Another Study Confirms Hands-Free Texting While Driving Is Unsafe

schwit1 writes with a followup to a story we discussed in April about how using voice-activated texting while driving was no safer than using your hands. Now, a study by AAA has found that using voice commands to send texts is more dangerous than simply talking on your cellphone. "Texting a friend verbally while behind the wheel caused a 'large' amount of mental distraction compared with 'moderate/significant' for holding a phone conversation or talking with a passenger and 'small' when listening to music or an audio book, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found in a report released today. Automakers have promoted voice-based messaging as a safer alternative to taking hands off the wheel to place a call and talk on a handheld phone. About 9 million infotainment systems will be shipped this year in cars sold worldwide, with that number projected to rise to more than 62 million by 2018, according to a March report by London-based ABI Research. 'As we push towards these hands-free systems, we may be solving one problem while creating another,' said Joel Cooper, a University of Utah assistant research professor who worked on the study. 'Tread lightly. There's a lot of rush to develop these systems.' The findings from the largest U.S. motorist group bolster National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman's call to ban all phone conversations behind the wheel, even with hands-free devices."

Comments

No shit

[hedwards]

And in other news, water is wet, and jumping off a tall building is a "bad idea."

Re:No shit

[gstoddart]

And in other news, water is wet, and jumping off a tall building is a "bad idea."

And yet, I could stand at almost any intersection with a camera, and I bet at least 25% of all drivers are in the middle of talking or texting despite it being illegal. Some days, it seems like more.

As long as people still believe that they are so highly evolved they can do this without problem, it will continue to be one. Not unlike people who believe they're still good drivers when they're half hammered.

Re:No shit

[TrollstonButterbeans]

Exactly

Re:No shit

[mcgrew]

And yet, I could stand at almost any intersection with a camera, and I bet at least 25% of all drivers are in the middle of talking or texting despite it being illegal.

Illegal's not the problem. If it were safe yet illegal it would only be their problem. Since it's so dangerous it's everybody's problem.

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.

Re:No shit

[nitehawk214]

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.

So you want your driver's license taken away because one of your neighbors killed someone while texting behind the wheel?

If you were texting while driving... yes.

Re:No shit

[CrimsonAvenger]

As long as people still believe that they are so highly evolved they can do this without problem, it will continue to be one.

So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.

Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.

So you want your driver's license taken away because one of your neighbors killed someone while texting behind the wheel?

No, no, no... I want your driver's license taken away until you can prove that you're not a selfish fuckhead who is incapable of operating 2 tons of Rolling Steel Death without endangering everyone around you.

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

As long as people still believe that they are so highly evolved they can do this without problem, it will continue to be one.

So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.

Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?

Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.

Re:No shit

[bws111]

There are causes of accidents other than distracted driving. In the last 20 years many improvements have been made to the cars and roads. There has also been increased focus on DWI. Put those things together, and you have a declining accident rate, EVEN IF the rate of accidents from distracted driving is going up.

You make it sound like there is some acceptable rate of traffic deaths, and as long as we maintain that rate there is no reason to try to improve. The acceptable rate is 0, and once we hit that we can stop improving.

Re:No shit

[I'm New Around Here]

The problem is many people are dangerous even without the cell phone or texting. Removing those things doesn't make them safe.

Re:No shit

[CrimsonAvenger]

/sighs

They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.

Note that tech from the '70s does NOT imply continued improvement from, say 1990 to 2013, which would be covered by "20 years ago". I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!

In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.

Re:No shit

[hb253]

Indeed, yet another "no shit Sherlock" statement of the obvious.

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? You can't wrap your head around the notion that fatality rates would be even lower than they are now if we didn't have texting and phone calls distracting drivers?

You sound like some of the morons I see driving -- which includes weaving, tailgating 1 car length back at 45MPH, blowing through stop signs and red lights, and more -- while taking a "really important" phone call. And yes, I've seen all of those things happen within the last two weeks and had to take extreme measures to avoid accidents in two instances.

Driving while texting or talking on a phone should be treated exactly the same as DUI.

Re:No shit

[bws111]

Yes, because OTHER IMPROVEMENTS to safety are ongoing. The point which you can't seem to grasp is that they would be declining at a STEEPER RATE if people were not talking on their phones or texting.

Re:No shit

[mdielmann]

The problem is many people are dangerous even without the cell phone or texting. Removing those things doesn't make them safe.

BUT, most people are more dangerous when driving while texting or using a cell phone. Adding that makes them less safe.

Re:No shit

[Intropy]

All of the technologies you mention would increase rather than decrease accident rates. Something like anti-lock brakes would decrease it.

Re:No shit

[Nocturnal Deviant]

I absolutely text at a stop light...ONLY at a stop light and ONLY when I have a friend to tell me if the light is green.

I ignore even business calls when I am driving, I also drive a manual SPECIFICALLY to keep my attention on the vehicle, of course driving a 480hp M5 makes you pay attention or youll end up making a guardrail look like twisted re-bar faster than you can say "hi, yeah im available"

Re:No shit

[pspahn]

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law.

Nice. So how about we amend TWD laws so that if you provide proof that a driver was TWDing (photo, video, etc... NOT while you are driving yourself, and not with automated equipment) then the $50 fine the person gets hammered with goes right into your pocket instead (minus some administrative overhead).

Re: No shit

[IrquiM]

But if people stopped using their mobile while operating a vehicle, they would decline even more! That is the issue here!

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

The human brain is pretty poor at multitasking active tasks. It does a good job of doing a bunch of background tasks - breathing, keeping your heart beating, etc. but it has been shown many times that it isn't very good at doing multiple active tasks.

The problem is people (a large percentage of everyone you ask) will say they are good at multitasking. Couple that with the large number of poor drivers who claim they are good drivers. You get a large amount of overlap of poor multitasking drivers who think they are better than they are at both driving and multitasking.

People have to be told, repeatedly they aren't good at doing something before many of them will even begin to question themselves at it.

Cell phones aren't unique in this regard, many accidents happen each year from the driver adjusting the radio, or simply talking to their passenger and not seeing the light had become red. So while moving to hands free setups might reduce the multitasking a bit, it doesn't eliminate it, until we get self driving cars to replace all of the cars on the road we have to keep telling drivers they aren't good drivers and they aren't good multitaskers so stop trying to mix the two.

Re:No shit

[camperdave]

Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.

Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and the like DO NOTHING to prevent accidents. They simply make it more likely for people to survive a collision.

Re:No shit

[stanlyb]

You have a good point. Lets ban 99% of the people...

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they need to?

Kind of? If you're breeding mice to study a particular variable, then between your control group and your experimental group, you don't simply assume that just that one variable is the only difference between the two, you need to make damn sure that that one variable is the only thing that differs between the two groups, to make sure that some other variable is not impacting the results.

Not saying I agree with CrimsonAvenger's claim that these studies did not control for other variables, only that, in science, control of other variables goes beyond a simple "they're kind of a given".

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

The problem is many people are dangerous even without the cell phone or texting.

Uh-huh.

Note the distinct lack of the terms 'cell phone' and 'texting' in my post - I wrote it in general terms for a reason.

Re:No shit

[dubbreak]

The theory is those people are weeded out through a driving test prior to receiving their license. Problem is often the tests are difficult enough, or the person jumps through the hoops of the test despite having poor driving skills and practices in the real world. Where I am re-testing is rare and generally reserved to the elderly. I'd personally like to see it as a more frequently used tool in policing. Driving recklessly? In addition to a fine you need to pass a re-examination within x weeks or your license is suspended. caught texting and driving? You have to take a re-examination at your own cost. Basically drive it into peoples' skulls that driving is a privilege not a right.

Anything distracting is going to make someone a worse driver than they already are. Removing those distractions reduces the risks. It may not make them "safe", but they'll be further on the spectrum towards safe than if they were texting and driving (mediocre is better than horrid, and horrid is better than guaranteed manslaughter). Anecdotal, but in my experience it's those idiots that think they are the best drivers and can text and call with no problems (completely oblivious to how they are drifting in their own lane). I've confronted people about drifting due to distractions.. all claim they weren't drifting in their lane! "No, I was driving fine!"

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

/sighs

They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.

... and safety technology hasn't stopped increasing during that time period, either.

Here's my question to you: you say that traffic fatalities have been declining... what about overall accident rates? Unless they've been on the decline as well, and in similar or better numbers than the fatalities, you're really only helping me prove my point.

FWIW, according to this document from the census bureau, overall accident rates have remained fairly steady over the last few decades, with fatalities and serious injuries seeing a slightly higher decrease; in other words, we have about the same amount of wrecks, but less deaths because cars are safer than they used to be.

Re:No shit

[stenvar]

And yet, I could stand at almost any intersection with a camera, and I bet at least 25% of all drivers are in the middle of talking or texting despite it being illegal. Some days, it seems like more.

And yet, you would probably not be seeing an accident even if you stood there all year...

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

All of the technologies you mention would increase rather than decrease accident rates. Something like anti-lock brakes would decrease it.

What???

In what insane, backwards form of reality do you exist, where airbags and crash-testing cause accidents???

I mean, saying they don't do anything to prevent accidents I could buy as an argument... but causing them? You're grasping, Broseph.

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

Airbags.. OK, you've got me there.

However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.

Re:No shit

[mcgrew]

Sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Can you elaborate?

Re:No shit

[Intropy]

I live in actual reality.

In actual reality people modify their behaviors based on risk. Airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, more resilient car frames, etc. do nothing to prevent accidents. They make accidents safer. When accidents are safer people are more willing to risk them. When people are more willing to risk them, they act in ways that cause more of them.

It's likewise true for technologies like ABS that do help avoid accidents, but at least there the riskier behavior is offset by the technology.

Re:No shit

[pr0fessor]

If you are texting at a stop light or stop sign here and a cop sees it they will ticket you $60 fine for texting while driving you have to park and turn your car off first. I don't have a problem with that because I have had more than my fair share of texting drivers hit my cars. Talking on your cell phone hands free no fine so if I'm driving and you text me it get's ignored or I just hit callback {most of the time I just ignore it}.

Re:No shit

[nbauman]

Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?

Quite a large library of studies explain why accident rates have been declining, and it's not a problem.

First, Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed reviewed the auto safety literature and explained how people were dying in automobile accidents because the automobile industry perversely designed cars in a way that they knew would kill people unnecessarily.

Second, there was a product liability suit called Larson v. General Motors that established that auto manufacturers were responsible when they knowingly designed cars in a way that killed people when they could easily have designed them differently ("Yes, we knew that 1,000 of our customers died every year because their chests were impaled against the steering column, and it could have been redesigned to save their lives easily and cheaply, but we didn't do it because we didn't feel like it.")

If you want to review the auto safety literature, which is enormous, I would recommend that after Nader, you start with the Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings, and also the auto safety entries in The Engineering Index (or whatever they call it these days). I particularly recommend Nils Bohlin's 1967 Stapp paper on Volvo seat belts.

Engineering studies like these, combined with political action organized by guys like Ralph Nader, combined with product liability suits against recalcitrant and stupid American auto manufacturers, has reduced the automobile fatality rate per mile by at least half.

Now the same researchers, using the same scientific methods, have found out -- and proven -- that using digital devices while driving also raise the accident rate.

Re:No shit

[I'm New Around Here]

Ahh. I just thought you were implying those things. Good post then, although I don't agree with it. People would 'drive safe' to show you they can, and then drive just as bad as ever once they are on the road again. It's a no-win situation.

Re:No shit

[nbauman]

There's a big difference between some guy on the Internet thinking something is obvious (after someone else points it out), and actually knowing something, and proving it, based on evidence.

One of the non-obvious things they proved was that it's just as dangerous to talk on the phone hands-off as it is to hold the phone in your hand. That's something a lot of people don't understand, because it's convenient for them not to understand it.

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!

In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.

And you somehow think that measuring fatalities is the metric?

That would imply that any unsafe act would result in only fatalities, no simple accidents, no injuries or property damage only accidents.

before we go on too far, not everything is declining. 2012 saw an increase in teen vehicle fatalities. Even so, there is an improper fixation on only fatalities.

http://ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/spotlights/spotlight_teens12.pdf

A friends daughter has been involved in 2 TWD accidents. First time she clipped a mailbox, the second time a street sign. In the first accident, damage was minor. In th esecond, she totaled the car. She was not injured in either accident, in the second, the airbags deployed.

Using the fatality metric, her texting was not a bad thing. Using an injury metric, it was not a bad thing. Property damage? well, maybe. But she thankfully wasn't killed, so TWD is safe in some people's eyes.

But replace the mail box and the street sign with pedestrians, and they would have almost certainly been dead. Would that make her texting a bad thing? Then again, those pedestrians weren't driving, so texting and driving is still safe. Not so much for the pedestrians who were hit.

For further entertainment

http://www.missouricaraccident.com/blog/cell-phone-texting-issues/distracted-driver-hits-pedestrians-i-70/

http://www.wcax.com/story/15251324/police-driver-who-hit-colchester-pedestrian-was-texting

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=168456&fm=newsmain%2Cnarts

Re:No shit

[camperdave]

Airbags.. OK, you've got me there.

However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.

Err... umm... maybe... Okay, I might be able to accept that. However, I think that things like the third brake light, traction control/ anti-lock brakes, rumble strips, and higher visibility lane paint contribute much more to accident prevention (granted, the last two are improvements to the road, rather than the vehicle).

Re:No shit

[grim4593]

If you catch someone texting while driving and can provide evidence to the authorities, YOU get most of the money from the fine issued.

Re:No shit

[foniksonik]

For many people driving is a necessity. Therefore it is not seen as a privilege but as a right... "I have a job, pay on time for my car and insurance - I deserve to drive. "

If we had adequate mass transit or designed our communities for local living then it would be seen as a special privilege.

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

You sound like some of the morons I see driving -- which includes weaving, tailgating 1 car length back at 45MPH, blowing through stop signs and red lights, and more -- while taking a "really important" phone call.

BTW, one of the best clues that someone is distracted is them driving up so close that they almost hit you, then back off and do it again. It you let them ahead of you, they will drop back if there is no one else to do this to.

The distracted driver is using other vehicles as reference points - probably using a lot of peripheral vision - on where they should drive, and how fast to go. But it isn't a very good system, seeing their nuisance factor.

And yes, I've seen all of those things happen within the last two weeks and had to take extreme measures to avoid accidents in two instances.

Driving while texting or talking on a phone should be treated exactly the same as DUI.

I'm personally in favor of cellphones being disabled while driving. This is not a difficult thing. People cannot use thes things responsibly, so they need to be squelched

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

I absolutely text at a stop light...ONLY at a stop light and ONLY when I have a friend to tell me if the light is green.

Another slave to their cell phone. What is it that makes these little things turn people into addicts?

Re:No shit

[David_Hart]

And in other news, water is wet, and jumping off a tall building is a "bad idea."

The worst part is that these tests are deliberately set up so that the drivers fail at whatever task they are doing. Most involve some sort of road test where you are trying to actively avoid objects, go around sharp corners, stop at lights etc. while being told that you have to perform a task (i.e. hands-free texting). In most cases it's a task that the testers have not tried before or have very little experience with. The conditions for the test are conditions where most drivers are smart enough to pay attention to the road instead of fiddling with things.

I'm not saying that hands-free texting isn't distracting. What I am saying is that there is a deliberate effort to make it seem worse than changing the CD in your car. Its just another attack against new technology. They did the same sort of studies and came to similar conclusions when GPS became popular. Now the focus has shifted away from GPS being a distraction to people trusting their GPS too much and getting lost... I predict that we will see a similar transition for wireless texting, perhaps once the systems improve a bit...

Re:No shit

[Pubstar]

The only way I can see this done is by using your phone while driving...

Re:No shit

[geminidomino]

Seriously? You can't wrap your head around the notion that fatality rates would be even lower than they are now if we didn't have texting and phone calls distracting drivers?

The "notion", sure. Whether or not it's a "fact", I question. Didn't one of those assholes in DC just make a big stink about needing cops to be allowed to search cell phones without a warrant, to determine if it was in use during an accident? If that's the case, then that would suggest that the data (if any) correlating the two is rather suspect.

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

I was thinking more along the lines of how Germany handles driving licenses* - you have to be first aid certified, take (and pass) required training courses, pass both written and practical exams... all at your own expense.

Now, most people would balk at extending those kind of requirements stateside (I presume because they fear they won't be able to pass), but regardless of opinion there is a strong correlation between "advanced" driver training (and by "advanced" I mean more than the none that many US states require) and lower accident rates.

* For their own citizens; recent reciprocity changes make it a lot easier for some foreigners to trade their home licenses for German ones.

Re:No shit

[Nocturnal Deviant]

It's called being available when you are a contract worker...pretty basic common sense. If I don't get the contract someone else will.

Re:No shit

[grim4593]

Perhaps if people started installing dash-cams like the Russians.

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

I live in actual reality.

In actual reality people modify their behaviors based on risk. Airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, more resilient car frames, etc. do nothing to prevent accidents.

Sure they do - they make the car safer to drive.

If you don't believe me, try this: take your daily driver around a fairly perilous corner as fast as you're able to without losing control. Then, go get your hands on an older car of similar make, say pre-1980's, and take the same corner at the same speed. According to your hypothesis, they will both take the corner similarly, because, as you say, things like "more resilient car frames... do nothing to prevent accidents."

PS you may want to have the paramedics on hand for when your second run in the 40-year-old auto ends badly... because it will.

When accidents are safer people are more willing to risk them.

Bull-fucking-shit. Case in point, my wife drives a brand new TDI Jetta, one of the safest cars a person can buy; yet she still does everything in her power to avoid getting creamed on the interstate. SO, hypotheses #2 shot out of the water.

Seriously, who have you ever met that said, "hey, this car (I just spent 1/3 of my annual income on) is super safe to drive, so now I have free license to drive like a total fucktard!"?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Zero.

Re:No shit

[CanHasDIY]

Airbags.. OK, you've got me there.

However, part of the result of extensive crash testing and frame strengthening is that now the cars themselves are safer to drive, thus helping to prevent accidents, if merely by virtue of being easier to control and maneuver.

Err... umm... maybe... Okay, I might be able to accept that. However, I think that things like the third brake light, traction control/ anti-lock brakes, rumble strips, and higher visibility lane paint contribute much more to accident prevention (granted, the last two are improvements to the road, rather than the vehicle).

The sum of the whole is greater than its parts, friend.

Re:No shit

[Kleen13]

Anything distracting is going to make someone a worse driver than they already are. Removing those distractions reduces the risks. It may not make them "safe", but they'll be further on the spectrum towards safe than if they were texting and driving (mediocre is better than horrid, and horrid is better than guaranteed manslaughter). Anecdotal, but in my experience it's those idiots that think they are the best drivers and can text and call with no problems (completely oblivious to how they are drifting in their own lane). I've confronted people about drifting due to distractions.. all claim they weren't drifting in their lane! "No, I was driving fine!"

Yesterday a woman in the car in front of me was late starting when the red light turned green. I could see her with her phone doing something. I waited, and she started after a few seconds AND THEN STOPPED entirely to complete whatever the hell she was doing with some papers and her phone. I just don't get it. I see "the swerve" every day, and some times it's just crazy. I learned a term my 1st day working for the railroad that applies here. Heavy metal always wins.

Re:No shit

[Kleen13]

All I can say to that is that I generally (as in always) try not to hit things when driving, whether it's my motorbike or car. It has nothing to do with my risk assessments based on the gear I have, and all to do with driving the way I was taught with an eye to the conditions I'm driving in.. I will never crash my car on purpose. I doubt you'll find any evidence to support your claim.

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, so you're in traffic and not paying attention. So when the light turns green you add an extra couple of seconds before you're ready to move. I see this shit every day driving to work. Traffic sucks because people don't pay attention to driving. Maybe you're special and should get a special texting-while-in-traffic license, but most people can't seem to handle it and it makes driving dangerous and frustrating for the rest of us.

Re:No shit

[Intropy]

Making a car safer to drive because accidents becmoe more survivable is not the same thing as making accidents less likely, which is what we've been discussing. Those two cars will of course behave differently. Do you think that the presence of an airbag or a seat belt materially affects the car's handling? Of course not. The differences are due to a litany of other changes to cars over time.

As for that limb you're on. Don't look down:
https://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/2006/060927ManneringOffset.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8198694?dopt=Abstract
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/failure%20of%20seatbelt%20legislation.pdf
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Buckle-Up-And-Behave.html

And it's not limited to cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IB2xRfRHOA
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/07/peltzman-effect.html
http://www.damninteresting.com/the-balance-of-risk/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607603134/abstract
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61755-3/fulltext?_eventId=login
http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/Wilson_Circumcision.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you let the passenger drive or text for you? Why do you have to make your stupid work problem into everyone else's problem?

Re:No shit

[similar_name]

Note that tech from the '70s does NOT imply continued improvement from, say 1990 to 2013

Whether that's implied or not, it is true. ABS brakes today are better than they were 20 years ago. More sensors are added every year. Headlights get better. Frames get stronger. Lighter vehicles means the m in f=ma is smaller. Designs are better. Airbags are better, more prevalent and cover more passengers. Are you implying there hasn't been continued improvement in safety?

Re:No shit

[cockpitcomp]

I believe the more resilient car frame comment was with respect to it's safety aspects (roll-over, side impact etc.) rather than handling confidence but if you are going to take that clearly out of context, I will freely take it the next step point out there are only a handful of common cars in production with frames at all so obviously your expertise on the matter is suspect.

Re:No shit

[hedwards]

Not really. It's always been obvious that doing something that requires you to take your eyes off the road is a bad idea. Now, for somethings like checking the speedometer or other sensors you need to do so, texting isn't related to driving at all.

What's more, texting, talking and such use up some of your working memory. Depending upon the specifics it may or may not be a big deal, but it does negatively impact upon your performance.

Bottom line here is that things like this done while driving are unsafe until proven otherwise. Texting while driving is dangerous and barring scientific evidence to the contrary, I can't conceive of how anybody would think otherwise. Driving requires your eyes on the road.

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

It's called being available when you are a contract worker...pretty basic common sense. If I don't get the contract someone else will.

So are all these students walking around, never looking up - I've personally saved two women's lives who were going to step out into traffic - All of them are contract workers? Sorry, you have given a reason that you use the phone, not an excuse for plowing into someone and killing them. Addicts have so many reasons.

Re:No shit

[gstoddart]

The only way I can see this done is by using your phone while driving...

Then you are quite unimaginative.

I could go to an intersection close to my house and stand there with a camera, and I would be able to pick off people either texting or holding their phone while driving. Because every time I'm at that intersection I can see people doing exactly that.

If there was a bounty of $50 for photos like that, I could pay off my house in a few weeks. And I bet you can go to an awful lot of places and do the exact same thing.

Finding people doing this is far too easy.

Re:No shit

[cockpitcomp]

Easy compromise: Allow texting while stopped. Most reasonable people get their texting done at the stoplight. It is not particularly dangerous to text while at a stoplight. Annoying to others but unlikely to cause a crash. Since you are less likely to get caught texting on the move, the law creates an incentive for the worst behavior. If you are stopped, you are not really driving in any non-legalese meaning of the word. It wasn't legally driving before the MADD folks had the laws changed to bust the guy sleeping it off in the bar parking lot.

Re:No shit

[hedwards]

And they were ultimately right. I don't screw with any of that bullshit when I'm in the car either. If I use GPS, I'll have it give me auditory directions periodically and not adjust it unless stopped. Any time your attention and or your eyes are not on the task of driving it will lead to impaired performance.

It's just things like changing CDs and directions on the GPS are difficult to prove as causation in a collision.

Re:No shit

[OldSoldier]

THE PROBLEM WITH THESE TESTS is they FORCE the driver to do the distracting task.

I would love to see a more real world example of this sort of thing... LET the driver pause as he would if a traffic emergency came up. Let the driver do whatever they naturally would be trying to do in a driving situation. I would NEVER text-to-speech a text message while driving. I would never count backwards from 100 by sevens over a cell phone while driving (and try to get a perfect and rapid score) ... I would pause and stop as traffic got bad or situation warranted. Face it, we talk in the car to our passengers so there is SOME level of interaction here that's safe. These tests are a waste of time, they merely prove at the highest level of distraction we're ... distracted. Again... "No Shit".

Show the world at the lowest level of distraction we're still distracted and THEN run that story!

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

most people are more dangerous when driving while texting or using a cell phone

all people are more dangerous when driving while talking on a cell phone and even more dangerous while texting on a cell phone (talk-texting would be in between those two) than when just driving

Re:No shit

[nbauman]

One of the non-obvious things they discovered was that it was dangerous to use a cell phone even if you don't take your eyes off the road.

When drivers approached an intersection, they would normally check for pedestrians with their eyes. when they approached an intersection listening to a digital device, they didn't check for pedestrians.

That wasn't obvious. Many people maintained that it would be safe to use digital devices if you didn't take your eyes off the road. For example, many legislatures passed laws that made it legal to use a hands-off phone with earpieces. Many automobile manufacturers made cars with hands-off digital devices that you can operate without taking your eyes off the road. But this research shows that even when you keep your eyes on the road, you still make more mistakes when you're operating a digital device.

I expect that the first time somebody is seriously injured by a driver operating a digital device, they'll sue the car manufacturer for installing these devices even though they knew it would cause more accidents.

And I expect them to win. The law has always held manufacturers responsible for manufacturing products in an unsafe manner.

Juries tend to slam manufacturers with big judgments, when they hear that the manufacturer knew the product was unsafe, and sold it anyhow, and now someone in front of them has been predictably injured as a result.

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

If losing your license means losing your job then perhaps you should drive more carefully?

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

That's nothing to do with what mcgrew said.

You and pspahn need to learn to read.

Re:No shit

[ais523]

The problem with trying to do that via technical means is that I've seen several situations where a passenger needs to use a cellphone while a car is driving. It can't be very technically easy to distinguish between a driver using a phone, and a passenger using a phone.

Re:No shit

[rioki]

And yet you see people flying at low altitudes at 200 km/h (125 mph) in the rain. Driving 200 km/h may be legal in Germany under certain circumstances, but never bad weather conditions is not one of them. The high requirements are there, but it does not keep morons from driving.

Re:No shit

[Gavagai80]

My 1991 car (not 70s) didn't have any air bags, because they weren't yet mandatory. My 1998 car has second generation airbags. Newer cars have third generation airbags. See the pattern?

Re:No shit

[smooth wombat]

I've personally saved two women's lives who were going to step out into traffic

In doing so, you thwarted natural selection and those women will most likely pass on their genes to the next generation who will be just as oblivious as they were, thus perpetuating the corruption of the gene pool.

Or was it more you didn't want to be splattered with their guts as they were run over by the cars?

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.

Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and the like DO NOTHING to prevent accidents. They simply make it more likely for people to survive a collision.

Airbags, crash testing and the like may not help prevent accidents from happening but other technologies do. Stuff like the following does help to prevent accidents:
- Frame strengthening - Helps to improve handling which helps avoid accidents
- ABS - Helps people stop suddenly without losing traction
- Traction control - Helps to prevent accidents caused by the vehicle losing traction and control
- Reversing cameras/Object detection - Helps prevent accidents while reversing when visibility is hampered by the body of the vehicle
- Various engine and transmission improvements - Help improve the handling of the vehicle, eg, shaving 50kg off the weight of the engine and transmission helps reduce stopping distances, especially in conjunction with ABS and traction control

There is probably a lot more too which don't come to mind too...

Re:No shit

[Sqweegee]

I ride the bus... I could take pictures almost constantly for 30-40 minutes every morning and afternoon.

Re:No shit

[realityimpaired]

I absolutely text at a stop light...ONLY at a stop light and ONLY when I have a friend to tell me if the light is green.

Why on earth wouldn't you just have the friend read the text for you, and then type out the reply? I have a hard time imagining a situation where you need to send a text while driving *that* badly, and where the content of said text is questionable enough that you'd be worried about the friend knowing what's in it....

Re:No shit

[PortHaven]

Well gee golly, isn't talking on the cell phone supposed to be worse than drinking and driving. If you're seeing 25% of the drivers on their phone. And those studies were actually legitimate. Well, there must be hundreds dead on those corners.

Or perhaps those studies were aiming for a certain desired result... and talking on a cell phone is no where near as bad as drunk driving.

Re: No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost got hit by a driver while walking across an intersection just yesterday because of this. He was on his phone while turning, not looking around for pedestrians on the crosswalk.

Re:No shit

[nosferatu1001]

Wait - you have an M5 but havent added in the texting system to iDrive? That would solve half your issues....

Oh wait - 480bhp? Thats not a current spec M5 - the E60 was 500BHP. Are you driving an E39 tuned up?

[disclosure - work for BMW :)]

Re:No shit

[hb253]

One of the non-obvious things they discovered was that it was dangerous to use a cell phone even if you don't take your eyes off the road.

Mind boggling -this became obvious to me in the mid-90's the first time I used a cellphone while driving. Then again, I have seen countless examples of cluelessness in my lifetime.

Re:No shit

[mcgrew]

It wasn't that driving while on the phone was worse than drunk driving, but that it was as dangerous. The difference is when you're drunk, you're drunk from when you start the trip until after you get there. With a phone you're only dangerous for the part of the trip you're on the phone. Plus, someone drunk is less likely to be wearing a seat belt than if they were sober.

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

... or have cameras on fixed mounts, or have a second person operating the cameras...

Calling GP "quite unimaginative" is an understatement, and much more polite than the phrase I would use.

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

Yeah, someone who thinks frame is a synonym of chassis is obviously an expert.

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

When accidents are safer people are more willing to risk them.

Bull-fucking-shit. Case in point, my wife drives a brand new TDI Jetta, one of the safest cars a person can buy; yet she still does everything in her power to avoid getting creamed on the interstate.

There is such a thing as risk homeostasis theory. It's not 100% proven in all circumstances but calling it bullshit isn't true either..

Also, one anecdote does not a statistically valid sample make.

Seriously, who have you ever met that said, "hey, this car (I just spent 1/3 of my annual income on) is super safe to drive, so now I have free license to drive like a total fucktard!"?

Belgians?

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

I will never crash my car on purpose. I doubt you'll find any evidence to support your claim.

Where did he - or anyone - claim people crash on purpose?

Crashes aren't particularly enjoyable. Even if you aren't permanently injured there's a financial cost.

However it seems perfectly plausible to me that if something has slightly unpleasant consequences then people aren't going to try quite so hard to avoid it as they would if it was terminally nasty.

And don't understimate the power of "it won't happen to me." and "I'm a better than average driver."

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

You aren't reading slashdot while driving, are you? He explicitly stated that he only uses the phone while halted. Sounds unlikely from a BMW driver, but there you go...

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

I used to get in the car with my tie draped round my neck and do it up if I was stopped at a light. In the event I was lucky and got greens all the way then I'd do it when I arrived. Saved a bit of time in the first case and no loss in the second.

Re:No shit

[Kleen13]

"When accidents are safer people are more willing to risk them." And trust me, as a rider I get it. I hope it doesn't happen to me.

Re:No shit

[Hognoxious]

The worst part is that these tests are deliberately set up so that the drivers fail at whatever task they are doing.

No they aren't. If everyone in both the experimental and control groups failed 100% of the time (or indeed, 0%) that wouldn't really be very enlightening, would it?

I'm not saying that hands-free texting isn't distracting. What I am saying is that there is a deliberate effort to make it seem worse than changing the CD in your car.

Perhaps you could point out the specific flaws in their methodology, and/or their motivation for doing this?

Re:No shit

[nbauman]

Right. It was obvious. But there is also a lot of cluelessness around.

That's why we have the scientific method. We set up an experiment to give us data to tell us who's right.

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem with trying to do that via technical means is that I've seen several situations where a passenger needs to use a cellphone while a car is driving. It can't be very technically easy to distinguish between a driver using a phone, and a passenger using a phone.

You can still pull over. All phones these days have GPS units in them. If the GPS is seeing speeds of greater than 10 miles per hour, then the unit is disabled. It can still notify you of a call, but you won't be able to use it unless you stop again. It isn't a hard technical problem at all, and as I say, is the inconvenience of having to pull over to make a call more important than killing someone or making a mess out of their car or bike?

That is in the same league as the inconvenience of having your shirt a little creased might seem more important than wearing seat belts, or mother-child bonding more important than the kid being launched through the windshield. or a car not starting up in gear. It's just a safety matter, and makes good sense, except for those who see any safety matter as a violation of their freedom and right not to have anyone tell them what to do.

Re:No shit

[david_thornley]

No, this is a matter of people not wanting to be stopped from doing something perfectly safe just because some people do dangerous things.

I can talk on the phone perfectly safely in the passenger seat. I certainly would be impaired if I were to use it while driving. Similarly, I can use my hedge trimmer safely on the hedge, but not on anything with flesh or electrical wires attached. Heck, I can drive my car safely, or I can run into a bicyclist. Is that reason to ban cars?

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

I can talk on the phone perfectly safely in the passenger seat. I certainly would be impaired if I were to use it while driving. Similarly, I can use my hedge trimmer safely on the hedge, but not on anything with flesh or electrical wires attached. Heck, I can drive my car safely, or I can run into a bicyclist. Is that reason to ban cars?

Welll played sir, but you forgot to add "should all humans and all technology be banned?'

A lot of people can apparently drive safely after having a couple of beers, proof is that there are many more DUI arrests than there are people killed by drunk drivers, but I don't think your logic would play out to well in that case.

Truth is, I don't care if there are specific laws to ban texting while driving. ButI do fully believe that since there are flming assholes who do this idiotic thing, that phone records should be searched, and if the phone was in use, that the careless drivers should recieve the full penalty of law, including loss of license, incarceration, and if a death is involved, mansalughter and prison. And I do belive that officers should be able to pull over anyone who is seen using a cellphone and charge them with reckless driving.

Of course, some folks think that a person is more dead if they've been killed by a drunk rather than an asshole who is so addicted to their texting that they just have to get out that LOL.

Re:No shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopped at a light is still "in traffic". He's still in traffic and not paying attention to it. He's the guy still waiting at the light and holding everybody up behind him because his eyes are glued to the phone.

Re:No shit

[ais523]

I'm thinking of situations like "needing to pick someone up in an emergency (with limited time) and trying to contact them to verify where they are". If you pull over in order to make the call, then you're going to have to break the speed limit in order to get there on time, which is dangerous in a different way. If a passenger's making the call, there's no danger involved, and so things are safer all around.

Re:No shit

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm thinking of situations like "needing to pick someone up in an emergency (with limited time) and trying to contact them to verify where they are".

Surely. The problem is, we can run up scenariaos for almost anything. Years ago, when many people were resistant to seatbelt use, it seems everyone had a person who knew someone who was in an accident, and would have surely been killed if they were wearing their seat belt. The king of all apocryphal stories, IMO. I had just started dating my wife, and she tried that one on me. DIdn't work either.

This is meant as humor, so please don't be offended.... What if you were being chased by the mafia, who had a hit out on you, and you passed a bad accident on the road at 3 a.m.? If your cell was disabled, you wouldn't be able to call 911, and the people would almost certainly die, but if you stopped to call the accident in, the mafia dudes would kill you. Quite the moral dilemma.

Re:No shit

[PortHaven]

Au contraire...I use my phone most of my travels.

So far, I've logged probably close to 200,000 miles using my cell phone. Zero accidents.

(Ironically, most of my close calls for accidents have been when I'm NOT using my cell phone.)

I will say watching Star Trek stream on Netflix is far less distracting than typing 35,000 notes for your college class while driving. Maybe I should start drinking and driving. How many miles do you think I'll accumulate, can I drive 200,000 miles drunk?

Re:No shit

[mcgrew]

can I drive 200,000 miles drunk?

Possibly, I know people who have been driving drunk for decades without an accident. Dumb luck and random chance always play a big part of anything. Why tempt fate? That call, text, or Star Trek episode will wait.

Re:No shit

[ais523]

Well, I can't drive, so there'd be a passenger in the car who could make the call. (As such, I'm very used to car-sharing, because I don't know of any other sort of driving; if I'm in a car, there's always a passenger able to make the call.)

Re:No shit

[PortHaven]

Cause often it's my only free time...especially those days the 2+ hour commute becomes 4+ hours. Always fun.

( I can't wait for Google cars.)

Re:No shit

[mcgrew]

By the time Google cars get here I'll probably really need one; I'm not getting any younger. I'm looking forward to them, too.

This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems illogical. How can talking be more or less distracting then talking? There has to be some sort of flaw in either study that would account for the big difference.

Re:This seems illogical.

[sjames]

Autocorrect.

Re:This seems illogical.

[jellomizer]

Well if you are Talking in the car with a passenger, he can tell you, Dude you need to stop your car. Vs talking to some one who doesn't have a stake in your driving safety (and can't know if he does).

I just recently got in an accident. I have a hands free unit. The phone rang, and the split second it took me to read who it was on the dashboard was long enough for me not to keep my eyes on the road to see the car in front of me doing a quick stop.
I didn't even pick up the phone, I was just wondering who it was, and it showed right on the dashboard.

If I am driving and someone is with me, and I get too distracted, or when I am riding with someone and see that they are about to do something dangerious. I can say, Hey the car is stopping!.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Lunix Nutcase]

And how is that situation any different than looking down at the clock on your dashboard? Or the radio? Or the fuel gauge or speedometwr?

Re:This seems illogical.

[Garion911]

One of 2 reasons for your accident.

1. You took longer than you think to read the name.
2. You were following too closely.

Answer is most likely 2. People follow MUCH too closely nowadays.

Re:This seems illogical.

[bws111]

Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.

Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is that situation any different than looking down at the clock on your dashboard? Or the radio? Or the fuel gauge or speedometwr?

It isn't. He was tailgating and doesn't want to change the way he drives. I've known multiple habitual tailgaters who have totaled cars and they always have an excuse for driving right into another vehicle. I've yet to see one change to even a normal following distance, much less the recommended one of three seconds.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Garabito]

Does "dear aunt let's set so double the killer delete select all" sound familiar to you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_Jp6PxsSQ

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.

Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.

Ooh ooh I know this one.
Set the NMI flag in your CPU control register and don't worry about interrupts.

Re:This seems illogical.

[dkleinsc]

It's completely logical.

Your passenger, like you, has a significant interest in surviving your trip, and will tend to react by quieting down when you're in a tough spot, or help you out with a "Watch out!" if you're about to, say, pull into an occupied lane next to you.

The person on the other end of the phone, by contrast, isn't there with you and has no understanding of your current situation.

The basic thing to understand, though, about why hands-free makes no significant difference is that it's not the driver's hands or eyes that are the limiting factor, it's the driver's brain.

Re:This seems illogical.

[bws111]

Well, if you can do that, great. Of course that means you have no reactions at all and should not be driving. So the next best thing is proposed - don't generate the interrupt in the first place.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here for this.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Kreigaffe]

Stop tailgating and leave a safe distance between yourself and the car in front of you and that won't happen.

Texting, or talking, while driving is not the problem. Bad drivers are the problem. Texting and talking while driving makes bad drivers worse.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

No-no, you just *poll* the road regularly.

Re:This seems illogical.

[tgd]

Its a lot like speaking a second language you're not that familiar with. Your natural flow and grammar doesn't always work and the response you get back isn't always what you expect. It just takes your brain more attention to handle it.

The brain also tends to have a greater problem following dis-embodied conversation. It takes less effort to talk to someone you can see than someone you can't.

There are nuances to how the brain processes things that tend to be a surprise the more we collectively learn about it.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention fiddling with knobs, talking to passengers, looking at billboards and road signs, looking through the rear view mirror, etc.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, because assholes cut in in an unsafe manner if you do leave a safe gap.

Re:This seems illogical.

[crakbone]

Just bad driving. If he knew that he needed to look he should have made sure he had a proper braking distance for the time it takes to check the screen. That's part of driving. Analyzing the environment and accounting for problems before they happen. My wife constantly got on me about slowing down for green lights ( I watch cross traffic and slow if it looks dangerous). One day we are driving late and I started slowing for a green light to watch cross traffic, I hit the brakes hard and a truck full on blew the light at 70 miles an hour. If I had not checked the cross traffic we would have been t-boned and our car would have taken out four drunks crossing the road. As it was the driver barely missed the drunks. Situational awareness is very important in driving.

Re:This seems illogical.

[crakbone]

You obviously have never been a designated driver. Passengers are just passengers. They talk and yell and scream. It's the drivers job to filter it out and to drive with enough safety margin that distractions are not a safety issue.

Re:This seems illogical.

[houghi]

Many people turn down the radio when they are looking for an address. The reason is because the radio is distracting.
And that is not even active listening. It is passive listening. Yet it still is distracting.

That should be enough evidence.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully agree with you when you say that bad drivers are a problem. Indeed because the drivers engaging in these distracting activities while driving are assholes without consideration for other people's lives that part of your statement is true.
Your comment shows however problems elsewhere were it becomes apparent that you have no fucking clue. There are plenty of reasons car drivers shall be looking what is happening in front of their cars (and around them) - car in front of you that was moving the same direction when you looked at it last time is only one of them.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking with someone who isn't there requires greater attention than talking with someone who is. I never really understood this until I started making phone calls in a language other than my native one. Despite the fact that I speak the language fluently, conversing over the phone is far more difficult than having an in-person conversation. Once I noticed the phenomenon in those languages, I started noticing how much more attention I paid to conversations on the phone in my native language.

I'm not sure why this is, but there's something in our (or at least my, though I doubt I'm all that unique) brains that optimizes in-person interactions that doesn't work over the phone.

Re:This seems illogical.

[chuckugly]

There is a way to make this much less distracting if one practices it, and it applies to other things we should be doing like looking in our mirrors as well. Glance at the mirror or instrument and immediately look back ahead. Our brain can figure out what we saw after the fact without us fixating on the scene.

Re:This seems illogical.

[bws111]

Concentration and alertness are not the same thing. The radio certainly interferes with concentration, and when you are looking for an address you are concentrating. Normal driving does not require concentration, it requires alterness. In fact, concentration interferes with alterness. One reason that beginning drivers are so bad is that they are concentrating so much on the mechanics of driving that they are not alert. There is no indication that the radio interferes with alertness.

Re:This seems illogical.

[bws111]

Yes, and if the driver is competent he will NOT be engaging in conversation with those people.

Re:This seems illogical.

[bws111]

And I forgot to add that looking at texts and talking on the phone takes concentration, which interferes with alertness.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the noise level distracts the driver, he should pull over until the passengers quiet down. It's a very old technique, ask any parent when there are noisy kids in the back seat. What do they do? They pull over. (My dad did so!)

Re:This seems illogical.

[CCarrot]

And how is that situation any different than looking down at the clock on your dashboard? Or the radio? Or the fuel gauge or speedometwr?

Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.

Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.

Does not compute.

It doesn't sound like jellomizer felt he was in an unsafe driving situation, so he went ahead and to checked out the incoming caller information. He could as easily have been glancing at the satellite radio to see what artist / song name is playing now, or switching the dash display to see what his instantaneous gas mileage is at the moment. As far as he knew, this was a convenient time, so he chose to do so.

Any of these tasks would require at least as much thought as would reading a phone number/name off of a display...should they be prohibited as well? Perhaps every display in the vehicle except the speedometer and odometer should go black as soon as the wheels are rolling?

Re:This seems illogical.

[camperdave]

Yup, because assholes cut in in an unsafe manner if you do leave a safe gap.

Ah! So instead of one unsafe driver, we now have two. Brilliant!

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I do that, the asshole behind be passes me and whips into the space. If I then drop back from his bumper, the next asshole behind me does the same thing.

This is why I don't give a fuck who likes the way I drive. They don't want to drive safely, I don't care if I hit a few.

Re:This seems illogical.

[I'm New Around Here]

To me, talking on a cell phone while driving is like reading a book that has each sentence on its own page. It doesn't flow at all, and the attention needed to splice it together takes a lot of attention from other things.

And, yes, I do talk on the phone while driving. I've never gotten into an accident from it yet.

Re:This seems illogical.

[AlphaWolf_HK]

There are normally plenty of unplanned interrupts. Babies in cars cause them all the time for example. Under that reasoning, babies should be banned from cars.

It's possible that if you were distracted that easily from the road that you have to look at the phone right that second, you have some sort of neurological anomaly, for example autism spectrum where sudden actions in your periphery will instantly grab your attention. But most people aren't like this, and it isn't at all fair to make everybody else change to fit your lifestyle (brings images of schools of 500 students who ban peanut butter because of one child with peanut allergies.)

I answer my phone all the time while on the road without ever actually having to take my eyes off of the road, and I don't even use a hands free kit - I just do the whole thing by feel, and in fact it is easier to pick up a 4 ounce phone off of my dash and answer (pick up, slide my thumb - that's it) than to pick up a 32 ounce soda and then find the straw.

Re:This seems illogical.

[LulzAndOrder]

autocorrect is so fast and accurate, have autocorrect drive the car while i devote full attention to my device. one side benefit is that autocorrect would have ready access to Apple maps for guidance.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for being one of the good ones. Sincerely.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Ol Olsoc]

And how is that situation any different than looking down at the clock on your dashboard? Or the radio? Or the fuel gauge or speedometwr?

If you have to ask that question, I don't suggest chewing gum and walking at the same time.

For some odd reason this bit of illogic keeps popping up whenever people discuss TWD

It is as if the only safe way to drive is to stare straight ahead, not once ever allowing your eyes to leave the front view.

When in fact, that is a very dangerous way to drive. They used to call it "highway hypnosis". You become mesmerised, and become a rather unsafe driver.

Safe driving practice is to constantly look back and forth, in the rear view mirror, at the instrument gauges, tachometer, speedometer and other functions . Constantly, for short periods of time, as in glancing at them. The major function is looking out the front, but even then a lot of glancing from side to side.

Now on that phone, you have to activate it, and typing in it involves looking at it for relatively long periods of time. Even reading a message can take more time than should be allocated during driving. It is th exact opposite of safe driving practice. All in all, the texting becomes the dominant activity, not the driving.

Re:This seems illogical.

[QuasiSteve]

From previous Slashdot discussions I've come to learn that:

Safe distance following Inviting an unsafe maneuver by creating a gap that fellow drivers will want to move into - keep gap short Creating safe distance following (e.g. as a result of the above Creating an unsafe situations for cars behind you - quit worrying about safe driving distance you pansy Driving less than 7 miles over the speed limit Not going along with the flow of traffic, creating unsafe situations for all - get off the road, grandpa! Stopping at a stop sign Freaking out the car behind you - practice a rolling stop instead Stopping for a yellow when it's safe to do so Dancing with the whiplash devil - just floor it man, you can make it! Passing cyclists with a wide berth while staying in your own lane Freaking out everybody from the opposite direction anyway, creating unsafe situations for all - try to hit the cyclists with your passenger side mirror, bonus points if they don't fall, even though they don't belong on the road anyway Signaling your turn in advance of the turn Confusing other traffic, leading them to believe you're trying to crash into a mailbox - turn the wheel, and at the same time turn on your blinker, saves energy too

I wish this was post was a lot less serious, but you can check previous stories on people's driving behavior. There's plenty people partaking in traffic who honestly believe that 'technically safe driving' is what causes unsafe situations, and you really should err on the technically unsafe side to be safe.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

and typing in it involves looking at it for relatively long periods of time.

I'm not sure you understand what hands-free texting is.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Texting and talking while driving makes bad drivers worse.

Coincidentally, bad drivers are the only ones that think it's ok to be on a cell phone while driving.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Anonymous Coward]

People love to tailgate someone going 0-5mph over the speed limit (NOT FAST ENOUGH MOTHERFUCKER!!!!)

Funny that people who text/surf/etc tend to go at or under the limit.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Ol Olsoc]

and typing in it involves looking at it for relatively long periods of time.

I'm not sure you understand what hands-free texting is.

Fortunately, speech to text is 100 percent accurate, eh? That I do understand. And I suppose that the person never has to look at the screen?

Personally, I'm waiting for s text to speech to text app. That would be killer.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Bing Tsher E]

Babies in cars cause them all the time for example. Under that reasoning, babies should be banned from cars.

I could go for that. Instead of a mandatory car seat in the back, a mandatory Skinner Box in the trunk.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Kreigaffe]

Nope. Radios didn't have the stigma of causing accidents that cell phones have, because they're generally operated by truck drivers, police and other emergency vehicles, pilots, racecar drivers, that sort of thing. They tend to not gossip. Wait, no, truck drivers will sometimes ramble over a CB, but there's a difference...

Most people give their conversation their primary attention. Their eyes will move with what they're saying, that's just wrong and bad. If your sentence trails off mid-word because you noticed something off the side of the road and lost your train of thought while you were paying attention to driving over talking, well so what?

When you're driving, driving is the Primary Thing You're Doing. All other things must immediately yield to the needs of driving. You can talk while driving safely, and most people either can't or won't, but it is a Thing That Can Be Done. Proof: It's a thing that has been done by many people for a long time, even in some pretty extreme situations.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Ash Vince]

You obviously have never been a designated driver. Passengers are just passengers. They talk and yell and scream. It's the drivers job to filter it out and to drive with enough safety margin that distractions are not a safety issue.

It really depends on you passengers and whether they are twats or not.

If I am that drunk and being driven around I generally just fall asleep. Most of the time I am only moderately drunk and so don't quite lose full control of my faculties. I am fairly sure my reactions as such times would be pretty awful, but I am still able to make a judgment call as to when to keep the noise down and not distract the driver.

I am also always amenable to the driver asking me to keep quiet for a second, as should anyone be who does not want to suddenly find themselves hitchhiking :)

 

Re:This seems illogical.

[i41]

I think it's time we mandate autonomous driving systems in all cars from 2020 and replace the dashboard with a toy driving wheel, lots of blinkenlights, and a high powered combustion engine sound simulator. I can almost hear Jeremy Clarkson: "What do you mean I'm not really in charge? That was the best lap time I ever had!"

Re:This seems illogical.

[Hognoxious]

No, you missed the point. He didn't even consider whether he was in an unsafe situation. The phone rings and somehow it says "deal with me NOW!!!!". That isn't the case with the other tasks; those you do when it suits you. The latter is under your control, the former isn't.

It's like a coworker talking to you when you're in the zone versus you choosing to go for a coffee - you'll do that when you sense you're stuck.

Re:This seems illogical.

[Hognoxious]

One, the sound quality. This alone means you need to work harder to understand what's said. Second, even if someone is in your peripheral vision you're aware of their body language. Less so than if you were sitting face to face, but more than if they're a disembodied voice. Third, an in-car passenger brings an extra pair of Mk 1 eyeballs. Four, they - assuming they drive[1] - will know when to shut up.

[1] Non-drivers are a nightmare, for me at least.

Re:This seems illogical.

[david_thornley]

Not necessarily different. I rear-ended somebody once by looking at the radio. (Nobody was hurt, but it's amazing the expense of an accident you can barely feel.)

Re:This seems illogical.

[CCarrot]

No, you missed the point. He didn't even consider whether he was in an unsafe situation. The phone rings and somehow it says "deal with me NOW!!!!". That isn't the case with the other tasks; those you do when it suits you. The latter is under your control, the former isn't.

It's like a coworker talking to you when you're in the zone versus you choosing to go for a coffee - you'll do that when you sense you're stuck.

I see it as more like getting incoming mail notifications while you're in the zone...if you're under the gun, you'll ignore them (unless you're needing something that you're expecting to get via email, that is) if not, you'll open it up quick to see if it needs immediate attention or not, then switch back to the task at hand. If I'm 'in the zone', I don't even hear them, and am always surprised at how many messages I have accumulated when I surface for air...

The fact that some people can't assess when to leave it alone and focus, and when it's okay to check and assess (and that applies in all areas of their lives, including and perhaps especially for social media) should not override the fact that the *majority* of people have no problem with this. Unfortunately, it's those relative few with the attention span of a goldfish that crash into things and kill people. These are the same people that used to swerve into oncoming traffic while tuning the radio, or adjusting the air conditioning, or counting the hairs on their knuckles, etc., it's just that now they have some more entertaining knobs to fiddle with.

As for verbally composing text messages while driving: as long as there is a) no requirement to look at the screen to verify text, b) minor corrections are relatively simple to achieve verbally (and aren't often required) and c) there is no time limit imposed (i.e., driver can stop dictating as long as necessary to deal with a developing driving situation, then resume dictation after), there is no way it's more distracting than talking to another person in the car. Or 'arguing' with the talk show host on the radio, for that matter :o)

Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[pecosdave]

Has anyone else had any luck with getting Bluetooth headsets to work with anything other than normal phone calls with Android? Mine doesn't work with Skype, Tango, regular voice recognition like Google Now, or Waze. It's a Jawbone, not like it's obscure. Didn't have much better luck way back in the past when I used iDevices either.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[mcgrew]

No it wouldn't. have a look at this guy.

Besides, this is about TEXTING. Yes, phones are dangerous but texting is moronically dangerous. If you dumb kids don't stop it, before you know it they'll mandate measures to disable cell phones in cars, and then even your passengers won't be able to phone, text, or google. Look at "open container" laws, if idiots didn't drink and drive, the passengers could have a beer.

So just stop it!

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[pecosdave]

All I really want it for is Waze and to reply "driving" anyways. I have no real interest in texting while driving. I'm mostly bitching that I can't use my Bluetooth while not driving and it instantly came to mind. Seriously - what good is a video chat if you can't hear each other?

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[mcrbids]

I've gone through numerous BT headsets in the last couple years trying to find a headset that

A) Would allow me to talk while riding a bicycle;

B) Wouldn't cut out randomly;

C) Wasn't more hassle than simply holding my phone to my ear;

D) Could play music when not in a conversation.

Sadly, every one I've tried sucks. Your Jawbone was actually one of the worst for audio noise while riding a bicycle, not doing much better than a sharty freebie headset.

I've pretty much given up on BT/wireless headsets. Every one I've tried is pretty terrible.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[coId fjord]

If you dumb kids don't stop it, before you know it they'll mandate measures to disable cell phones in cars, and then even your passengers won't be able to phone, text, or google. Look at "open container" laws, if idiots didn't drink and drive, the passengers could have a beer.

That's actually the fault of the people who make the laws.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Boobies!!!

They are a language unto themselves.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[mcgrew]

That's true, but that's how it is.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[pecosdave]

Not if we stop voting Republicrat.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[pecosdave]

I've tried other headsets in the past - they all fail on wind noise.

I use Cy-Fi Bluetooth speakers when I bike. Unfortunately they've quit making them, they're hard to find, and even though there's tons of Bluetooth speakers out there now unlike when these were made, none of them are bike mountable now. Sure you can do your own hacks, but built in water resistance isn't a given on the rest of them and making your own tends to limit the sound. These support calls - good enough to say "I'm on my bike, may want to call later." At which time they'll try to talk to you anyways then complain they can't hear you for crap. At which time you remind them what you said the first time. They actually sound great on the road.

I have some Plantronics stereo headphones that completely sucked balls on my Evo 4G WiMax version, despite the above Cy-Fi speakers totally rocking with them and about three different models of Jawbone doing really well with it also. They are awesome with my Evo 4G LTE. Why they sucked so bad for the last phone and not this one I don't know, could be Bluetooth version I don't know. What I do know is it's the first headset I've ever had that could work with voice commands and other calling apps, but it didn't because the microphone sucks so bad.

Re:Working Bluetooth would help a bit.

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

My car is apparently too noisy, because I've never gotten voice dialing to work right either. Once a call is established though, I defy anyone to show a material difference between the driving skills of someone using a BT earpiece and someone chatting with a passenger. Texting madly with both thumbs, dividing your eyes between the screen and the road is just plain stupid though.

doing anything but driving while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

is stupid and dangerous

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[Lunix Nutcase]

So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[operagost]

They should. They should also ban any communication devices at all, for everyone. No more phones or radios for cops or truck drivers. What's so special about them that it's OK for them to spread death all over the road?

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[Applekid]

So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?

Because they aren't new fangled technology and trying to blame them won't work because they're not new and scary.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[mcgrew]

You might want to read a comment or two before jumping in, trying to get first post, and making yourself look like an utter fool.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I just finished a human factors psychology class. Very interesting stuff. We can safely multiprocess several different ways assuming we are operating on different resource types. Also, a really bland, repetitive environment reduces sensory arousal and can lead to vigilance reduction. I'm not arguing with the study but a sterile driving environment doesn't mean you outperform better than someone who is properly multitasking after vigilance reduction begins to set in.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[bws111]

Because they aren't distracting. You probably check the gauges, etc dozens of times during a trip, and never even realize it. If I asked you what the gauge said a few seconds after you looked at it you could probably not even tell me. However, if you got a text or phone call, I bet I could ask you 10 minutes later and you would know exactly who it was from. In the case of gauges no real 'processing' or memory is involved - you are just looking for a quick confirmation of something, and as soon as you have that you can forget about it. Not so with texts and phone calls.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should. I had a friend that constantly fiddled with the radio while driving. I warned him numerous times that it was dangerous. Anyway, he killed someone. It tortures him daily that he killed someone just because he couldn't find a station he wanted to listen to. Justify it however you want. When someone dies, you don't get a redo.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[bws111]

Any driving course will teach you how to avoid 'highway hypnosis'. If you are in a 'sterile driving environment' (ie staring straight ahead) you are doing it wrong. The correct way to fix that is to look at different things (when it is safe to do so). However, you should NOT be dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity (like by trying to identify a bird or something). If you are texting or phoning you ARE dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[MozeeToby]

I'm by no means a pilot, but I seem to remember they have a word or phrase for this. Constantly scanning the instruments, verifying they are what they are supposed to be but already moving on to the next one before the current one has even registered.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[CanHasDIY]

So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?

Because they aren't new fangled technology and trying to blame them won't work because they're not new and scary.

Plus, the gauges/clock/radio in my car don't scream at me through the sound system until I give them my attention. Nor do they require me to enter a 4 digit PIN (on a touchscreen, no less) in order to access the information they provide.

Unlike a cell phone.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[H0p313ss]

Any driving course will teach you how to avoid 'highway hypnosis'. If you are in a 'sterile driving environment' (ie staring straight ahead) you are doing it wrong. The correct way to fix that is to look at different things (when it is safe to do so). However, you should NOT be dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity (like by trying to identify a bird or something). If you are texting or phoning you ARE dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity.

I strongly suspect that what these studies are showing us is that most people are far worse at multi-tasking than they think.

Re:doing anything but driving while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

One more thing. His IQ was 140 and he had never had a ticket prior to the accident.

Anything New Is Learning Curve Intensive

[Anonymous Coward]

A complete newbie was brain-monitored while doing hands-free, voice texting. Of course it was intense: All new learning is.

And another study shows...

[mcgrew]

And other research shows that the sky is blue when It's daytime and there are no clouds. What does it take to convince people? Especially people stupid enough to text while driving?

Look, folks, a text isn't like a phone call. It's like email. That goddamned text will wait until you're stopped.

Re:And another study shows...

[godrik]

Well, as far as I know, this is only the second study that consider hand-free texting. So i'd say, I will only be convinced myself after a couple more.

really

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we need a another study to say that people who are paying attention to something other than driving while on the road is dangerous. It amazes me how people do not take driving seriously when it has consistently been a leading cause of early death in this country.

Re:really

[camperdave]

It is ridiculously no where near to being a leading cause of death in this country. Heart attacks, strokes, cancer, pneumonia and respiratory illness all outpace traffic fatalities. In fact, some studies show that you have a better chance of committing suicide than dying in a car crash.

Re:really

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a leading cause of death for some age groups.

Re:really

[Anonymous Coward]

at least suicide is my own choice.

Re:really

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but taking the path leading to your list of causes of death only hurts yourself (and your loved ones), driving dangerously puts others at risk (probably more risk then what the reckless driver is in).

Even worse

[Sparticus789]

What is more dangerous is having stupid people driving..... period. Whether they are texting, juggling, talking on the phone, or playing PS3. Especially when they try to merge onto a 65 MPH freeway going 30 MPH.

Re:Even worse

[mdielmann]

What is more dangerous is having stupid people driving..... period. Whether they are texting, juggling, talking on the phone, or playing PS3. Especially when they try to merge onto a 65 MPH freeway going 30 MPH.

Damn, now I want a PS3 for my car!

Re:Even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of my pet peeves. To top it off, last week I passed a cop with a LIDAR gun on a HIGHWAY ACCELERATION RAMP! WTF!!! Does he want you to stay at the previously posted 50 KPH until you merge on to the 100KPH highway? Fucking moron cop.

Re:Even worse

[Sparticus789]

Yo Dawg, I heard you like playing racing games. So I installed a PS2 in your car so you can play Gran Turismo while driving.

Re:Even worse

[BonThomme]

cell phones have created many more stupid people

Re:Even worse

[twakar]

THIS!!.

I bet my life that the main cause of traffic jams, where there is no incident, whether freeway or not is the result of some fucking retard not knowing how to merge. Here's a couple of pointers:

1) if you're the one merging, speed up to the speed of traffic before changing lanes. DO NOT slow down and wait for an opening.. this fucks it all up
2) if you're the being merged into (make your own jokes), don't do anything to assist other than getting out of the way, if possible, before the merge point. Keep driving the same way and speed you have been. It makes it very predictable to the person doing the merging.

Drive Safely... and properly

Re:Even worse

[ShoulderOfOrion]

No, they were already stupid. Cellphones simply allow the stupidity to surface in visible ways.

Re:Even worse

[antdude]

There are drivers that play a video game console with a TV?

Exactly what constitutes "radio"?

[mariox19]

Tasks such as listening to the radio ranked as a category “1” level of distraction or a minimal risk.

Are we talking vapid pop music, idiot morning DJ's, or "stimulating" discussions on Public Radio? My gut tells me that these aren't equally distracting. Additionally, what qualifies as "listening" to radio. There are some people who sing along to songs on the radio, or switch stations constantly. Is this what the experiment simulated, or did people just drive while passively listening?

Neat

[denmarkw00t]

Remember last time when Texas A&M did this? They asked people to LOOK AT THE PHONES AND MAKE SURE THE TEXT WAS CORRECT. Of course it's more distracting. I don't know the details of this study, TFA is light on details and direction (though it mentions the A&M study).

In case no one here was aware - doing anything other than driving, when you're driving, means you aren't driving at 100%/

Re:Neat

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you aren't aware doing not engaging your other mental resource pools while doing a task can speed vigilance reduction, so if you are doing nothing else other than driving then after 15 minutes or so then you also aren't driving at 100%. Funny how the human brain works.

Re:Neat

[Lumpy]

Which means,

  Radio on? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Passengers in car? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Windows Open? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
hungry? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Tired? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Angry? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Happy? YOU ARE UNSAFE!

basically by all these studies, unless you are driving with the concentration of a race car driver, YOU ARE UNSAFE!!!!!!!!! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!

Yet they ignore that most drivers are simply unsafe because they are far too stupid to be driving a car to begin with. Example, Tailgaiters, weavers (drift left to turn right), old farts putting at 35-45 on the interstate, Red light runners, People that do blind right turns, etc....

Re:Neat

[CCarrot]

Remember last time when Texas A&M did this? They asked people to LOOK AT THE PHONES AND MAKE SURE THE TEXT WAS CORRECT. Of course it's more distracting. I don't know the details of this study, TFA is light on details and direction (though it mentions the A&M study).

In case no one here was aware - doing anything other than driving, when you're driving, means you aren't driving at 100%/

Precisely. I suspect you have the right of it.

If people were merely using voice control to compose and send texts, without looking at the screen at all, there is no way that this activity could score worse than talking to a passenger. It is not logical.

Re:Neat

[denmarkw00t]

Can't tell if sarcasm? idk, as it surely changes from person to person - but, while it may be just like talking, the difference comes when the phone reads it back and asks if it's right, or if it asks you to confirm your recipients, or when you think about your choice of words more carefully than you might when in casual conversation.

hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this test would hold up after the users have used their handsfree TXT setup for 1-3 months. Doing anything new requires more brain power then something you have had practice doing.

Re:hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you get that practice?

Re:hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Practice by sending text messages from a bicycle...only then do you get to advance to the next level of difficulty.

Re:hmmmm

[camperdave]

Easy. Use handsfree texting for a couple of months so you know how it works, THEN try it behind the wheel. Of course the driver's attention was distracted... learning a new ap behind the wheel.

Quality of hands free solution

[StatureOfLiberty]

I have no interested in texting and driving. But, I can't help but wonder if these hands free capabilities were easier to use if the outcome of this study would have been different. I have two cars with voice recognition capabilities. One, works pretty well. The other is so difficult to use I would never use it while driving. If using hands free technologies were like having a conversation with someone sitting beside you, I would think the level of distraction would be significantly less than is currently the case. Maybe we just aren't there yet.

Distracted driving

[fermion]

What I disagree with is all these laws that punish the acts of distracted driving, but all too often do not sufficiently punish the damage, or place the responsibility on the people who choose to take the risk.

Like drunk driving, I would like to see that laws punish those that actually cause damage, not just arbitrarily set rules and regulation. If someone is driving recklessly, I don't care if they are distracted or just don't know how to drive, they should be ticketed. Why should a attentive reckless driver be treated better than a distracted driver. If someone gets into an auto incident because they are drunk or because they are texting, then assign the blame completely on them. Sure the other party might have done something wrong, but in most situations it is two way street. Both drivers have to be aware so that when mistakes are made, which we all do, everyone is aware enough to avoid the incident. If someone dies as a result, and it is not the distracted driver, then manslaughter charges and prison time should be the norm. Not wasting cops time setting up roadblocks to punish drivers that are otherwise safe.

Re:Distracted driving

[thoth]

All that sounds great, but then the majority of Slashdot posters also vehemently defend their 4th Amendment rights against improper search and seizure. Look at the thread about cops examining cell phones at crash sites.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that assigning blame onto somebody requires investigative work, evidence gathering, due process and so on - can't count on the guilty party to voluntarily confess they were distracted, 5th Amendment and all - so how exactly is that going to mesh up with needing warrants to get the evidence before it naturally disappears (e.g. intoxication). Same with text messages, looking at a phone and seeing a partly written but unsent text is good evidence they were in the middle of texting, but unsent texts aren't logged and by the time due process comes through the non-idiot party will have erased that data.

Re:Distracted driving

[bws111]

If you are engaging in the activities that cause you to get punished at a roadblock, then you are NOT 'otherwise safe'. You just have not yet met the condition for your lack of safety to be exposed.

The main problem with your idea is that it requires someone to actually be harmed before any action is taken. That is just stupid. That harm could have easily been prevented in the first place, and it should have been.

Re:Distracted driving

[godrik]

I feel like that type of law aims at reducing the number of people that get into accidents. If you ticket (or jail) people AFTER the accident, I do not think people would care as much and do it by themself. Once you are dead, you don't care about getting a ticket.

If you applied that to speeding, there are many cases where I could speed safely, but I do not because I need to keep my driving license. My judgement of when it is safe to speed or not is certainly not perfect, and that would make the road more dangerous.

Re:Distracted driving

[Entropius]

Your judgment of whether or not to speed is nearly always better than the people who impose speed limits, though. Their claim, by establishing a speed limit, is "it is sufficiently unsafe to drive above speed X that it is worth using coercion backed up by violence against you to prevent you from doing so".

That changes based on traffic, road conditions, lighting conditions, and the type of vehicle. Speed limits, in attempting to say "well, you usually shouldn't go above 50mph", are overbroad: they ban certain things (like driving a well-maintained maneuverable car at 60mph on that road in good weather and no traffic) that are safe.

I know Montana has either had no speed limits or a tacit agreement not to enforce the speed limits on their interstates for a while, and I'm not aware of any epidemic of traffic fatalities there. Same with the Autobahn, for that matter. You'd think that a country that prides itself on individual freedom would take after the German motto "free speed for free people", but we don't.

Re:Distracted driving

[stenvar]

The main problem with your idea is that it requires someone to actually be harmed before any action is taken. That is just stupid. That harm could have easily been prevented in the first place, and it should have been.

That harm can only "easily be prevented" if you allow police to stop anyone anywhere for vague, unverifiable criteria. That's too intrusive for many people.

Re:Distracted driving

[LordLucless]

Usually because these sort of categories are more objective. Was a person using a mobile device at the time of the crash? That's a binary yes-no, and is fairly easy to determine. Was someone "driving recklessly"? Well, that depends on your definition of reckless, and is hard to determine after the fact. So lawmakers attempt to define reckless; stuff like: driving over the speed limit, driving while using a mobile device, driving under the influence, etc.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

If you applied that to speeding, then people who were driving recklessly but not just people who were going a little fast with no danger to others. For instance there are communities where if you were to get off the freeway to 40 miles per hour you would be ticketed, but someone doing 65 miles on the freeway, even if they were driving recklessly, would be free to cause damage.

It has been shown that, even on surface roads, strict speed limits are counterproductive. For instance, signage that continuously displays the speed that a car is driving, and blink if they are over the speed limit, are being removed because in most cases they increase accidents.

There are places, like school zones, where the harm is so great that strict enforcement is necessary. Otherwise we have all agreed to take our chances on the road, we all make mistakes, and if we all drive defensively then most of our problems will be solved.

Re:Distracted driving

[jabuzz]

Germany death rate per billion vehicle km 7.2, the USA 8.5 (I blame that on your lack of roundabouts and no requirement to wear seatbelts) and the UK 5.7. Interestingly eastern European counties are much worse than western European ones.

Anyway no matter how you look at it, deaths per vehicle, deaths per head of population, deaths per billion vehicle km, Germany with unrestricted speeds is worse than the UK with restricted speeds. If we had Germany's record in the UK we would be looking at approximately an extra 600 deaths a year on the road. That would be political suicide.

What is interesting is that some places are literally lethal to drive United Arab Emirates at 310 per 1 billion vehicle km, though Togo with 14,000 per 10000 motor vehicles is crazy as well.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this is that being in a crash can result in ruined lives whether you were the one driving badly or not. What gives you the right to risk innocent lives just because you want to have a few beers before you drive home or because you don't want to be inconvenienced by a random breath test?

    Believe it or not, alcohol impairs your higher level reasoning and your reflexes. Sure, you might feel fine and drive home from the pub after having a dozen pints safely for a year but what happens when that street, which never has anyone crossing it, has someone crossing it and because you are piss drunk, you fail to even slow down? What happens if, after your 12 pints, due to a late night before, you drift off while driving?

    Also, if you make the conscious decision to drive recklessly, why should you get away with simple manslaughter charges? You made a conscious decision which lead to someone dying needlessly, it was not accidental. Quite a few accidents resulting in death are caused by alcohol and/or drug impairment. If the person involved had not been impaired, the accident would probably not of occured, ergo, the actions of the impaired driver directly caused the accident.

FWIW, people do get ticketed for reckless driving whether they are paying attention or not. One of my friends kept losing his license for doing stupid things like accelerating too fast from traffic lights, doing burnouts etc...

If you hit me while you are texting ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It will be the last thing you ever do.

clear and concise

[spire3661]

If my wife texts me while im in the car Ill engage Siri and voice text back. However, if it doesnt work exactly right on the first try, i give up until i can pull over. I found i was dedicating too much brain power trying to correct it. I also make sure i fully form the message in my head before i engage Siri

Re:clear and concise

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, you are still fucking around with your phone while driving. Sure, you pull over if you have to simply retype the message, which is better than people that type on the drive. But, dictating the message, reading it (or having it read back to you), then trying to send the message while driving is dangerous, whether you are physically touching the screen or not.

Ahh, but I forgot, you are a good driver, so the rules do not need to apply to you.

Re:clear and concise

[MindStalker]

And really this is the major problem. I can't just say
"Siri, text wife, pickup milk on your way home".

Its NEVER that easy, and if it was it would be pretty safe to use while driving.

Re:clear and concise

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered what the data would look like asking "Are you a safer driver than the average person?", "How many accidents have you been involved in?", "How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?". I get the feeling it'll be like self performance appraisals from engineers, where the good ones tend to rate themselves lower than others.

Re:clear and concise

[YttriumOxide]

I've always wondered what the data would look like asking "Are you a safer driver than the average person?", "How many accidents have you been involved in?", "How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?". I get the feeling it'll be like self performance appraisals from engineers, where the good ones tend to rate themselves lower than others.

Most likely, but it depends on "how good" you're talking. I think "very good drivers" will rate themselves a little lower, but "slightly above average" are probably aware of it.

My answers:

Are you a safer driver than the average person?

Yes, I believe I am. Probably not "a lot safer", but generally speaking, I believe my situational awareness is better than most, and I drive a sports car which - when driven properly - is safer due to greater manoeuvrability than many other vehicles driving it recklessly as many sports car drivers do is much less safe; but there's been a few situations where some idiot has pulled out of a side street right in front of me when I had right of way and only the fact that my car CAN swerve around without losing control is what saved me from an accident. Driving my wife's car, I feel quite unsafe in comparison.

How many accidents have you been involved in?

Two:
One where I drove in to a hidden ditch in front of my parents house as I came out of the driveway. I was following an ambulance containing my mother to the hospital and was very distraught. The accident occurred at a speed of around 5km/h.
And the other, I reversed in to a moped behind me that wasn't visible in my rear view mirror. My speed was probably around 3km/h. I was at an intersection coming from a side street where I couldn't see traffic from the main road due to roadworks without driving out a little, looking, and then reversing back if there was traffic coming. I did this three times and on the third time the moped had come up behind me without my knowledge.

"How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?"

For both questions, I feel that both were my fault and I accepted legal fault for them (for the first, I was simply in a very bad state of mind and should not have been driving, but felt I had no option; and for the second, I SHOULD have looked over my shoulder when reversing, but didn't.)

Re:clear and concise

[nickittynickname]

1) there are no rules. 2) when you better not do anything remotely distracting otherwise you are a hypocrite In fact, if you are doing anything other than keeping your hands at 10 and 2 and only have your eyes on anything other than whats in front of you or your mirrors, then you are doing something "dangerous". Please tell me exactly where to draw the line as to when an activity while driving is too big of a risk. I think voice texting is a small risk that I would hardly consider dangerous.

Re:clear and concise

[Anonymous Coward]

If my wife texts me while im in the car Ill engage Siri and voice text back. However, if it doesnt work exactly right on the first try, i give up until i can pull over. I found i was dedicating too much brain power trying to correct it. I also make sure i fully form the message in my head before i engage Siri

I also hate how voice recognition frequently leaves out punctuation marks or fails to capitalize certain words which obviously should be capitalized.

Re:clear and concise

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always wondered what the data would look like asking "Are you a safer driver than the average person?", "How many accidents have you been involved in?", "How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?". I get the feeling it'll be like self performance appraisals from engineers, where the good ones tend to rate themselves lower than others.

Are you a safer driver than the average person?

Yes. I pay attention to what is going on all around me and actively drive to avoid accidents.

How many accidents have you been involved in?

I've been driving for about 25 years and have had 7 accidents, 3 were my fault. Maybe this seems like a lot for someone who claims that they are a better than average driver, but I drive in a densely populated city (Boston) with short sharp on/off-ramps, horrible rotaries, and in all weather conditions (rain, sleet, snow, etc.).

How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?

- 3 accidents were my fault

Of the 4 that were not my fault, out of my control:
- 2 were due to black ice, which is a hazard in the Northeast. In both cases I deliberately steered the car off the road once I started sliding to avoid hitting other cars, no other cars or people were involved.
- 2 were caused by someone hitting me causing a low speed fender bender.

How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?

3 went through the police, insurance, etc. None resulted in charges of any type.

The first, while my fault, was at a horrible rotary where accidents happened daily, in some cases hourly. The rotary has since been replaced with a 4-way stop. No more accidents.

The second was merging into traffic at a stop. The teenager in front of me inched forward turning right, stopped, (opening in traffic) inched forward turning right, stopped, (big opening in traffic) inched forward out of my sight lines, and then stopped a 3rd time. I thought that he had gone, but ended up hitting his bumper instead. I reacted when his car moved into view, slowing my SUV, but just not soon enough to avoid hitting him.

The third was merging into a left lane, I hit his front bumper with my driver's side rear quarter panel. The lane was clear when I left a stop light and there was no one next to me at the time. My thought is that the guy that I hit was speeding. But it was my fault for not checking my side mirrors.

None of the accidents resulted in injuries of any sort, to myself or others.

Using hand-held devices while driving

[m1ndcrash]

As a person who drives a lot for work and has to be always available to answer a phone call, I do use my cell-phone A LOT while driving. Texting while driving is the worst idea ever especially with touchscreens - a person actually needs to look at what he or she touches. I, personally, miss calls and don't answer texts (thank Android for speech recognition) if it is not safe.

I also can see why law is in place. Mostly because of teenagers who don't have proper driving skills but possess texting addictions.

A sandwich is a handheld device but nobody is banning food in the vehicles. They should. Some people would benefit from that.

Use the cellphone or not while driving it is always your judgement call.

Re:Using hand-held devices while driving

[nitehawk214]

As a person who drives a lot for work and has to be always available to answer a phone call, I do use my cell-phone A LOT while driving. Texting while driving is the worst idea ever especially with touchscreens - a person actually needs to look at what he or she touches. I, personally, miss calls and don't answer texts (thank Android for speech recognition) if it is not safe.

I also can see why law is in place. Mostly because of teenagers who don't have proper driving skills but possess texting addictions.

A sandwich is a handheld device but nobody is banning food in the vehicles. They should. Some people would benefit from that.

Use the cellphone or not while driving it is always your judgement call.

It requires a lot less brainpower to use a sandwich than a phone. Even if the phone is hands-free.

Now, a hands-free sandwich... hmm.

Re:Using hand-held devices while driving

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this job?

you don't think people would check normally?

[Chirs]

I don't know about you, but whenever I use the voice-to-text capabilities in android there are multiple wrong words. Given that, I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of people would in fact check to make sure the text was correct before sending.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[AuMatar]

I wrote my own hands free texting app, that automatically determines when you're driving (based on speed). It solves this in a very simple way- after you speak your response, it repeats it and asks if you're sure you want to send. If you say no, it lets you re-enter your response. No need to look at a phone at all.

Cheap plug: Text Soundly is available at the Play Store here.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've spent years trying to come up with an idea for a useful app. Fuck you, buddy.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Lumpy]

I dont, I dont give a rats arse if it is wrong. but if android cant send it blindly with voice only, never ever looking at the phone, then it is an epic fail of voice control.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Lumpy]

Wow, android not being able to do this natively is a major fail. Awesome that you fixed a major failure in the OS.
Sadly there is no way to launch your app hands free.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Jason Levine]

I mainly use the text-to-speech function if I'm walking and want to compose a text message. (Little danger of a high speed collision there.) One time I decided to use it as I started my car (but was still parked). It changed "each" in my text to my wife to "eat sh**" (yes, it put in asterisks). Next time, I'll keep take the extra few seconds to type out my message (while keeping the car in Park, of course).

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[mcrbids]

The problem isn't so much with voice control, it's with the language.

You can't even talk to your spouse in the car without having him or her clarify what you are saying every few sentences. It's so ingrained into conversation that we don't notice it much. Asking a machine (with no ability to "comprehend" anything we say) to do any better is just silly, at least for the near to mid-range term.

Wife says "Romanesque" and slurs it slightly by mistake, and I hear "row man axe". Typically, I'll wait a sentence or so to see if I can figure out what she meant. I may just drop it if it doesn't seem important, or interrupt her if I still can't figure out what she means.

It's typical. It happens all the time. Rarely are 100% of our words understood by those who listen in the best of circumstances. Asking a machine to do better with a crappy sound quality and lots of background noise is just folly.

Even Google Glass largely works by using a restricted command vocabulary, something like the phonetic equivalent of the Palm Graffiti from yore. Even today, handwriting analysis isn't nearly as fast as Graffiti; I miss it to this day even though I love my Android phone.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[camperdave]

Even today, handwriting analysis isn't nearly as fast as Graffiti; I miss it to this day even though I love my Android phone.

You can get Graffiti for your Android.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Anonymous Coward]

A voice prompt will be nice

Marmaduke: Command: Message to Mom
On my way home'

Message reads as On my way home
correct?

YES
Message Sent.

*Tone for new text message*

Marmaduke: Command: read messages
Message from Mom
can you stop for milk?

End of messages

Marmaduke: Command: send message to mom
will do

Message reads as
will boo
correct?

NO
Repeat message

Will do

Message reads as
will do
correct?

Yes
Message sent.

Concise, powerful, to the point. like talking to a rather dense passenger to send the messages. Alas, no body will implement this as it requires you to not use natural language and use something not much different to writing in a command line.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Anonymous Coward]

Siri: Ok I've updated your message. Ready to send?
Me: Read the message back please.
Siri: Ok. Here's what your message says...

All over bluetooth without ever taking my eyes off the road. I'd imagine the eyesfree texting apps on Android can do something similar? Kinda defeats the purpose to look at your phone. When I drive I keep my plugged in inside the armrest and only use my car's built in bluetooth for calls and texting.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[AuMatar]

It launches itself when it detects an incoming text. In Android you can declare a class (a subclass of BroadcastReceiver) that will have a function on it called when the OS detects certain events (like incoming SMSes). The motion detection algorithms launch at boot.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[AuMatar]

Ideas are easy. I've got dozens. Marketing is hard, it's why I'm not a millionaire. In this case I wrote the app for myself, after having an extended text conversation where a girl I really wanted to talk to was texting me at odd intervals while I was driving, forcing me to stop every two miles and pull over to respond.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Bing Tsher E]

Too bad I can't get a cap-touch stylus that doesn't feel like writing with a crayon on my small screen.

Re:you don't think people would check normally?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find the study but if I remember right, its around 30% of the words spoken in a conversation are understood and the rest are "inserted/corrected" subconsciously using contextual clues such as the topic of the conversation, the speaker's body language, etc. It's why when someone suddenly changes the topic of the conversation to something completely unrelated then you generally get a "huh?" moment.

Hang up and drive

[Animats]

Hang up and drive, already.

We need fully automatic driving so that people can be on social networks while in motion. At least that's coming.

There are certain patterns of impairment to watch for in people using cell phones. There's a tendency to under-brake when coming to a stop at a stop sign or traffic light. So the vehicle's nose ends up out in the intersecting street. Turns tend to be too wide, since the driver only has one hand on the wheel. Left turns may cut through the stop area of the cross street.

Re:Hang up and drive

[Bing Tsher E]

It already exists. It's called a Bus.

Thus, there's no excuse. If you're a social butterfly (moth?) who positively can't travel for a short while without 'social networking' take the bus.

How we do it in airplanes.

[Anonymous Coward]

When piloting an aircraft, there is a strict hierarchy of behaviors: Aviate, Navigate, and only when these pose no demands, Communicate.

Re:How we do it in airplanes.

[ShoulderOfOrion]

Yes, I learned that too. But it's the backstory that is the crux of the issue, I believe. Getting a pilot's license isn't easy. It requires a lot of training. Contrary to what many folks believe, that training isn't about the hand-eye coordination part of flying. That is picked up quickly. No, most of the training involves judgment (don't run out of fuel fool), scientific thought (if the dewpoint and temperature are equal, expect the fog bank), situational awareness (how far/fast/where am I, and who else is in my airspace), and systems (those in the plane and those in the airspace). In other words, most of the training involves learning to *pilot* the plane, not *drive* it. This is totally the opposite of most automobile driving instruction, which is more about learning the mechanics of steering/stopping/turning and a few rules of the road. Many drivers are clueless about what makes their car run (gas/air/spark), have limited situational awareness (eg snow==ditch), and can't distinguish an oil pressure warning from a service engine light. To them, it's simply a conveyance, and thus, they have problems at the first sign of trouble or distraction.

There are a few groups that drive on the roads while simultaneously talking into radios, and did so years before cellphones came out. Police. Truckers. HAM radio operators. Rarely does one hear of these folks getting into an accident because they were communicating over the radio while driving. I suspect it is because these folks have a higher level of training and approach the task of driving like a pilot approaches flying. It's not the communications that impairs the cellphone drivers, it's their attitude and priorities.

and in another study confirms..

[houbou]

that putting your hand in hot boiling water is unsafe.

voice messages?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why this isn't popular in america, but when I was in China, people use voice messages a lot. As it's tedious to type pinyin they have many apps that simply store the voice message and pings the users at the other end to listen to it. They use that service to bypass long distance fees too.

Crazy ass drivers.

[Anonymous Coward]

People are far too careless while driving and I'll admit until I drove a semi I was just as bad as everyone else. I guess the best thing I learned was to worry about how everyone around me is driving and to drive defensively. Winter 2007 a SUV came flying past me with the driver sending a text or dialing.. I shook my head then all the sudden they lost control spun around and 5 kids were ejected out the rear.
I stopped and I had a feeling it was going to be very bad but, I was relieved that I was wrong, luckily for them the snow was very deep and they only had minor injuries. Even though everything turned out good I was almost arrested for giving that lady a piece of my mind for a good 30 minuets.

Why the outrage over texting...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when there is no similar outrage over applying cosmetics, eating a cheeseburger, reading a newspaper, disciplining a child, conversing with a passenger, drinking a coffee, corralling a bee out the window...etc, etc, etc? Are those activities any less distracting?

I think the answer lies not in technology, but in education; i.e., teach people to drive properly to begin with, and don't allow them to continue to drive if they refuse to do so.

Re:Why the outrage over texting...

[fuzznutz]

Amen. The biggest problem driver I encountered this week was driving very slow and dropped from 20 mph down to 5 mph on the road. When I passed, I saw it was because they had unfolded a large map they were reading it. They had no idea what was in front of them or which way they were pointed. They were still moving when I turned.

Re:Why the outrage over texting...

[Entropius]

... and these are the same people trying to ban the practical use of satnav devices while driving, leading to everyone reading maps in traffic.

I am sick of the automotive nanny state.

Re:Why the outrage over texting...

[H0p313ss]

... and these are the same people trying to ban the practical use of satnav devices while driving, leading to everyone reading maps in traffic.

I am sick of the automotive nanny state.

Way to fail at the take-away message. The point is that anything that distracts you from the act of driving is dangerous.

If your GPS makes it easier for you to drive and pay attention then that's great, if you are constantly taking your eyes off the road to look at the GPS because you're a useless idiot who can't navigate for more than five minutes without one then you shouldn't even have a car, much less a GPS.

Perhaps we're just not restricting driving licenses as much as we should. (Which would probably prevent myself or my Dad from driving....)

Hands don't matter. Eyes are the key.

[aarongadberry]

Imagine driving and taking your hands off the wheel for a few seconds. Now imagine driving and closing your eyes for a few seconds.

You know what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Studies are like assholes, everyone has one.

Whats unsafe while driving:
Eating\Drinking
Changing the radio station\CD
Driving with one hand on the wheel and other in the GF\Wifes crotch
Checking out that hot blond in the car next to you
Tailgating
Weaving
Singing to a Nicky Minaj song

Etc etc etc etc etc....

Study is bullshit.

[Lumpy]

Because when I talk to Siri it's the same amount of distraction as talking to my passenger.

Siri, send a text to boss, I am running late......... yes...

IF that is as distracting as looking down and trying to type for 15 seconds, then my wife in the car is as distracting as driving while blind drunk. Which makes the study 100% BS.

I want to see their raw data.

Re:Study is bullshit.

[Jason Levine]

I think the amount matters. If you are sending off one quick "running late" message and not proof-reading the text-to-speech accuracy, you are probably ok. If, however, you are texting back and forth with someone then you are much less safe and even more unsafe if you are looking at the phone to make sure that the text-to-speech program transcribed your message correctly.

Re:Study is bullshit.

[Entropius]

Indeed.

I trust most people to make this distinction.

I don't trust cops to, especially when it's near the end of their quota period.

Re:Study is bullshit.

[H0p313ss]

I trust most people to make this distinction.

I don't. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

But other distractions are okay?

[Anonymous Coward]

So..
Touchscreen stereos, button based stereos, thirst busters, talking, cameras, all are fine?

And distractions such as talking, listening to music, thinking, all okay?

I feel any distraction is bad and singling out this one is unfair, things such s not using turn signals are causing more accidents?

It Can Wait

[Jason Levine]

I know this article is about hands-free, but, sadly, too many people seem to think that looking at a phone instead of the road for 15 seconds while travelling 60mph is just fine. The reality is that, in that time at that speed, you've traveled for a quarter mile. If *ANYTHING* happened in front of you during that time, you either have less time to react or no time to react. Each time you do that, you are playing Russian Roulette with your life and the lives of everyone else around you. If a text is THAT important that it can't wait, then pull over to the side of the road (or some other safe spot), type it, send it, and then start driving again. You might lose a minute or two of driving, but you'll lose a lot more than that if you get into an accident!

Being human is a distraction

[justcauseisjustthat]

Please talking to another personal while driving is unsafe (whether on the phone or in person). And you are never going to turn back the tide of tech with laws, adapt or die...

It's time to focus on the true problem, driving is unsafe because humans drive.

this makes no sense

[Anonymous Coward]

if texting verbally is more distracting than texting with a keyboard, then how distracting is talking to a passenger? this article is

hold on..

sorry, had to make a u-turn. now, where was i?

Guns and cars

[Fuzzums]

If you handle a gun, your priority is safety. Your safety and that of others. That is your first priority and the only priority.
Traffic is dangerous too, so it's the same there.
If your text messages are so important that it can't wait 10 minutes, you better be so bloody important that you can afford a driver.

The fact that there are people trying to challenge

[IrquiM]

... makes understanding why there are people wanting no gun control easier. It is just selfish.

If this isn't crazy..

[Anonymous Coward]

In that it takes studies to determine this as well as taxpayer dollars is ludicrous.

So how are traffic cameras safe?

[Entropius]

Apparently setting off extremely high-powered flashguns near the side of the road aimed at drivers -- blinding some people for significant periods of time -- is fine, since it's done for "safety". So are sending police around to make traffic stops with dazzlingly bright LED light bars.

My simple rule...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a simple rule. When I'm driving, my phone stays holstered (or in the cupholder plugged into the charger if the battery is low), full stop. If the phone rings, I don't care who it is, and I don't even bother to look at the phone to see who it is. Heck, I don't even _want_ to know who it is. I will check my text/voice messages when I arrive at my destination. I don't even use my phone while stuck in traffic, at a long red light, or even at a railroad crossing.

In the eight years I've had a cell phone, do you know how many situations I have encountered where an emergency was so grave that my failure to answer the phone while driving caused harm? Zero.

My workplace prohibits employees from using work phones while driving; despite this, it's a known fact that there are employees who use their work-issued BlackBerries while driving--I've even gotten e-mails with the author saying they were driving.

Why do we have the rule? So if (when) an employee causes a crash while driving, (1) they're fired, and (2) the personal injury lawyer will have to go after the driver, as we get to say that they were breaking the rule and we already fired them. Of course, any lawyer worth the paper their JD is printed on will allege that we have an _unwritten_ rule/agreement that we "look the other way" at work-related distracted driving.

Needless to say, if our work has one incident of an employee causing a crash on their BlackBerry resulting in serious injury or death, that will be when the Board of Directors and HR tighten the thumbscrews and say "You admit to or get caught using a BlackBerry while driving, you're fired, first offense."

What level of safety is the acceptable standard?

[swb]

My guess is there isn't one -- whatever we do that increases safety today is never enough, and we're always demanding the next level of safety, chasing ever-more elusive risks and trying to eliminate them while failing to consider the costs of doing it.

Re:Hands don't matter. Eyes are the key.

[BonThomme]

no, brains are the key

the problem

[Xicor]

the problem with texting while driving has nothing to do with taking your hands off the wheel... it has to do with a. taking your eyes off the road to look at the texts and b. the amount of effort your brain takes away from processing road stuff to do a task. obviously A is so much worse than B... but for some reason, the study is only with regards to B... saying that the B portion of texting hands free is no better than the B portion of texting with your hands.... when of course this is ridiculous, seeing as how A is much worse than B.

All gauges up

[mayko]

This is also why gauges are often times oriented in such a way that just a quick visual scan lets your brain know "everything is ok" or "something is seriously wrong with this one." This is especially true in race cars.

how do you deal with homophones?

[Chirs]

There/their/they're all sound the same, as do here/hear and your/you're and many others. How can I make sure that it used the right one without looking at it?

And even if it were to allow you to keep your eyes on the road, you're still going to be somewhat distracted by the mental effort to verify that what it's reading back is in fact what you want to send.

Re:how do you deal with homophones?

[AuMatar]

Agreed, its better not to text at all. You're at least somewhat distracted when you do. But lets face it, some people won't do that. My belief is to lower the danger as much as possible for those who insist on texting, and since you keep your eyes on the road I do believe its safer.

As for homophones- voice dictation software these days operates on a sentence. 99% of the time you can differentiate between those words based on context. For the 1% you can't, you flip a coin and possibly send the wrong one. Hardly the worst autocorrect mistake you'll ever make. I'd bet on making fewer mistakes with a readback prompt than you make in normal tapping.

Communication takes concentration

[Anonymous Coward]

While driving, I've always noticed that my worst driving has occurred while talking to a passenger. It doesn't matter if there is a phone in my hand, or if I'm communicating through a hands-free device. When devoting some concentration on a conversation (maybe we could make a song like conjunction junction), you are going to take some extra time to notice and react to surprises on the road.

never been dazzled by one

[Chirs]

Around here the traffic cams are overhead aiming down at an angle. I've never been dazzled by the flash from one.

already knew that

[Chirs]

There are many studies showing that the vast majority of people *suck* at multitasking.

Re:already knew that

[H0p313ss]

There are many studies showing that the vast majority of people *suck* at multitasking.

But they don't KNOW that they suck at it.

shouldn't be looking for stuff on either

[Chirs]

You shouldn't be programming a satnav or messing with a paper map while driving--pull over for that. Following a route on a satnav is fine.

Re:but but but people want to text

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really care if you text while driving and end up killing yourself. Well, I do a little, and it'd be more if I knew you, but I care more about the person that you kill as a by product of killing yourself.

People who ride horses or ski rarely injure anyone else, let alone kill them.

distraction is distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently reading the story of the craft teacher showing the class the 'safe' way to use the band-saw, followed much much hilarity as he slices off one of his fingers. I know that wielding a knife during cooking is much more dangerous (to me) if other people are in the room and conversing with me.

It is a learnt skill to be able to continue safely with a task while coping with some type of distraction. Maybe people COULD be taught how to drive just as safely while engaging in hands-free texting, but who will do this teaching, and when. Indeed, the same argument probably applies to driving with a certain amount of alcohol in the bloodstream, but few would be sympathetic to the idea we should teach people to drive safe when kinda drunk, rather than just banning driving with that much alcohol active.

The problem with banning this form of texting is that passenger distractions can be just as bad. The current legal situation in most first-world nations chooses to apply blame according to the circumstances of an accident. Thus a driver can be criminally responsible for letting him/herself be distracted by ANY external event- music, passenger conversation, or texting hands-free. This doesn't mean we seek to ban in car music or conversations.

The driver must be responsible for his/her choices. If the driver can't have a 'safe' conversation with their phone equipment (what hands-free should really mean), then the driver is criminally negligent when any accident occurs caused by this fact. Sure, it might be hard to prove, but then it is just as hard to prove passenger distraction.

Oh, and note, NO research can make hands-free 'safe'. Safer, maybe, under most circumstances, but never 'safe'. The driver MUST be forced to known their own limitations, and accept the consequences of their choices. I've know drivers who will NOT allow others in the car to talk with them while driving.

If only...

[Solandri]

If only there were some way to send a message containing the exact audio of what you said. That way you wouldn't have to look down at your screen while typing your message. And it couldn't be mangled by some voice recognition software, requiring you to take your eyes off the road to confirm that it parsed your speech correctly. You could simply speak your message. The recipient could then listen to the audio and use his/her highly sophisticated speech recognition center of the brain to discern what it is you were trying to tell them. We could call it something like, oh I dunno, Voice Mail.

Alas, such capability is beyond the reach of our current technology.

The real issue...

[erp_consultant]

is a societal one. Namely, that many people feel that it's THEIR road not a shared road. They feel little compulsion to act for the greater good. MY text message is more important than YOUR safety. If my selfish behavior endangers the lives of others...tough...I've got to close that big sale, or update my Facebook page...or whatever the fuck I felt was so important in the first place.

Too bad Vlingo still advertises driving and textin

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at their webpage: they're still publicly advertising how you can use their tools driving a car or bicycle, even after Nuance bought them.

You'd think the larger company would have had more sense about safety, because they actually turn a profit and could be more successfully sued.

Ban it, But Who Will Care?

[echusarcana]

It is pretty obvious to any user that hands-free is no safer. If anything, it is less safe as the hands-free controls are supremely flakey.

However, here in Ontario, the existing hands-free law is a totally ignored law, arbitrarily and rarely enforced. There is no point in passing any law that society has no interest in following or enforcing. Virtually every day I see people texting on the freeway. I'm not entirely happy about it, but that is the new normal.

live2txt app

[Anonymous Coward]

Get the live2txt app and avoid texting/talking while driving. The live2txt app blocks incoming text alerts and ringtones, eliminating the temptation to look at the phone. An automated reply lets the sender/caller know that you are driving. Get more information at getlive2txt.com

That would ruin the economy

[dutchwhizzman]

Really, if we'd only let people that are actually good at driving behind the wheel of cars, 90% of current driving license holders would be without transport. Driving licenses aren't about people being a danger to the people around them out cars. They are about keeping the ones that would cost more than they'd ever be able to put back into the economy from causing disasters.

Statistically, people are dangerous in cars, no matter what they do. We have to limit the good drivers to prevent the average and below drivers from doing a lot of damage as well. It's all about "getting by" without major things going wrong and having an objective system setting an acceptable risk factor on traffic for society, not about actual skill or safety of individuals.

Driving licenses are about "minimal requirements to possibly be able to operate a vehicle", nothing more, nothing less. You could in reality be a dangerous fucktard, but as long as you don't show any fucktarding wile you are taking your driving exam, you get the license if you show you are capable of mechanically operating a vehicle, looking around you to observe other traffic and show sufficient knowledge of traffic laws and regulations. You don't have to convince the inspector that you'd be doing all that for the rest of your life.

Re:That would ruin the economy

[rioki]

You don't have to convince the inspector that you'd be doing all that for the rest of your life.

Which is pure and simple bad. Have you ever pondered at how much energy is stored in a driving car and how much damage that can do. It is just like with weapons... oh wait...

Ban talking in cars, period.

[Anonymous Coward]

If even talking to another passenger carries a "moderate/significant" distractive potential, then it is pretty clear cut. It is time to ban talking in cars, PERIOD.

If it saves just one life... it is worth whatever money is spent, and whatever liberty is lost.

Probably Biased Study

[Anonymous Coward]

I once heard the president of AAA say talking to the passenger next to the driver is distracted driving.

Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Car radios are a huge distraction so they should be banned too.

And I bet a study would confirm

[PortHaven]

Talking to a person in a car, also equals distracting.