usually the safest thing to do, and in the absence of information, assume usual case). Everything I've just told you is totally obnoxious in practical terms, and totally by the book.
I suppose the difference between cops and everybody else is that:
I can't agree strongly enough with the statement that, if you're driving you shouldn't be doing anything else. I ride a bicycle frequently and if I get run over by a texting driver then I'm dead. If one of my two kids gets run over by a texting driver there won't be a straight-jacket strong enough. And police enforcement is a joke in the U.S. From what I have observed they'll run the occasional speed trap or alcohol enforcement exercise, but I see a lot less police presence on the roads these days and much more careless driving. I guess that cars have gotten so safe that law enforcement no longer need to do their job.
Or why can't the "real solution" (to the texting/phone distraction problem) be to develop better interfaces to these gadgets in order to reduce the amount of interaction that is required to use them? Devices that are hands-free, voice activated, and give audio feedback could potentially be less distracting.
Because in real tests on this, they found it doesn't matter. It's not the interaction with the device that causes any issue, it's the cause for the interaction with the device that does.
Those are off the top of my head, I imagine there are other approaches as well.
I'm sure there are. But, in 30+ years of following the topic, I've never seen any solution for an inattentive driver that even came close to a camera monitoring eye movements. And you've suggested nothing that reduces that problem.
Learn to love Alaska
As another exemplary individual who is well above average in every respect, I certainly agree that talking isn't going to distract me either. Clearly we must rid the road of all of these simpletons who can't perform as mundane a task as talking on the phone while driving. After all, 100% of accidents are caused by other people. If only we could keep those other people off of the road you and I can relax and sip our caramel machiatos while carrying on a text conversation about the mundane simpletons who could never have our intellectual capacity.
+1 Disagree
I think it just says
reaction_time(smartphone-user) > reaction_time(drunken-driver)
drunken-driver = watching the road.
phone-user = watching the phone.
Here's why reaction time doesn't matter, a person texting is oblivious to the world around them. They dont notice a change in conditions, a car cutting them of, drifting out of their lane. Being able to react faster doesn't matter as they have put themselves into a situation where they wont notice a danger until it's too late. A drunk driver is far more likely to notice danger, just not capable of reacting properly to it.
People barely notice other drivers when their full attention is on the road let alone when they're distracted.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
This is not quite a fair comparison. I know for a fact that I am perfectly capable of taking my allegedly smart phone with my in the car and keeping it in my pocket where it creates no distraction. On the other hand, if my BAC were .15 or somewhere near that range, I doubt that simply ignoring my drunkenness would allow me to maintain my ability to drive.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I'd like to see driving bans for the first offense. Try riding the bus for three months as a reminder it is a privilege, not a right to be able to drive a car.
I have a better idea. Let's ban anyone from the country for 3 months who suggests that the right to drive to a "privilege." Sorry sheep, but your forefathers vehemently disagree with you that the government has any right to restrict travel.
And yes, not being able to drive is a HUGE travel restriction in most of the country.
If only we could keep those other people off of the road you and I can relax and sip our caramel machiatos while carrying on a text conversation about the mundane simpletons who could never have our intellectual capacity.
Here's a better idea: let's have smarter licencing of drivers, so that the majority of people on the road can now be counted on to have some modicum of driving skills. Let's then get in our cars, buckle our seat belts, and remember as well out onto the road that driving is a risk and is dangerous, and so conduct ourselves accordingly.
So are you insinuating that texting laws increase the amount of texting while driving? If not, then how is your analogy relevant to the discussion whatsoever?
From a few posts back:
Just because a behavior is bad doesn't automatically mean that a law baning it is good.
Yeah, that's not what's going on here. There is quantifiable damage done (to others) by people who abuse their phones while driving.
Really? And what harm have I myself done to others while using a phone and driving?
None!
So why should I be punished, preemptively, for not causing harm to anyone?
Why not reframe the question? If I where an operator of a gantry crane and you worked in very close proximity to me. Would you want me texting while I was moving two tons of metal near you? Would you not fire someone for being drunk while operating that same crane(instead of making them take classes)? Wouldn't you at least give the operator a tongue lashing for operating the crane unsafely, even when no-one was hurt?
Well that depends. Is it a fleet full of gantry cranes, sitting side by side, which people have no alternative to operating if they want to be able to live?
Cars are extremely dangerous, more dangerous than guns because people operate them very frequently and at least some people operate them with little or absolutely no thought of what is safe. I could spout a hundred anecdotes about how I and other operated cars in a manner that was unthinking and unsafe. It is a miracle that people don't die more often in car accidents.
It's a miracle, or its just your failure to understand risk?
What would you say about someone who brandished a handgun in order to get someone to get out of the way? Then think of the same thing the next time you or someone you know creeps up on a pedestrian in a crasswalk because the driver is in a hurry or just doesn't like being made to wait four second.
People feel bigger and more powerful when they drive a big and powerful vehicle, versus a person on foot.
In other news people feel bigger and more powerful when driving bigger cars than others around them. They also feel bigger and more powerful when they know the person they are intimidating is unable to "fight back", is at a disadvantage, or will never been seen again.
More details at 11.
The reason car driver's 'rights', which I can only assume you mean the 'right to drive fast and ignore proscribed procedures', are taken away is because people are stupid and ignorant and need to be told what to do because we are self-destructive by nature.
Our founding fathers would STRONGLY disagree with your line of "reasoning" here.
Especially when we get a little adrenaline rush from driving fast or narrowly avoiding an accident.
Right, because the adrenaline rush from narrowly avoiding an accident TOTALLY makes me want to go out and try to almost cause another one.
It's also the nature of the communication. I hate phones because people just talk crap instead of just getting to the point. On a radio people get to the point a lot quicker without waffling on endlessly.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I dont think talking is going to distract me (but i am well above average in every aspect) . And if you cant talk and drive at the same time, then your license should be taken away. that should be part of all the new driving tests. you have to call and talk to a memeber of your family for 10min while navigating the streets of San Francisco.
Thanks. I came to this thread just to see how long it would take someone to make the claim that they were "special" and that these problems didn't apply to them. I'm glad your pretentious comment was able to satisfy my curiosity.
Shouldn't there be a Godwin's law equivalent for that sort of self-aggrandizing statement?
Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
In this country, with the exception of high speed roads ("limited access highways"), bicycles are allowed on all roads. Drivers are supposed to pay attention and drive in a way that makes this a safe choice for the cyclists. Reality diverges from theory, of course, though it is one of those things were most people are great, another chunk is clueless but well-meaning, and then there's a small number of inconsiderate bozos who ruins it for everyone. I determined this experimentally with a rear-facing camera on one of my (bicycle) commutes; very many people would see me and take sensible steps before I was even aware of them (at quite some distance, true defensive driving).
Knitting. Yes, I have seen it (sitting up high on a bicycle, while I pass cars and vice-versa).
How about providing a localised jamming field within the car whilst the car is in motion. That way you can pull over and get a signal if you need to and you won't be disturbed by shit when you're driving!
http://www.gibby.net.au
I think if you look in most (if not all) US states you'll find their legislatures have explicitly defined driving as a "privilege" -- with no room for subjective interpretation. Until legislatures decide to redefine it as right, it's gonna be a privilege
Now having said that, I don't disagree at all that driving is a very necessary privilege and one that a person should try to avoid losing (especially if one is in an area underserved or not served at all by public transportation). But it's still not a right.
Should you not be charged with attempted murder for shooting into a crowded room and happen to miss? The fact that you didn't kill anyone makes it a significantly lesser charge than say... actually killing someone. But do we really need to wait until after you've killed someone because you were texting to say 'you shouldn't have been texting'?
Should you be allowed to blind fold yourself when driving? Until you caused an accident it was perfectly safe right?
You shouldn't be allowed on the road if you're going to be reckless. What meets the standard of reckless is very much up to scientific analysis and public disclosure of that knowledge. Any idiot should be able to figure out that you should not be allowed to drive while blind folded. But people don't realize they're distracted when on a cell phone. You'd think they'd realize they're distracted when texting, but people definitely don't appreciate just how distracted they are when on a hands free device 'my hands are on the wheel!' is not the same as 'my attention is on the road'.
Oh and what have you, yourself done? Risked everyone else's lives by essentially putting on a blind fold, hence the analogy. If *you* are paying attention to your phone you are paying less attention to the road, risking everyone else's lives, now, the question is how much distraction is an acceptable risk, radio, screaming children, screaming spouse, texting?
If you aren't paying attention to the road, you shouldn't be on it. In that sense texting while driving is already covered, but then you get to my issue of 'awareness' you now have no excuse to say you weren't aware it was actually distracting you. By writing new laws about it they'd get more press and more awareness.
The odds of them losing their licence is almost nil so long as they don't drive drunk.
Really? Because I somehow managed to lose my license without driving drunk, recklessly, getting involved in any accidents, or harming anyone. My crime was offending the state's ego. It seems they take great offense to the idea that someone might be driving around out there when their license is suspended or revoked. This is such a horrible and dangerous crime, they tack on 6 months for each violation. There is no appeal, unless you can afford to a lawyer to sue the state to force them to give you one. There is no hardship license.
If you get caught in this legal trap with no escape, and live 15 miles outside of town with no friends or family to give you free rides to work every day....then you either a) break the law or b) starve to death.
While you may have a right to travel, there is no right to drive and there never will be.
No, this is bullshit. The right to travel implies the right to drive, especially since in today's world it is *necessary* for many people to survive. You can'tt outlaw making a living. Well at least not for long, until enough plebes see through your "privilege, not a right!!! lol!" brainwashing and decide they've had enough of the tyranny.
And a law would have absolutely zero effect on the problem of people driving stupid in parking lots, because traffic laws don't apply on private property.
Unfortunately there is little or no effort in trying to actually reduce the laws out there, because there is so much revenue is finding Law Breakers.
Now you see exactly why studies like this are coming out. OMG, using a smart phone is 10x more dangerous than DRUNK DRIVING!!11 OMFG. This TOTALLY explains the enormous, previously unexplainable increase in traffic deaths since the iPhone was introduced in 2007. Right?
MORE LAWS NEEDED NOW! And of course, you won't mind paying for the extra cops, extra courts and judges, extra prisons, extra clerks and janitors, extra credit card machines, and other capital needed to establish an efficient system for extracting taxe....er, "fines" out of you and your fellow citizens's pockets.
First they came for the speeders, and I said nothing because I obey the speed limit....
From that quote, I can't help but feel that this entire study was funded in some way by the alcohol industry.
The "legal limit" in most places is specifically set there because that's where you're barely impaired at all. That's why it's the legal limit. For most people in most places, the legal limit is about 1 can of beer.
A more fair comparison would be someone at the legal limit compared to someone who stood next to someone smoking marijuana for a couple minutes. I'd like to see this study done with someone considerably over the limit; drunk, or at least tipsy.
Because it takes an *awful lot* of effort for society to provide motorists their needs. Cars need a great deal of infrastructure (smooth roads that need frequent maintenance, traffic lights, high quality signage), have many externalities which the driver does not suffer (pollution, noise, the inherent danger of >1000kg of metal hurtling around). In actual fact, the whole transport system is so ridiculously tilted towards car use such that it seems normal to drive 1 mile to the shops but "dangerous" and "strange" to do the same thing on a bicycle. Car drivers also suffer very light penalties for causing death or serious injury by carelessness, and things like road rage are very leniently prosecuted compared to a comparable violent crime performed with, say, a knife or a baseball bat.
The problem is drivers have an unreasonable expectation that the highway in the UK should belong exclusively to them. In reality, those who have a *right* to use the public highway (except for motorways) in the UK are pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders; vehicle drivers do not have the right to be on the highway, instead both the driver must be licensed AND the vehicle. However, they expect to have preference over the road users who actually have a right to be there.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
You are needlessly gambling with the lives of others. That means you are a selfish tool.
No, you only need to be able to reach them at or before the next exit. So the expectation you have should be: call, leave a voicemail message, and they pull off at the next exit or rest stop to park, check your message and, if the situation requires it, return the call for further instruction.
They can't do anything between here and the next exit anyway. U-turns are illegal on most highways.
Because I somehow managed to lose my license without driving drunk, recklessly, getting involved in any accidents, or harming anyone. My crime was offending the state's ego. It seems they take great offense to the idea that someone might be driving around out there when their license is suspended or revoked.
Now tell us how you managed to lose your license. Hint: you had already lost your license if it was already suspended or revoked.
You lost it for 6 months longer by driving after you'd lost it the first time, but you haven't told us how you lost it in the first place. I'm assuming it was for something more substantial than "offending the state's ego".
There is no hardship license.
And that's the real problem.
Cops want more revenue. A system where those in power can use it to make more money? What could possibly go wrong
I would absolutely love having such a system if it were paid for by me, ostensibly on my side. It could warn me if I was driving badly due to whatever reason, such as mildly buzzed, emotional state, fatigue, distraction. I can see this preventing many close calls and accidents.
If it were the informant of the DMV, my insurance, or the local fuzz and had the ability to disable my vehicle or issue citations then I would be very much against it. Such a system would be very tempting to these agencies and I would have to trust the system completely. I'm thinking it would have to be open source and have a way for me to avoid any incriminating evidence being stored.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Can you show me some examples where driving is explicitly defined as a privilege? I have not been able to find it, although on a cursory search, I have found instances where individuals have sued their state and won based on the notion of a right to travel (caution: dubious validity of this article). Another counter-example: the US Constitution defines voting as a right, but certain states revoke this right for convicted felons. Does this make voting a privilege too?
-Turkey
Guys - it's not the phone, it's the interface. Distraction of foreground attention = death. Shifting visual focus from far to near and THEN requiring foreground attention = even more death. Problems with talking on the phone 'were' mostly associated with holding the thing to your ear and driving one-handed (and fumbling in traffic if the ridiculously-streamlined chiclet-size thing squirts out of your grasp) than talking.
I do know firsthand of two accidents that occurred *because* a driver was reaching for the cigarette lighter. That all by itself is two too many. Let the ban involve smoking while driving, if it has to be a 'blanket' prohibition, before it involves telephone communications.
TEXT is the more significant issue for 'smart phones': foreground attention requiring (often one-handed on tiny keyboards) manual dexterity to produce, foreground attention squinting at tiny screens and perhaps scrolling up and down to read. Very little of this problem can be fixed with ANY UI change... other than text-to-speech conversion both ways, which I very, very strongly advocate for anyone who feels they just *have* to try TMs (or, for that matter, e-mailing) while driving something.
I could go into proper haptic interfaces for use in vehicles, but it's not really on topic in this discussion.
What would YOU call it when it can be revoked if you fail to pay child support, or don't document enough of the right kind of insurance coverage? Or drive away from a gas pump without paying?
(Or, to put it in a bit more appropriate context, for things utterly unrelated to your competence at operating a vehicle safely...?)
You make a good point. I didn't realize that drivers licenses were being revoked for failure to pay child support. It seems utterly inappropriate to do so, given that most people's ability to make a living is tied to their ability to make it to work - and that it has absolutely nothing to do with driving. Insurance coverage is one of the procedural requirements for operating a motor vehicle on a public right of way (like paying taxes, inspection, emissions documentation, etc). Driving away from a gas pump without paying - I guess that's related to driving, since it involves driving. It doesn't come down to competence, as a person can be in dozens of accidents and not lose a license. Typically revocation of a drivers license has more to do with breaking the law in a car (child support notwithstanding).
-Turkey
So i presume that you support providing the elderly, young, blind or disabled people their "right" to drive? I doubt it.
Why do all countries have drivers licenses if it is a right? Do any other rights require licenses?
Is revoking someones drivers license a violation of human rights?
This is ludicrous.
If anything, the government massive subsidies to the car infrastructure (at the expense of non driving alternatives) is a violation of peoples rights to mobility as it mandates that you must be able to purchase a car (insurance...) and physically able to drive it to meet your right to mobility.
Again, there is no right to drive.