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.
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.
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.
During those seconds, maybe more than a few, there is at least a small chance the drunk driver is actually paying attention to driving. The same can't be said for texting. Either way, I don't think needlessly risking the lives of others should be legal.
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.
You may be shocked to learn that cars are not necessary for transportation. Better ban them while you're at it, because only a relatively small fraction of accidents are the result of distracted or drunk driving.
Both involve making a decision to do something unsafe and irresponsible. At least the drunk driver can claim his judgment was impaired.
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.
Pointing out that it is not quite the same as drunk driving is an argument for what, exactly?
I thought almost all accidents were caused by inattentiveness of some kind.
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!
Yes, except drunk driving is not that distracting to begin with.
Texting is considerably more dangerous to do while driving.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
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?
Sorry, but peripheral vision actually does exist.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
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...
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.
Cars aren't the problem - drivers are.
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.
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.
And during those few seconds paying zero attention to the road. And then when 'attempting' to scan the road preplanning the next text or mentally prepared to check for the next message. It is much, much worse than drunk driving where the main problem is slow reflexes followed by poor decision making. In this case there is nothing to 'reflex' (react) or decide upon to because the input isn't there, the eyes and mind are entirely elsewhere getting little to no input from the road.
Anytime someone gets in the car and unnecessarily risks other people's lives (and property -- gotta remember property, because safety features have made risk of death much lower) they're an asshole. If that unnecessary risk is something very easily prevented like eating or cuddling with your lap dog or texting or driving while impaired, the person engaging in that risk deserves punishment. Fuck them.
If you want to be an apologist for these people, fuck you too. When I'm driving, I don't answer the phone and I don't read or respond to texts. I'm not perfect, and I realize this, so I do what I can to pay attention to contribute to a safer driving experience not only for myself but also for everyone else.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal