More Than 1 In 4 Car Crashes Involve Cellphone Use

schwit1 (797399) writes "Texting and driving is dangerous but a new survey finds talking on a cellphone while behind the wheel may be even worse. The National Safety Council's annual report found 26 percent of all crashes are tied to phone use, but noted just 5 percent involved texting. Safety advocates are lobbying now for a total ban on driver phone use, pointing to studies that headsets do not reduce driver distraction."

Comments

Another amazing fact:

[Lodlaiden]

Some people are more prone to be in / cause an accident period. Distracted driving increases the likelyhood of an accident, be it texting, be-bopping to music, talking on the phone, enjoying the company of the fellow passengers, or just plain dealing with kids.

There's a reason the pilot of a plane is sectioned away from the screaming babies.

Re:Another amazing fact:

[nickittynickname]

They need to compare it to how often drivers use their phone in their car. I know the first thing I do on my commute is make calls. I'm not very social but it wouldn't take much for me to be using the phone 25% of the time while I'm driving.

Re:Another amazing fact:

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

There's a reason the pilot of a plane is sectioned away from the screaming babies.

I thought it was 'cause he didn't have a first-class ticket.

Re:Another amazing fact:

[noh8rz10]

There's a reason the pilot of a plane is sectioned away from the screaming babies.

you know, people love to complain about screaming babies on the plane, but I've never really had a problem with it. also, I remember being a kid and the change in cabin air pressure really hurt my ears, so I have sympathy.

Re:Another amazing fact:

[nobuddy]

I take sugar free gum. Offer it to the mothers of older children nearby who are in pain. Younger children, I show the obviously new mamma how to help baby pop their ears.

(it's easy, pull gently straight down on the lobes. Baby's crying will take care of the rest.)

Re:Another amazing fact:

[rtb61]

The operative words being causational or just coincidental. Likely the reality is, it is just coincidental. Not just with people more likely to initiate calls while driving but also people who pay less attention to their driving, watch scenery, fiddle with make up and hair, drink and eat etc. are also likely to spend a substantive amount of time talking on the phone whilst driving and eliminating the phone will not increase their attention on the road. Want less accidents, automation, better public transport, promote telecommute etc ie get people off the road.

Re:Another amazing fact:

[Bigbutt]

You must have missed the automatic assumption by some airlines that men are molesters.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/14/...

[John]

Re:Another amazing fact:

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

distractions, like, oh, I don't know, KIDS IN THE BACK SEAT, yelling their fucking heads off?

You're doing it wrong. In my "Guide to Infinitely Good Parenting" section 3.6.7 states:

When the ambient noise level of progeny increases to DEFCON 3 level, employ the Black Sabbath Law of Music Crankage, whereby all irrelevant sound is masked.

Don't question the BSLoMC. It's just the law.

Re:Another amazing fact:

[hink]

The pilot is sectioned away from the ALL of the people on the plane. Because if each passenger lined up and asked one question, there would be a continual distraction for a long time. Not to mention the simple fact that knowing you are being watched by an audience tends to increase stress.

It's the conversation,

[dfetter]

not the holding of the device, as anybody who'd thought this through even for a second was saying back when "hands-free" was being touted as a safety feature.

Re:It's the conversation,

[lgw]

Holding the device always makes it worse, especially when dialing. Especially in a stick-shift.

Many drivers communicate all the time while driving, on the radio or more modern cell-phone based alternative. They have before cell phones existed. It's the driver who's dangerous, not the phone.

Re:It's the conversation,

[Lumpy]

I call BS on that, or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.

Ham radio operators talk on the radio all the time and dont have accidents at that rate, Semi truck drivers use a CB heavily and also dont.

Hell us kids throwing crap and constantly yelling "DAD HE IS HITTING ME!" should have had my family dead in a ditch 80X a year.

The problem is not talking it's the morons texting and checking email/facebook.

Re:It's the conversation,

[MrKaos]

It's the driver who's dangerous, not the phone.

Phones don't kill people, conversations do.

Re:It's the conversation,

[kylemonger]

We didn't need seatbelts back then, neither. Being flung from the backseat into the windshield during sudden stops was a rite of passage when I was a boy. People was just smarter and stronger back in them days.

Re:It's the conversation,

[lgw]

The joke falls flat because every single professional driver with a dispatcher (from taxis to police to heavy trucks) has conversations while driving, often involving reaching for a map. It comes down to the driver.

Re:It's the conversation,

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

And our fatalities were caused by HIGHWAY HEAD, not cissy cell phones!

Re:It's the conversation,

[Rich0]

Ham radio operators talk on the radio all the time and dont have accidents at that rate,

Two things.

First an anecdote - I know a ham who did HF CW in his car while driving.

Second, I really wonder how they defined a cell phone as being involved in an accident. Did they just record any accident where a phone was someplace visible to the driver? Did they record any accident where a call was in progress? Did they try to determine if the call itself contributed to the accident? Did fault come into it? If you're parked talking on the phone and somebody rear-ends you, does that count as a phone-involved accident?

These stats might be really telling us that lots of cars have cell phones in them.

Re:It's the conversation,

[rmdingler]

The professional driver remains compensated for his windshield time only so long as he's relatively problem-free on the road.

Unlike your amateur drivers, a single DUI or license suspension ends your budding career. The weak have already been weeded out to some degree.

The threshold for reproduction is marginally less for drivers of POVs.

Re:It's the conversation,

[ShanghaiBill]

The joke falls flat because every single professional driver with a dispatcher (from taxis to police to heavy trucks) has conversations while driving

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that professional drivers don't have accidents?

Re:It's the conversation,

[ClickOnThis]

I call BS on that, or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.

According to studies, passengers can observe when it is safe to talk and therefore conversations with them are less of a risk than conversations on a cell phone.

Ham radio operators talk on the radio all the time and dont have accidents at that rate, Semi truck drivers use a CB heavily and also dont.

I don't think you're interpreting the results correctly. Of all the accidents Ham radio operators or truck-drivers get into, what percentage involve their radio(s)? That's the question.

Re:It's the conversation,

[mysidia]

These stats might be really telling us that lots of cars have cell phones in them.

Not just Agreed.... that is probably exactly what the stats are telling us ---- And not, how dangerous (or benign) cell phones are.

Imagine how many accidents there are where the vehicle radio or air conditioning is turned on!

Just because two things are happening at the same time, doesn't mean they are related.

Re:It's the conversation,

[AlphaWolf_HK]

I really don't think a cell phone is any more dangerous than any of these. The only problem here is complainers.

http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

IMO roll out the self driving cars and be done with it.

Re:It's the conversation,

[Pharmboy]

Actually, you are saying that PROFESSIONAL drivers have conversations and don't get into abnormal amounts of wrecks. Ok, I believe that. The bad part is that most drivers are amateurs.

I drive two hours a day on the interstate (not a "professional", just reasonably cautious with phone features built into car and never text and drive). You would be amazed at how many "professional" truck drivers I see crossing the line while fiddling with a phone. Whether they are texting or calling, I don't know. I don't see this daily, but I do see it about once a week. I85 in NC.

Re:It's the conversation,

[zotz]

Second, I really wonder how they defined a cell phone as being involved in an accident. Did they just record any accident where a phone was someplace visible to the driver? Did they record any accident where a call was in progress? Did they try to determine if the call itself contributed to the accident? Did fault come into it? If you're parked talking on the phone and somebody rear-ends you, does that count as a phone-involved accident?

These stats might be really telling us that lots of cars have cell phones in them.

Ah, someone who thinks along the lines I do. The one I get here in the islands on US AM radio speaks of 1 in every X fatal accidents involves a pedestrian. (I think X=4)

So I say, right, so when a pedestrian jumps in front of a car causing teh driver to swerve and plunge into a deep roadside canal and die, are they counting that as a fatal accident involving a pedestrian? What about one where two cars collide head on and a pedestrian is "involved" as the only witness?

all the best,

drew

Re: It's the conversation,

[Anonymous Coward]

Professionals crash on purpose

Re:It's the conversation,

[LordLimecat]

Not to get into the debate over how much it affects your driving, but theres also the simple fact that if x% of drivers are talking on the phone at any given time, x% of accidents will involve cellphone use. For two-car accidents obviously that rate jumps (should be, 1 - (1-X)^2 , so if x is 25% the rate would be ~44%).

Not sure what "x" would be generally, but at "1 in 4" x would only have to be 13% for this to mean "no increased chance of accident whatsoever".

Re:It's the conversation,

[R3d M3rcury]

I'd also add that Professional Drivers receive much more training and the tests are much harder. You can't heavy trucks with your basic California Class C license. And police also receive special driving training. Here in California, Taxi drivers don't have special licenses, I believe, but to get hired by a taxi company, you'd better have a spotless driving record and they may have their own training protocols.

Also, one accident with you at fault will get you fired. And even if it isn't your fault, you usually get stuck for several hours dealing with the police, which is time that you're not hauling something and making money. My roommate had somebody run into her in Colorado. No damage to the trailer or truck but their car was totaled and the driver ended up pretty badly injured. She ended up stuck for two days while everything got sorted out.

Yeah, you can hear truckers on their CBs yackin' away. But those guys are on the open highway late at night. You don't hear them so much when there's traffic around.

Re:It's the conversation,

[rnturn]

``... or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.''

I avoided talking to the driver altogether when that driver was my father-in-law. An ex-salesman, he had the extremely annoying habit of wanting to look you in the eye when he was talking to you while driving... even if you were sitting in the back seat. Eventually, I insisted on driving when we went anywhere. I was afraid he'd run us into a utility pole.

``Semi truck drivers use a CB heavily and also dont.''

But those are professional drivers and are far more likely to be taking their driving a lot more seriously than the average driver. I find truck drivers -- at least the ones I encounter on the interstates -- to be among the most courteous and careful drivers around. (OTOH, local delivery truck drivers are some of the worst).

Talking on handhelds while driving is supposed to be illegal in Illinois yet I continue to see people yakking on their cellphone while trying to make left turns in heavy traffic.

Re:It's the conversation,

[lgw]

I'd also add that Professional Drivers receive much more training and the tests are much harder

There's very little traiing or testing to be a taxi driver, or a radio-dispatched courier. In fact, when I did the letter there was none at all - the real barrier was people able to read a map!

Buy anyway, my point was pretty much what you're saying: some people has combine driving and conversations responsibly, others can't. It's the driver, not the phone.

Re:It's the conversation,

[Maxo-Texas]

Especially when you only have one arm.

Re:It's the conversation,

[FatLittleMonkey]

not the holding of the device, as anybody who'd thought this through even for a second was saying back when "hands-free" was being touted as a safety feature.

It should also be obvious, by the same reasoning, that turn-by-turn voice-guidance on GPS units would increase accident rates. (And indeed they do.)

At the very least, every unit should have an option to turn off the voice guidance system (separately from muting the whole system), but none of them ever do. Some of them don't even have any kind of mute.

Re:It's the conversation,

[Spy Handler]

Majority of the cars on the road are driven by a single driver with no passengers. Just look around next time you're driving.

I am unfamiliar with ham radio and I've never seen one in a car or a truck, so I will not comment. However semi truck drivers with CB radios are:
1. limited by radio protocol and the half-duplex nature of radio as to what they can talk about, and 2. limited to talking to a very small number of other truck drivers in transmission range.

On the other hand, drivers using cellphones are 1. talking about anything and everything, and 2. able to talk to ~90% of the human population.

Having kids throwing crap and yelling "DAD HE IS HITTING ME!" is certainly highly distracting. But go outside with a telephoto lens and sample a thousand cars. How many drivers are talking on their cell, and how many drivers are getting pelted by kids throwing stuff at them at any given moment?

Re:It's the conversation,

[MrKaos]

The joke falls flat because every single professional driver with a dispatcher (from taxis to police to heavy trucks) has conversations while driving, often involving reaching for a map. It comes down to the driver.

Comments don't flatten jokes, highly strung slashdotters do.

Re:It's the conversation,

[Cro Magnon]

There's been a number of times when I was driving and talking with my GF, and I'd come up on heavy traffic and suddenly shut up. My GF could see why I quit talking. Someone on the phone couldn't, and might be talking in my ear while I'm dealing with the traffic.

Re:It's the conversation,

[ceoyoyo]

I think you've identified a better approach to decreasing traffic collisions than banning cell phone use. Better training and higher licensing requirements.

Re:It's the conversation,

[kilfarsnar]

Holding the device always makes it worse, especially when dialing. Especially in a stick-shift.

People still drive stick-shifts? I drive a stick-shift, but most people couldn't drive my car for that very reason.

Re:It's the conversation,

[kilfarsnar]

I call BS on that, or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.

It's not the same. A passenger is a second set of eyes, helping the driver avoid accidents. The conversation in the car will also naturally pause when the driver must concentrate, and the passenger expects that. Talking on the phone, the driver must do it all by themselves and the other party expect there to be a flow in conversation which the driver must keep up.

Did the accident rate increase?

[geneing]

The main question is if the total accident rate has increased since cell phones became ubiquitous. As far as I know the answer is "no", the accident rate actually went down. "Tied to" doesn't mean "caused", or "increased the chance of". Usually "tied to" is a lazy qualifier from a lazy researcher or journalist.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[angel'o'sphere]

Fatalities went down, did indeed the ratio/amount of traffic accidents go down? I doubt that.

The accident ratio went down because of:
safer cars
safer roads
better street signs
speed limits
traffic jams
Pick your reasons.

Certainly not because people now use cell phones.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[mspohr]

It doesn't matter if the total accident rate has increased or decreased. There are lots of things that can cause the total accident rate to increase or decrease.
The problem is that there is solid research showing that you are 4x as likely to have a crash when you are using a cell phone (McEvoy et al (2005); Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997)). This has been measured with actual data from emergency department visits and property damage only accident reports.
The report also states that 9% of drivers are using cell phones at any given time. (2012 NHTSA)

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[lgw]

You should see how the books are cooked for "alcohol-related" crashes. Beer in the trunk of the car that was blindsided? Alcohol-related! Agenda-driven statistics.

I can certainly believe 1-in-4 if you include passengers in the not-at-fault car on the phone as "phone related"

Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and anonymous posts on the internet! Or something like that.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[bsane]

It does matter- take away phones and you could see the total number of accidents stay the same- now with phone distractions replaced with 'HE CAME OUT OF NOWHERE!' ie: not paying attention.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[TechyImmigrant]

>Even if there's been no rise in accident rate after cellphones became ubiquitous, that doesn't mean phoning or texting while driving isn't dangerous.
Or is.

Most of the time it's correct to admit you don't know either way.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[TechyImmigrant]

>The problem is that there is solid research showing that you are 4x as likely to have a crash when you are using a cell phone (McEvoy et al (2005); Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997)). This has been measured with actual data from emergency department visits and property damage only accident reports.

That is not solid research. That is bad sampling.
Sampling only the journeys that ended up in an accident is the most heavily biased sampling you can perform.

Just because it sounds official doesn't mean they understood the first thing about statistical inference.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[rmdingler]

+2 Sounds like truth.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[ultranova]

The main question is if the total accident rate has increased since cell phones became ubiquitous.

Unfortunately we'd still need to control for other variables, such as various driver-aiding subsystems. The sad fact of the matter is that the chaotic nature of reality makes establishing almost any relationship beyond "tied to" impossible.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[roc97007]

> I can certainly believe 1-in-4 if you include passengers in the not-at-fault car on the phone as "phone related"

Indeed. It all depends on how you count the incidents.

Once upon a time, someone staggered into the street as I was making a right turn out of a parking lot, put his hands on my fender, did a pirouette in front of my car and collapsed. I didn't actually touch his body with the car. He started to get up, someone screamed "oh my god, is he alive??" and he made a conscious decision (in my opinion) to lay back down.

Awhile later, cops and an ambulance arrived. The EMTs knew him by name. "Hi, Fred. What are you doing out here again?"

The cop and I had a polite conversation. He looked at the greasy handprints on the car, had a word with the EMTs and told me that in his estimation the pedestrian was staggering drunk, and he intended to cite the man for (something like) being drunk in public and behaving in an unsafe manner, gave me his card and said I was free to go. His parting comment was that because of the way the statistics were collected, this would almost certainly go down as an alcohol related accident even though the driver (me) was not intoxicated.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[mjwx]

You should see how the books are cooked for "alcohol-related" crashes. Beer in the trunk of the car that was blindsided? Alcohol-related! Agenda-driven statistics.

I can certainly believe 1-in-4 if you include passengers in the not-at-fault car on the phone as "phone related"

Remember, there are lies, damn lies, and anonymous posts on the internet! Or something like that.

I'd love to see real, peer reviewed evidence of this.

From somewhere like Europe or Australia where they take the issue seriously.

But I know you dont have any, like all the motoring conspiracy theorists. The statistics here in Oz come from the results of blood and breath tests, not the contents of the car and they dont paint a pretty picture.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[BroadwayBlue]

As cell phone use has increased, vehicle-related fatalities have gone down both in raw numbers and more importantly in per miles driven. Driving is *safer* than ever, not more dangerous. Those are facts supported by data from NHTSA. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/...

You can not say that it is "certainly not because people now use cell phones." The data could be interpreted to support the opposite conclusion but is in fact inconclusive.

Remember red-light cameras? One of the arguments is that they are good because even though there are more rear-end collisions at intersections with cameras, there are fewer side-impact collisions. This is acceptable because side-impact collisions are more dangerous. So total accidents is up, fatalities down. And that is a good thing when discussing life safety issues. Money is replaceable, people are not.

If cell phone use causes more actual accidents--remember we don't know, only that it increases the odds--but results in fewer fatalities then it would be *against* public policy to prohibit their use while driving.

Anything in a head line is being used by someone to advance their agenda, usually for power or profit. That's about the only reliably truth there is or ever was.

At the end of the day the public education campaign should be about how dangerous driving is no matter who you are, what you are doing, what type of vehicle you are in, etc. It's about convenience versus security and personal accountability. A little understanding of how to critically evaluate data and statistics would do a world of good. I'm always dumbfounded by how many people confidently drive as if two stripes of yellow paint will actually stop an opposing vehicle....

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Nethemas the Great]

• 1 in 4 use a cell phone
• 1 in 4 are talking to a passenger
• 1 in 4 are eating/drinking
• 3 in 4 would be eliminated if a modest amount of competency processing rapidly evolving environments while simultaneously operating a vehicle were required to obtain/maintain a license.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[jhol13]

No, the main question is whether phone usage increases the likelihood of an accident or not (and if it increases, how much). This is testable at least in simulated environments - if not already done.

But then, we both know what the study will show.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh, this is typical libertarian spewtem.

Phone related means that the individual was using or had used a phone during the drive. It does not mean the passengers. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that a passenger using a phone would impact the driver. At least not under normal circumstances.

Alcohol related means that the persons reaction time was affected by alcohol during the collision. Alcohol is a depressent and will reduce ones reaction time. Now, in a case where the person drinking was in traffic and blind sided from behind, I think it's reasonable to not consider alcohol to be a factor, but crashes where one person is that boxed in are rather rare.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[GryMor]

4 in 4 are breathing. Eliminate driver breathing to eliminate* 100% of driving accidents!

* on account of driver fatality before they get going due to suffocation.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is interesting, because if the usage rate is around 9%, if it were due to pure random chance, the probability of at least 1 of the 2 cars in an accident using a cell phone is 18%. This would mean that *at best* 8% of accidents are related to cell phone use, which is much less than 26%. But this doesn't even say anything about the cell phones causing accidents. Merely that they are correlated -- it is quite possible being a bad driver causes cell phone use in a car instead of cell phone use causing someone to be a poor driver.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[sootman]

Just to play devil's advocate, maybe the accident rate would have gone down even more of people weren't using cell phones.

Also, there are 3 things worth measuring: number of accidents, number of injuries, and number of deaths. Cell phone use might lead to a rise in #1 but improved vehicle safety features might lead to a decrease in #2 and #3; enough to cancel out the increase in #1.

Many factors could influence any or all of those numbers. Example: My 2012 car has like 14 airbags: steering wheel/dash, A-pillars, and even in the seat itself. (We can't use seat covers.) They won't do a damn thing to keep me out of an accident but they'll lower injury & death rates. (Unless they give me a false sense of safety and cause me to take more chances behind the wheel because hey, I've got airbags, I'll be fine. In which case they could raise the accident rate.)

And the numbers could, possibly, get REALLY weird. Imagine a feature that reduces the number of low-speed collisions, but is no help at all in high-speed collisions, where all the deaths are. So instead of 100 collisions and 50 deaths, you have 90 collisions but still 50 deaths -- fewer collisions overall, but the deaths-per-collisions rate would actually increase. So yeah, lots of things can happen with statistics.

I'm too lazy to look at the moment and see which number(s) they actually studied. The slashdot headline says "crashes" which means there's about a 50-50 chance that's what the study actually says. :-)

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Bite The Pillow]

Because alcohol involved means the same as alcohol caused?

Just ask your local police how they count the numbers. In the U S. Of Madd, if a drunk gets tboned by a sober driver, it is alcohol related.

Your comment suggests you are in Oz. They have an internet. You can search for peer reviewed anything, but why would peers review laws? Certainly doesn't happen when they are written.

Specifically, look for the influence madd has had. Not the conspiracy shit, but the facts. You say you would love it. I would love to see Renoir paint. Spend 15 minutes looking into it, or shut your rhetorical piehole.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[phantomfive]

Here's what the article says:

"An estimated 5 percent of cell phone-related crashes involve texting, while 21 percent involve drivers talking on handheld or hands-free cell phones"

So they specifically ruled out passengers. It's possible that roughly 21% of all miles driven involve a driver talking on the phone?

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[jabuzz]

Some 20-25% of papers in Science and Nature when analysed by qualified statisticians where found to be just plain wrong.

Here's a clue statistics is hard; really hard and the vast majority of people using then have no idea how hard they are and make basic mistakes all the time that don't get caught.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Attila Dimedici]

What you are missing is that the same logic used by the article to claim that cellphone use while driving is dangerous based on the statistics the article use applies to the data about the number of traffic accidents. The article used the fact that in 21% of accidents the driver was talking on the cellphone to conclude that talking on the cellphone caused 21% of accidents. I can use the fact that as cellphone use has increased, accidents have decreased to conclude that cellphone use reduces accidents. The fact is that in neither case are other contributing factors accounted for.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Agent0013]

And you should see what the stats are for accidents where the people involved have inhaled oxygen into their lungs right before getting into the accident. I think it's pretty close to 100%. So perhaps we should ban the use of oxygen while driving!

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[Agent0013]

They also count two sober people driving the cars that get into an accident as alcohol related if there are any drunk passengers in either car. Even if they were sleeping.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[ceoyoyo]

There are generally two drivers involved in a collision. The actual value for chance association is quite a bit lower.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[ceoyoyo]

True. But it does suggest that banning cell phone use will not be effective. Real world data also suggests that banning cell phone use is not effective. In medicine this is known as treating the symptoms. You might feel better, but you're still sick.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[ceoyoyo]

The collision rate has also gone down in most places. Where I live, the collision rate has gone down despite speed limits being increased, traffic getting worse (more accidents happen in heavy traffic, including bumper to bumper), the infrastructure generally going to shit, to the point where bridges actually fall down, and nobody in their right mind would call the street signs "better." Safer cars, particularly ABS, likely had an effect, but ABS equipped cars penetrated the market while cell phone use was still on the rise, yet collision rates continued to go down.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[phantomfive]

That's a good point

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[mpe]

His parting comment was that because of the way the statistics were collected, this would almost certainly go down as an alcohol related accident even though the driver (me) was not intoxicated.

X related is a very vague term anyway. Possibly you could describe a fuel leak as "alcohol related", considering how much ethonol may be present.

Re:Did the accident rate increase?

[TangoMargarine]

*sputum

going to make even more criminals

[turkeydance]

sort of like how the old 55-mph universal speed limit did.

Re:going to make even more criminals

[Immerman]

Damn straight. Maybe we could revive the old Norse code - it's only murder if you try to hide it. Announce it to everyone and it's just a killing - you pay wereguild to their family to avoid retribution and life goes on. But if you try to hide it and get caught you get declared a "wolf in hallowed places" (literal translation) and it's open season for anyone who want to take a shot at you.

Re:going to make even more criminals

[kilfarsnar]

Hey, the ole double nickle was for FUEL EFFICIENCY, not for safety or anything else. It was about getting better MPG with all those thirsty V8's and was extremely frustrating for all involved.

Carter (a.k.a. Obama's first of three terms) was all over that Arab Oil embargo thing and this was his best shot at a fix. Yea, it was stupid, but what else do you expect from a peanut farmer/Community organizer....

No, speed kills, okay? If you drive over the limit you are needlessly endangering all around you so that you can get where you are going 5 seconds sooner. You selfish prick! The speed limits were calculated scientifically and are there for your safety. If you speed you are worse than Hitler and only a little better than Ted Nugent. What makes you think you're so special? Huh? HUH?

Re:great

[HornWumpus]

And moving .08 up to a reasonable number.

About Fucking Time.

[zenlessyank]

Most people can't drive properly and legally as it is.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[Ultracrepidarian]

And bring back manual spark advance while you're at it.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[BronsCon]

YES! If only because I'm still driving a 2000 Corolla because it's a manual and I'm only going to replace it with something brand new, or when it breaks; now that I can afford something new, nothing I both like and can afford even has manual as an option. Sad.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[HornWumpus]

Brand new cars are for chumps.

Get a clean used Honda S-2000.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[TechyImmigrant]

>And bring back manual spark advance while you're at it.

As long as I can write and android app to automatically tweak it in time with the music.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[Immerman]

Hmm, it has potential. And I say that as someone who dislikes manual transmissions. Sadly if we move to electric vehicles transmissions of any kind mostly cease to be a relevant concept, and I can't support anything that would artificially slow that change.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[BronsCon]

That's a Subaru BRZ on my side of the pond, and it sits just outside what I'm able to afford, once I tack on options to make it comparable (luxury- and style-wise) to my Corolla (which may or may not have some aftermarket creature-comforts installed). I wouldn't mind the increase in horsepower, but it's not worth nearly $30k to me and I've customized the interior of my 'rolla quite a bit. That said, I could sell the 'rolla back to the guy I bought it off of 2.25 years ago for almost twice what I paid him for it and pay off 1/4 of a BRZ with that money...

Re:About Fucking Time.

[BronsCon]

I'd actually prefer an Eagle Talon TSi, but the ones I can find for sale are either not street legal in California (modded engine, intake, and/or exhaust) or completely beat to shit. So, since I can't find one of those, it's buy new or keep what I've got.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[HornWumpus]

Small world, I've got a fairly clean CA registered 91 Talon TSi (1st gen engine is the one they all want to put in newer ones). But it's not for sale.

You don't really want it, parts are impossible. You surely don't want it as a daily driver. Get an early Evo, they have the same engine. Too bad California makes it so difficult to legally upgrade to a newer engine. Finding clean Evos is the tough part, same as the talon.

Why would you want to buy new? Do you like being financially sodomized? 3 years old, half the price.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[HornWumpus]

If you haven't driven a S-2000, you should. It's slower then the talon, but that means you get to flog it harder. Parts are cheap and available. Some babied examples showing up on the used market regularly. All stick shifts!

Re:About Fucking Time.

[BitZtream]

You do realize you can order cars like you want them, right? Pretty much every car has the automatic tranny as 'optional' and the dealers just oder pretty much all their cars that way.

You want a stick, just ask and wait a month or two.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[TechyImmigrant]

Not a problem. I've yet to see a study suggesting programming while driving contributes to crashes.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[BronsCon]

I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run.

Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[BronsCon]

Yeah, I'm building from available options, not just walking the lot and looking at what they think will sell. It's not an option on anything I'm interested in and can afford. Interestingly, it's not even an option on the Genesis (also a bit out of my range), which would be the first car in Hyundai's lineup I'd expect to come standard with one. Not sure where you're from, but what you describe is *not* reality here in the US.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[HornWumpus]

If he couldn't dump the clutch at 3K the car was broken before you ever met.

Also note: Speed on the street is about how crazy you are not how fast your car is.

Drive one. Around a corner.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[HornWumpus]

When 100% of the worlds best drivers prefer manual spark advance you will have a valid analogy.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[kilfarsnar]

I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run. Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.

S2000's are like most Hondas; they have no torque to speak of. That little car has to get above about 5000 RPM before it actually makes any power. Coming from a turbo car (gobs or torque), they are frustrating to drive for me. But they handle really well. Really well. In anything but a straight line an S2000 would beat your Corolla.

Re:About Fucking Time.

[kilfarsnar]

Nissan has eliminated all manual transmissions for CVT's instead.

Wow, even in the Z and GT-R? That kinda sucks...

Re:About Fucking Time.

[TangoMargarine]

Why?

Seatbelts are even more dangerous than texting

[by (1706743)]

How many people-hours are spent texting while driving vs. talking while driving? The fact that only 5% are linked to texting doesn't say anything about the "specific danger" of texting, that is, the danger of texting normalized to some sane metric (people-hours spent texting, number of people who routinely text and drive, etc.). Since most people wear seatbelts, one could say that a very high percentage of accidents involve seatbelts, but that's not exactly a useful statistic. Apologies if this info is prominently in TFA...

That said, shut up and drive.

1 in 3 are Alcohol

[pubwvj]

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehicl...

So:
30% Alcohol related
25% Cellphone related
  5% Texting (separate?)
-----
60% of accidents could be eliminated if people would stop using cellphones, texting and driving drunk.

That would be really nice.

Re:1 in 3 are Alcohol

[geekoid]

Actually better done and accurate studies would be even better.

Re:1 in 3 are Alcohol

[Obfuscant]

60% of accidents could be eliminated if people would stop using cellphones, texting and driving drunk.

That assumes that cellphones, texting, and driving drunk were the causal elements in the accidents and not just contributing or correlated with. I.e., I'm talking on a cellphone when an 18 wheeler runs a red light and t-bones me. Would not being on the cellphone have prevented that accident? Probably not.

And it also ignores the fact that eliminating some causal elements doesn't mean it eliminates the accidents altogether. I'm using a cellphone and am distracted, crash. Prohibit cellphone use, I may switch my attention to my new dash-mounted Sirius/XM radio and be flipping through the channels when I run into someone. If I'm someone who tends to allow distractions of one kind, I probably will be distracted and continue to allow distractions of other kinds.

Needs more context!

[Myu]

After all, more than 1 in 4 car crashes involve someone who'd been inhaling oxygen for a prolonged period. We need to compare this against some sort of null hypothesis in order to properly evaluate the figure.

Statistics suck

[Charliemopps]

You know what is more dangerous than cellphones in cars? Breast. No lie.

It is a fact that in over 50% of all accidents there were at LEAST 2 breasts in the car at the time. Often times 4 or more! Breasts are twice as likely to be involved in any accident that cellphone or penises. I call for an immediate ban on breasts in moving vehicles. They can be near them while the car is at rest, preferably at a car show, both otherwise they more dangerous than drunk driving!!!

That's, of course, unless you want to actually use statistics for something other than alarmism.

Re:Statistics suck

[HornWumpus]

It's even worse in two car accidents. Fully 75+% of those involve breasts.

Sense not 100% of accidents are 1 car; the majority of accidents are breast related.

Re:Statistics suck

[by (1706743)]

While your logic is sound, your proposal is ridiculous. How many car crashes are there where all occupants are naked while wearing a ridiculous hat? Not very many. Clearly, we should mandate that *everyone* drive naked (and wear a ridiculous hat).

Re:Statistics suck

[willy_me]

I have observed that breasts outside the vehicle and penises inside the vehicle is also a bad combo. Especially on those hot days when people tend to perspire. I suppose the only solution is to keep both breasts and penises out of vehicles.

Re:Statistics suck

[Charliemopps]

I, for one, make sure that every time I drive my penis is outside the vehicle.

Re:Statistics suck

[JabrTheHut]

It is a fact that in over 50% of all accidents there were at LEAST 2 breasts in the car at the time.

If that were even remotely true then Saudi Arabia would be the safest place in the world to drive. Looking at the stats on wikipedia, the answer is a resouding "no." Mind you, compare US and UK traffic accidents and you start to wonder why two developed nations have such different fatality rates for traffic accidents...

Re:Statistics suck

[vux984]

A slightly less absurdist set of statistics would be:

What percentage of the accidents involved the car stereo/radio being on? If the number were 1 in 3 what conclusion would you draw from ~that~?

Or what percentage of accidents involved cars with passengers? If the number were 1 in 4 should we ban passengers? Clearly they are causing accidents, distracting drivers.

Or is it the reverse? Since 3 out of 4 accidents in that event do not involve cars with passengers is it clear that passengers actually reduce the likelihood of accidents and we should mandate passengers, acting as a 2nd set of eyes and ears.

WHere is the paper

[geekoid]

they base this on? every other 'estimate' was based on a guess'

Literally, based on guess. Not based on call or text logs. Just there where x amount of accidents, 70% have cell phones, so we will just say a 3rd of those were caused by cell phone use without even checking if they where that many on the phone.

I don't believe 26% of accidents where cause by cellphones, and I won't until some actual good studies are done.

Re:WHere is the paper

[mspohr]

If you'd bothered to RTFA where they explain the research and the methodology, it would have answered your questions... Yes, it's based on actual "good studies" and no, it's not just a guess.
Here's a clue for the clueless: McEvoy et al (2005); Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997)

Passengers

[GameMaster]

What I want to know is what percentage of accidents involve at least one vehicle containing at least one passenger beyond the driver of that vehicle. I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine it's something up around 80%-90% or more. I think it's pretty safe to assume that if there is a passenger in the car, the driver probably spends at least some of their concentration paying attention to that person and/or talking to them. Just think of it, we could eliminate almost ALL accidents if we just outlawed the carrying of passengers... /s

Re:Passengers

[rogoshen1]

yes but another passenger is another set of eyes on the road. Ever been in a car where the passenger alerted the driver "see that stop sign your about to blow through?"

Re:Passengers

[wonkey_monkey]

What I want to know is what percentage of accidents involve at least one vehicle containing at least one passenger beyond the driver of that vehicle.

Even worse, in 100% of cases a human was (perhaps nominally in some cases) in charge of the vehicle - a problem we do appear to be finally making some headway on solving.

Re:Passengers

[Rhywden]

A normal passenger shuts up when he senses a dangerous situation, or may even alert the driver to a situation.

Re:Passengers

[ThatAblaze]

Careful studies of actual evidence have been done on this. No one has found an actual correlation.

Re:Passengers

[Antique Geekmeister]

Or they had the grace to _shush_ when the driver was dealing with a crazy intersection.

Re:Passengers

[mcrbids]

Actually, I remember reading a study a while back covering this very subject. In fact, having passengers in the car engaged in conversation actually improved driver alertness because the passengers would pause talking, stiffen, make a sharp breathing noise, or other indications of tension causing the driver to be on alert even when otherwise oblivious to the driving risk.

In practice, it's like having "more eyes on the road" even when they aren't driving.

Re:Passengers

[dkf]

Just think of it, we could eliminate almost ALL accidents if we just outlawed the carrying of passengers...

Outlawing the carrying of drivers would help more.

Re:Passengers

[Cro Magnon]

Yup! My GF is a big talker, but she knows to shush when I'm fighting heavy traffic. She also alerts me to stop signs I didn't see. Or the ones that I did see too, but nobody's perfect. :)

FFS

[TechyImmigrant]

This is the same bad statistics that gets repeated every 3 or 4 months on Slashdot, from some stupid newspaper article.

Looking at the number of accidents involving phones tells you nothing.
It could be that a greater proportion of non-accident journeys involved phones.
It could be that the accident rate would be higher without the phones because people are taking more care driving to compensate for operating a phone.

How about taking a random sampling of car journeys and seeing the relative prevalence of phone use between accident and non-accident car journeys? It would have to be a very large study because the accident rate relative to the car-journey rate is very low. It would have to be a random sampling from a larger sample population to suppress confounding effects.

Good statistics over human behaviors with small effects is very hard to do because it requires big studies. But we know exactly how to do it.

Re:FFS

[Entropius]

Politicians like narratives, not statistics. Solid statistics, especially if they don't support banning things or passing rules that make you look more important, don't tend to advance your career.

Re:Let the phone relay a message

[TechyImmigrant]

My android phone does this.

Cold Dead Hands

[swinefc]

Nooooooope. Not taking my phone. Nope.

Re:Cold Dead Hands

[wonkey_monkey]

Nooooooope. Not taking my phone. Nope.

And what, exactly, are you going to do about it, big man?

Not that anyone's actually coming to take your phone, anyway. They'll just fine you or take you to court for using it while driving, because it's a distraction while you're in charge of what is, without proper driver control, a motorised battering ram.

So, don't drive like a dick, and no-one will take your phone! Problem solved! Don't like getting speeding tickets? Don't speed! Plenty more sage advice where that came from.

Or just keep driving while yacking and texting away, and perhaps one day someone will be taking your phone from your cold dead hands. Not that I'd wish that on you, but better yours in that case than someone else's by your actions.

Re:Cold Dead Hands

[Entropius]

Demonstrate first that driving talking using a wireless headset is significantly more dangerous than other things which are legal (driving with kids in the car, say) and then we'll talk. Believe it or not, it is possible (and common) to talk on the phone while driving and not drive like a dick. It is also possible (and common) to drive like a dick without a cellphone.

What I'll do about it is live in a state where citizens tend to push back against abuse of authority by their government. Soap, ballot, jury, ammo; use the boxes in that order. (It got to that last one in Phoenix, where someone put a few rounds into an automated speed camera. There are no more speed cameras on the I-10 in Phoenix. I'd rather people use LIDAR jammers than bullets, but I condone the use of both if other options have been exhausted.)

Re:Cold Dead Hands

[wonkey_monkey]

Demonstrate first that driving talking using a wireless headset is significantly more dangerous than other things which are legal (driving with kids in the car, say) and then we'll talk.

Why? They could be just as dangerous as each other, but only one is reasonable to ban. It's never a simple case of X more dangerous than Y therefore ban X. If it was no-one would be allowed to wear high heels or ride a motorbike. The right to take your kids to school in the car is far more of a necessity than the right to drive while talking on a cellphone, whether that's with a headset (which while I don't feel is a particular wise thing to do, is certain to be a lot less dangerous than anything that takes your hands off the wheel or eyes off the road) or otherwise.

where someone put a few rounds into an automated speed camera. There are no more speed cameras on the I-10 in Phoenix.

You make it sound like the other speed cameras quit in fear of their lives. Is it possible the former wasn't actually a contributing factor in the latter?

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo; use the boxes in that order.

How far down the list have you been?

I'd rather people use LIDAR jammers than bullets, but I condone the use of both if other options have been exhausted.

Part of the problem is that most people just can't summon up the effort required for the "other options," and just skip straight to "just ignore the laws I don't like," while patting themselves on the back for being a champion of natural justice.

I don't know why so many people think they and they alone should be the final arbiter on how fast they drive. Laws like speed limits have to be a compromise because it's impractical to test everyone under every condition and road speed and give them different licences that cover them under combinations of conditions.

where is the data for this study?

[troll -1]

The NSC cites McEvoy et al (2005); Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997) as the source for the 1 in 4 stat. I don't see a ref Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram S. Pathania (2013) http://tech.slashdot.org/story.... Correlation does not mean causation, folks. Let's not forget that.

Re:where is the data for this study?

[mjwx]

The NSC cites McEvoy et al (2005); Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997) as the source for the 1 in 4 stat. I don't see a ref Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram S. Pathania (2013) http://tech.slashdot.org/story.... Correlation does not mean causation, folks. Let's not forget that.

Yes,

Especially when considering Saurabh Bhargava and Vikram S. Pathania (2013).

The way people are trying to use their study is seriously flawed. Their research didn't disprove that mobile phone use causes accidents, that was the interpretation by people who wanted that answer. What they did the test did prove was that that people at night tended to crash more (well duh). Further more, they only measured calls, not texting or internet usage. Finally, their only evidence that mobile phone usage may not is that accidents did not rise, they didn't look at the cause or other trends, accidents due to phone use may have risen but accidents due to alcohol may have fallen, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Remember, not only does correlation not equal causation but also absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (and people with an agenda often co-opt and skew evidence, don't be fooled because you want it to be true).

Re:Another amazing fact

[ben_white]

You are an idiot.

Women between the ages of 30 and 50 (i.e. mothers) have the lowest fatality and accident rates of any other age or gender group.

See here as one example of easily obtainable information: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...

--
cheers - ben

Bring Darwin Back!

[Ichijo]

We need to replant trees by the sides of roads. You know, the ones they dug out because drivers kept hitting them. This will give inattentive drivers something better to crash into than other road users, hopefully removing only one set of DNA from the gene pool.

"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"When you PRY it from my COLD, DEAD... oh, yeah. Well, never mind. Carry on and all that."

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[mjwx]

"When you PRY it from my COLD, DEAD... oh, yeah. Well, never mind. Carry on and all that."

Well they wont need to pry it from anywhere.

They will need to brush aside your corpse to get the phone from the footwell or if you drive an SUV, the roof.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[quenda]

Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates.

That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars.
e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Smauler]

People have been studying this in excruciating detail for years. While there is a strong correlation between cell-phone use and accidents, any evidence of causation is glaringly absent.

There have been plenty of studies in which drivers perform certain tasks, either while using a phone or not. Some have drivers doing both, one after the other, some have half and half split randomly. In all these studies, those using phones (including hands free) did significantly worse.

I'd be interested to know what you think causes those using phones to do worse in these studies.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[AvitarX]

The problem is that in these studies people are focusing when not using a phone. So it's focused driver vs cell phone driver, but in reality many drivers dont focus in real life.

Studies that worked by installing cameras in cars and seeing what actually was going on found that the accident prone drivers were quite often doing terrifying things behind the wheel, only one of which was too much focus on a phone conversation.

They said that it didn't take long for people to stop acting like there was a camera, but it did take days, not hours.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Smauler]

No, it's two sets of focused drivers. One set is driving, the other set is driving and on the phone.

Using a phone does decrease your ability to drive well. Just because other things also decrease your ability to drive well too, does not mean that we should not try to deal with people using phones when driving.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[dryeo]

How can having a cell phone in one hand not be more dangerous? One hand on the steering wheel, one hand holding the phone and one hand shifting gears. Fine if you're a Motie.
But seriously, carrying on a conversation with someone not in the car is distracting, especially as the other end has no idea what is happening around the car.
The problem with the laws is that it just makes people more distracted as they try to hide the fact that they're using the phone. A law by itself is not the solution.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[AvitarX]

And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents. They did find that operating the phone does, at a similar rate to any other activity that takes one's eyes off the road for a second. The dialing is dangerous, the talking not so much so. In the real world that is, because in the real world people aren't hyper focused on driving, the phone cuts into that other part, not the driving part.

It's the day dreaming, the trying to place a song, drinking of coffee, adjusting the radio, etc. Part of the brain that the phone deprives in real life.

In the study you mention, all that is artificially focused on driving.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[myurr]

Because the campaigners always take it a step further and say it's more distracting to be on the phone than not even if you have a hands free kit. Usually their studies are in contrived circumstances and omit that doing anything other than focusing 100% on driving is going to increase the risk of mistakes, including just having a conversation with someone sat next to you. Are they going to campaign against car sharing lanes as they encourage people to be in the same car as each other which in turn promotes distracting conversations?

Of course not as that would be ridiculous. Likewise banning hands free mobile phones may improve accident rates slightly but doing so is absurd, and yet that is what people are campaigning for. Here in the UK we already have enough laws to cover this - using a non-hands free mobile phone whilst driving is illegal, and driving without due care and attention covers any other poor driving due to distraction of any kind, but requires you to actually be driving poorly. We're not all the same and there are plenty of god awful drivers out there who are quite oblivious to what's happening around them regardless of how much they are forced to concentrate on driving the car.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents.

I see a lot of people claiming "Studies show X", but no citations of actual studies that we can discuss in an informed way. Which one(s) are you talking about?

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[AvitarX]

I think it was this study:
http://www.vt.edu/spotlight/ac...

along with explanation (by study author) on this podcast:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/1...

that formed my opinion.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[rider_prider]

accident rate have been dropping for decades, cell phone use has skyrocketed, so why are accidents rates still dropping??? if it's an actual crisis and not just a moral panic, why are accident rate not going up???

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[kilfarsnar]

Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates.

That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars. e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?

My thoughts exactly. I'd rather see a study on how the number of tickets issued for cell phone use lines up with accident rates. The law can be on the books, but if it isn't enforced it may have no effect.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[ceoyoyo]

This is one of those situations where I think the correlation-is-not-causation idiots might have a chance of being (accidentally) correct.

When you observe a correlation there are three possibilities. A causes B, B causes A or C causes A and B.

Clearly the link between cell phone use and collisions is indirect. Using a cell phone doesn't cause you to hit people, it causes you to be distracted, which causes you to hit people. It's quite possible that people who are easily distractible when driving are more likely to hit people while using a cell phone. It's also quite possible that the same people are more likely to hit people while not using a cell phone they find something else to distract them.

Someone really should model the historical collision rate properly, taking into account penetration of safety devices like ABS, cell phone use and the actual collision rate (which is decreasing). That would give a much better indication of how many collisions you could prevent by banning cells. I doubt very much it's anywhere near 25%.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[kilfarsnar]

And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents. They did find that operating the phone does, at a similar rate to any other activity that takes one's eyes off the road for a second. The dialing is dangerous, the talking not so much so. In the real world that is, because in the real world people aren't hyper focused on driving, the phone cuts into that other part, not the driving part.

It's the day dreaming, the trying to place a song, drinking of coffee, adjusting the radio, etc. Part of the brain that the phone deprives in real life.

In the study you mention, all that is artificially focused on driving.

I'm not sure about that. From Wikipedia: "Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers."

Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I hardly ever do it. I pull over or do not participate in the call. I can say that I am definitely distracted while driving and talking on the phone. And from what I see in my fellow drivers, I'm not the only one. It's not about hands-free or looking at the phone. It is a neural resources thing. The human brain can't split its attention between driving and following a conversation and give it's full attention to both.

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[AvitarX]

The fact that you make that choice makes you a good driver (and that I don't arguably makes me a bad driver (thought I'm past median miles between accidents with no accidents yet, so I'm not the worse driver at least).

I'm not saying talking on the phone isn't bad, simply that those that talk on the phone don't consider the potential issues with driving distracted in general, and frequently make the wrong call (such as reaching for a dropped candy bar, etc.).

Part of the issue with many studies is they take people, but them on a course or simulator, have them drive. This has them driving at their best (there's a word for subjects being better than real life when being studied, I'm too lazy to find it). Somebody focused on driving with full attention is obviously significantly better than someone that isn't, but in day to day driving many (such as myself) are not particularly focused anyway.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Jane Q. Public]

"That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars. e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?"

It doesn't prove anything, but neither does a correlation between cell phone use and accidents. So what is your point?

It does very strongly suggest that cell phone use is not a particular cause of accidents.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Jane Q. Public]

"How can having a cell phone in one hand not be more dangerous?"

You are displaying exactly the kind of mindset that is the whole problem here.

"It is so obvious that talking on cell phones causes accidents, that we should just pass laws against it before we do any studies on the actual causes."

"it is obvious that holding a cell phone to your ear is more dangerous than using a hands-free device."

This is the thing with science: it often shows us things that seem to be obvious, but that aren't true.

Here are some statistics that people seem to consistently find surprising:

Traffic-light cameras often actually increase accident rates.

Cell phone use does not appear to be a statistically significant cause of accidents (in spite of the correlation).

Hands-free devices are not significantly safer than holding a cell phone.

It's what the studies have found. I have no reason to think that any of those studies -- especially considering that they have been repeated by others -- have anything wrong with them.

I believe the science. Not what it "obvious".

Re: "I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[TheCarp]

> Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I
> hardly ever do it. I

There was one study that actually looked at the crash data and found that people who get in accidents while using cell phones had a higher rate of accidents, even without cell phones. They also found that this particular subset of drivers actually drove less cautiously while using their phone, whereas drivers who did not get in accidents while using cell phones actually drove more cautiously while using them.

Perhaps the very fact that you feel that lack of focus is exactly the problem...there is a subset of people who are oblivious to whether or not they are paying attention and the cell phone acts as little more than a flag.

Its not that using the phone necessarily makes you a bad driver, its that bad drivers really like using their phone. Taking it away doesn't make them better drivers, it just makes them stand out less.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Some_Llama]

i watched as a man in front of me waiting to get on the freeway missed that the light had changed because he was looking down on his cell phone texting, he then again missed that the lane was clear to begin proceeding onto the on ramp as he was still texting, i then watched him not more than 30 seconds later look up to see that he was headed into the guardrail, over correct, and then fishtail across three lanes eventually rolling his car several times.

this happened right next to me, if i hadn't floored my gas pedal he would have dragged me along in my car...we stopped and called 911 then continued when they said it was ok to, on the way back from shopping three lanes were still clogged as ambulance, police and firemen dealt with the scene.

i would say that modern phones can be too distracting when driving and with driving being such an incredibly dangerous activity (anyone been in a 60mph car accident besides me, raise your hand) it's probably best not to do anything that will divert your attention from it, even momentarily.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[TangoMargarine]

Except for the part where almost no one drives stick anymore...

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[quenda]

It does very strongly suggest that cell phone use is not a particular cause of accidents.

That suggestion goes against other evidence, and simple logic that distraction contributes to accidents.
The simple point is that you have naively assumed the laws changed driver behavior in that particular case. But this is often not true.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Jane Q. Public]

"That suggestion goes against other evidence, and simple logic that distraction contributes to accidents."

No, it doesn't. WHOOSH

Read my other comment further up. First, "simple logic" often does not apply to statistics. Time and time and time again we have seen news stories touting mere correlation as cause-effect, when it really wasn't.

As I stated earlier, the theory goes like this: "distracted drivers" tend to get into accidents... no matter what they are using for distraction. If it isn't cell phones, they will distract themselves with taking their eyes off the road to talk to passengers, or try to read a map while driving, etc.

The point being that it is the distracted driver that is the problem, not cell phones. And this is supported by the consistent finding that both passing and repealing laws against cell phones -- for many years now -- have shown to have about zero effect on accident rates.

For that matter, one study concluded that laws against texting while driving did not reduce accidents because some drivers tried to hold the phone in their lap while texting so it wouldn't be seen by police.

I am not aware of any studies that have shown that laws against cell phone use have actually reduced accidents. I'm not interested in the intent of the law, I'm interested in the results. If you know of any studies that show those results I'd be interested in seeing them.

Re:"I WILL GIVE UP MY MOBILE..."

[Fuzzums]

Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates.

Why is it so hard to understand that safety with cars is the ONLY priority. A text or a phone call can wait.
If anybody that needs a law to understand that shouldn't be driving. It's that simple.

News just in: 100% accidents tied to breathing

[Dan East]

This is a very stupid and misleading statistic. I've seen statements like this on Slashdot before, and in my local paper, so I did look up the numbers, and the accident and fatality rates have both been dropping steadily since before handheld cell phones even existed. Almost 100% of the population has cell phones, and they are being used in some manner or another off and on continuously throughout the day. So of course they are being used during a significant number of accidents, because they're being used during a significant number of miles driven.

If cell phones are a significant cause of accidents, the numbers would very clearly show it, yet they don't. So the best anyone can come up to throw at us is this kind of misleading garbage. 100% of all the accidents I have ever been in involved contacts to correct eye vision. Obviously my contacts are a major problem then?

Re:News just in: 100% accidents tied to breathing

[antifoidulus]

Actually it could be both....in complex situations like the accident rate variables rarely change in isolation. Look at some of the official stats on accident and age and what you will find is that by far the biggest drops in fatalities are in the very young and very old age groups(in fact the rate of fatalities is actually increasing in the groups most likely to be using cell phones and driving....) This is probably due to increasingly stringent laws regarding teen and elderly drivers. Even Florida recently passed a law that requires the elderly to come in for an eye exam every year when they renew their license, before that they could renew by mail. Not saying cell phones are necessarily a cause in accidents, but your reasoning doesn't really hold.

Re:Distinction

[ThatAblaze]

Studies have addressed the puzzling fact that there is a correlation between cell phone talking but no correlation to be found with talking to a passenger. The dominant theory is that the passenger is within the same context as the driver, so if something happens around the car that requires the driver's attention it does not seem odd to the passenger that they stopped talking in the middle of a sentence.. and the passenger does not start saying "hello?? are you there?".

In the case of the radio, attention is optional. Media on the radio is highly repetitive with the assumption that you may have had lapses in attention.

Long live the autonomous car!

[leifmadsen]

I for one welcome our autonomous car overlords.

I see enough people doing stupid things on the roads that a computer controlled car can't be any worse. Provinces in Canada, such as Ontario, are continuing to ramp up laws and penalties on those who text and use their phones while driving. Just recently the fine went up to $255, and there is legislation tabled that could make use of a cell phone pretty much synonymous with drunk driving (there were more fatalities last year due to cell phone use while driving than drunk driving in Ontario).

Penalties of 3 demerit points and $1000 fine, plus increase in car insurance (do to demerit points) are on the board, and likely to go through. The best way to get around this I believe is in the use of self driving cars. Let them do the mundane driving for us. I'll stick to driving myself when it's fun, or I'm at the track.

Re:great

[Immerman]

The problem is a safe limit is a very personal thing - I've known people with enough driving skill and experience that I'd mostly trust them behind the wheel even when damn near falling down drunk. I've also known people I barely trust behind the wheel stone-cold sober. I certainly wouldn't trust the second group behind the wheel after a drink or two, much less after the 3-5 it'd take most people to reach 0.08 BAC. It's all about *how* impaired they are, and how capable they were to begin with.

Perhaps some progress could be made with personalized BAC levels - say we lower the default level to 0.06 or so (to get the hardliners on board) while also making it possible to go to the DMV totally soused and take an extended simulator test to get a higher personal limit stamped on your license. If you can go in at 0.25 and spend a half-hour in the simulator demonstrating average competency then that's what they raise your personal limit to.

On the other hand, barring DUI checkpoints and bar parking-lot "sniping", that's pretty much the situation we have now - if you're shitfaced drunk but still driving competently you won't be pulled over in the first place.

Passengers ARE THERE TOO

[bussdriver]

Many magic tricks work based upon how predictably easy it is to distract humans.

Passengers are also paying some attention and CAN more than compensate for the distraction they create. (NOTE: I used the word "can.")

It only takes an instant of looking at the wrong place to miss the magic trick. Same with driving except the result is not enjoyable.

Many of the stereo systems I've seen are a disaster, you could die just trying to change the station and when new they have too much of a learning curve - plus all those blinking lights designed to SELL it like a bait for a fish.

I've missed many accidents over the years and I had a mix of Cell phone, Brats, and airhead teenage boys almost get me. The phone being the only one where it's 100% the user's fault for putting others at risk. They should be punished for reckless endangerment because that is exactly what it is! brats need driving around and teen boys can't help themselves but a cell user could WAIT like everybody used to do not that long ago.

Re:Passengers ARE THERE TOO

[CrimsonAvenger]

Passengers are also paying some attention and CAN more than compensate for the distraction they create.

So, if the driver talks to someone, he is so distracted as to be unable to pay proper attention to the road..

But if a passenger talks, he can still pay attention to the road.

Something is inconsistent here....

Re:Passengers ARE THERE TOO

[Belial6]

It is impossible for the driver to force the passanger to stop prattling in his ear. A cell phone can be turned off. Your excuse for allowing a hazardous behavior you don't want to give up is not even a good excuse.

Re:Passengers ARE THERE TOO

[ceoyoyo]

The ability sure. Drivers on cell phones have the ability to hang them up or put them down if conditions on the road change suddenly. How often does either happen?

Re:Passengers ARE THERE TOO

[david_thornley]

Something is inconsistent here, yes. I think it's how humans are built, although I'm extrapolating from one example here.

I can converse with passengers without losing road focus. When I'm on the phone, I can feel my focus going away, and I know I'm not being as observant because I have to deliberately look where I'd normally just notice. That's why I don't drive while on the phone any more.

I can't explain the difference, but it exists with me.

Missing some crucial info

[Solandri]

Mainly, how prevalent is cell phone use when driving?

Just to make up some numbers to illustrate the point, say 50% of the time drivers were on their cell phones. If cell phones were linked with just 25% of accidents, then that would actually mean cell phones made driving safer. The 50% of cars where the driver used a cell phone accounted for 25% of accidents; the 50% of cars where the driver didn't use a cell phone accounted for 75% of accidents.

I'm pretty sure cell phone use does increase the accident rate. But to neutrally evaluate their effect, you have to compare on the basis of frequency of involvement in accidents / frequency of use in all cases. If you're only given the former, it could mean cell phones are bad for driving or cell phones are good for driving.

Re:Missing some crucial info

[Entropius]

People who are good at thinking clearly about statistics don't often find their way into the telling-other-people-what-to-do business, sadly.

Re:great

[TheRealMindChild]

Never going to happen. DUIs of people at that level is very very lucrative

Its all bs

[Lawrence_Bird]

Back in the 70s the same people would say cigarette smoking caused crashes because a large % of drivers smoked. Studies have shown that talking on a cell phone is as 'distracting' as talking to somebody else in the car. And given the exuberance to ban cell phone use, can we tackle the most serious problem facing drivers?

Driving with children isn’t just slightly more dangerous; it’s a full 12 times more dangerous, according to the study. When researchers installed cameras in the cars of 12 families over a three-week period, they found talking on the phone only accounted for one percent of distractions. Distractions from children, meanwhile, accounted for 12 percent of all distractions. Over the course of an average 16-minute trip, parents that had kids present spent three minutes and 22 seconds with their eyes not on the road.

Last I checked driving fatalities have been on a downward slope forever. Please stop the safety nanny crowd before it is too late.

Re:Another amazing fact

[Anonymous Coward]

That is per crash, not per mile driven, I believe.

Per mile driven favors males as ~10% safer.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Here's a question: Would the black box tell you how many of these accidents would have happened even if there was no cell phone involved? If so, let's see it. (I honestly don't know.)

As it is, this one in four figure is useless, and all it does is add to the fire for people who just like to bitch about other people using cell phones (I know people who bitch about other people using cell phones while walking or even sitting, which poses no harm to anybody.)

Why is it useless? Well, today we happen to have a lot more cell phones around than we used to, namely because cell phone services are both A) more popular B) much cheaper than they used to be. More people have and use phones, so more people are going to be doing other things with them while they use them. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. You're equally well off in saying that talking on a cell phone is more likely to cause you to get outside for some fresh air if you happen to walk outside while talking on a cell phone.

Here's the $64 question: If a quarter of accidents happen to occur while somebody is using a cell phone, does that also mean that accidents are up 25% above when nobody had cell phones? Because I never heard that figure anywhere in here. Even if that is in there, there could be other factors coming into play, i.e. more cars being on the road now than there were then.

Until that is determined, sensationalist figures like these are more harmful than helpful. Why? Because stupid politicians make their careers off of adding new laws that get more people put into jail and/or fined without actually providing any benefit to anybody other than satisfying people who just can't stand the sight of seeing somebody else having a conversation that they aren't a part of.

Is this only mutliple car accidents?

[damn_registrars]

People dumb enough to text while driving often end up wrapping their cars around stationary objects. I can't find any way to get this information in more than just word-bite style delivery without paying money for it.

'Involve' is the key word.. very deceiving.

[BenJeremy]

Like "alcohol-related' accidents, where the police are required to check a box if either driver, whether to blame or not for the accident, and whether or not either is actually impaired, if they had a drink earlier in the day.

Same goes here, I suspect, padding the numbers because somebody was having a conversation at some point in their drive, and considered "involved" even if the driver who had the call wasn't to blame for the accident.

All this does is serve the personal agendas of "safety experts" who have decided to tie their career to an issue and doggedly pursue it, regardless of the facts and rational analysis.

Can it be a source for distracted driving? Certainly... but having a hands-free conversation is no different than having a conversation with a passenger, perhaps even less so, since you are less likely to take your eyes off the road when the other person is not in the car with you.

Re:'Involve' is the key word.. very deceiving.

[godrik]

Well, there are two issues here. You might not be to blame for the accident in the sense that you are not the one initiating the collision, but you might have been able to avoid it if you weren't distracted. So the information of how "involvement" is still meaningful. Though, as pointed out by many slashdotters, the main problem is that we do not have a point of reference. Is the rate of cell phone use lower or higher than the rate of accidents involving cell phones?

Bad statistics warning

[Entropius]

What fraction of driving time do people spend on the phone? If people are on the phone 25% of the time (which seems reasonable, looking at folks on the Beltway) then this statistic is expected.

These safety trolls need to do a proper study: "what fraction of drivers who crash were on the phone" compared to "what fraction of drivers who didn't crash were on the phone". Talking with a headset on is less distracting than talking to someone in the passenger seat, as there is no other person to look at.

At the very least they should ban driving with an attractive lady in the car, by their logic. Or maybe they should stop banning things and instead get rid of speed traps and fix potholes, both things that make people slam on their brakes and swerve suddenly -- things that are real safety hazards.

Re:Bad statistics warning

[ninjabus]

I'm pretty sure headsets are more distracting than passengers, because a passenger can see when the driver needs to be concentrating and shut up.

I am an attractive lady, you insensitive clod!

[Radical Moderate]

Oh who am I kidding, it's slashdot.

What safety advocates?

[gavron]

The Slashdot summary says "safety advocates." The first link says "safety advocates" but doesn't specify who those are.

WHO IS LOBBYING FOR A CELLPHONE BAN ON THE ROADS?

Please advise. My bet is the [required mandatory] insurance lobby.

E

Re:Easy stats to pull

[mjwx]

Here's a question: Would the black box tell you how many of these accidents would have happened even if there was no cell phone involved? If so, let's see it. (I honestly don't know.)

Given that driving using a mobile phone seriously inhibits your ability to concentrate on driving and that the main cause of accidents is driver error, its a very good assumption.

Far better than the assumption that they would have had the accident anyway.

Here's the $64 question: If a quarter of accidents happen to occur while somebody is using a cell phone, does that also mean that accidents are up 25% above when nobody had cell phones?

Your strawman depends on no other factors being involved. It's like claiming drivers are safer since the 80's because fatalities have reduced, this completely ignores the advent and rise of ABS, the seatbelt pre-tensioner as well as crackdowns on speed and drunk driving (and awareness campaigns on driver fatigue).

Until that is determined, sensationalist figures like these are more harmful than helpful.

The figures aren't sensationalist when they're true.

And if they help morons on phones realise that they are morons for being on the phone whilst driving, it's extremely helpful.

Define "Involve"

[jxander]

I don't see a solid definition of what constitutes a crash involving a cell phone.

If the phone is strapped to the dashboard streaming music with the screen off... does that count? The phone is "in use"
If I'm driving and my passenger is texting... and someone runs a red light, hitting us. Does that constitute a crash involving a cell phone?
If my phone is providing turn by turn directions for me, does that make the cut?
If I'm stopped a a red light and talking on my phone, when someone rear ends me...?

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

Ambiguous syntax implies intentionally loose constraints, imo.

Re:Another amazing fact

[godrik]

Well, that statistic is not very useful because it does not take into account many biaises. It is not clear that male and female have the smae driving hours. If male were to drive more during peak hours, it would be logical that they tend to get into more accidents and more fatal accidents.

Not that GP was not a complete douche, but let's not use statistics to say what they do not say.

Re:great

[HornWumpus]

Sounds like a plan for a Friday night. I bet you could get laid at the the DMV drunk driving tests. Provided you had low enough standards anyhow.

Daughters, Driving & Texting

[RudyHartmann]

When my daughter was a teenager and going to beauty school, I let her drive my Ford F150 truck to school. She crashed it twice while texting and driving. TWICE! At least she was honest about it. Once she ran into the back of some poor slob in a little Toyota something or other. The little Toyota got creamed! The thing was nearly totaled. My truck only got a hole in the plastic bumper valence. Fortunately goofball daughter didn't get a scratch on her either time. Her victims were almost as lucky.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Wycliffe]

Far better than the assumption that they would have had the accident anyway.
The figures aren't sensationalist when they're true.

They aren't true. They are meaningless. I have a friend who is a real estate
agent who is always on his phone when he is in the car. Close to 100%.
Extrapolating out these meaningless statitics to 100% it would mean that
if everybody constantly talked on their phones while in the car like my friend
then 100% of all accidents are caused by cell phone use.

These stats are the equivalent of saying 1 in 4 accidents involve the radio
or 1 in 4 accidents involve someone drinking a soft drink while driving.
People talk on cell phones, listen to the radio, and drink soft drinks while
driving but that doesn't mean any of the 3 cause a 25% increase in accidents
anymore than saying 25% of accidents involve passengers means that
the passengers are a direct cause of the accidents.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[volstok]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. q.e.d.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[pspahn]

(I know people who bitch about other people using cell phones while walking or even sitting, which poses no harm to anybody.)

Yes, people like myself who have had to dodge one too many chatterboxes that think it's okay to just step into the street in front of someone riding a bicycle. After all, Brenda has a new boyfriend and she met him on Craigslist ... ewwww!

The fact is that people are too, "well that's only other people, that's not me!" and then they proceed to dial a phone call that could have easily waited until back at the office parking lot or whatever. The false sense of urgency people have simply because they can is getting ridiculous. I can accept that probably 1% of phone calls are actually urgent. What I can't accept is the 75% of calls that people think are ugent. What's the old saying, "Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part." Until it is determined that people will behave responsibly, other people will want to legislate that irresponsible behavior away from them. I don't think it has anything to do with "not being a part of their conversation" but rather that people would prefer to live in a world where they aren't surrounded by people chatting casually on a phone and being oblivious to the world around them.

Your ideas are intriguing.... means?

[Immerman]

So, after receiving this response on a number of posts I have to ask, is there a generally accepted interpretation for such a comment? As best I can tell it originated on a Simpsons episode in a not-completely-ironic context, but I really, *really* hope at least some of the responses I've gotten have been heavily ironic. After all they've mostly been in response to deliberately inflammatory posts. (What can I say, sometimes I feel the need to stir the pot. A good argument is far more enlightening than an echo chamber.)

Re:Your ideas are intriguing.... means?

[kilfarsnar]

So, after receiving this response on a number of posts I have to ask, is there a generally accepted interpretation for such a comment? As best I can tell it originated on a Simpsons episode in a not-completely-ironic context, but I really, *really* hope at least some of the responses I've gotten have been heavily ironic. After all they've mostly been in response to deliberately inflammatory posts. (What can I say, sometimes I feel the need to stir the pot. A good argument is far more enlightening than an echo chamber.)

You are correct as to its origin. The generally accepted interpretation is that you are a crackpot and the responder is ironically playing the role of the gullible dupe who is actually interested in your ridiculous ideas. Homer is kind of an idiot. He bought Lisa's rock to keep the tigers away after all. So it's not as ironic in his situation.

Please note I am not actually calling you a crackpot, just explaining the gag.

Re:Distinction

[pspahn]

I'd like to challenge you to wear that bluetooth thing all day long having a conversation with your needy wife or lonely mother where ever you are and whatever you're doing. These women will require you to be attentive and listen, so no cheating by calling POPCORN or something. If you're ordering from Starbucks, have a chat. If you're changing some poopy diapers, have a chat. Changing a flat tire, have a chat. Looking for an address on an unfamiliar street, have a chat.

At the end of the day, ask yourself, did it seem like those things were a bit more difficult due to the chats you were having all day?

Re: Easy stats to pull

[Papaspud]

cool, she's 76 and likes it that way...said you weren't any good though.

Reading while driving

[VABEast]

I was alongside a woman reading a novel propped on her steering wheel at 50 MPH on the on the interstate today. I thought about taking a picture, but didn't want to use my phone while driving. I will bet there is a much higher accident rate among women drivers reading Harlequin romances while driving than there is taking pictures while driving!

Well, I have an idea

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Maybe if we put seatbelts on cellphones, would that help?

Junk

[Orgasmatron]

This is a page out of MADD's playbook.

Accident report forms are used to collect statistical data. Like a game of Telephone, as you get further from the event, the more the "data" reflects the currently prevailing biases.

Here is an example, one that has been documented by researchers trying to figure out where bullshit MADD claims were coming from:

Drunk pedestrian steps out in front of a car, gets hit and killed. The "Fatality" box gets checked, of course. The pedestrian's alcohol box also gets checked.

Now a researcher comes along and compiles them into alcohol-involved vs alcohol-free.

Then a second researcher comes along and looks at the alcohol-involved accidents and counts how many of them were fatalities. Sadly, this guy doesn't bother looking at the primary data, he just assumes that the alcohol involved was in the blood of the driver that caused the accident.

Bam! A drunk pedestrian has morphed into a drunk driver. And since there is lots of money to be had by producing statistics that support neo-prohibition, and none to speak of for honest research, the "researchers" are rewarded for their apathy.

Now imagine a checkbox on the accident report form labelled "cell phone present"...

A person prone to distraction

[bl968]

Will be a distracted driver. It doesn't matter if it's the phone, the radio, the billboard they were passing going down the street. It's a minority who are distracted drivers. Perhaps a test to identify easily distracted drivers, and to ban them from driving would be a better course of action and a use of reseach dollars.

Re:A person prone to distraction

[eWarz]

If it's obviously their fault....ban them for 3 years from driving, throw people that violate the order in jail for 3 years. The problem will quickly resolve itself. Just this morning i witnessed a woman this morning on the way to work chatting away, holding a cell phone to her head.

Re:Another amazing fact

[artor3]

According to page 43 of this study, men drive about 50% more miles per year than women.

The GP's link shows that men account for 2.5x as many traffic fatalities.

So men are clearly still worse according to these statistics. But why trust these numbers? Insurance companies make their money by having teams of extremely smart, highly trained statisticians pore over more data than you'll see in a lifetime, and they charge women less. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that women are worse drivers while knowing that fact.

Re:great

[Immerman]

You ever tried driving one of the high-fidelity simulators (rFactor, etc) that let you record a professional-grade analysis of your driving? Given the known effects of alcohol on the human nervous system I find it *highly* unlikely that you drive as well drunk as sober, though there may be a "sweet spot" where your sense of flow is amplified enough to more than offset your reduced reaction times - I've certainly noticed such an effect myself. Provided of course nothing unexpected happens (one of the benefits of a racing simulator over a real road filled with a never-ending supply of reckless idiots)

My own observations have been that my lap times may improve considerably while intoxicated, at least when I'm "on", but my crashes are likewise far more... cinematic shall we say. And frequent. And not infrequently rather embarrassing - for example missing a full-throttle curve when distracted by a passing thought. There's a reason I don't drive real cars if I've had a few.

And if you don't think you're drunk then you're probably one of the people I wouldn't trust behind the wheel - recognizing just how impaired you are, despite the lack of obvious symptoms, seems to be a good 0-th order approximation of your ability to behave responsibly under the influence. Unless you're a metabolic freak your reflexes *are* severely impaired - if you're not aware of that then it means your judgement is severely impaired as well.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[jd2112]

Given that driving using a mobile phone seriously inhibits your ability to concentrate on driving and that the main cause of accidents is driver error, its a very good assumption.

wait, you're using your phone to drive? what is that, an app or something?

I downloaded Google Drive, but it is apparently incompatible with my car.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[R3d M3rcury]

It appears Ericsson made one several years ago...

I'd love to know how the estimate was done

[russotto]

Because one of the early studies on this estimated cell phone use by comparing cell phone call records (as recorded by the phone company) with accident times (as recorded on the police report.) One of those is quite accurate. The other... ain't. And what's likely one of the first things you're going to do after you get into a minor accident.... call someone.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Austerity Empowers]

If you gather the data, from say the National Highway Safety Administration (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/), you will see that in spite of there being more cars on the road, there are HALF as many deaths from car accidents in 2012 as there were in 1970 (when almost no one had a car phone). This is an amazing number, because the other half of the coin is there are nearly 10x as many people driving. The figures for injuries follow. Yes, there are dozens of reasons for this, including better car safety, slower speeds (i.e. traffic jams), seat belt use, etc. But that does not matter: our safety increases anyway!

Therefore, because it has the effect of invalidating the entire discussion, the inconvenient data was neglected. I have the same issue as "alcohol related accidents", they set blood-alcohol thresholds pretty arbitrarily and are constantly lowering them based on reactions, not based on scientific study.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Stan92057]

"They aren't true. They are meaningless"

We are to believe YOU over the National Safety Counsel...why? Citations please.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[LynnwoodRooster]

As it is, this one in four figure is useless, and all it does is add to the fire for people who just like to bitch about other people using cell phones (I know people who bitch about other people using cell phones while walking or even sitting, which poses no harm to anybody.)

I know this is anecdotal, but I'd say 80% of the close-calls I've had whilst riding my motorcycle were caused by folks talking on their phone, completely oblivious to me in the lane next to them. The nice thing about a bike is I can move out of the way quickly and safely, and I also sit as high or higher than 90% of drivers on the road - and can see in to their car really easy to see them texting or talking and look up startled as I honk and swerve... I've even turned in video footage (I have a helmet cam) to drivers who were especially egregious - hard to deny you were texting/talking when there is a good chunk of video proving it.

Distracted driving - of which phones are a major contributor because it is interactive (usually 2 way communication, as compared to the one way of a broadcast radio/satellite/CD source) - is a serious danger. If something is SO IMPORTANT that you have to talk on the phone NOW - then pull over. Thirty seconds won't kill you - but it might kill someone else.

Re:Another amazing fact

[Enigma2175]

According to page 43 of this study, men drive about 50% more miles per year than women.

The GP's link shows that men account for 2.5x as many traffic fatalities.

So men are clearly still worse according to these statistics. But why trust these numbers? Insurance companies make their money by having teams of extremely smart, highly trained statisticians pore over more data than you'll see in a lifetime, and they charge women less. I don't see how anyone could rationally argue that women are worse drivers while knowing that fact.

Women have more more accidents overall and much more likely to have an injury accident than men per mile driven (source). Males, particularly young males are much more likely to take risks than females. Young males are 2.1 more likely to be in a fatal accident but the rates start converging and by age 60 there isn't a difference in the fatal accident rate. But for non-fatal accidents females consistently are more likely to be involved. I couldn't find any data on insurance rates by gender, do you have a source for that?

Re:Easy stats to pull

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Your strawman depends on no other factors being involved.

How exactly is that a strawman? I didn't attack an argument that they didn't make. Rather, what I did was invoke questions about the relevance of this data; in other words, if we pulled the cell phone out of the equation, would there be 25% fewer accidents? I'd say that's a negative. I can't prove a negative of course, however I can say that laws restricting cell phone use while driving haven't had any positive impact on reducing the number of accidents.

Not only that, but I specifically brought up the question of other factors coming into play. I swear you didn't even read my post -- look at my last sentence in the fourth paragraph -- you can read, right?

The figures aren't sensationalist when they're true.

Very very false. They are sensationalist, and true. Sensationalism isn't giving false information, rather sensationalism is over-hyping minor details or insignificant facts as if they tell a bigger narrative. Giving false information is just lying, and isn't sensationalism. I didn't accuse them of lying.

In fact you might want to go get a dictionary as you've clearly misunderstood two words that you've used (strawman and sensationalism.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Easy stats to pull

[invictusvoyd]

Why not just pull stats from the infotainment system

Not much need for that . I've done 3 laps of 1500KMs at a stretch on quite dangerous roads . Talking over a cell phone whilst driving is a risk . Texting whilst driving is simply trying to commit suicide . Without an iota of doubt.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Belial6]

Because the National Safety Counsel produces conclusions that do not match their own data.

Re:Distinction

[duke_cheetah2003]

I think an important distinction to make here, is a LOT of people are talking on their cell phones while driving. The more of us doing it, the more chances it will be a factor in an accident. I think that's a huge source of the uptick in mobile phone related crashes.

As far as it being equally distracting as having a passenger in the vehicle. That is possible, but, just look around the next time you're in a traffic jam. Glance at all the vehicles around you. How many have the driver and no one else? Most huh? How many of these lone drivers who were previously undistracted by a passenger are now talking on their mobiles?

One last factor to consider when it comes to bringing up passenger vs. mobile phone distraction. Your passenger(s) are an additional pair of eyes, attached to a brain that finds survival to be one of the most important things. They're liking watching the road as well, at least intermittently, thereby able to alert a distracted driver to a hazard they weren't aware of. I've had that happen many times with passengers in my vehicle. They are distracting, for sure, but they're also interested in surviving the trip and assist. Cell phones cannot fill this void. They are distracting with no fall back to make you aware of a hazard you're missing.

Banned cell phones = instant 25% crash reduction

[WaffleMonster]

"The National Safety Council is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to save lives by preventing injuries and deaths at work, in homes and communities and on the road through leadership, research, education and advocacy"

Just want to make sure I understand correctly a non-profit organization with a mission to "save lives" is pay-walling the contents of a report that _could_ save lives.

Obviously all hinges on what "tied to" means. If means anyone talking on phone at time of accident reader would have needed to consider statistical data regarding time spent on phone while driving by each class (driving experience, age group, regional factors) of drivers. In absence of this necessary contextual information statistic would end up as useful as "driving causes car accidents". Even more problematic intent expressed by including such a statistic in a summary is disingenuous at best and willful deception at worst.

Now if "tied to" actually means "caused by" then why would they not have selected the stronger language?

26% is a made-up number

[tipo159]

Citing the National Safety Council's own material:

How did the NSC estimate attributable risk percent for cell phones? The NSC attributable risk percent estimate of cell phones is based on two factors: 1) the prevalence of drivers talking on cell phones and 2) the relative risk of this activity compared to not using cell phones while driving.

It is not based actually accident statistics. It is a guess.

Re:26% is a made-up number

[tipo159]

Uh, I should proofread better before posting. That should be "It is not based on actual accident statistics."

Re:Easy stats to pull

[ozmanjusri]

Because the National Safety Counsel produces conclusions that do not match their own data.

What the National Safety Council actually says is that there is no trustworthy data available, so they extrapolate from the data they have and predictions based on driver performance studies.

Motor vehicle crashes involving cellphones are "vastly underreported" in national statistics on fatal automobile crashes, according to a new study by the National Safety Council.

Researchers for the Itasca, Ill., -based non-profit organization reviewed 180 fatal crashes from 2009 to 2011 that resulted in one or more deaths. It independently confirmed that those crashes were cellphone-related through means such as the driver admitting it, a caller or texter on the other end during the crash reporting cellphone use, a passenger reporting the driver's cellphone use or police finding an unfinished message on the phone at the crash site.

The NSC pored through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), the national database of fatal motor vehicle crashes and their causes to see how the government had classified those 180 fatal crashes. The council found that, in 2011, the government database had identified 52% of the crashes as cellphone-related. In 2010, it was 35%, and in 2009, 8%.

Even in fatal crashes where the driver admitted using a cellphone, only 50% of those crashes in 2011 were coded in FARS data as involving a cellphone, NSC said.

Re:great

[HornWumpus]

8oz of whiskey. 3 hours at 1.5 oz/hour metabolized. 3.5 oz of whiskey in your system. Likely .08 but not drunk, depending on your body weight.

Watch NSAIDs with the drinking. My back pain and ibuprofen intake has drastically reduced my vitamin ethanol intake, just to save my liver. Joys of middle age.

Re:great

[HornWumpus]

Grand Prix Legends. Old Neurburgring in a simulated 66 F1 car. Drunk. Good times. Good laps, not really.

They should do a new race sim on that era. Those cars were almost un-driveable, sober.

I've known one person who genuinely drove better drunk then sober. Because when he was drunk he at least watched the road, sober he would drive down the road talking to you and looking you in the eye.

Some real statistics.

[fluffy99]

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/P...

An NHSTA sponsored study says at any given moment during the day, 5% of Americans are driving while using a cell phone.. The study has some caveats - it relied on phone surveys, visual road-side observations, and only goes up to 2011, so may be significantly under-reporting cell phone usage. I estimate that number is closer to 10% based on casual observation while driving. So in a two -car accident that gives a 10% chance of a cell phone used in one of the cars. If the real cell-phone usage number is closer to 15%, then the 26% number is meaningless as it's typical of the overall population regardless of cell phone use.

When I see a stupid driving move, the person is invariably holding a cell phone to their face, talking and gesticulating wildly while they're the only person in the vehicle (hands-free), looking down at something (texting or dialing), or it's a woman putting on makeup while driving.

Re:Some real statistics.

[coinreturn]

Also important - time of day. I find that in the early afternoon, about 1 in 5 or higher are on their cells - coordinating pickup of children, what to pick up from the store on the way home from work, etc. In contrast, in the morning rush hour, hardly anybody is on their phone (I travel 6:30 am to 7 am).

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Anne Thwacks]

The majority of accidents are caused by stupidity. WHen are we going to see a call for idiots to be banned from driving?

Thinks: Politicians are idiots, so its not going to ahppen anytime soon

Disclaimer: The stats are for America!

Re:Easy stats to pull

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The false sense of urgency people have simply because they can is getting ridiculous. I can accept that probably 1% of phone calls are actually urgent. What I can't accept is the 75% of calls that people think are ugent. What's the old saying, "Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part."

Wow. That must be one handy number of a job you've landed for yourself. I take it you don't have children either.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Joce640k]

Here's a question: Would the black box tell you how many of these accidents would have happened even if there was no cell phone involved?

No, but there's these things called "driving simulators" where they can do controlled experiments.

And, guess what...?

Ringing

[magi]

Perhaps they should study whether the main problem is talking in the phone or simply one ringing. Digging the annoyingly ringing phone out of your pocket could be a bigger risk than talking in it.

How to prevent that? Good question.

Handsfree devices are also rather useless, especially if you are driving with automatic gear, and often result in much more distraction than just holding the phone. Fumbling when you attach the phone in the holder and especially fumbling with an earphone can be really dangerous.

So much for multitasking

[Archtech]

Far too many people nowadays seem honestly to believe that it's a more efficient use of time to juggle several activities at once. If they only knew, even a computer (single-core) doesn't run several programs simultaneously; instead, it time-slices them. The big difference is that, when a computer process is preempted, its data is safely stored on the stack whether it's two bytes or 20 million. Human short-term memory evolved to handle half a dozen or so items, not more - and it's apt to drop them on the floor if it gets a sudden shock or surprise.

Re:bus drivers

[Archtech]

In the special case of bus and taxi drivers (and ambulances and police vehicles and fire engines and...) there are strong arguments for allowing communication while driving. They aren't just chatting for the sake of chatting - and they often can't afford to pull over and stop before they talk. However, such people can be (and are) trained to keep communication to the minimum, so they can get back to driving (or whatever).

Will we be forced to face the traffic nightmare?

[Coop]

One of the examples of boiled frog syndrome is how we've become accustomed to suckier and suckier traffic as population growth, development, and rising consumption have put more and more cars on the road, which are driven more and more miles per year. This has happened as the political will to undertake large infrastructure projects has dissolved with the rise of small government ideology. Essentially no cities that had their major growth after the 1950's are able to provide a functioning transportation system. We've been distracted from this fact by cars getting more comfortable and more entertaining, as music systems and especially cell phones became a major source of relief from the tedium of traffic jams. If all cell phone use in cars is banned, watch for the lack of good rush-hour transportation to come to the front in local politics.

Generic vs. specific laws

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Here in the UK we already have enough laws to cover this - using a non-hands free mobile phone whilst driving is illegal, and driving without due care and attention covers any other poor driving due to distraction of any kind, but requires you to actually be driving poorly.

I've shifted my position slightly on this over the years.

I used to be of the view that only a very small number of statutory driving offences should be required: dangerous driving, inconsiderate driving, driving without proper documentation/insurance, and that's about it. Allow each a reasonable but wide-ranging set of penalties to be used by the courts on a case-by-case basis, and you're done, right?

After reading a few discussions like this one, I realised the problem with that approach is that there's always That Guy who thinks he's the best driver in the world, and that none of the crazy things he's doing are dangerous or even inconsiderate to other road users, even though he's obviously much more likely to have an accident with serious consequences than most people. You know the guy, he's the one who thinks that running a red light several seconds late is fine because everyone who's now on green will take a second to get moving anyway, and that tailgating while flashing his lights aggressively at motorway speeds is harmless because he hasn't caused any accidents doing it yet.

This is the guy that specific laws, including the ones about mobile phone use, are aimed at. For similar reasons, I do think the government here made a mistake in banning only hand-held mobiles if they were going to ban mobiles at all. I understand that they were concerned about enforcement with hands-free kits, but if you remember when these laws first came in, all they really did was prompt 6ft high smiling cardboard people selling hands-free kits on the way into the supermarket with marketing claims like "Drive safe - use hands-free!". If you accept the evidence the government used to justify the ban in the first place as being reasonable, then that same evidence also showed that hands-free kits were almost as bad as hand-held, and they shouldn't have effectively encouraged hands-free use either.

Re:Generic vs. specific laws

[crakbone]

I have never understood why driver license divisions do not use technology to handle this. Having to take a driving test in a simulator that actually has road accident conditions randomly thrown at you that you would handle a ton of this. I have found myself reacting to conditions before they happen even if distracted by a person in the car. It was almost muscle memory. And it wasn't just hit the brakes. I have accelerated when almost run over by an SUV and swerved around a person turning wrong. All without even thinking about it. Instant assessment and reaction. That should be apart of driver training. I don't really care if you have a hard time parallel parking. I don't think it should be mandatory for you to memorize the blood alcohol levels if you don't drink. But I think you should know how to stop your car at 65 miles an hour when a deer walks on the road. Or how to slow down around parks because a lot of children are below hood level when walking around a car. Or how to speed up when the car right beside you starts to fishtail all over his lane. Or what to do when that mattress falls off the truck in front of you.

74% is accidents do not involve a phone

[captainpanic]

So, not using the phone is far more dangerous than using it.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[tbannist]

Are those studies as rigorous as the studies that show children playing exciting games become more excited than those playing boring games which is then extrapolated to conclude that playing violent games must make children more violent? Sometimes the results of a study do not actually match the publicized conclusions.

I am skeptical, I believe those driving studies show that using a phone is distracting, but I'm not convinced that they actually show that the drivers are more distracted than they would be otherwise be. There are a number of other factors that would come into play in real world condition that might not be reflected in the simulators, including that there are plenty of other distractions in your typical car and I suspect a good driver would know not to use a cell phone when driving in trying conditions.

Re:Another amazing fact

[noblebeast]

for at least the last several decades, they have been adusting their policy rates of pure gut instinct. ... The belief that they are using data to determine the rates is simply a myth.

Source? Otherwise, I'm calling BS.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[dave420]

The only way your logic makes sense is if not using a cell-phone is just as distracting in itself as using one...

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sadly, there are still a lot of people who will claim that even in cases like you describe, the phone had nothing to do with the bad driving.

I'll share a personal anecdote from yesterday. I was driving on some back streets on my way to a friend's house, the kind of roads where cars are parked down both sides so you've only got space for one car at a time in between (traffic can't pass in opposite directions without someone pulling over to give way).

As I'm coming up to a crossroads, someone in a 4x4, a big vehicle that is difficult to fit down these roads at the best of times, is coming the other way. Then they just stop, right in the middle of the road, blocking it completely, take out their phone and start making a call.

Now, I was the other side of the junction at that point, but clearly visible maybe 30m from the other vehicle, and my position and lack of turn signals implied that I was waiting to go down that road. They didn't even notice me for about half a minute.

When they eventually did, they pulled forward a bit to where there was a gap in the parked cars on one side (still chatting away on their phone) and started trying to reverse back into the space (still on the phone). I watched in horror as they came within probably an inch of the parked car just in front. Now, sure, they could have just been very good at manoeuvring their vehicle, but they'd have to be a pretty amazing driver to pass that close when at no point during the entire manoeuvre did they even look in that direction. Then they bumped up the kerb. Good thing the mother walking along the pavement with a pushchair had seen them and stopped well back, then. The driver proceeded to shuffle their vehicle around for probably another two minutes, chatting away throughout, until eventually they were far enough into the space that I could safely get past (though somehow they still managed to be nearly a foot away from the kerb, so good thing I was only a car trying to get past rather than something larger like an ambulance or fire engine, I guess).

It is a requirement for reaching driving test standard in the UK that a driver can perform that manoeuvre. If I'd been doing it in my car, I would have been off the road and into the space in maybe ten seconds, plus however long I'd had to wait to let the lady with the pushchair pass first just to be safe.

But I'm sure that just makes me the world's best driver and the guy in the 4x4 was just lucky to pass his test. Being on the phone surely had nothing to do with his apparent lack of awareness of other road users, a serious hazard on the pavement, or the position of other vehicles close to his own. And I'm sure his utter incompetence at getting his tank into the space (well, almost into the space, kind of, if we're being generous) had nothing to do with performing the whole manoeuvre one-handed or, at a few times, two-handed but with his head cocked at an angle to hold the phone so he couldn't look around instead.

Re:great

[galgon]

I am sure in a race simulator alcohol will have a marked negative impact on driving. However the objective here is safety not speed. So imagine your normal aggressive driver who is constantly speeding and tailgating. Give them a few beers and they will either stupidly drive the same way being even more of a hazard on the road. Or they will realize they are either near or over the legal alcohol limit and therefore not want to give the police a reason to pull them over. So they drive at the speed limit, hands at 10&2, leaving plenty of space. I wager it is probably safer to drive with the legally drunk guy being cautious than the sober aggressive guy. There is a point in alcohol consumption where this is no longer the case but I do not think it is at .08.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[portnoy]

Here's a question: Would the black box tell you how many of these accidents would have happened even if there was no cell phone involved? If so, let's see it. (I honestly don't know.)

Given that driving using a mobile phone seriously inhibits your ability to concentrate on driving and that the main cause of accidents is driver error, its a very good assumption.

Far better than the assumption that they would have had the accident anyway.

Not necessarily. The report in question is an estimate based on previous studies, including one from 2005 which originally suggested the 1 in 4 number. That 2005 paper decided that cell phone usage was "associated" with the accident if the phone was being used up to 10 minutes before the crash. So in other words, an accident was counted if a driver had a brief conversation, hung up the phone, put it away, drove five miles, and then was hit by someone running a red light. It's pretty easy to see that this accident would likely still have happened without the phone usage. What's not clear is what percentage of the accidents are like this.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[unapersson]

So in other words, an accident was counted if a driver had a brief conversation, hung up the phone, put it away, drove five miles, and then was hit by someone running a red light. It's pretty easy to see that this accident would likely still have happened without the phone usage. What's not clear is what percentage of the accidents are like this.

That's a bit of a stretch to say the accident would still have happened. When an accident occurs at a particular time it's because of a huge number of variables coming into alignment. Shift one of those just slightly and the accident won't occur.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Hamsterdan]

"Texting whilst driving is simply trying to commit suicide"

That would be the easy Darwin solution. Thing is, most of the times the driver is not hurt when the car runs over a pedestrian or someone riding a bike

Re:Easy stats to pull

[tbannist]

Not at all. The driver simulation studies are designed to show that using a cell phone is more distracting that not using a cell phone, however, that's not a particularly useful result in the real world. The real question we want answered is whether normal cell phone usage patterns lead to a higher rate or severity of accidents. After all if you're not talking to someone on the cell phone, you could be talking to someone in the car, eating a sandwich, drinking a bottle of water, adjusting the radio, adjusting the air conditioning, reciting an entire Monty Python sketch to yourself, or lost in a fantasy. You can't compel people to pay attention with laws. The early evidence seems to suggest that distracted driving laws are not having any effect on accident rates.

Maybe cell phone use displaces other equally distracting behaviour?

Additionally, according to the U.S. Government the highest rate for distracted driving fatalities involving cell phones is 2.3% (21% of 11%) and that's for drivers aged 15-19. So it's a minority of a small minority of fatal accidents, the focus on cell phone use may be because the behaviour is more obvious, newer and thus easier to single out. This could be just another senseless moral panic.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[BobMcD]

I've even turned in video footage (I have a helmet cam) to drivers who were especially egregious - hard to deny you were texting/talking when there is a good chunk of video proving it.

Is this behavior more or less distracting than using a phone? Your head is turned sideways, is it not? Do you see most of these drivers holding their phones to the side?

Also, call me a 'cager' if it helps, but I'd suggest that 80% of your close calls are because you're on a motorcycle. The roads were designed and sized for cars, so you might expect to have to put up with some additional risk using them with the incorrect vehicle. And God help you if you're using your motorcycle like a motorcycle instead of a car - e.g. utilizing that 'nice thing' you mentioned above to pass commuters in the commuter lane at high speed using three feet of shoulder. Not that I'm bitter. :)

In slashdot terms, motorcycle riders who complain about cars remind me of Linux users who complain about compatibility. It should be an informed decision.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[SleazyRidr]

100% agree. So often, I will get home after my 30 minute drive home from work and find 5 missed calls from my wife and she's mad at me for not answering my phone. What possibly came up in those 30 minutes that is so urgent? Usually she wants me to pick something up on the way home, as though the 3 minutes to the store is suddenly too difficult to do as a standalone trip.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[ceoyoyo]

Many of the bad drivers I see today are talking on phones. But twenty years ago many of the bad drivers I saw were doing something else distracting. Collision rates aren't increasing in most places.

Bad drivers are just bad drivers. If they don't have a phone to play with, it will be something else.

"gravy" in my last accident claim

[peter303]

Once it was party out the other party was on the phone at the time of the fender bender, I never saw tehht wo insurance companies pay off my claim so fast. Before the police report came out, the other party had made bogus claims about my guilt.

Re:Another amazing fact

[ceoyoyo]

Insurance companies don't care what your crash per mile driven rate is, they care about your crash per insured day rate.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[kilfarsnar]

I'll make that call right here (since I'm not in a car ;-) ). I think it should be much more difficult to get a driver's license in the US. As it stands now, in most states you have to demonstrate only a bare minimum of competency to get a license. Car and skid control? Accident avoidance techniques? Ain't nobody got time for that!

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Wycliffe]

When are we going to see a call for idiots to be banned from driving?

Google is working on this. As soon as they outlaw talking while driving and raise the insurance for people who don't have self driving cars.

Politicians are idiots, so its not going to ahppen anytime soon

Alot of politicians already don't drive: http://www.theguardian.com/lif...

reasonableness

[DriveDog]

I don't know how banning people from yapping while driving can be accomplished at this late date.

There's a good reason to think yapping is more distracting than texting. The worst part of texting is the necessity for most people to look somewhere besides the road ahead. Texting doesn't require the immediate attention like holding a voice conversation with someone does. If you pause a few seconds while composing or reading a text, no biggie. Mobile conversers are very aware that pausing while talking disrupts the conversation for the stationary participant, and that pausing while listening means missing something the other party said. So while yapping doesn't require looking away from the road, it does take primary attention away from driving. I've paid enough attention to how it affects me to know that my situational awareness goes way down and I have a sort of tunnel vision, where my brain only registers stuff directly in front of me. Notice how yappers usually drive more slowly? Their brain is automatically trying to compensate for their increased reaction time due to the distraction. So maybe instead of banning texting, we should push for a far better interface for it with heads-up display and voice input, and ban conversing. The asynchronous nature of texting might be just the thing we need to replace the yapping.

Re:reasonableness

[DriveDog]

Or here's another suggestion: phones in motion automatically limit the length of the call. Even if this doesn't limit the nature of the distraction, it limits the amount of time it applies, which would have a huge impact on the overall risk.

Accident Caused by Cell Phone Usage

[dcw3]

All I know is that the next time the jackass down the hall walks through our work area with his cell on speakerphone, there will be one more "accident". The son-of-a-bitch does it every other day.l

Re:Easy stats to pull

[minstrelmike]

Correlation is easier to infer than causation.
imo, it's exactly like drunk driving where the real statistics from actual actuaries are that drunk driving per se is _responsible_ for maybe 1.5-2% of accidents.
Those accidents would not have happened if the driver were not drunk.
Granted, maybe 40% of accidents involve drunk drivers but if 40% of all drivers on the road are drunk, then that's just straight up stats and no causation whatsoever kind of like saying 65% of all drivers have brown eyes and brown-eyed drivers are involved in 65% of all accidents
The old David Janssen commerical saying 55% of rush hour drivers in 1967 were drunk was supposed to get everyone M.A.D.D. and scared. At the time, 70% of accidents involved drunk drivers but most of the accidents were late at night when the rate of drunks was probably about 70%

Want more correlation? Over the years as we have cracked down on drunk driving and decreased the percentage of drunks behind the wheel, we have not actually decreased the number of accidents at all.

If 25% of all people driving are on the phone at any time and 25% of accidents "involve phone use," then that is to be expected. It isn't a problem, neither morally nor actually.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[minstrelmike]

The majority of accidents are caused by stupidity

Perhaps. Think of a restaurant. They probably have a specific number of glasses broken on average every year.
In very few cases are the glasses broken on purpose. They are all broken by accident.
Provide a plan for zero broken glasses at every restaurant in the U.S.

Once you've fixed that problem, then talk about how easy it is to prevent vehicle ACCIDENTS.
I still trip over my own two feet about once a year and tend to spill some liquid beverage of some kind about twice a year.
Please explain how to live a perfect, error-free life to the rest of us mortals.

Re:Another amazing fact

[swillden]

They may have done the statistics a long long time ago, for at least the last several decades, they have been adusting their policy rates of pure gut instinct.

This would imply there's a ripe opportunity for an insurance company to use actual numbers to set their rates, and be more profitable, at lower premiums, than their competitors. But I'm sure none of them would want to do that.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[minstrelmike]

People can be completely oblivious without being on the phone, too.
The phone is not the cause of poor driving.

Re:Another amazing fact

[Belial6]

I'm a source. You know, when you go to those insurance brokers that promise to compare rates between hundreds of insurance companies? I was one of the guys that wrote the software that did the comparisons. They way we did it was by calculating the rate on each of the companies and producing a sorted report. The company I worked for went so far as to guarentee that our price was correct. That's right. If we gave the wrong price, we paid the difference for the insured. I personally interviewed hundreds of people at the insurace companies to make sure that we understood their process.

The way that auto policies were set up is with new policies, the company would copy one of their competitors and hope for the best. With existing policies, they would make a gut guess as to where they could raise the rates and make more money. Every once in a while they would make bad guesses, and a few months after they implemented a rate change, they would change the same factor to a different value. Statements like "We had no idea that so many people had 4WD in California." were common.

I know that you reall want to believe that they do statistical because, well, "They must be doing it!". But you would be wrong.

total ban on driver use

[k6mfw]

oops, kind of read that too fast. But if we do ban driver use, then the car cannot be used. If it is not used, then no crashes can occur. OK a silly remark but I'm sure there are some considering this a serious proposal (i.e. self driving cars).

Re: Easy stats to pull

[hermitdev]

Right. The data is flawed, so we're going to make up our own, er, I mean extrapolate. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[orgelspieler]

These are two very different cases. There is a license granted by the state to drive. You can easily kill somebody in a car wreck. Carrying glasses is not nearly as risky or controlled. If it were, I can guarandamntee that people would treat drinking glasses with a lot more respect. But I can think of some basic ways we could at least try to reduce accidents.

If defensive driving proficiency was a requirement to get your license, and was taught at the same time as driver's ed, then perhaps people would at least start out with good habits. I drove well for the first year or so. But then I got comfortable, started speeding, following too closely, thinking I was invincible. Then I had kids, got a shorter commute, realized how fuel economy was increased by slower speeds.

Complacency is a real problem here. If people got in accidents every tenth time they talked on their cell phones, they would take notice. But accidents only rarely happen. I work in an industrial environment, and it has the same problem. Somebody doesn't wear their safety glasses once, and nothing gets in their eye. They do this for days, and each day that goes by cements the idea in their mind that it is safe to walk around all this flying debris with nothing covering their eyes. Until one day when somebody's grinding off slag and a spark sears their eyeball.

Driving is Boring

[DrGamez]

Until this is addressed, we will find some way to look at our phones.

It's an awful situation but it really is just going to be a fact of life. We are NOT going to put away our phones until they are physically disabled from working while driving a vehicle. Pandora's Box is already open here.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[TangoMargarine]

I don't think you can really use "Q.E.D." after a single statement....Proofs generally require more than 1 step: at least an initial condition, 1 (or almost always more) transformations, and a conclusion.

1) Your argument
2) No
3) Q.E.D.

doesn't really count.

Re:great

[TangoMargarine]

Not to mention that "Blood Alcohol Level" isn't actually a measurement of the alcohol in your blood at all, but rather in YOUR BREATH. Which there is a lot of handwaving to claim is strictly correlated.

I once rode with a person who had had like 9 drinks in the last couple hours, on the commuter highway afterwards. Steady as a rock...although I'll admit my own perceptions were significantly altered at the time ;-)

Re:Another amazing fact

[Belial6]

Likely they wouldn't. Doing the statistics properly would be extremely expensive. It could easily cost more than what they would make back with those tactics. You are also confused about what the selling points for insurance companies. The cost of the most expensive policy can be more than 3 times the cost of the cheapest policy. This is for the exact same person/vehicle. Most of the insurance companies are not selling primarily on cost. Those that are trying to undersell the big boys don't have to get the absolute lowest price to sell their policies. Then you have to add on top of all this that you are talking about billion dollar busniesses. You would need to make a case of increasing profits by a very large amount before anyone was going to take your suggestion of increasing work load massively and hiring lots of extra people before anyone would even start to listen you your idea.

It's kind of like my current activity over the last few months where I have been going through the attic, garage and the rest of the house and gathering up everything that I don't really want to keep anymore. Sure, I could try to sell it all in a garage sale. I don't because the effort and time involved in doing that is not worth the money I would make on it. It would also distract me from more valuable pursuits. So instead, I put all of the stuff out at the end of my driveway with a few "FREE" signs, post that the stuff is free on craigslist, and move on to better things.

Re:Another amazing fact

[swillden]

Likely they wouldn't. Doing the statistics properly would be extremely expensive.

Yes, it is. On the other hand, it's just as expensive to employ all of those high-priced actuaries and not have them do the statistics properly. And they have them on staff, lots of them. I have a few friends who work in that industry -- doing the statistics you say don't get done.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Wycliffe]

If I ever see your "friend" talking and driving around me, I'll shoot him in the fucking face.

You need to look out the window more. Probably 25-50% of the cars I pass are talking on their phones in my town.
And that's not even counting the people like my friend who use a handsfree headset. I'm actually surprised that
only 25% of accidents involve someone using a cellphone.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[Sardaukar86]

If I ever see your "friend" talking and driving around me, I'll shoot him in the fucking face.

Now that is indeed a solution, but it is to a different problem.

Still, having one less violently angry, psychopathic gun-wielding person on the road (and behind bars) can't all be bad.

Re:Easy stats to pull

[LynnwoodRooster]

Mobile cameras like my Contour have a 170 degree field of view - and as a motorcyclist you keep your head on a constant pivot to continually scan what is around you. If there's anything in the front ~220 degrees of me, the camera will pick it up with just my regular, safe left/right scan motion of my head.

As far as the roads and risks go, please talk to your local law enforcement about the rights and responsibilities of cars and motorcycles. You'll find we have to obey the same laws as you, and we have every right to our position in a lane. Yes, there are idiots that pass on the shoulder (illegal), but the VAST majority do not - just like there are idiots that decide to merge into another lane without signalling or head-checking (the former is illegal; the latter is common sense).

like saying 1in4 was talking to the passenger

[nhat11]

of the car when they crash.

I wonder about statistical accuracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago I was involved in an accident that was my fault. We were trying to find someone's house and I glanced down at the map in my girlfriends lap just before the person in front of me came to a full stop to make a left turn. After explaining to him what happened, he asked if there was a cell phone in the car. I told him that neither of us had been using a cell phone, but he demanded to know whether or not there was a cell phone in the car at all. I told him that my girlfriends cell phone was in her purse, on the passenger floor board.

He noted on his report that there was a cell phone in the vehicle at the time of the accident... but not it's location. I told my girlfriend right then that I believed that was going to be added to a statistic on the relationship between cell phones and accidents, which would skew the results.