Nearly 1 In 4 Adults Surf the Web While Driving

cartechboy writes "A new survey out this week says that the number of motorists who surf the Web has nearly doubled over the past four years. In 2009, 13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the Internet while driving. In 2013, that figure had jumped to 24 percent. Smartphones are the primary culprit, making the unsafe task even easier. Other distracted driving behavior is on the rise, too, and younger drivers are the biggest issue — 76 percent of motorists 18 to 29 said that they talked on a hand-held cell phone while driving. 70 percent said they were texting. Keep in mind we have states legislating smartphone use task by task, which clearly doesn't help."

Comments

I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC for legal reasons...

I've been doing this since I got a smart phone in 2008. No accidents so far so maybe it's not that dangerous (or I'm really lucky?). Stop and go traffic and traffic lights are a good time to check Slashdot.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, you're only a nuisance instead of a threat. God forbid you spend a single moment of your life not feeling entertained.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

end yourself

Re:I do this

[93 Escort Wagon]

end yourself

He probably will, sooner or later - hopefully without taking someone else with him.
 

Re:I do this

[LordNimon]

If you're car is not moving, then technically you're not driving. Granted, the DUI laws disagree, but common sense does not.

Re:I do this

[TheCarp]

This was exactly my thought... there is nothing here to indicate this is an actual problem and not just yet another imaginary issue. We already have seen that the same people who get in accidents while using phones, get in accidents without them at similar rates. So the phone use isn't the cause.

We also know those same people, a subset of the population, manage risk badly, and choose to use their phone in more dangerous situations than most other people. So likely... the majority of the "I do this" people, are like you, and a small minority are those same idiots who were going to cause an accident having an argument on the phone or messing with their radio dial while driving full speed in heavy traffic and tailgating.

Re:I do this

[ZigiSamblak]

I finally understand the connection between Google and self steering cars!

More time to surf the internets if you don't have to steer at all.

Re:I do this

[gstoddart]

If you're car is not moving, then technically you're not driving.

If you're on a road, you're driving. If you're in a parking lot or in your driveway, sure. But if you're sitting at an intersection and believe you're not driving, you've lost the plot.

Show of hands, how many of us have had to honk at the motorist in front of us when the light changes because they're still fiddling with their phone? I have to at least 2-3 times a week, and I don't drive more than 5-6 times in an average week.

Re:I do this

[camperdave]

If the car is running, in gear (ie not in park), and you're behind the wheel, then you're driving whether or not the vehicle is in motion.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy behind you agrees -- you're not driving. *honk*

Re:I do this

[CubicleZombie]

In Virginia, you're "driving" if the keys are in the ignition, even if the engine is off.

So if you're responsibly sleeping off your buzz before heading home, DO NOT turn on the radio or you'll get a DUI.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Show of hands, how many of us have had to honk at the motorist in front of us when the light changes because they're still fiddling with their phone? I have to at least 2-3 times a week, and I don't drive more than 5-6 times in an average week.

I don't have a huge amount of problem with this. It's a minor annoyance, not an accident, and sometimes it's very useful to be able to very quickly look something up or send a text. So long as you're not moving, and the moment you need to move the phone gets put down.

Re:I do this

[cayenne8]

I don't do it in town, but for longer roadtrips, I have a bracket that holds my old Motorola Xoom just down below the window line, and with Verizon 4G, I can stream entertainment...mostly for the passenger (2-seater car), and as the driver, I mostly listen...but it is something nice for long trips.

If a trooper happens to pull near me, I can quickly flip it to Google Maps or something....

Re:I do this

[CubicleZombie]

Solution: Require that drivers use their smartphones during their drivers test.

And fiddle with the radio. And eat a burger. Etc.

More laws aren't going to keep us from doing this. It'll just mean more distraction checking for cops before calling/texting/web/etc. Same with speed limits. When it goes from 65 to 55, nobody slows down. Now 50% of our attention goes to watching for radar traps.

How about increasing the penalties for causing a crash? I'm sick of hearing about someone who kills another driver and makes 20,000 people late for work getting a $50 "Failure to yield" ticket.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

In PA, if you are behind the wheel, keys or not you can get a DUI. Also, if you have keys on your person and are in the vicinity of your vehicle, you can get a DUI. To be fair, however, you can get a DUI without being intoxicated at all. "Oh, you failed to turn on your turn signal and your eyes are bloodshot because your boyfriend just broke up with you? INCAPABLE OF SAFE DRIVING. DUI. FOR. YOU."

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Hand your licence back and fucking walk you irresponsible dickhead

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry I try to keep both my hands on the wheel at all times

Re:I do this

[ArhcAngel]

Slow moving vehicles cause more accidents than speeding ones and when you are looking at your screen even for a second you slow down. I passed at least three cars this morning that were impeding traffic flow and every single one had their faced buried in their phone as I passed. And based on the maturity of assuming it isn't dangerous because you haven't had an accident (yet) I'd have to assume you aren't old enough to have a valid drivers license anyway.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

So likely... the minority of the "I do this" people are like you, and a vast majority are those same idiots who were going to cause an accident having an argument on the phone or messing with their radio dial while driving full speed in heavy traffic and tailgating.

FTFY.

Re:I do this

[Mr D from 63]

Stop and go traffic and traffic lights are a good time to check Slashdot.

Just don't make me miss the green light because you are not paying attention. I'll never understand how some folks almost seem surprised that the light turns green, and sit there confused for a second.

Re:I do this

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

In Virginia, you're "driving" if the keys are in the ignition, even if the engine is off.

So if you're responsibly sleeping off your buzz before heading home, DO NOT turn on the radio or you'll get a DUI.

If you want to listen to the radio while falling asleep or passing out, sleep it off in the passenger seat.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your way of thinking. That's why I took my driving exam while drunk. (Handy tip: If you share your bottle with the examinator, they are willing to overlook minor accidents. Mine even helped me bury the body.)

Re:I do this

[lgw]

Just wait till you get there. Seriously. You never need to send a text while driving, you just have such amazingly low willpower that you recklessly endanger others, and don't even get anything out of it.

It is simply not acceptable, and you should stop doing this immediately, and feel shame that you ever did.

Re:I do this

[aztracker1]

I would say if you've changed cell towers more than once (not to the same two towers) in a 3 minute timespan (or exceeds 20mph), the phone goes "dead" until stopped for 3 minutes. Only exception would be to an already connected call with a bluetooth, or wired headset already in progress.

Re:I do this

[sl4shd0rk]

No accidents so far

That's like playing Russian Roulette and claiming it's safe since you've never shot yourself yet.

Re:I do this

[Sarten-X]

Check the law. I once lived in a jurisdiction where "emotional distress" was legally sufficient for a DUI.

Re:I do this

[ArhcAngel]

It doesn't matter if you have a problem with it. The law states if you are stopped at a light you are still driving and subject to any distraction laws. And this guy is just waiting for you to come to his town.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope a mob of train, bus, and cab passengers maul you for such a stupid suggestion.

Re:I do this

[i kan reed]

Hmm, a few text metrics read the same with this post and the AC GGP(at least more similar than several other posts sampled in this thread). I think you blew it.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual adults are responsible.

Re:I do this

[clarkkent09]

If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

> You never need to send a text while driving,
But you do need to actually get there. Hence looking at Google maps on the phone.

>It is simply not acceptable, and you should stop doing this immediately, and feel shame that you ever did.
Keep on pissing in the wind if it pleases you.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop and go traffic and traffic lights are a good time to check Slashdot.

What, don't you surf Slashdot enough at work, you have to do it while you're driving too?

Re:I do this

[TechyImmigrant]

>Sorry I try to keep both my hands on the wheel at all times
How do you get out of the car?

Re:I do this

[TechyImmigrant]

You're not really a data driven sort of person are you?

Re:I do this

[TechyImmigrant]

No accidents so far

That's like playing Russian Roulette and claiming it's safe since you've never shot yourself yet.

If' I'd been playing Russian Roulette for a few years and had never shot myself, I'd conclude there are no bullets in the gun and feel safe to continue.

Re:I do this

[TheCarp]

No you didn't, you changed it to a statement which, based on my interpretation of the evidence at hand, is false.

Re:I do this

[mcmonkey]

No accidents so far

That's like playing Russian Roulette and claiming it's safe since you've never shot yourself yet.

And I'd conclude you've never taken a course in statistics.

"I never hear from people who lose playing Russian Roulette; I only hear from winners. Game must be rigged." Yeah, either that or the losers aren't around to talk about it.

If' I'd been playing Russian Roulette for a few years and had never shot myself, I'd conclude there are no bullets in the gun and feel safe to continue.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while masturbating furiously while brandishing a shoulder-fired grenade launcher than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?

Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?

Statistically, you're playing Russian Roulette when you do that. Not just with your own life, but the lives of every single other person sharing the road with you.

So no, you don't get an exemption. For reasons obvious to those of us who aren't completely self-focused.

Re:I do this

[pruss]

One is missing out on information about traffic and pedestrians by doing this, though. Sometimes a pedestrian or cyclist or motorist is where they shouldn't be, and one might not notice them without having observed the intersection for a few seconds *before* the light changed.

Re:I do this

[rsayers]

Nothing that you know of.

I get about exclusively on two wheels. Most often it's a scooter, but I also have a motorcycle and a bicycle that I ride a decent amount. I have close encounters with motorists more often than I would like. Thankfully I'm alert enough to avoid getting hit (barring the two times I was not so lucky, one involving a trip to the ER).

The most common close-call I get is someone switching lanes into my lane without seeing me. Nearly 100% of the time when I see the driver, they are texting and have zero idea that they nearly killed me. It's likely that you've been guilty of this yourself but have no idea. Practically every rider I know has told the same story.

It's quite terrifying, please stop.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope your recklessness never kills anyone.

Re:I do this

[TechyImmigrant]

Actually I have.

The 1 in 6 binomial distribution for one 'shot in the head' event in 10 years of playing Russian Roulette is pretty darned small.

If the null hypothesis is "There's a bullet in the gun", what are the odds of the Hsub0 being true?

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

What are we supposed to do, now that we can't text ??

Re:I do this

[Zaelath]

It doesn't matter if you have a problem with it. The law where I live states if you are stopped at a light you are still driving and subject to any distraction laws.

FTFY

I still think the funniest thing is in at least one jurisdiction I drive in, I'm literally not allowed to touch a mobile phone while in the drivers seat, excepting to hand it to a passenger unless parked off the roadway. Yet, it's perfectly legal to use the "hands free" function on my car stereo, which involves pressing:
Home
Phone
Contacts
Initial Letter of Contact
Scroll to name
Press Name
Press Number
Confirm I want to call that person

It would actually be far safer to use the phone to do the dialing, less steps, more familiar....

Re:I do this

[David_W]

In Virginia, you're "driving" if the keys are in the ignition, even if the engine is off.

Hrm... wonder how that works for push-button start cars. I have no ignition to put a key in...

(Not to say the law, if you are correct, isn't completely absurd, because it is.)

Re:I do this

[orgelspieler]

Looking at a paper map is not considered OK. Why should looking at a digital map be any different. If you have your phone mounted on your dash with a GPS, that's one thing, but punching in an address on Google Maps while you're at a red light just seems like a dangerous distraction to me.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

Show of hands, how many of us have had to honk at the motorist in front of us when the light changes because they're still fiddling with their phone?

Wanna have some real fun? Hit your horn while the light is still red.

Make sure you turn on the dash-cam first :)

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

> You never need to send a text while driving,
But you do need to actually get there. Hence looking at Google maps on the phone.

Non-idiotic people do that before they even step in the vehicle. How often do you travel to places you've never been before, anyway? I'm guessing a value somewhere between "seldom" and "never."

>It is simply not acceptable, and you should stop doing this immediately, and feel shame that you ever did.
Keep on pissing in the wind if it pleases you.

I'd say "keep endangering the lives of every person on the road until you either get arrested or kill someone," but I'd really prefer if you would just stop being an idiot.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

Depends on the state/municipality.

Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.

Re:I do this

[orgelspieler]

I have no problem with that. If you are crying so hard your eyes are bloodshot, you should probably pull over. Being incapacitated can take on many different forms. I got into a fender bender once because I couldn't turn my head sufficiently due to neck pain. I was just on my way to Walgreen's to pick up my medication, too.

I have no idea why they would call it a DUI though. Driving under the influence of what? Corticotropin?

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

More laws aren't going to keep us from doing this.

No, but real punishment might.

Think about it this way: what do you think would be an appropriate legal response to a person who loads a revolver with a random assortment of blanks and live ammo, then proceeds to walk down the sidewalk with a blindfold on, holding the gun in front and squeezing the trigger over and over again?

Because when you play with your little toy when driving, that's exactly what you're doing - except for the fact that even the "blanks" in this scenario are made of 1.5 tons of steel, glass, fire, and incendiary fuel.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say "keep endangering the lives of every person on the road until you either get arrested or kill someone," but I'd really prefer if you would just stop being an idiot.

Keeping in mind that the GPP was talking about sitting, stopped at a signal, how exactly would that lead to them killing someone again? Being annoying sure, but the odds of that actually hurting someone have got to be astronomically low.

Re:I do this

[StikyPad]

It's really at the discretion of the officer and the judge involved (which is good and bad). My friend got a DUI for sleeping in the back (bench) of his pickup truck, because the engine was running. What would the rule be for a car with a "keyless" ignition? Safest bet is to stay the fsck away from a car without a designated, 0.0 BAC driver.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Also Posting AC for legal reasons...

If I see you doing it, there will be an incident.

Re:I do this

[nytes]

Ejector seat with the control mounted on the turn signal.

Re:I do this

[fahrbot-bot]

If I can prove by experiment that < I > can drive more safely while texting ...

FTFY -- But, no problem, you were probably driving... [ And, no, you won't be exempt. ]

Re:I do this

[rsborg]

Depends on the state/municipality.

Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.

Can I state that this law sucks? I'd rather have a drunk sleeping in the car than on the road driving. How many drunks decide to go the extra mile just so they can get home rather than sleep it off in the back seat? I wonder how many lives it has cost.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you drive drunk too?

Re:I do this

[clarkkent09]

You are proving my point by mentioning a type of behavior which is not specifically prohibited by law, the way texting is, even though it is likely more dangerous. Why not? How about shaving, or eating, more likely examples, still not specifically banned?

Driving without due care and attention (or whatever its called) is already illegal so a special mention of texting imho is a particularly ridiculous case of social engineering by busybodies with nothing better to do.

Of course possession of shoulder-fired grenade launcher as well as brandishing any kind of a weapon is illegal in most jurisdictions but that's a separate issue.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no idea why they would call it a DUI though. Driving under the influence of what?

That is my problem with it. It is the same as nailing a person urinating against a tree as being a sex offender

Re:I do this

[Golddess]

Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?

I think you need to go with something less ridiculous, not more. You need to look at the reason clarkkent09 does not want such a law, which is it would preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future. Public masturbation and carrying around a shoulder-fired grenade launcher in public I suspect are both currently illegal by themselves, and I don't see why adding "while operating a motor vehicle" would change that. So lets try something that, by itself, is not illegal. The consumption of alcohol.

If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while completely plastered than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?

Re:I do this

[Valdrax]

I don't have a huge amount of problem with this. It's a minor annoyance, not an accident, and sometimes it's very useful to be able to very quickly look something up or send a text. So long as you're not moving, and the moment you need to move the phone gets put down.

People willing to add minor inconvenience to multiple people around them adds up over time. This is why spam and littering are bad things.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

It just so happens that the bad drivers that get distracted whether they're using the phone or not are the ones that don't realize the phone is a distraction. If you think you can use a phone safely while driving you're one of the bad drivers and while you're right that you would be a bad driver without the phone, that doesn't negate that using the phone is an indication of what kind of driver you are.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could spend your time driving instead of talking on the phone.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is your interpretation is false? Gotcha.

Re:I do this

[EdIII]

I have the solution to this kind of misconceptions about driving.

Put them in a car and create a controlled accident at 20mph with a fucking wall. That should make them think of what it would have been like without a 5 point harness, helmet, and padding.

Then explain to them how much worse it would be at 45-55mph, which seems to be the average speed on roads today.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But you do need to actually get there. Hence looking at Google maps on the phone.

Truly, it is a miracle that any of us who don't do that manage to arrive anywhere at all.

It's not like you can plan your route before you leave or anything.

I've even heard rumours that some modern SatNavs can be programmed with a destination before you start your journey!

Re:I do this

[lgw]

Until your "nearly done" typing when the car in front of you starts moving, and you just have a bit to finish entering that address or send that text or whatever. Or you start looking down when you start braking at the red light, instead of when your car has stopped, just to glance down for a second.

The way to be sure you don't do something dangerous is to also stop doing the actions that lead to something dangerous, wherever you can.

Re:I do this

[Ichijo]

1. It's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger. If you don't believe me, look it up in your state's driving laws.

2. If your lane is blocked, whether by a boulder or an inattentive driver or a slow-moving vehicle, you don't "have" to honk at it. You can signal and go around the obstruction when the path is clear.

As a bicyclist, it's very frustrating how so few motorists know the law.

Re:I do this

[EdIII]

This should be put into categories apparently.

One is navigation. Looking at your built in navigation and hitting a few buttons or zooming on the map is not all that bad at an intersection. I find that I am at an intersection for at least 15-30 seconds, if not a lot more during traffic. Taking 5 seconds to review the map should not lead to a distraction where you create a delay in traffic. You really have to not be paying attention to stop picking things up in your peripheral vision while stopped.

Two is communications. This is just evidence of how bad the addiction is to information technology today. I see plenty of people who cannot go more than 5 minutes without checking FaceFuck or Twatter. That near constant need for connection and feedback is based on the same psychological principles that keep people at slot machines for hours on end.

What makes it worse is that these people are creating the STANDARD for communication in the future. When I tell people that I did not respond to them since I was driving and on my way back to the office I actually get the response back, "That's no excuse. You could have just sent a text message. You need to work on your communication skills".

I think these people would literally go insane if you transported them back to say around 1719. "What the fuck do you mean I have to wait 5 months to get a letter back!", and "You mean I have to walk all the way across town, knock on a door, be welcomed into the house, BEFORE I can talk to my friend?"

Not sure that I can call where we are headed progress. It seems that attention span is at a historically low level for humanity.

Re:I do this

[EdIII]

I have voice controls in my vehicle. You would think that would be better right? To make a call I need to press and say:

Voice command
Phone
Address Book
Say the Name
Confirm the name by number LISTED ON DISPLAY
Confirm which phone number a number LISTED ON DISPLAY
Confirm I want to dial

I get so damn frustrated that I just use the keypad at an intersection (very quick) and then use my handsfree the rest of time. That's only if it's important. Otherwise, the time I spend driving is actually a release at this point.

Re:I do this

[Gavrielkay]

Can you tell us where and when you normally drive so we can avoid the area? 99.9% of the time driving will not require every drop of your conscious attention, but at the moment that it does, someone's life (maybe yours?) could be at stake and it'll be too late. If you cannot manage to get from one place to another without needing constant distraction, then perhaps try public transportation or carpooling.

Re:I do this

[clarkkent09]

Drunk driving prohibition is a more ambiguous case because when you are drunk, you are not being yourself. The same reason a contract somebody convinced you to sign while you are completely plastered would be unenforceable in court. It still illustrates how those kinds of laws are wrong because of a completely different way different people react to alcohol. One person can indeed be impaired from driving after a half glass of wine (legal in most places) and another person can be perfectly fine even while (slightly) over the legal limit. And yet the safe driver is punished extremely severely while the unsafe driver is perfectly legal. We should be punishing reckless driving, not trying to individually ban everything that could possibly cause it because we will never get to the end of the list while in the meantime encouraging local governments to setup things like sobriety checkpoints which rarely catch drunk drivers but still generate revenue with a bunch of fines for dumb things like broken lights etc

Re:I do this

[SmaryJerry]

It's a big assumption that the person is stopped at a light is fiddling with their phone. They could be looking for something in their car, doing makeup, eating, or quieting a child. Texting is a symptom not the disease. Distracted driving is the disease and it can come from many sources. There is a measure of which is allowed such as people, babies and animals in the car, bluetooth headsets, music playing, drinking a soda, changing the radio, rolling down windows, using navigation. These can all take your eyes off of the road and distract you. The fact is there are people who need to pay attention and better education (brainwashing?) is needed to get them to learn how to focus on the most important task at hand. The task that is holding life in the line. Driving. Distracted driving is already illegal. Making something specific illegal like texting at a stop light or talking on the phone while driving is saying "I don't care how you drive, some people can't manage these so you can't either." I am against people getting pulled over and ticketed for having a phone to their ear. Are they swerving or stopped at a stoplight for 10 extra seconds? Then let an officer determine if they deserve a distracted driving ticket but don't make the tickets about an specific activity that is secondary to driving and does not necessarily indicate poor or distracted driving. If we continue down this road we may as well stop one-armed veterans from driving because they do not have both hands on the wheel and may be driving even hand-less when they need to change the radio. Disclosure: I have received a ticket for driving while on the phone.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I would say that a drunk man is being more himself than ever. Remember, a drunk man's words and actions are a sober man's thoughts.

The same reason a contract somebody convinced you to sign while you are completely plastered would be unenforceable in court

Citation needed. I have never heard of anything like that before and if a drunkenly signed contract were automatically invalid, I think we'd be seeing lots of breaches where people were claiming they were drunk and coerced. The fact of the matter is _you_ chose to drink and thereby accepted all of the bad judgement that goes along with that choice. That's like saying that a drunk driver isn't responsible when they get busted for a DUI if someone convinced him/her it was ok to drive.

Re:I do this

[gweilo8888]

I'd like to refine this suggestion. Do it in a full simulator capable of recreating accident impact forces. Keep the car / controlled accident scenario, but let's not pansy about: set it to a collision that's double the actual speed they were driving while caught texting. (In other words, head-on collision with another vehicle doing the same speed.) And they have to send a certain number / length of texts with no typos in a certain time to get the car to stop without crashing, but they also have to stay in their lane and not have any violations of any kind, or there's an immediate crash.

I don't think you'd have a single repeat offender. Admittedly, half of them wouldn't be alive to repeat-offend, but if they have that little disregard for others' lives, why should we have any for theirs?

Re:I do this

[clarkkent09]

As far as I know a contract can be invalidated if a party was drunk.
If there is evidence that the other party knew they were drunk and deliberately took advantage of it, or if they were involuntarily intoxicated or drugged then it is usually automatically invalidated. Otherwise, the court will look at just how drunk they were and if judged to be mentally incompetent at the time of signing, will invalidate the contract. So, if you want a contract to stick, don't let the other person be drunk while signing it, or at least leave any evidence of it.

Re:I do this

[anegg]

I have a Bluetooth earpiece and a smartphone. I press the button up by my ear, then say "Call (name from my address book). The phone finds the name in my address book, dials the number, the phone rings, and I start taking when my contact answers the phone. I never touch the phone, just the Bluetooth earpiece, and that only to initiate the call and then to hang up. My experience with auto manufacturer's voice command systems indicates that they should stick to making cars and leave the fancy electronics interfaces to others.

Re:I do this

[EdIII]

Sweeet

That would be awesome. Have that simulator make a tour around the country at all the high schools.

Re:I do this

[tftp]

If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws

Major math fail. Accidents are driven by statistics. What you do and what other people do is not related. If you are more dangerous today than yesterday, the average also rises.

Note that if you are such an excellent driver, you still may need that last bit of skill if an idiot decides to something idiotic in your path. You will not get that last bit of skill if you are distracted.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

A contract can be invalidated if the signer were drugged, unknowingly and unwillingly, NOT if they got drunk of their own choice. In fact, courts are more likely to rule against someone who says that they were intoxicated simply to teach them a lesson and show how stupid they had acted.

So no, short of someone kidnapping you, drugging you and forcing you to sign a contract, you are not protected if you sign a contract while drunk by your own action.

Re:I do this

[EdIII]

I would love to use the phone. Two problems though:

1) Apple sucks balls in every way possible except a nice shiny product. I'm not going to sell my soul and my freedom to join their walled garden filled with zombies. Plus, Siri is not actually that fucking good. I laugh my ass off constantly when my buddy starts to repeat himself several times to her.

2) As much as Apple does suck balls, everybody else sucks so much worse for voice recognition.

There is literally no product on Earth that reliably captures my voice and executes the commands properly.

Although, many years ago at Comdex (yes it was some time ago), I saw a mini notebook with voice recognition from a oil & gas tech company. It was capable of recognizing commands from people, in loud environments (the floor at Comdex), with no previous training at all. Acted flawlessly. I have no idea why a nearly 20 year old piece of tech surpasses Android and Apple today.

Re:I do this

[AK Marc]

If you put it in park and turn it off, then I might agree. But if you do that in traffic (at a light, in a jam on the freeway), then you should get multiple tickets for illegal parking, obstructing traffic, and such. Going slow through a light in a busy time steals life from those behind you. It should be punished harshly.

Re:I do this

[Zaelath]

I agree, lots of shit you do that's legal annoys me too. Dipshit.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The original stat of being in a crash is small. You can't statistically compare 1 in 6 with 1 in some really big number (that I'm too busy to look up right now). If one person dies a year playing Russian Roulette, then you're only a bit above average if you don't kill yourself next year.

Re:I do this

[flyneye]

click the mouse, win a "Darwin"

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

And people were bitching about the "jarring" context switch between Metro UI and Classic UI in Windows 8. I don't think I could feel safe driving if I were to start using my phone, even at a stop. Buttons on my stereo, fine, but not digging around in a hierarchy of icons and text.

Re:I do this

[M. Baranczak]

If I can prove by experiment that I can drive more safely while masturbating furiously

Which brings up another, related, point. We already know that 1/3 of the Internet is porn. When you combine this knowledge with the statistic mentioned in the headline...

Re:I do this

[snowraver1]

set it to a collision that's double the actual speed they were driving while caught texting. (In other words, head-on collision with another vehicle doing the same speed

Actually, that is false. A head on collision with a vehicle of the same mass would be no different than the indestructible brick wall. Yes, when you add a second vehicle to the mix, you are doubling the amount of moving mass, but the absolute speed remains constant. In the end, the delta V is the same in both scenarios: X to 0. Now that we know that the delta V is the same, we just have to account for the deceleration rate, which is basically the same as the duration of the impact (crumple zones and all that). Since we have identical cars, they will deform at the same rate, acting as each others' brick wall. Once they collide, they would be exerting identical force on each other, so the front bumpers would remain in the same location, just like the brick wall. Since the front of your car can no longer move forward, the collision happens, and the body of your car absorbs the energy required to decelerate to 0. The energy released when two cars collide is doubled, but it is also spread over twice the area (ie, now you have 2 wrecked cars).

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving under the influence of anything, if you've had too much or are noticeably impaired. You can get a DUI for much more than being drunk.

Re: I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm sitting at a traffic light that I know is going to be a while from commuting past it for the last 10 years it isn't dangerous or rocket science to text your SO what they want to eat or if they need me to pick up anything while I'm at the grocery store.

If you are moving, no you shouldn't text or surf the web. If you are stopped and have a face full of tail light, it isn't any form of hazard.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, officer, I was NOT "texting".

I was SSH'ed into my mail server & editing xinetd.conf using vi. The law prohibits "texting". It says nothing about either SSH or vi.

Re:I do this

[Black LED]

Detachable steering wheel.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

My experience is with a Plantronics Bluetooth earpiece (Voyager Pro HD or something like that) and a Blackberry Curve(?) phone. I was surprised at how well the voice recognition worked. No training, no recording the names as voice tags with each address book entry. Just type in the name and phone number in the address book.

Re:I do this

[Khyber]

"Keeping in mind that the GPP was talking about sitting, stopped at a signal, how exactly would that lead to them killing someone again?"

Your sheltered life of stupidity and ignorance is showing. Even regular old pizza delivery drivers know better than you. Turn your geek card in and STFU for the rest of your ill-educated life.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

This works about a third of the time in Boston and boy is it a hoot. In NOLA it never works but that's because the drivers here have a beer in one hand and a smoke in the other and likely require three tries to even find the phone.

I vastly prefer the latter breed. Drunks are easy to negotiate; the cell phone crowd have the double whammy of being both distracted and pissed off (or crying) -- after all, when's the last time you overheard a conversation that wasn't high drama?

Re: I do this

[justthinkit]

If I'm sitting at a traffic light that I know is going to be a while from commuting past it for the last 10 years it isn't dangerous or rocket science to text your SO what they want to eat or if they need me to pick up anything while I'm at the grocery store.

I nominate this paragraph as the best posted from a cell phone while driving, getting blown and smoking a joint.

Re:I do this

[dbIII]

I suppose that gets them off the roads due to blindness caused by retinas detatching, but why not just take away their licence instead of a cruel and unusual punishment?

Re:I do this

[dbIII]

"That's no excuse. You could have just sent a text message. You need to work on your communication skills".

I then apply the non-verbal communication skill of a "fuck you" glare and say "I was driving", and if that doesn't work I use my verbal communication skills for progressively less polite assertions - ending in "fuck you I was driving" if they are thick enough that it is required.
See also those clowns that say "do you really have to indicate at every corner?".

All we can do is hope those people that demand the instant attention grow up at some point and help them in little ways if we can.

Re: I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't say for every state but laws in most places I have lived have stated something along the lines of "use the horn to alert drivers of your presence" like it's use when driving on roads where there is only room for one car at a time when you come around a blind corner or over a hill with dead ground after. Not use the horn in case of danger or emergency

Re:I do this

[gl4ss]

there's already laws to forbid driving while distracted.

will it stop juries from letting people walk away from vehicular manslaughter after they drive over a biker while being distracted? fuck no.

which should be the way to go really, to give punishments for fucking up - so that people would pay attention to the road.

Re:I do this

[aaronb1138]

Wrong again asshole. Texting requires the same synthesis and logic centers used for a technical task like driving. Frequently, texting also requires your visual attention, which unlike hand movement, having two copies of the organ does not enable asynchronous use. You understand that the unchanging road conditions you see ahead as you look at the gauge cluster for speed is mostly a false image synthesized by your mind to fill out your peripheral vision until you can perform a refresh of details (or the peripheral changes enough to cause a reflex).

Masturbation is all mostly muscle memory and pleasure feedback loops from nervous systems specifically separated. The grenade launcher is just a Freudian construct of your impotent mind.

Re:I do this

[aaronb1138]

Also the body of traffic laws isn't about what you can prove your ability to do by experiment. It is largely about finding a middle ground for the average driver to be comfortable while dealing with occasional cock ups. I'm sure you text fine going in a straight line in moderate traffic. You would more than likely not notice the retard blowing through a red light coming from the perpendicular at an intersection.

Re:I do this

[Joce640k]

If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws

No.

Not looking out of the window while driving = bad. Mmmmkay?

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Also AC for even bigger legal reasons...
I crushed up an oc80 pill in a spoon, added in some coke, added the water, heated it, drew it up with a syringe, and injected it into a vein while driving 150mph down I75.

I didn't crash or die (of anything) so I guess nothing I did was dangerous. Neither was all the street racing, driving with BAC >LD50, ...and texting while speeding an weaving I did for years. Zero accidents in 6 years of that kind of behavior. SAFE!

This is sadly a true story. I'm 3 years clean now.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Masturbation in public is very illegal. Don't make the same mistake I did.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure?

A contract can be invalidated if the signer were drugged, unknowingly and unwillingly, NOT if they got drunk of their own choice. In fact, courts are more likely to rule against someone who says that they were intoxicated simply to teach them a lesson and show how stupid they had acted.

This is the case with crimes committed under the influence of substances but I would need a citation before I believe that to be the case with contracts. SInce I'm European, I'm not all that familiar with the American justice system so I could be wrong but contracts are a pretty universal concept. Which leads me to my second point, some contracts (and especially testaments) over here usually include something like (my bad translation): "As I sign this I have complete use of my senses and cognitive abilities..." And that is of course not the case when you're drunk and thus one of the initial conditions is false making all subsequent terms disputable as well. I also don't see this as a bad thing since otherwise the door would be open for people to exploit the impaired judgment of someone who is drunk and at least my sense of justice doesn't make it right. You could easily do that if you fail to reach an agreement during e.g. a business negotiation and then offer to take the other party out for dinner to talk more about the matter and when he/she is in a good mood and likes you, you pull out the contract again saying "so, how about it?"...

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's not common where you're from, but cars can have passengers.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:I do this

[umghhh]

You can chose whatever technicality you want and this does not change the fact that in reality if it is not moving then it is not driving. For some people (like me sometimes) it is annoying to the point that driving is impossible when the phone is for instance doing incoming call noises. I have to stop and press go away. Technically I am committing a crime as I use phone while driving at least in some jurisdictions. Practically I am avoiding endangering others by driving in distracted and angered state. The law makers had their reasons to make particular definition of driving and I do not think that had something to do with driving itself but rather with things like driving while intoxicated etc. and all lengthy arguments that lack of such definition caused.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Who fucking cares what the law really is? Everyone breaks the law every day anyway. Yes, even you, MR self righteous cyclist smelling his own farts, you too break at least a few laws every day. Here's a newsflash kiddo, even lawyers can't know all the laws. Get over yourself.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is you're laboring under the false assumption that DUI laws are for the purpose of keeping people safe. They're not.
DUI laws are to generate revenue and to condition the public to accept laws to prevent people from doing things that MIGHT EVENTUALLY cause someone harm, even though the actual harm carries consequences already. Its a step on the road of thought crime.

Re:I do this

[MrL0G1C]

"That's no excuse. You could have just sent a text message. You need to work on your communication skills"

I'd be able to get a manager instantly sacked if they put that in writing.

Ask them to put it in writing, is texting while driving legal in your jurisdiction?

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Masturbation is also possible with both hands on the steering wheel.

Posting anonymously because even a pseudonym shouldn't be linked to some things.

Re:I do this

[Politburo]

"People willing to add minor inconvenience to multiple people around them adds up over time."

QFT... and on a 4-lane highway, one asshole really can slow everyone down for miles by creating a traffic wave.

Re:I do this

[Politburo]

That's not true at all. My state has no such limitation, and explicitly authorizes an audible signal as an indication of passing.

As a bicyclist you should know from experience that motorists going around obstructions greatly increases the risk of hitting cyclists (not to mention pedestrians and other vehicles). A driver gets fed up sitting behind a stopped car and whips into the bike lane, right as you're passing by..

Re:I do this

[Cederic]

How often do you travel to places you've never been before, anyway? I'm guessing a value somewhere between "seldom" and "never."

Generally speaking, only a dozen times a year or so.

If you include the places I only visit once or twice a year and so can't remember the route, 2-3 times a month.

Re:I do this

[Cederic]

1. It's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger. If you don't believe me, look it up in your state's driving laws.

"Yes officer, he was in imminent danger of causing an accident. Yes, because he was using a phone instead of watching the road.

No, he didn't crash because he accelerated when I hit the horn. He crashed because he wasn't watching the road or the traffic lights. It was the imminent danger of him crashing that led me to use my horn, and it's terribly unfortunate that it didn't prevent his stupidity from getting him killed."

If I'm on the jury, I'm accepting that defence.

Re:I do this

[Politburo]

So you're great a going in a straight line while on the phone, good for you. When something happens, are you going to be able to react appropriately? You might assume yes, but who knows, and I as the driver in front of you as we approach a traffic jam do not wish to determine this experimentally. Put the phone down.

Re: I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an episode of Mythbusters where they illustrated it. Jamie in a previous episode said that two cars crashing against each other at speed s would be equivalent to one car crashing against a brick wall or sthg at speed 2s. Their small scale experiment with clay was really nice.

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclosure: I have received a ticket for driving while on the phone.

Good, you fucking asshat.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

You are proving my point by mentioning a type of behavior which is not specifically prohibited by law, the way texting is...

Where the hell do you live, where public masturbation and brandishing Class II firearms are legal????

I wonder if you even know what your "point" actually is.

Re:I do this

[TechyImmigrant]

The 1 in 6 is the 1 bullet in a 6 hole chamber.
So a 1 in 6 chance of being shot in each trial.
The odds of not being shot if you play once a day for a year are astronomically small.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

But you're at least smart enough to program the GPS before you start driving there, right?

Re:I do this

[ottothecow]

I don't understand what it is about smartphones that make people think this is ok.

10 years ago, we didn't have tons people carrying around a book to read because they "get bored waiting at red lights"...and when you saw someone reading in the car, it was often notable as a "bad thing". Now it is rare that I pull up to a light (on a motorcycle so I am high up and can see what people are doing in their laps) and don't see some asshole who thinks checking up on his facebook or instagram newsfeed is more important than paying attention to his surroundings. It is a little more rare in slow moving traffic, but I still see it all the time.

At least I understand the pressure that comes with texts/work emails. Someone is communicating with you and you have a strong desire to read/respond, even if you know it is wrong. But checking fucking facebook while driving because you can't handle sitting in the car? I can't believe that there are people who are seriously arguing that this is OK.

Re:I do this

[Cederic]

Sometimes. Often I get to the right town, realise I've forgotten where I need to be and pull over so that I can look up the address and program it into the satnav.

But no, I don't do that while driving.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

It's also approximately the same percentage of Americans who suffer from some form of mental retardation.

I know, I know, correlation is not causation, but still...

Re:I do this

[TechyImmigrant]

The statistics on car crashes and phones is obviously bad.

"Most car crashes have a mobile phone involved" tells you nothing without a random sampling of car journeys that shows that non-crashing journeys are less likely to have a mobile phone involved.

The same is true for alcohol. The statistics are meaningless.

But I was commenting on the roulette analogy, which while imperfect, does get at one of the ways in which the mobile phone-car crash statistics are BS.

Re:I do this

[Ichijo]

My state has no such limitation, and explicitly authorizes an audible signal as an indication of passing.

If you are in NJ, the law not only authorizes, it actually requires you to use the horn when passing another vehicle. But that law is obsolete.

The non-obsolete law to which I am referring when I say that it's illegal to honk the horn except to warn of danger is the following:

The driver of a motor vehicle shall, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.

Re:I do this

[Ichijo]

That doesn't make any sense. If you're stopped at a traffic light, how can you be in danger of crashing into anything?

Re:I do this

[Ichijo]

Slow moving vehicles cause more accidents than speeding ones...

I think you made that up. Please cite your source for that statement.

I passed at least three cars this morning that were impeding traffic flow...

They obviously didn't impede you because you were able to pass. Maybe the freeway was overloaded and everybody (including you) was impeding everyone else. Remember, you aren't just in traffic, you are traffic!

Re:I do this

[Cederic]

You aren't following the discussion.

- Twat stops at lights, plays with his phone
- Cock behind him hits his horn
- Twat goes, "Oh shit!" and accelerates through the lights even though they're red, causing an accident

Internet wise man suggests the cock hitting his horn caused the accident.
My post demonstrates what I consider a viable defence against such a claim.

If you're stopped at a traffic light then pay attention to the fucking road.

Re:I do this

[cayenne8]

Idiot. Cops have been getting subpoenas on actual usage metrics for their bolstered quota numbers.

Well, since it is a tablet and not a phone, they don't really suspect anything.

And seriously...unless something else major happened other than a simple pullover, they're not gonna bother with trying to subpoena usage data from any phone company....too much trouble for a simple ticket they're trying to write.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

Depends on the state/municipality.

Here in Missouri, if you're in the car, and the the keys are in the car (not necessarily the ignition), then legally speaking you are driving. Hence the reason drunks who climb in the backseat to take a nap still get nailed for DWI.

Can I state that this law sucks? I'd rather have a drunk sleeping in the car than on the road driving.

I agree it's a bit too vague, but the reason for that is, back in the late 1980's/early 90's, there was a rash of incidents where some drunk asshole would pull a hit-and-run then park in a nearby alley and hide in the backseat. I presume the legislature figured they had to cover all the possible angles.

How many drunks decide to go the extra mile just so they can get home rather than sleep it off in the back seat?

If you've ever been inebriated enough to be dangerous behind the wheel, you'll understand when I say, "not many."

Alcohol makes a lot of people think they're ten feet tall and bulletproof.

I wonder how many lives it has cost.

Likely an unquantifiable figure.

Re:I do this

[CanHasDIY]

The problem is you're laboring under the false assumption that DUI laws are for the purpose of keeping people safe. They're not.

DUI laws are to generate revenue and to condition the public to accept laws to prevent people from doing things that MIGHT EVENTUALLY cause someone harm, even though the actual harm carries consequences already. Its a step on the road of thought crime.

You have posited what has to be the worst attempt to justify drunk driving I've ever heard. And a fair portion of my family are alcoholics, so that's saying a lot.

Re:I do this

[SmaryJerry]

So you're saying a person with 1 arm shouldn't be able to have passengers? Isn't that the same scenario?

Re:I do this

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem with fucking idiots who, like you, think it won't happen to them is that you often insist on taking others with you when you die.

Re:I do this

[ahodgson]

Actually, people on phones on trains and buses are super annoying. I approve this plan.

Re:I do this

[suutar]

People reading on their phone's kindle app annoy you? Why?

Re:I do this

[suutar]

High penalties don't deter more than low ones if the subject doesn't think they'll get busted, and nobody thinks they'll get busted for something they don't think will happen. So what you really need is for people to actually accurately understand the risk level. Good luck with that =/

Re:I do this

[gweilo8888]

"if they have that little disregard for others' lives, why should we have any for theirs?"

Survival of the smartest

[Darth Twon]

Unfortunately when people go out while texting/talking/surfing they tend to take other people with them. If we could just figure out a way to just do away with them, then we'd be golden!

Re:Survival of the smartest

[BreakBad]

Not before I patent some shit like a bluetooth windshield HUD and swift key steering wheel. Someone has to make money off all this stupidity, its the American way.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

A self selecting survey clearly loaded with piss-takers deliberately entering crap answers is not reality.

Google Cars

[invid]

All the more reason why we need to get autonomous cars on the road.

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-driving cars will destroy the radio industry. Think about it.

Re:Google Cars

[fustakrakich]

That was my very first thought on the issue, but the loss of revenue from traffic violations will have a dramatic effect on local municipalities and the insurance industry. I expect much resistance.

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Money that can be better spent on better things. If your police force needs cash from tickets then they are under funded or over spending or both. Insurance companies are leaches who you are gambling with.

Not quite this but almost...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-driving cars will destroy the radio industry. Think about it.

And nothing of value was lost.

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just tickets. Seizures. Almost every place in the US has zero tolerance civil forfeiture laws where a city or county can confiscate a vehicle if there is any marijuana in it, even if the police officer has to provide it.

Even without planting evidence, it is like winning the lotto because a good number of impounded vehicles end up at auction.

So, done right with 1-2 seizures a day, it can add up to six to seven digits of income for the city/county over time.

Re:Google Cars

[cayenne8]

Not just tickets. Seizures. Almost every place in the US has zero tolerance civil forfeiture laws where a city or county can confiscate a vehicle if there is any marijuana in it, even if the police officer has to provide it.

Even without planting evidence, it is like winning the lotto because a good number of impounded vehicles end up at auction.

So, done right with 1-2 seizures a day, it can add up to six to seven digits of income for the city/county over time.

I swear, I'd LOVE to be able to sneak up to some of the local Police cars and alter the motto they have on them to something more realistic:

To Collect, and Serve...

Re:Google Cars

[orthancstone]

If your police force needs cash from tickets then they are under funded or over spending or both.

This might be the wisest statement that I've ever read on Slashdot.

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have corruption involved as well. Which means the sky is the limit on funding.

You have bigger issues than how much money is being spent...

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

A question from the other side of the pond: Do American police forces really receive money (let alone "bonuses") from tickets they issue? On this side of the pond that would be unthinkable, which is why I must ask. Fines here become part of tax revenue and thus the effect they have on police budgets is completely negligible considering all the other things tax money is also allocated to. If you want to think ridiculously positive you can think that fines mean more funding for hospitals/schools/your-favourite-government-service....

Parking tickets are a special case and not relevant for this thread since they're not issued by the police.

Re:Google Cars

[ATMAvatar]

Police officers themselves rarely receive personal bonuses based upon tickets, but police departments absolutely obtain revenue from tickets. This, of course, leads to wonderfully corrupt practices like instituting ticket quotas and larger fines/stricter enforcement to control their revenue.

However, not all departments fall to abuse, and the quotas (when they exist) are never made public intentionally, so this issue usually flies under the radar.

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

No thanks, I trust myself over an automated system.

Re:Google Cars

[RobinH]

That's not he point. The question is, "do you trust that *other* driver more than an automated system?"

Re:Google Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

If there aren't outright quotas, there are "performance standards." So, your performance review, promotion, etc are tied to how many tickets you write per month. At the beginning of the month, the proactive cops get their quotas done early. At the end of the month, the lazy ones get their quotas at the last minute. The middle of the month is a great time to drive fast.

I wonder who the first person was?

[Danathar]

Probably somebody back in the Mid 90's?

Re:I wonder who the first person was?

[Shakrai]

My Nextel Motorola i700 phone with an LCD had a primitive text based browser (by primitive I mean Lynx put it to shame) back in 2000. We used to use it to cheat at^W^Wverify the judges on trivia night. I'm sure someone had something with similar functionality years before that.

The really cool thing about that phone was using it to 'tether', via a serial cable, at 9600 baud to my dial-up ISP back home. It was good enough to ssh into the boxes at work for administration purposes. You could even surf the web in a semi-usable fashion if you turned off images (or had a LOT of patience).

Re:I wonder who the first person was?

[Politburo]

Those who cheat at bar trivia are really the lowest of the low.

As many as 1 in 4 adults

[i kan reed]

As many as 1 in 4 adults should never have made it to adulthood, with the clearly disabled mental faculties. To bad driving is a case where the dumb shit you do is as likely to kill an innocent person on the road as yourself. It's like vaccines really, there aren't enough consequences on the people doing the harm.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what you meant about vaccines, but the rest of what you said makes sense.

Realize, however, that the modern day puts high demands on people to stay connected and respond quickly (both from work and from social lives). The world moves ever more quickly, so people need to scramble to keep up, and staying offline for an entire car drive can be problematic.

This does not apply to everyone, and it does not justify unsafe driving for anyone. But it is the reality we face.

The self-driving car is the answer. Until then, more laws are just more fussing with little effect.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[snoopyowns]

If only we could get the government to create some sort of area to the side of the road so people can pull over and take care of whatever they need to do.....

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[alexander_686]

If I take the vaccine I will not get the disease. However, most vaccines that a rare occurrence of really nasty side effects. However, on average, I am better off taking the vaccine.

But there is an alternative – the herd effect. If part of the population is vaccinated the disease has a hard time jumping from host to host because the chain of transfer is broken too often. Sometimes a vaccination rate as low as 1/3 of the population will do the trick.

So we have an issue of the Free Rider Effect. As long as everybody else takes the vaccine the chance of me being exposed to the disease and contracting is low. Of course if everybody did this then the whole thing would collapse.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, look at the bright side, 75% of adults don't browse while driving. So, humanity is literally not half bad, despite the lack of consequences.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take the vaccine I will not get the disease.

Not so. It is less likely that you will get the disease. The typical saying is that you are better off to be the only unvaccinated person in a vaccinated population, than the only vaccinated person in an unvaccinated population.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[ah.clem]

The world moves ever more quickly, so people need to scramble to keep up, and staying offline for an entire car drive can be problematic.

I submit that this is just an excuse for a lack of self-control and/or a feeling of self-importance/self-indulgence. It is entirely possible to hold a position of high responsibility, do an hour commute each way to a tech job and NEVER turn on your phone. It is even possible to go to the theater, the philharmonic, out to dinner, have drinks with friends, or even read a book with your phone off. Really.

If you seriously subscribe to this notion then I think you have sold your life too cheaply.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[i kan reed]

But I'm given to understand that even some of that 75% have different political opinions from me. How is that redeemable?! HOW?!

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

But but but......self driving cars are AWESOME! If this deadly social trend can be spun to increase the urgency (and hence the haste) of the delivery of self driving cars, then spin it we must!

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Jason Levine]

It's more a matter of a situation where the penalty doesn't always occur but when it does it can be deadly.

Suppose you make a trip in your car while surfing the web with your phone and don't have a problem. In your brain, it seems as if surfing the web while driving has no consequences so you keep doing it. Fifty trips later and still nothing happens and your brain has cemented this as a "truth." Unfortunately, on that fifty-first trip, you run over a pedestrian crossing the street because you were too busy loading Cute-Kitten-Photos.com to notice that your light was red or you smash into the car in front of you because you didn't notice that they braked since your eyes were on a news article loading on your screen.

Mix this in with young people's* view of "I'm indestructible! Nothing bad can ever happen to me!!!" and you have a dangerous concoction.

* Typing that out made me feel old.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. I think it is more a belief that these behaviors are "no big deal" and rules against them are only meant for the idiots (who are always someone else).

People are bombarded with propaganda about how awesome smartphones are, how you need the latest model, on the fastest network, with the clearest, biggest screen, and how they will enhance every facet of your existence. The idea that they could ever be "bad", or should ever be ignored or turned off is probably anathema to many people.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[An ominous Cow art]

Well said.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, look on the bright side. There's a 1 in 4 chance that the dumb shit they do will kill another dumbshit doing dumb shit.

If we knew the chances that they'd actually have a wreck, we'd know the full probability of this happening. If it's greater than 1%, and I suspect it is, it's OK with me.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

I cycle in those areas. How about not meaningfully interacting with your phone while driving, period? Everyone got along like that just fine before cellphones.

I'm fine with you ANSWERING the phone while driving as long as you have a hands-free headset to go along with your phone and use it.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[lgw]

I think there's another effect giving people a false sense of security: looking down at a phone is far more dangerous than merely "zoning out", or even talking on the phone. Evolution has left us highly adapted to snap attention to something in our field of vision as long as we're not actively looking elsewhere. As bad as chatting on the phone while driving can be, you at least have a chance if your eyes are on the road. As soon as you look at something interesting, you have no chance at all.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

... and staying offline for an entire car drive can be problematic.

So you don't sleep? You know, like 6-8 h daily offline period? Man, you must be a very wanted slave for your bosses!

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[MozeeToby]

The world moves ever more quickly

http://xkcd.com/1227/

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

The world moves ever more quickly, so people need to scramble to keep up, and staying offline for an entire car drive can be problematic.

I submit that this is just an excuse for a lack of self-control and/or a feeling of self-importance/self-indulgence. It is entirely possible to hold a position of high responsibility, do an hour commute each way to a tech job and NEVER turn on your phone. It is even possible to go to the theater, the philharmonic, out to dinner, have drinks with friends, or even read a book with your phone off. Really.

If you seriously subscribe to this notion then I think you have sold your life too cheaply.

Don't fool yourself. We all make compromises for work. Increasingly the options for good work are limited. If your job is decent and allows you not to be on call 24/7 that's great for you. It ought to be illegal to require an employee to be on call in this way, but good luck enforcing it.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Gavrielkay]

If your job requires you to be so connected that you can't take time to safely drive to and from the office then you need to arrange other transportation. No job should require you to break the law or risk your life and that of others so callously. If my boss were to ever complain that I were out of touch for the time it took me to get to the office, I'd kindly offer to let him hire me a limo.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Gavrielkay]

Remind your boss how you'll be sure to have the plaintiff include the company in any lawsuit that results from being required to browse while driving. It really is no excuse at all. If you are so indispensable to your company that every moment of your time must be available to them then you've got the wrong job. Also, they aren't paying you enough, because you aught to be able to afford a driver if you're that important.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Khyber]

"I'm fine with you ANSWERING the phone while driving as long as you have a hands-free headset to go along with your phone and use it."

Yep, you're fine with people purposefully crippling their directional hearing while operating a massive piece of machinery.

You Complete Fucking Moron.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

This, absolutely.

If you (think you) need to be always available one of three things is true: you're self-important; you're new to the workforce; or you're just not very good at your job[*]. (At first blush "poor at setting expectations" seemed like it'd qualify for the list but that's just not good at your job.) I have sympathy for the newcomers though; my advice -- as someone who's been well employed for a long while now (and doesn't own a cell phone) -- is to work 9 - 5, M - F and refuse the unpaid overtime. If you're any good, they'll keep you around. Really.

Sorry to vent. ah.clem really nailed it, should have stopped at "This, absolutely."

[*] Here's a hint: if you put "saved the day" on your yearly accomplishments, you probably suck at your job. If you put "prevented having to save the day" I'd probably like to hire you.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[RedBear]

Realize, however, that the modern day puts high demands on people to stay connected and respond quickly (both from work and from social lives). The world moves ever more quickly, so people need to scramble to keep up, and staying offline for an entire car drive can be problematic.

I've said it before and I'll say it forever: If you're important enough to be talking on the phone while driving, you're important enough to have a chauffeur to drive you so you don't have to talk on the phone while driving.

Unless you're making some kind of emergency call there is no valid excuse for driving one-handed with your cellphone glued to your ear. NO VALID EXCUSE.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the directional hearing that is otherwise used to tell whether or not the engine is still located in the correct location, and operating at the expected noise level?

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a friend who literally four hours after buying a brand new car had a stupid teenager rear end her on the interstate because the girl was texting and didn't bother paying enough attention to notice that in rush hour traffic, cars had come to a complete halt.

People are so fucking dumb when it comes to driving here in the US.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%! I do not have a "smartphone" because I do not feel that I need to be in contact with friends/family 24/7/365. I also do not need to be connected to the internet all the time. I probably spend too much time on the internet as it is, and I am not online nearly as much as many people.

My dumb phone is off until I leave the house, and gets shut off when I get home. And no, I do not answer it while driving, it stays in my pocket. I don't make calls in restaurants, theaters and stores. I have answered a few calls in stores only because my mother is 88 years old and very ill.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

or use the hands free if you have to make a call. Every car built in the last three years has them in even the base model, most upper end models for the last 7. If you drive a shitbox, invest in a 40 dollar bluetooth module if you insist on talking and driving.

NEVER TEXT AND DRIVE EVER.

Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Next time you're in a public place (such as a mall) full of cellphone zombies, try to get a glimpse of their screen. 99% of the time they're looking at Facebook photos or watching YouTube. It's sad that people can't go literally 10 seconds without checking Facebook.
Yes, SOME people need to be in constant contact (such as oncall doctors) but the majority do not.

Netflix baby

[C0R1D4N]

I burn through my data pretty quick with netflix on my tablet while driving around. Honestly it keeps me from texting =p

Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[Subject-17]

...Since when does "accessing the internet" equate to "surfing the web"? They gave checking emails and surfing the web as examples of accessing the internet, but I'd like to see if "accessing the internet" was the actual question or not. Every single time I drive my phone "accesses the internet". Google play on an android smartphone? Hell yeah that's accessing the internet. Sending a text at a stop light? That's google voice for me, so accessing the internet. Fucking GPS? Yep, accessing the internet once again to get all that sweet, sweet map data. I don't know of anyone who owns a smartphone but doesn't use it for GPS in the car. The only exceptions are those with a dedicated GPS, which, again, accesses the actual internet to download map data, and get routing information.

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[R3d M3rcury]

Fucking GPS? Yep, accessing the internet once again to get all that sweet, sweet map data.

Or, in my case, accessing sigalert to see why traffic is suddenly so backed up.

Agreed. I've been known to "access the Internet" while driving slowly--I have a link on my home screen for sigalert which comes up with my commute route. But that's a bit different than "surfing the web."

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[Jason Levine]

There's a difference between setting up your smartphone's GPS before you start driving - listening to the directions given but not interacting with the screen - and trying to type in your destination as you go 60mph on a highway or trying to check your e-mail as you cruise down Main Street because you don't think your e-mails can wait 10 minutes.

Yes, the former is "accessing the Internet" but it isn't the driver actively interacting with the device. It's even better if you set the device (again, ahead of time) to read you the directions so you just need to listen to it occasionally instead of glancing down at the screen.

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[pruss]

Actually, a dedicated GPS will often have all the maps in memory.

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[Khyber]

"Since when does "accessing the internet" equate to "surfing the web"?"

Since the 1990s you 7-digit 2+million UID ignorant piece of cum splash. Get the fuck off mommy's PC and let real adults talk, child, because you're obviously not old enough nor carry a drivers license.

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[Khyber]

"Or, in my case, accessing sigalert [sigalert.com] to see why traffic is suddenly so backed up."

Quit rubbernecking and adding to the backup problem, faggot. If your as isn't on fire, shut the fuck up, mind your own business, and get the fuck on your way.

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[Politburo]

"I don't know of anyone who owns a smartphone but doesn't use it for GPS in the car"

Assuming I don't already know (which is >95% of trips if not higher), I figure out how to get there before I leave. I guess I'm just old-fashioned.

Great, now I want an old fashioned. Thanks a lot.

Re:Assuming makes an ass out of u...

[Hognoxious]

Any GPS will, unless it's produced by the googletards.

first post from the road!

[Shakrai]

First post while driving down Interstate 49#`%dAq{%&dkj19Z{`%.NO CARRIER

Re:first post from the road!

[cje]

I realize that you're dead, but you browsed the Internet while driving... on dialup? That's pretty hardcore.

Re:first post from the road!

[BoRegardless]

Next the police will use cameras on passing cars where the driver is holding a cellphone in his hands and just mail you the citation. That is so easy today and government in general has shown a delight in catching people, so I don't think it is that far off.

Re:first post from the road!

[Hamsterdan]

That's some really nice extension cord there

Re:first post from the road!

[Anonymous Coward]

he didnt die.. he ran out of wire and his wire unplugged..

Re:first post from the road!

[sootman]

> on dialup

My cell carrier gives me limited data but unlimited voice. So yeah, fuck'em, I'm using a modem. For spite. :D

Re:first post from the road!

[antdude]

I wonder how fast it was. 26400?

The world is full of bad drivers

[WWJohnBrowningDo]

24 percent? More like 50 percent. Both of the guys I just passed were staring at their little gadget in zombie-like trance.

Posted from my iPhone.

Deceptive verb form

[randalotto]

Saying that "Nearly 1 in 4 adults SURF the web while driving" is very different from the actual results of the survey: "Nearly 1 in 4 adults SURFED the web while driving AT LEAST ONCE IN THE LAST YEAR".

Frankly, I'm surprised the number is so low since they include checking email.

Re:Deceptive verb form

[Anubis IV]

That wasn't even the worst one. I was most annoyed at the fact that they mixed up the Web for the Internet. Saying that someone "accessed the Internet" while driving is quite different from saying they were surfing the Web, since it could include more benign activities like checking a map or audio streaming, in addition to surfing the Web.

It sounds like you read the article and know what they actually intended, but the summary did a lousy job of conveying it.

Re:Deceptive verb form

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, the actual question was whether they "accessed the Internet". That's not the same as "surfing". Every time I use my phone's navigation functions, it "accesses the Internet".

Re:Deceptive verb form

[feral-troll]

Saying that "Nearly 1 in 4 adults SURF the web while driving" is very different from the actual results of the survey: "Nearly 1 in 4 adults SURFED the web while driving AT LEAST ONCE IN THE LAST YEAR". Frankly, I'm surprised the number is so low since they include checking email.

Surfing while driving isn't the only crazy thing people do while driving. Myself I have: operated my navigation aid while driving, flipped through the music library on the car stereo while driving, I have also answered calls while driving but I have a completely hands-free bluetooth enabled stereo for that. Out of those three I'd say the finding the correct music track on the stereo is probably the most distracting (makes you wish Siri actually worked properly). Over the last 20 years I have observed other drivers: texting while driving, bending over the back of their seat to pacify their kids in the rear seat while driving, applying makeup while driving, applying hair products while driving, reading a map/magazine while driving, using the rear view mirror to observe themselves as they pick their teeth while driving, eating yoghurt or some similar food product while driving and that's what I can remember off the top of my head. Nose picking also seems to be a very popular activity among drivers but I'd rate that as somewhat less dangerous than and distracting than most of the other stuff I have listed unless you are in the habit of examining your boogers before you eat them.

Re:Deceptive verb form

[forevermore]

More importantly, given they include "access the internet", pretty much everyone getting GPS directions via a smartphone would be included.

Re:Deceptive verb form

[Khyber]

" Every time I use my phone's navigation functions, it "accesses the Internet"."

Sounds like you should ask for a refund.

Oh, no, you're paying the proper stupid tax. Carry on.

Perfect Timing!

[organgtool]

I need to go back and show this to the guy on a bike that I just almost took out!

Selfish

[Tim the Gecko]

Pick a random left turn light in the Bay Area, and look at the driver waiting third or fourth in line. Some of them are very slow to move off when the light goes green, because they are reading or even typing on their smartphone. Then they play catch-up after a cursory look at the road ahead. They rate their entertainment above the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. It's unbelievably selfish.

Re:Selfish

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick a random left turn light in the Bay Area, and look at the driver waiting third or fourth in line. Some of them are very slow to move off when the light goes green, because they are reading or even typing on their smartphone. Then they play catch-up after a cursory look at the road ahead. They rate their entertainment above the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. It's unbelievably selfish.

This is it exactly. Drivers have a duty to pay attention on the road and keep the ranks tight. There's nothing more frustrating than getting stuck at a light because the driver in front of you took off too late. People have just decided that rush hour is slow so that make it slower with this infernal machines.

I maintain that smart phones appeal to self-centered people. These people believe that they cannot be disconnected for even the shortest time. But you know what? No one cares that you answered a text while driving.

Re:Selfish

[Anonymous Coward]

This is it exactly. Drivers have a duty to pay attention on the road

Agreed

and keep the ranks tight.

Absolutely not. Drivers have a responsibility to stay a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of them, and an expectation not to obstruct the general flow of traffic on a road. Many drivers believe that half a meter is a safe distance at 120kph, and they are nearly as bad as the jackasses texting/tweeting in real-time about the traffic.

Re:Selfish

[Princeofcups]

Pick a random left turn light in the Bay Area, and look at the driver waiting third or fourth in line. Some of them are very slow to move off when the light goes green, because they are reading or even typing on their smartphone. Then they play catch-up after a cursory look at the road ahead. They rate their entertainment above the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. It's unbelievably selfish.

American arrogance plus Californian sense of entitlement leads to some of the worst drivers I've ever seen out here in the Bay Area. They simply do not even recognize that there are other people in the world.

Re:Selfish

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who commutes to work in the bay area daily, I feel you're giving the drivers too much credit by saying the reason for their poor driving is due to checking a phone.

Re:Selfish

[orgelspieler]

THIS! If cops would start enforcing safe following distance laws that are already on the books in most jurisdictions, I'm certain injury accident rates would go way the hell down.

Re:Selfish

[SleazyRidr]

We're talking about taking off from a traffic light, not doing 120 down the freeway. Keeping a safe 2-3 second gap while pulling away is keeping the ranks pretty tight.

Re:Selfish

[bill_mcgonigle]

What, nobody makes an app that tells you when the traffic in front of you starts to move again? I think the camera is pointed the right way...

Re:Selfish

[drinkypoo]

If you mean Marin, they certainly do recognize that there are other people in the world. You think they know how to make a latte?

Re:Selfish

[Khyber]

"plus Californian sense of entitlement"

Excuse me you fucking idiot, but I can find the same kind of entitlement in any where else. I'm looking right at your ill-educated self-entitled bullshit after all, you fucking fantasy-obsessed roleplaying moron. How about you take your head out of that D&D book and you pay attention to reality and the road? It's niggers like you that are the reason half of my body is reinforced with titanium and kevlar.

Re:Selfish

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! That's funny as fuck it is. You're picking on the nerd when you are the one built like Wolverine. I can't believe we wasted good titanium and kevlar on something as useless as you. We could have taken that stuff and dumped it straight in the landfill and came out ahead. And now of course we have to support your disabled ass with our tax dollars. You weren't worth it.

Re:Selfish

[Anonymous Coward]

It's niggers like you

Says the chink...

In my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my day, we didn't have these fancy Internet-connected text communicators, so we were safer, as we only masturbated to a sexy calendar while driving... No, we didn't need two hands on the wheel back then either.

You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[Shakrai]

.... the fact that the light is red does not negate your responsibility to pay attention to your surroundings. From a legal and moral point of view you're operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway regardless of the color of the light, and you have an obligation to give that task your full attention.

The same goes for touching up your cosmetics, reading your snail mail, drinking your coffee, or any of the other items on the huge list of things people do when they're supposed to be devoting their full attention to the safe piloting of a ton or more of steel.

Re:You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[camperdave]

If the safe operation of a car requires your continuous full attention then perhaps you shouldn't be driving. For the rest of us, we continuously choose what to pay attention to, and how much attention to pay to it, and relegate the rest to peripheral systems. If drinking a coffee was such a hazard then drive throughs and cup-holders would be illegal.

Re:You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[Shakrai]

It doesn't require 100% of my attention in the sense of "I can't do this without exclusively focusing on it", I just choose not to devote any of my attention to other matters while I'm piloting several tons of metal on the public roadways. All things being equal, will the coffee get anyone killed? Nope. But what happens if a deer runs out at the same moment you're reaching for it? What happens if you come across a patch of black ice? What if some dipshit comes around the corner in your lane?

Your margin for error and recovery is improved if you devote your complete and undivided attention to the task at hand. Each additional distraction increases the likelihood that you'll fail to notice a potential problem in time to safely react. I choose to devote my full attention to the task at hand, and I regard it as incredibly selfish when people place their coffee/big-mac/text message ahead of the safety and well being of their fellow citizens.

Re:You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[Anonymous Coward]

Just know that as you sit white-knuckled and intently staring forward at a stop light you are endangering your fellow man by not fastidiously inspecting the sidewalk in front of your property for any obstacles or snow that may be a hazard to any pedestrians. The trees in your yard, if not inspected for sturdiness at least every 15 minutes, may lose a limb in a gust of air and land on somebody. The exhaust you're pushing out the back of your car is actively exacerbating asthmatics and contributing to global warming that may kill people by the thousands.

The rest of us pay little attention to low-probability dangers and enjoy that tasty coffee.

Re:You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[Anonymous Coward]

what happens if a deer runs out at the same moment you're reaching for it? What happens if you come across a patch of black ice?

At a stop light?

Re:You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[Gavrielkay]

99% of driving may require 10% of your concentration, but if you're not paying attention, when you hit that last %, it'll be too late. It's about being ready for the emergency, not cruising along in traffic.

Re:You shouldn't be texting at stop lights....

[Khyber]

"If the safe operation of a car requires your continuous full attention then perhaps you shouldn't be driving."

If you can't dedicate your faculties to a single task, you shouldn't be driving at all. Turn your license in you crippled sack of shit. It's fuckwits like you that are the reason for half of my body being reinforced with titanium and kevlar, you witless brainless idiotic moronic piece of fucking human scum. Fuck you and your children, and your whore wife (if you even have one you fucking basement dwelling geek piece of shit.)

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly was this study conducted?

As many as 1 in 4 adults should lose their license

[Anonymous Coward]

As many as 1 in 4 adults should lose their license forever.

What idiots!

[The_Star_Child]

They could crash at any mo

Gridlock?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit to surfing while waiting 10 minutes for a traffic jam to clear up / a light to change. Maybe the poll should specify "while the car you are driving is in motion"?

No way I would do that!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have to put my beer down, or take both hands off the wheel, and gosh, that would just be awkward. Posted as Anonymous Coward because that is my legal name.

listening to pandora?

[I'm not god any more]

What a crap question, "Have you used the internet while driving?"
Stupid sensationalist journalism.
Yes, we use the internet in our car. But, we're not freaking browsing the web.

Re:listening to pandora?

[camperdave]

Yes, we use the internet in our car. But, we're not freaking browsing the web.

Exactly! Some of us are doing Archie searches.

I'd like to know how they define 'driving'

[ChristopherMcGinnis]

Does 'driving' mean only while in motion or does it simply mean being behind the wheel even if you are stopped at something such as a red light?

Misleading Statistics

[neonv]

the number of motorists who access the internet (e.g. check email, surf websites, etc.) has nearly doubled over the past four years

This statement implies these people access the internet regularly. However, that's not the question they asked.

13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the internet while driving

This statement says motorists have accessed the internet at all, meaning at least one time ever in your life, not on a regular basis.

This is a very important distinction that the article glosses over. If I accessed the internet on my phone once 5 years ago, then this survey would call me "one who accesses the internet while driving," which is very misleading. I don't access the internet while driving. The survey should ask something like "have you accessed the internet while driving in the last month." Then the data would be reasonable and give a much better representation of what people do.

Re:Misleading Statistics

[codegen]

It also glosses over what accessing the internet means. If I use a google maps with voice directions, I've accessed the internet.

Re:Misleading Statistics

[dpidcoe]

It also glosses over what accessing the internet means. If I use a google maps with voice directions, I've accessed the internet.

Yeah, by that definition I'm "accessing the internet" for 95% of the time I drive because I get pandora streaming on my phone before I pull out of my driveway on my way to work and occasionally hit the skip button while on the freeway.

Re:Misleading Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. Studies like this are designed to be misleading in order to manufacture a strawman which can be used as justification to pass knee-jerk laws soon after any convenient tragic incident involving a 10 year old being run down. "We must do SOMETHING now! Think of the children!"

Re:Misleading Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here to say this. Was shocked when I saw the statistic, but as many people have pointed out, it's not continual use of the internet, and it's not clear what they mean by "accessed the internet."

Re:Misleading Statistics

[s.petry]

This! It's like the new commercial running in California that claims 1 in 5 people are killed by tobacco. It's a nonsense statistic that some dip shit got paid to make up, but has no basis in reality.

I'm curious as to why people think these bogus statistics are helpful. Anyone with a 10th grade education can understand that these statistics are wrong, so they end up ignoring the messages completely. Which may have the adverse effect and cause people to use the internet and driving, perhaps to research these dumb ass statistics they come out with.

Re:Misleading Statistics

[Princeofcups]

the number of motorists who access the internet (e.g. check email, surf websites, etc.) has nearly doubled over the past four years

This statement implies these people access the internet regularly. However, that's not the question they asked.

Actually, it's one in four people ANSWERED that they used the internet, not actually used the internet. Right after 9/11 the majority of Americans said they supported our government's actions, because they felt they had to say that. Japan has so few rapes because women do not report them. Kids only admit to smoking weed if the climate is non-hostile to them admitting it, or it makes them seem cooler. Polls prove nothing except how people feel they should respond. If you want data, go watch people. It's called science.

What about map apps?

[XxtraLarGe]

Is that included in surfing the web? I use Google Maps on my iPhone on occasion, does that count?

Re:What about map apps?

[Jason Levine]

If you are typing in the address as you drive, I'd count it.

If you typed in the address beforehand and are just looking at the screen (hopefully mounted somewhere) to see the directions, this is less of an issue.

If you typed in the address beforehand and the app is reading you the directions out loud so you don't need to even look at the device, that's even better.

This is a great analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've long made this point -- that people who text while driving are basically the equivalent of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. It's thoughtless and stupid behavior that should weed itself out of the gene pool, but all too often can (and does) cause collateral damage.

If this was a purely karmic and equitable world, and if there was a way to ensure that the people who engage in distracted driving only killed themselves, and if only the children of the anti-vax parents perished from long-vanquished diseases, then we could light up a big cigar, pour out a cocktail, sit back, and enjoy the show.

Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.

Re:This is a great analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the children of the anti-vax crowd who are to blame, it is their parents. So in a just or karmic world, it would be those same parents who suffer the consequences of their decisions, and not the innocent children.

Also, I find it hard to criticize people who only use their handheld devices in their car when the car is stopped (at a light or otherwise). I do not do this myself, but I also do not consider it to be reckless. I think the backlash against drivers who text should focus on those who do it while actually driving, since these are the people who actually cause accidents and jeopardize the safety of others.

Re:This is a great analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the children of the anti-vax crowd who are to blame, it is their parents. So in a just or karmic world, it would be those same parents who suffer the consequences of their decisions, and not the innocent children.

Oh, I agree with this completely. The problem is that it's kind of hard to get parents to die from diseases that their children have. On the other hand, you could certainly make the case that their children dying certainly counts as suffering the consequences of their decisions. But yeah, either way, it sucks for the kids. However, we dare not question the wisdom of Jenny McCarthy.

25% ADMIT to doing it

[alta]

I'd say the actual number is somewhere like 75% do it, while maybe 50% do it while in motion.

Or you could be like me, I'm playing games arcade games on my ipad while driving.

Good argument for taking transit

[93 Escort Wagon]

I ride the train into town, more often than not. If we get cut off by a texting driver, it's not a big deal - other than it making us late while the cops do the fatality investigation.

If that happens while I'm on a Metro Transit bus, the bump might make me spill my coffee though.

Re:Good argument for taking transit

[Shakrai]

The problem with "public transit" can be found in the first of the two words I put in quotes.

Re:Good argument for taking transit

[Joce640k]

The problem with "public transit" can be found in the first of the two words I put in quotes.

I guess you're speaking for the USA. The country that thinks it's 'more advanced' than all those others.

Re:Good argument for taking transit

[93 Escort Wagon]

Please don't react to his simplistic, sweeping stereotypes with your own.

I live in the US, but I don't share his attitude about the people you run into on public transit.

Re:Good argument for taking transit

[Shakrai]

We're not more advanced. We just tend to be more individualistic than many other peoples. That said, I have yet to meet a human being (American or otherwise) who likes being crammed into a small space with no exit and a large mass of humanity. Maybe the perverts in Tokyo who are behind the groping problem there (try that with an American woman and you're apt to get a knee in the groin) but aside from them.....

Obligatory motorcycle video

[rbowen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE3XsZaL-zo

People are Stupid! Proof!

[turgid]

At last we have concrete proof that a substantial proportion of the adult population are stupid.

I feel so much better for my own prospects, just as long as I and my family can avoid being killed or injured by these ignorant, selfish imbeciles.

Mind you, if this is in America, I suppose it's OK. The roads there are thousands of miles long, as wide as a football pitch, have no corners and are virtually empty. I believe their cars have suspension and steering systems optimised for traveling in straight lines all day long. They don't even have gears and there's cruise control so you might as well point your car at Amarillo, set the cruise control to 55, put your seat back and get a good night's sleep.

Re:People are Stupid! Proof!

[Anonymous Coward]

Foreign Fail Troll is FAIL no matter where in the world you are!

Re:People are Stupid! Proof!

[turgid]

Yes, foreigners are FAIL no matter who and where in the world you are. Spot on!

Texting vs drunk driving

[Anonymous Coward]

So I have heard that texting while driving is same or worse than driving while drunk in terms of attention and reaction time. So, we have all encouraged (at least here in California by the CHP) to call 911 when we see a suspected drunk driver (which is harder to spot than a texter I might add) but what about calling 911 on a texter? Much easier to prove after the fact right? What do you think? A little too Nazi-esque?

Re:Texting vs drunk driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that I drive a HELL of a lot better drunk than when I'm trying to use my phone. I drive drunk pretty much all the time. Okay, not drunk all the time; but still above 0.00 BAC most of the time and sometimes way over the legal limit. You can't see me having any issues. Straight down the center of the lane. Fast reaction times.

Using a phone? Shit. I avoid it most of the time. Sometimes I do get a heated argument going in text message and I feel compelled to respond while driving. Or trying to look something up in a browser. Or just find a contact. I'll be swerving all over the road, crossing lanes, reaction times go out the window.

Using a phone is WAY worse on the road than the average "drunk driver". And remember, a lot more people are driving around drunk than the statistics say. The stats only cover those that get caught. I'm not included in them. Those that do it most often have a high tolerance and are paying more attention to the road so they don't get pulled over.

Even using voice activation and voice to text features, it still requires too much attention for me to do safely while driving. But I'll still sip on my coffee cup full of vodka and never come close an accident. Most of the time I'm defensively avoiding having one with a god damn phone texter swerving all over the road. My defensive diving has to be better, too; because I'll get charged with DUI even if the wreck wasn't my fault at all.

Fuck you, America.

Re:Texting vs drunk driving

[WillAffleckUW]

So I have heard that texting while driving is same or worse than driving while drunk in terms of attention and reaction time. So, we have all encouraged (at least here in California by the CHP) to call 911 when we see a suspected drunk driver (which is harder to spot than a texter I might add) but what about calling 911 on a texter? Much easier to prove after the fact right? What do you think? A little too Nazi-esque?

Texting while driving is not worse than driving while drunk.

That is, if you drink more than 12 shots of vodka.

If you drink less than that, it is worse to text.

I'm a hipster

[Anonymous Coward]

Before it was cool, circa year 2000, i would always drive with my laptop on the passenger seat and hooked to my WAP phone using it for surfing/GPS/watching animes, laws didn't even exist yet to fine for such behavior.

And now that everyone is doing it i only own an old Nokia 3210 with the battery removed almost all the time and the laptop is rather empty only mounting securely a remote volume when i need my data on arrival.

The best part now is noticing some driver on the highway playing with his smartphone and just pass his car laughing when i think to myself "haha such a nerd !".

The vagina ROI didn't quite change though.

Oh wait there's more!

[Carnivore24]

Shaving, putting on makeup, fiddling with GPS, reading books, reading newspapers, eating breakfast

Re:Oh wait there's more!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shaving, putting on makeup, fiddling with GPS, reading books, reading newspapers, eating breakfast

Sometimes all at once.

This is a pointless statistic...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. The useful statistic is 'number of accidents caused while driver is distracted using the internet'.

If that has gone up, maybe we should be considering legislation. As it is, we are considering legislation based on activists saying:

  "This is bad, therefore it should be banned"

Maybe it is. But if you consider banning before there's any proof, purely on the say-so of activists, you are really abdicating your duty to make a sensible decision on the evidence. Aldous Huxley pointed out that you can't make intelligent decisions if you don't know anything about the subject...

Re:This is a pointless statistic...

[CanHasDIY]

No need to ban the behavior; just add it to the list of things that make up "attempted manslaughter" charges, and prosecute accordingly.

The problem will fix itself in short order, I assure you.

Wonderful

[Anonymous Coward]

My fiance's ex-boyfriend was killed this last weekend by a girl using her cell phone while driving around a two-lane country road with no shoulder and lots of blind curves. Hit him head on on his motorcycle. She was completely in his lane.

It's good to see such a large number of people are so fucking stupid and happy to murder with their cars.

It has not been a good thing, either. They broke up on good terms, and he was an all-around nice guy. So obviously she is all very upset and keeps thinking she is upsetting me by crying over it so much. She's not.

Re:Wonderful

[El_Oscuro]

Just last week a woman crossed over the double yellow line into the oncoming lanes, jump the curb and the sidewalk in front of my nextdoor neighbor's house, took out our mailbox and wrought iron fence, finally wrapping around a tree on the other side of our lawn. They had to cut her out with the jaws of life.

I don't know how fast she was going but she jumpped the curb at least 200 feet before hitting the tree.

We got real lucky. I had just left with my daughter a few minutes eariler. My wife was getting ready to take my other daughter. Both of us would have been right in the path of that car.

I used to ride a motorcycle but no longer do. The drivers around here are absolutely bat-shit insane. I now have a big-assed pickup truck because a trash truck driver decided he needed to back up in a hurry without looking - right over my smaller one. I had slammed it into reverse and floored it to get out of the way but wasn't fast enough. After the impact the trash truck kept going for another 20 feet before stopping. If I hadn't slammed it into reverse, I would have ate the thing.

I read this as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly 1 in 4 adult Smurfs...

Re:Kill them all

[Anonymous Coward]

no your all fuckin idots.

Steeper punishments are worth trying

[damn_registrars]

If we start to treat all forms of visually distracted driving in the way that civilized countries treat drunk driving we might get people to reconsider their behaviors. Being as we are dealing with things that people choose to do, the idea of punishment bad choices should not be anywhere near as unpopular as it is.

Re:Steeper punishments are worth trying

[Overzeetop]

Which is why distinguishing between digital distractions and other distractions shouldn't really be an issue. You're distracted or you're not. The most dangerous/distracting thing in my car is the head unit - whether used with an iPod or the embedded GPS mapping software it requires way too much attention to properly operate. I've switched to using my phone and the voice controls.

Polling criteria?

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting as AC for obvious reasons.

Does this count people who only browse the web at red lights? I don't consider that "while driving" in the same sense as when your vehicle is in motion.

Worst case, that leads to someone not paying attention when the light turns green, and you get a horn honk. But anyone considerate will use their peripheral vision for that. In that case, it's just efficient use of microtime. Run through some Anki flashcards to improve your foreign language vocabulary, check your messages, etc. It's amazing how much faster the light turns green when you are engaged with something.

surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins....

[Shakrai]

I work in the insurance industry, and you seriously misread their motivation. Surcharges for violations are not a profit source for the industry, far from it. They exist to try and equalize the risk associated with bad drivers and if you crunch the numbers on premiums vs. claims you'll find that they barely manage to break even on some of these drivers even with the surcharges. Additionally, it takes at least two small violations or one really big one (speeding >25mph, reckless driving, DWI, fleeing an officer, etc.) before the surcharges even start in most jurisdictions. The first minor violation is a mulligan in every jurisdiction I've ever worked, with every carrier I've ever represented.

Another point to consider is that a lot of drivers with violations will slip through the cracks and never get surcharged. Most insurance carriers do not run your license at each renewal, since they pay a fee to DMV for each report they request. It's a randomized process, occurring every X+[random fudge factor] number of renewals. Some events (coverage changes, moving) will trip a report regardless of how long it has been since the last one, though this is carrier specific and each has its own way of handling such occurrences.

You aren't obligated to report violations to your insurance company either. You can't lie to them if they ask (as they will on an application for new business) but you're under no obligation to volunteer the information during your policy period or even at renewal in most states. If you get a conviction the safest thing to do is nothing. Don't make any coverage changes, don't shop for new insurance, just pay your renewal when it comes and keep your mouth shut. The odds are good it falls off your drivers license before they run your report, and even if they do find it you've got a better than 50/50 shot at it happening towards the end of the surcharging period. Surcharges aren't retroactive, if they surcharge for 36 months (typical for minor violations) but don't find out about it until 30 months after the fact you're only going to be on the hook for one policy period.

Cops do it all day

[Anonymous Coward]

I see cops typing in shit on their computer and staring at it nearly every time I see them... they can't drive 10 feet without at least glancing at it. I would feel infinitely more safe if they made cops follow the law too.

Re:Cops do it all day

[CanHasDIY]

I see cops typing in shit on their computer and staring at it nearly every time I see them... they can't drive 10 feet without at least glancing at it. I would feel infinitely more safe if they made cops follow the law too.

Use car cams, take pictures, and send copies of the stills to the police chief, mayor, and every visual media outlet in your broadcast area.

Make sure you get good shots of the cop car's license and/or call numbers :)

Not sure I trust their numbers.

[wcrowe]

I don't completely trust their numbers. 70+ percent of motorists 18-39 admit that they talk or text while driving, but I suspect that older drivers do it just about as much -- they just don't admit to it. Just driving around I notice a LOT of drivers, who are obviously older than 39, talking on, or otherwise looking down at, their phones. In fact, I would say that middle-aged women are possibly the most prolific texters while driving. I'm just not sure that younger drivers are the biggest issue.

The automobile has outlived it's urban utlity

[xednieht]

I take the rapid and rarely use my car. I can text and surf till my fingers wear down to nubs, without a care in the world.

Me too

[Overzeetop]

Yeah, I've used the internet while driving. Got messages, sent messages, performed searches.

Pretty much all of them at the touch of a single button, while the voice-interactive function did all the leg work. All of it about as distracting as my GPS mapping/traffic program, and hella safer than trying to interact with the head unit in the car. There are still some things which can't be done well (email, for one, is nearly impossible), and none of it is suitable for even moderate traffic conditions, but for simple things (find the nearest pizza place, send a message to I'll be 15 minutes late) in minimal or zero traffic it's probably safer than stopping by the side of the road.

people lied on this survey.

[Mr Krinkle]

Period.

Try riding a motorcycle through a city, or along a highway. That's when you tend to not be on a phone. (I've definitely used hands free, and texted from stop lights or pulled over on the bike) That's the ONLY people that are on our roads that I'd put better than 50% on not being on their phone. Either blatantly, both hands texting away, or talking on it, or just holding it for easy access.

There is NO WAY that only 1 in 4 people are using their phones on a daily commute. I'd say 3 out of 4 or even 4 out of 5 use their phone daily during their commute.

Re:people lied on this survey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, you do realize this pertains to internet usage and not phone usage, right? While using the internet does using a phone, the opposite does not hold true.

Re:people lied on this survey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe were you live, but where I live in the USA that many people don't have cell phones. Please stop making so many assumptions and being so self-centered.

Re:people lied on this survey.

[Khyber]

"Uh, you do realize this pertains to internet usage and not phone usage, right?"

Uh, you do realize this little distinction really doesn't matter one fucking bit, as it's still distracted driving?

No wonder you posted as AC. You're too stupid and cowardly to put your words behind something half way traceable.

Nearly 1 In 4 *American* Adults...

[phluid61]

Moral: don't go anywhere near a road in North America.

Re:Nearly 1 In 4 *American* Adults...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for emphasizing the nationality. I'd like to think that the rest of the planet isn't that stupid. It's probably wishful thinking that none of the rest of us are that stupid, but I can hope.

Re:Nearly 1 In 4 *American* Adults...

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Well... it has less to do with intelligence, then with the driving lessons and tests.

In Germany you tend to not have such incompetence at the wheel. Ditto in the Nordic countries (Finland is where I had a chance to directly observe).

What these countries have in common is a very thorough course in learning to drive, and a lot of time spent on theory (including things about distracted driving). They take driving with the seriousness it deserves.

Quite frankly, I am shocked for what passes for a driving test in the US. It is almost as if driving is a joke, or a game. It was really surprising, considering the US is seen as the worlds biggest Car enthusiast.

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not ok to watch porn while driving?

Equivalent blood alcohol content

[tinkerton]

When I see a car that's all over the road then it pretty much looks like drunk driving to me. So then I pass it and see the driver busy texting. So here's the proposal: how much does one have to drink to drive like that? Well use that number to calculate the fine.

Re:Equivalent blood alcohol content

[Anonymous Coward]

With the exception that the person surfing can sober-up in an instant.

Re:Equivalent blood alcohol content

[orgelspieler]

With the exception that the person surfing can sober-up in an instant.

I imagine that the distraction from texting does not magically go away the instant you put down your phone. I wonder if this has been studied.

Re:Equivalent blood alcohol content

[tinkerton]

maybe it lingers, but not enough to deteriorate your driving considerably. A near collision while drunk driving will also cause the person to sober up temporarily however, due to the adrenaline boost. So will an actual collision. Big lot of good that does.

great decision

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure the hell hope one those idiots doesn't run into me or anyone I know. It isn't that important, wait til you get to your destination.

Well we can only hope that they kill a

[Anonymous Coward]

Legislator or ones family.
If people that retarded get a license to drive we clearly need to tighten up the requirements to get a license and make it even harder to keep one.
So it is once again respected.

So you're the asshole ...

[Anonymous Coward]

that sits there when the light turns green and doesn't move until it turns yellow.

FUCK YOU!

And Fuck your Mother up the ass with a barbed wire condom!

Fucker!!!

why worry?

[ddt]

Come on, there are only 11M car accidents a year, and less than 40k people die from them. We've got 315M people living in the US. Plenty of spares!

Re:why worry?

[bob_super]

Most people care about their own spares.
Amazingly selfish, i know.

Actually did this once ...

[oneiros27]

Well, I wasn't driving at the same time.

We had outfitted our chase van for the 1995 SunRayce, and had gotten Bell Atlantic (might've been Bell Atlantic-NYNEX at that point) to donate a car phone plus some coverage ... and we got a phone that had an RJ11 plug on it.

So ... we did some tests in the DC area before heading out to the race. The only place we could hold a decent connection (9600 baud ... that was pretty good for the days of 33.6k modems, considering we were on an analog cell phone) was along the BW Parkway ... near the NSA.

Which is retrospect seems kinda strange, now that they don't want any portable electronic devices going into secured places. (unless of course it was a rogue cell tower trying to specifically get people from the NSA to route through them)

You also get lots of strange looks from people when driving through Georgetown in a large white van w/ tinted windows and a half dozen antennas on the roof. (GPS, cell phone, 2 xUHF,2 x CB, radio modem (to talk to the solar car), etc.)

ps. by 'browsed the internet' I mean 'FTPed some files'. We might've used gopher, too.

If they need something to so with their hands

[heezer7]

Make everyone drive manuals.

The one instance in which I'd want Terminators

[Xaedalus]

Autonomous drones hovering above the highways, peering into our windshields. If there's some dumb retarded chick applying mascara while talking on her phone while driving--BAM!!! Bullet to the forehead! Some dumbass putting in headphones to listen to Pantera (or worse, Yanni) while driving--BAM!!! Bullet to the forehead! Texting--BAM!!! Bullet to the forehead. But so help me Satan, if somoene's actually surfing the web while driving, that drone should fire off a Hellfire missile and reduce that retard and his/her car into a smoking crater. Double-plus good if said retard's family is in there, as stupid tends to be passed on via nature and nurture.

Re:The one instance in which I'd want Terminators

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to put down your copy of CoD: Ghosts for a few minutes here and there, Mac.

Re:The one instance in which I'd want Terminators

[BronsCon]

No, I kind of agree, but I think the drones need to scan for nearby traffic before firing, to ensure there will be no innocent casualties.

Re:The one instance in which I'd want Terminators

[BrokenHalo]

If there's some dumb retarded chick applying mascara while talking on her phone while driving--BAM!!! Bullet to the forehead!

Where I used to live (Perth, Western Australia), that would eliminate an awful lot of dumb "ladies", but such a scene is common enough to barely raise a digitus impudicus.

The best I have yet seen (for sheer chutzpah, if nothing else) was a guy in the driver's seat of an open-top sports car with one foot on the steering wheel, cruising while playing a fricking trumpet...

Re:The one instance in which I'd want Terminators

[Xaedalus]

Okay, the trumpet player would be an exception to the rule. If he's able to drive while playing the trumpet--and do both competently--I would award that man the internets. That's just flat-out awesome. As for everything I wrote, it was a fun little bit of trolling hyperbole :)

Re:The one instance in which I'd want Terminators

[RockDoctor]

I think the drones need to scan for nearby traffic before firing, to ensure there will be no innocent casualties.

No need to waste effort or consideration on that. Nobody is innocent.

Problem solved.

Re:surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.

[Joce640k]

I work in the insurance industry, and you seriously misread their motivation. Surcharges for violations are not a profit source for the industry, far from it. They exist to try and equalize the risk associated with bad drivers and if you crunch the numbers on premiums vs. claims you'll find that they barely manage to break even on some of these drivers even with the surcharges.

That's not the problem.

They might have to fire an awful lot of people if we replace the idiots behind the wheel with machines.

Not an adult.

[Cammi]

If they are using the web while driving, then they are not mentally an adult ...

Re:surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.

[lgw]

The first minor violation is a mulligan in every jurisdiction I've ever worked, with every carrier I've ever represented.

Every insurance company I've used has given a 10% or so "safe driver discount" for no tickets, which is just a marketing-approved way to jack up your rates 10% when you get a ticket.

"accessing the internet"?

[JustAnotherIdiot]

This seems like a fairly broad statement. Despite what the horrible title says, people did NOT admit to "surfing the web" but "accessed the internet".
The only definition in this incredibly short article defining what that means is the following:

(e.g. check email, surf websites, etc.)

However, it doesn't say if they prefaced that when asking the question. If they simply asked me, for instance "Do you access the internet while you drive?", my answer would be "Yes, yes I do!"
Using google navigator, maps, etc? That access the internet. Even if it's sitting on my dash the entire time without me touching it, I am, indeed, accessing the internet while I drive.

I have a feeling that, gasp, this study was purposefully skewed for shock effect. And as per usual, slashdot took the bait.

Re:"accessing the internet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I let my phone stream music while I'm driving. I don't touch or even look at the damn thing, but I'm "accessing the internet".

Re:surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.

[fustakrakich]

I work in the insurance industry...

You have my condolences, but I'm not sure you get it. Driverless cars will have us rightfully demanding far lower rates in general and hopefully, more widespread no-fault insurance (something we should have now anyway), and lay most of the liability on the manufacturer, where it will belong, something they won't like either. The current system will have to be completely torn down.

Illegal in WA state

[WillAffleckUW]

That doesn't stop people from doing it though. One time I counted 1/4 of all drivers using cell phones while their car was in motion.

Drivers.

Not passengers.

What's Park?

[Shakrai]

My gearshift says 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and R. I don't see a 'P' anywhere. Did I get ripped off?

not my state..... :(

[Shakrai]

Looked that up a few minutes ago and found that New York State specifically exempted texting while the vehicle is not in motion, which is rather disappointing to say the least. I guess we're too busy worrying about law-abiding gun owners and large capacity soda cups to worry that much about distracted driving.

* 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion; provided, however, that no person shall operate a commercial motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device on a public highway including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Provided further, however, that a person shall not be deemed to be operating a commercial motor vehicle while using a portable electronic device on a public highway when such vehicle is stopped at the side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or any lawful order or direction of a police officer.

Curious that they prohibit commercial drivers from texting at the red light but allow it for personal automobiles. I shall have to ask my Assemblywoman about this the next time I see her.

Not more laws

[kimvette]

" Keep in mind we have states legislating smartphone use task by task, which clearly doesn't help."

Um, the problem doesn't involve passing more laws and punishing those of us who just use GPS navigation on the things. It involves, you know, actual police work. Here's a novel idea: instead of setting up speed traps outside of rush hour because it's easy revenue, how about enforcing actual safety-related laws including yield signs and other rights of way, traffic lights, speeding IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES (rarely enforced and sorely needed!!!), proper turns and lane changes, etc. -- you know, going after reckless driving.,

You see, laws already cover this bullshit "distracted driving" nonsense; reckless driving, failure to maintain control of the vehicle, improper lane changes, failure to yield the right of way, hindering the flow of traffic, driving left of center, and many, many unenforced laws already cover it.

I don't want to be disallowed from using GPS because lazy revenue-raisers won't enforce existing laws.

We need self driving cars, now

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasingly it has became apparent that we need self driving cars.

In other news

[kick6]

1 in 4 adults is stuck in rush hour traffic. Seriously, I don't see the harm in checking facebook while going 5mph or lower on a gridlocked freeway. Nothing is happening fast enough that I'm going to miss.

re: areas to pull over to the side

[King_TJ]

Not defending the "net surfing while driving" thing in any way, shape or form .... but the "just pull over to the side" thing is almost too impractical to consider in most real-world situations.

For starters, no, there's really NOT always a shoulder to pull off to the side. The rural community I live in, for example, has only a couple of 2 lane roads as the primary paths in or out of the town. On one of them, it's really more like 1 1/2 lanes and there's absolutely NO extra room to pull over. On the other, it's a little bit better but areas to pull off to the side only appear randomly.

Other times you have the opposite problem.... If you're on a 6 or 7 lane interstate full of traffic, it's no easy task getting all the way over and safely pulling off the highway. And once you do? Motorists assume you're having some sort of vehicle problem, so it's only a matter of minutes before people come up behind you asking if you need assistance, and/or the cops pull up behind you to ask what's going on. The shoulders are really treated as places your car or truck doesn't belong unless it's disabled.

Perfectly Safe

[neoshroom]

I think you are being misled by the Slashdot headline. Notice the headline says:

"Nearly 1 In 4 Adults Surf the Web While Driving"

But then below it is says:

"In 2009, 13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the Internet while driving. In 2013, that figure had jumped to 24 percent."

Finally, note that "surfing the web" and "accessing the Internet" are not the same thing. Surfing the web means viewing websites. But accessing the internet while driving can occur automatically by your car, when your phone is in your pocket, by listening to Internet-streamed music or by using GPS. All of these are perfectly reasonable to use in your car.

Re:Perfectly Safe

[TheRealMindChild]

This is the same misdirection that MADD uses in statistics about drunk driving. You'll notice "accidents involving alcohol" instead of "accidents involving someone intoxicated". The former can (and is used) to fluff statistics by incorporating people, say, on their way to a bar, taking home cooking wine, etc.

Re:Perfectly Safe

[Cederic]

Yeah, I've accessed the internet while driving. My phone in the glovebox streaming Radio 4 from the BBC website and using audio-out to play Test Match Special on the car sound system.

That's extremely different to looking at a screen and browsing the web..

On my 3 1/2 mile commute to work...

[GodfatherofSoul]

In the past year or so, I've had at least 3 people swerve over into my lane while looking into their laps at what I assume is their cell phone. At the last second, they all lurched back. This is on 2-lane primary residential streets. I can't imagine what it would be like if I was driving an hour a day like a lot of commuters.

That doesn't count the people you see every day weaving all over their lane while using cell phones. I had always assumed that people would grow more responsible over time as cell phones were more integrated into our lives.

Re:On my 3 1/2 mile commute to work...

[Virtucon]

I usually get 3 to 5 a-holes a day who are on their phone, texting while driving or as you indicate looking down while they swerve into my lane. It's an epidemic and either the FCC needs to ban this kind of communication use in the car or the carriers need to only allow voice calls only while in motion. Even then people yakking on the phone is a big killer. It's also worse during rush hour because people think it's safer since they're in stop/start traffic.

I put my phone into "I'm driving and will get back to you later mode" with Drive Agent.

Texting Related

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a "texting/Internet related" statistic. That's right, it can't be fucking found because madd is too worried about getting more government funding, something the founders of madd could care less about. Fuck madd and their hypocrisy.

Who has time?!?

[vinn]

I am WAY too busy to surf the web while driving. Between sending email, sending txts, reading Facebook, checking the latest scores and everything else, I don't have time to open a web browser and just "surf".

Oh, and downloading podcasts. Who could forget that..

Re:surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.

[Kaenneth]

I can see the automatic driver developers (Google, etc.) creating their own insurance pools, if the traditional insurance companies don't provide appropriate rates.

I also see the old insurance companies doing everything they can, lobbying-wise, to block it, just like auto-dealers vs. Tesla.

Down with Robot Cars!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're busy posting about how they are great drivers.

Texting, seriously

[BringsApples]

Using a smart-phone to send notes. Seems like the smart-phone crafters would have crafted a pencil (oh shit, what about a pen instead!) into the smart-device, in case the users wanted to write a note. Seriously, what kind of belligerent use of a smart-device is typing notes to each other? It's got the ability to take in your actual voice, and send it over the planet.

I say, if you see someone texting (you know that they're not simply dialing a number to call someone - and yeah I know that it's illegal to talk while driving in a lot of states) you should feel it to be your duty to humanity to get in front of that person and mash the brakes at juuust the right moment. This applies more so if your car is in need of repairs anyway. Any judge and/or jury would decide in your favor, since it's so easy to get records of time-stamps on texts.

Why would you do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is a full-time job.
Seriously, everybody ELSE in the world gets that.
OK, everybody ELSE in the world has sensible speed limits ;-)

Cellphone jammers

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't leave home without one. They effectively disable/disrupt Cell Phones in about 200 foot radius. It's amazing how much better the people around me drive when they're not distracted. Rather than being a victim of an inattentive driver I prefer to go on the offensive.

I remember the first Twisted Metal

[Virtucon]

We all need to drive around in Ice Cream trucks with chain guns on the fenders, dressed as clowns. Just like Sweet Tooth. That will fix the inattentive driver issue.

The keywords are "to drive or operate."

[Valdrax]

 18.2-266. Driving motor vehicle, engine, etc., while intoxicated, etc.

It shall be unlawful for any person to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train (i) while such person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more by weight by volume or 0.08 grams or more per 210 liters of breath as indicated by a chemical test administered as provided in this article, (ii) while such person is under the influence of alcohol, (iii) while such person is under the influence of any narcotic drug or any other self-administered intoxicant or drug of whatsoever nature, or any combination of such drugs, to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, (iv) while such person is under the combined influence of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree which impairs his ability to drive or operate any motor vehicle, engine or train safely, or (v) while such person has a blood concentration of any of the following substances at a level that is equal to or greater than: (a) 0.02 milligrams of cocaine per liter of blood, (b) 0.1 milligrams of methamphetamine per liter of blood, (c) 0.01 milligrams of phencyclidine per liter of blood, or (d) 0.1 milligrams of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine per liter of blood. A charge alleging a violation of this section shall support a conviction under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v).

For the purposes of this article, the term "motor vehicle" includes mopeds, while operated on the public highways of this Commonwealth.

I can't find a definition of the word "operate" anywhere in Virginia's criminal code, so it's up to the common law to decide what it means, and there's plenty of leeway to determine that if the vehicle is turned on and serving some purpose for you, you are operating it. It doesn't matter where in the car you are. You could be sleeping on the hood and using the engine to keep warm. If you had a plugin hybrid, and you were using it as a battery backup or generator for your house during a power outage, you could violate this statute in theory.

Re:surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.

[cusco]

The first minor violation is a mulligan in every jurisdiction I've ever worked, with every carrier I've ever represented.

Not in Washington State, and I think the insurance carriers here are informed when a violation happens. I had an insurer mention a speeding ticket before I had even paid the damn thing (2 weeks). I was driving a lot in my previous job and tended to get a ticket about once every three years, or just before the last one was going to get removed.

How about a deal?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road

I wish more people would actually try that. The reality check would probably shock some of them out of this kind of reckless behaviour, making us all safer.

How about a deal? You take that test, and if you really are safer while texting than most people when they're fully concentrating, you get to keep doing it, completely legally. However, if it turns out that you're actually more dangerous, and we also then know that you're deluded about your own abilities and therefore unable to properly judge how to drive safely within those abilities, you have to give up your licence and never drive again. Fair?

Re:How about a deal?

[Joce640k]

you're deluded about your own abilities

Shortened that for ya.

My phone contacted me while driving

[turp182]

Plain 'ole Android, never looked into the Google options, they just are what they are by default.

I'm driving home from work when I get an alert on the phone. I don't talk on the phone on the highway for more than a minute, but I glanced at it. It was informing me of an accident ahead of me, but at that point I was upon the accident related traffic having to slow down very quickly. It showed the incident on a map.

Looking at it as I entered the Stop zone on the interstate was a mistake. Had I received it two minutes earlier it would have been very useful, and safer to check.

The accident was cleared by the time traffic started moving (20 minutes). This would indicate that I came upon it a bit after it occurred (I see enough accidents being cleaned up as it is).

Nearly == 0 < 1

[Anonymous Coward]

Nearly 1 in 4 mean less than one -- which would have to be zero to avoid that partial person conundrum.

Re:surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.

[Shakrai]

New York State has a service like that, called LENS (license event notification service), where you can get near real-time notification on convictions and accidents. It's primarily used by employers to monitor employees driving company vehicles. AFAIK it would be legal for insurance carriers to use it, but it's not cheap, and I'm sure they've crunched the numbers and concluded it would be a financial loser for them. I'm not aware of any carrier that uses it, mostly they rely on MVRs when the policy is first issued, then randomly at renewal, and of course self-disclosure.

WA could be different of course, but my hunch is you lost the dice roll and were a victim of crappy luck/timing. Did it happen around the time of your renewal? My condolences on the three year traffic ticket, that was my pattern for the longest time, one every three years.... then I got three inside of two weeks. After that I invested in a car with cruise control. :)

Is this a problem?

[InterGuru]

Has the accident rate increased?

Fright

[CyclistOne]

As a veteran cyclist who bikes to work every day, this really scares me. I've been increasingly aware of drivers talking on their phones - it's not as easy though to see people who are texting or otherwise using their smartphones. So I keep a sharp eye on my rear view mirror (I have one on each of my bikes).

Re: Kill them all

[Anonymous Coward]

*you're*, not 'your'
Idiot settings recalibrated.

Drastically increase the penalties

[Morpeth]

I'm so fucking sick and tired of selfish, narcissistic assholes risking everyone else's lives for whatever stupid text etc they HAVE to type/reply to. (I don't care if they kill themselves honestly, just don't take anyone else out with you).

Just last week, a busy intersection that I drive through every day to take my young daughter to and from school, had its second fatality in a few weeks. BOTH times, texting or cell phone usage was involved, both drivers completely blew through the red and t-boned some innocent person. Of course in both cases, the ahole who caused the accident didn't die.

They need to make the penalty on par with DUIs, suspension and/or loss of driving privileges and even jail time. Enough is fucking enough...

Is there a moral panic about "distracted driving"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are traffic accident rates going up, or failing to fall as fast as they were a couple decades ago, before people had mobiles? Or is all this handwringing and legislation happening because old people don't like cell phones? Is there statistical evidence of a real and serious problem which justifies yet more nanny laws for people to loudly support and then ignore?

scariest thing i've ever read

[Anonymous Coward]

nuff said....

Bullshit exceptionalism

[dbIII]

One person can indeed be impaired from driving after a half glass of wine (legal in most places) and another person can be perfectly fine even while (slightly) over the legal limit

It's chemistry. We all get impaired. We all become worse drivers than we could be. Just because some people anticipate events better than others doesn't really matter because none of us can react to the truly unexpected than a sober person could no matter how experienced we are as drivers.
The "I'm a Tom Clancy hero so the rules don't apply to me" argument is just bullshit exceptionalism since we are all human beings that have chemical processes impaired when we have alcohol in out blood.

Re:Bullshit exceptionalism

[BrokenHalo]

We all become worse drivers than we could be.

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment: if 25% of traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers, then it follows that 75% of accidents are caused by sober drivers. Therefore, you're safer driving drunk than sober. ;-)

Re:Bullshit exceptionalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistics fail.

If 25% of traffic accidents are caused by 2.5% drunk drivers, then it follows that 75% of accidents are caused by 97.5% sober drivers.

Yes, I ruined your joke - IF that was how you meant it. But if it was, you shouldn't be starting with "just playing the devils advocate for a moment". Only start with that if you're actually plaing the devil's advocate.

In practice: no

[dutchwhizzman]

While your theory is sound, in practice, you never hit an exact identical car exactly head on. Statistically, smaller, nimble cars with attentive drivers tend to be more able to avoid you than big trucks and school buses. This leaves the amount of big vehicles in distraction-caused collisions larger than you'd expect from the amount of them on the road. The amount of failed avoidances is also pretty high, when you're in multi-vehicle crash statistics. That means that almost all crashes in which you hit another vehicle while being distracted will have acceleration forces of both cars play a role. A lot of those will even each other out, but you will also see that the forces will make things worse. Think of cars going sideways hitting other cars and objects, flipping over and even rolling because of "whiplash" effects.

Apart from that, frontal crashes tend to be a significant portion of the result of distraction, but they are hardly the only thing. There are plenty of other scenarios where you get into a seriously life threatening situation, like rolling the car a few times or flicking something and doing a sideways slide into a tree or lantern post. At speeds over 35 mph those can easily be lethal since air bags can't protect you effectively. Think of the added anxiety of not knowing what sort of crash you are going to be "simulating" to teach people not to fondle their phone while driving.

MOD THE RACIST DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Thatsracist.gif
WHOA WHOA WHOA there guy! You're lucky I wasted my mod points stalking another slashdot asshole yesterday or you would have gotten all 5 of them and then some. Anyone else here who has any should stick it to Khyber. You've been talking down to people this whole thread about what kind of pricks they are because they do something you don't like but then someone says something about your precious Cali and you fly off the handle and show your true colors. Holier-than-thou much?

How?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't see how you can physically do that, unless on the right lane of a very straight motorway with little traffic perhaps, but even then it seems so reckless that it is hard to imagine someone would even attempt it.

Immediate lifetime ban

[TractorBarry]

Any moron caught doing this should be given a lifetime ban from driving anything more powerful than a mobility scooter. No ifs, no buts, no mitigating circumstances. They are simply unfit to be in control of a vechile.

My first time.

[SpaceCracker]

I've been driving for 20+ years now and never have I surfed the web while doing it.
On the first time I actually opened the browser while driving (traffic was very slow, iada iad excuse), the first site I went to was one of my most viewed - /. On the top I found the most discussed thread - the one we're on right now.
I took that as an omen and put down the smartphone immediately.
I am posting this reply after reaching my destination.

Nearly 1 out of 3 Adults who die driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Are surfing the web

I surf and drive all day long

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive around 50-60,000 miles a year for work - 95% of it is on rural interstates with low traffic counts where I know every turn and bump. Yes, I, Anonymous Coward, admittedly do spend quite a bit of time checking Facebook, e-mail and some texting to kill time. If texting gets to the point where it's more involved than a 2-3 word response I'll call. Otherwise, it's possible to multitask so long as you're not doing it on crowded freeways and you're not getting sucked into what's on your phone. Local roads, unfamiliar places, windy/hilly roads, night time, bad weather, etc... I put the phone down and concentrate.

Now I have had 2 accidents in the past 20 years - and none of those involved "distracted driving".

Go ahead, flame away.