Slashdot Mirror
Quantifying the Risk of Texting Drivers
An anonymous reader writes "More than 5000 people die each year as a result of being distracted while driving, and a new study indicates that teens and cell phones make for the most volatile combination. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that of all drivers under 20 involved in fatal crashes, 16 percent were distracted — the highest proportion of any age group. 'Shockingly, texting drivers took their eyes off the road for each text an average of 4.6 seconds — which at 55 mph, means they were driving the length of a football field without looking,' said David Hosansky."
Gwent Police explain texting while driving kills
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
It's a form of dependency.
And what's sadder is that this dependency is so common it's become 'normal'.
What's so important that it can't wait until you pull over?
Young drives have always been at risk because they have the least experience, only the distractions have changed over time.
When cycling home I was passed by a driver texting on her phone. A few hundred yards later there was an intersection with a long red light and I asked her to keep her eyes on the road. She carried on texting and had to make an effort to look up every so often to check if the light was still red. Presumably she was texting "lol cyclist tld me to stp". It seemed like an accident waiting to happen.
Look first of allll...df, uh one sec...., what what was I telling you?
These people control a 1+ ton machine with the power of 100+ horses, and they're not looking at what they're doing?
Comparing this to drunk driving is silly because the entire time, 100% of the time a drunk driver is behind the wheel they are drunk. A person texting is texting a few seconds.
You know what else is equally dumb, but has gotten a free pass? Touchscreen interfaces in cars. I make it a point to buy cars with physical controls so that I can do things by touch alone. Plus, the designers always seem to make it a point to bury settings in nested menus; this only makes it worse. 4.6 seconds is probably how long it takes some people to change the station on the radio. And of course, they have to look down at the screen to do it.
Never mind the drivers that are killed, because they are texting etc, what about those that are killed or injured by them, who are innocent? (ie the pedestrians and people in the vehicles they collide with. ) They are the ones we should be concerned about.
I did some testing and adjusting the radio takes me about 3 seconds.
But I can control when I adjust it.
I'd be more concerned about people reading a text that arrived at a risky time than scanning the road, then texting.
I could not text and drive safely.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Film at eleven.
Meanwhile, Turn signal neglect results in over twice as many crashes as distracted driving, but nobody gives a shit because it's not a new scary technology used by the damn kids ruining everything.
First, let me say that I consider it nothing short of suicidally (or even homicidally) stupid to text while driving.
That said...
which at 55 mph, means they were driving the length of a football field without looking,' said David Hosansky.
Why does any car-motion reference need to point out distances in multiples of football fields, as though that means anything? On a highway, you can see many times that distance around you, and unless something drastically changes, 120 yards really doesn't mean much. You already know about everything within that range, so merely measuring distance doesn't say much of anything.
More usefully, can a deer reach the road from the trees in 4.6 seconds? How long does it take for someone with a blowout to swerve into your lane? Will you hit the car in front of you (also moving at a similar speed, so absolute distance means nothing) within 4.6 seconds if it slams on its brakes for no particular reason?
I get the idea that most people probably have a good idea of what it feels like to walk the length of a football field; that sense of "big"ness simply doesn't meaningfully apply under highway traffic conditions.
Back in the 70's a teen could drive 100 mph in a 25 mph zone, while simultaneously smoking a joint, snorting a line of coke off the dashboard, fingering his squealing girlfriend and not spill a drop from the glass filled with Jim Beam held in his one hand on the steering wheel.
So obviously, texting has distracted them from learning these important core driving skills, and is to blame.
Actually, you can't ban every foolish activity while driving, because fools are so ingenious, and will always find a foolish way to distract themselves while driving.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Reading the headline at first, I thought that the risk of texting device drivers was being quantified, and was surprised - I had no idea it could be done. Turns out I was right - it can't
What should be illegal is being impaired while driving. Outlawing individual distractions is an endless task, and opens the door to wrongful prosecution.
Sure, texting while driving is stupid. On the one hand: Just how is a cop going to prove that is what you were doing? Maybe you were looking at a map. On the other hand, by outlawing it, cops can accuse you of texting any time they see you with a phone in your hand, or see you looking down rather that at the road.
Here's another example: why should it be illegal to have an alcoholic beverage open in a car? If you are not intoxicated, what difference does it make if you choose to drink your after-work beer on the way home? Why is this more dangerous that drinking it in a bar and then driving home?
The law ought to be: if you are driving safely, fine. If you are not, you can be pulled over. If you are in an accident, and were provably distracted (by anything), this may play a role in the assignment of fault.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
But then there's the law of unindented consequences. It seems that states that ban texting see an increase in accidents. People who text continue to text but do so by putting their hands in their lap, which is even more dangerous. So be careful what you wish for.
Full article
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
just need to require a phone to auto connection in order for your 16-year-olds car to start and operate. Then block all texting while driving.
Is that 4.6 second TOTAL PER TEXT, i.e. a sum of quick glances (just like looking in a mirror), or 4.6 secs average per interaction with the device?
There is a big difference between the two...
As you can see I'm posting this while driving. I'm perfect control, ain't nothing can go wro#####*#&%^*@CARRIER LOST&@!#%&
So don't fret.
This is all good!
I was in an accident with one. 100% liability on the other side. Her insurance will probably double. I suggest always to subpeona cell records in case of accident.
You might factor into your model of the mainstream media that few people find the behaviour patterns of decrepit old farts newsworthy.
Youth are early adopters, and many youth and young adults lack the judgement to step back from the new stupid. Also known as a sex drive. A young adult using text to A) get laid, or B) indulge in the fantasy that you might someday get laid is not worrying that taking a driving license away from an 80 year-old widow with failing eyesight and reaction times deprives her of her last vestige of independence. "Get out of my way, old bird, I'm trying to get laid. #horny"
SMS accident template
Two young adults are stuck behind some slow-moving great-grandmother, but neither notices initially since they are both busy texting and the slower speed makes it easier to divide attention. The man is writing a shorter text and looks up first, sees that he's going to miss a major light because of the slow-moving old bird two cars ahead, but has just enough time to make an abrupt lane change into an open space and gun the intersection. Young women in front finishes her text moments later, decides to make the same move (with less testosterone) sees the same gap, but doesn't take into account the asshole multitasking male who was driving behind her one seconds ago careening into the same opening with twice the acceleration.
Asshole male finishes his abrupt shoulder check and swings his head forward just in time to sense his impending impact with the young woman making the same lane change in front of him. He tries to protect his precious chrome bumper by swinging yet further around rodeo style and clips a bicyclist in the oncoming lane who had moved inside for an upcoming left turn.
It's a lot like wifi spectrum. If you're the only driver on the highway who texts, you enjoy the protection of every other driver having their eyes on the road. But then other cheeky drivers start to behave the same way, and soon you experience packet loss. The problem on the road is that some packets are more fragile than others. How come the car wash is out of service? Because the drain is clogged again with little strips of Lycra.
Shockingly, texting drivers took their eyes off the road for each text an average of 4.6 seconds -- which at 55 mph, means they were driving the length of a football field without looking
Apparently you cannot view the reports from CQ Researchers without paying for them. Does anyone know if drivers are distracted for a combined total of 4.6 seconds per text, or if they are distracted for a continuous 4.6 seconds per text? There is a big difference.
Really, why are we still dealing with basic flawed arguments on Slashdot?
The law can (and often/usually does) include BOTH.
I see distracted cell-phone using drivers every single day. They are in fact a common and serious menace.
Distracted driving is illegal.
Certain high-risk, (relatively) high frequency behaviours are also illegal.
Police and Prosecutors have discretion.
The system is not perfect, but driving while texting or even holding a cell phone is stupid and proof of a poor driver. Yes there are (always) exceptions. Too rare or specialized to legislate - thus the discretion noted above.
ironic captcha: eluded
in my state, there was a bill to even ban talking while driving without using a hands-free option, and low and behold, they wittled it down to texting. talking w/o hands-free can be just as dangerous. on the other hand, i've seen people, who were legally drunk, drive better than either. there really is no baseline that can accurately gauge everyone; there's too many variables, so let's ban them all.
I'm all in favor of just killing drivers who are phoning or/and texting on the spot!
Drivers of automobiles are a danger to all; just kill them and be done with it.
Let their burned and multilated lifeless bodies and scattered body parts and a head on a pole be a lesson to the drivers to ... beware ... we will kill you before you try to kill us.
Rip
LoL
Watch TV actors driving on screen. Like Bones (which I love, so shoot me). They spend seconds looking at the passenger while pretending (one hopes not real) to be driving. Makes me wince every time. Really bad behavior.
"Quantifying the Risk of Texting Drivers"
Huh? Why not just talk to him? In our limo we keep the security glass down, so we don't have to text him.
In NYC, we don't talk to the driver, reducing the risk of texting drivers.
This is junk statistics at it's worst. The very same distractions came about when the first radio was put in a car and one had to manually change the station, then came 8-tracks, cassettes and all the CD's that one had to read through all the titles to get the one they wanted. All along the way were people reading maps, books, or newspapers; the men shaving; the women farding (putting on makeup), and don't get me started on the ones drinking a cup of coffee (before holders) and lighting their cigarette. Distracted driving has merely evolved and young, inexperienced drivers will always be at risk of allowing distractions get the better of them. What might be a more helpful discussion than the usual "let's outlaw everything!" would be to use technology to demonstrate the dangers and help build the skills of these drivers (and even grandma/pa.) Heck, Disney can build realistic rides where you feel every bump and crash, why aren't virtual car trainers required of everyone and used as a pre-test for licensing?
Don't blame the tool; the spoon didn't ever make anyone fat.
Nope, not surprised. Cigarettes are voluntary self-poisoning with no benefits. People still smoke. When you drive without paying attention, you are likely to have a serious accident. People still text while driving. Hell, people actually drive, despite that being the single most dangerous activity for most urban folks.
Duh.
I followed the link expecting to read about security aspects of different methods of using computer systems to send (bulk) SMS.
Studies have shown that texting slows down reaction time 3x more than being drunk, so with a majority of drivers being distracted, we should be seeing a huge increase of car wrecks. In reality, exactly the opposite has been happening. So the truth is, this is a non-story looking for a cause.