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.
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.
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
Yes, this sort of behaviour is already against the law. It isn't widely enforced, though, and way too many people still do it. It needs to become socially unacceptable, the same way drunk driving now is.
As an aside, driving while using a hands-free kit is hardly any safer. It's just harder to detect and penalise. Unfortunately, that means the government here in the UK didn't outlaw it at the same time, thus sending a clear (but completely wrong) message that "The government says driving using a hands-free kit is safe!". Of course, lots of companies who sell hands-free kits had huge displayboards in stores the day these laws came in playing off that misunderstanding, and to this day a lot of people think they're safe driving and talking as long as they've got hands-free.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
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.
If God didn't want us driving a manual transmission car whilst texting on a smartphone he wouldn't have given us knees.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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
No. Any distraction, even with a dumb phone, is a distraction. Driving is a full-time job, requiring 100% of the drivers attention.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
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.
So passengers are not allowed to use a phone? That's quite an over-reaction.
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.
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.
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.
Let's try some actual references with, you know, facts, and stuff.
Instead of just making stuff up.
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
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