Slashdot Mirror
Studies Conclude Hands-Free-calling and Apple Siri Distract Drivers
New submitter operator_error writes with a story at the L.A. Times that echoes some previous research on the relative risks of hand-held vs. hands-free phones by drivers, and comes to an even grimmer conclusion: In many cars, making a hands-free phone call can be more distracting than picking up your phone, according to a new study from AAA and the University of Utah. In-dash phone systems are overly complicated and prone to errors, the study found, and the same is true for voice-activated functions for music and navigation. A companion study also found that trying to use Siri — the voice control system on Apple phones — while driving was dangerously distracting. Two participants in the study had virtual crashes in an automotive simulator while attempting to use Siri, the study's authors reported. In response, Toyota said the study did not show a link between cognitive distraction and car crashes. "The results actually tell us very little about the relative benefits of in-vehicle versus hand-held systems; or about the relationship between cognitive load and crash risks," said Mike Michels, a Toyota spokesman.
Meanwhile, many states treat hand-held devices very differently from hands-free ones; in New York, for instance, both texting and talking on a hand-held mobile phone are put in the same category, while talking on a hands-free device is covered only by more general distracted driving laws. If the Utah study is correct, maybe that's backwards. (And some evidence suggests that phone use in cars is not quite the straightforward danger that it's sometimes presented as, despite the correlation of phone use with accidents.)
With this revelation will the government allow phone use now?
It's pretty funny that this article is right on top of the driverless city they're building in Michigan.
Please make autonomous cars a reality so we can finally stop having careless drivers on the road killing 40 000 in the USA alone every year.
And I would rather be a tiny bit distracted, at a safe moment when I make sure that I have plenty of car lengths in front of me, than be lost, wandering around trying to find my way. The maps application is one of the best driving innovations every. And Siri is fantastic, in that you don't have to fiddle with an address book on your car's console - you just say, "Call Joe". To me, it _enhances_ safety. And for those who think that I should not talk and drive, then remember the times that you were running late, and felt the need to rush, whereas by calling someone and saying you are a little bit late, you remove the pressure and you can slow down.
The real problem is people who are incompetent with technology. I've never had a problem pushing a button on my car stereo and saying "Call Home." There is nothing distracting about that for moderately competent people. The problem is people like your aunt or uncle who are basically morons in the technological realm -- the same people who couldn't figure out how to program a VCR. Yes, for those people I can see how fiddling with a hands-free device while driving would be distracting. So once again, the idiots of the world spoil it for everyone else.
I must agree.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
...and so do kids, passengers, arguments, the radio, the A/C controls, and anything else that takes your visual or mental attention away from the road in front of you.
This is surprising, how, exactly? Siri and similar are a hell of a lot better than texting and otherwise using your smart device in the normal, "non voice controlled" way.
Yes - I can understand this - it is exactly my experience. I'm not type A so I am capable of putting the phone down. Of course I find Siri is often less than useful. Yes it will make a call for me, or read/dictate my texts. But that's about it. It ain't no Google search (damit man, I have questions and need answers). I rarely make calls from my car - but when I do I ask Siri who usually responds.... "Sorry - I can't do that right now!" [grrrr]
I rented a newer car that had a touchscreen system for all adjustments. Temp, air ducts, radio. I spent more time with eyes on the screen than looking out the window. I really my physical round knobs in my car - just twist to an approximate position without looking. I thought we learned our lessons back in the 90' with stereos and push button volume controls - ooh those irked me (too loud...down down down down down down....). And Honda - that big knob in the center of the dash looks important and useful - like a big volume control or fan speed selector. But noooo - it's a friggen menu selector.
What do I do in my car? Listen to music. And this is where my car iPhone integration kit is handy - simple old school push buttons on the radio. These are integrated to playlists from my phone. Plain and simple. Button 1 is rock, 2 is softer, 3 podcasts, 4 kids, 5 surprise me. Or Pandora via a tap before I start driving. I've used newer ones in more modern cars that can itemize the choices via USB.
It all worked beautifully until...iOS8
....who has been on the receiving end of a crash with a phone involved driver....hang up and drive.
There is nothing so important that you cannot pull over and call/text. Nothing. Period.
In my case, she had a full 10 seconds of red light before impact. 10 seconds at 60mph = almost 3 football fields of not looking out the window.
Hanging upside down from the seatbelt, covered in broken glass, was not how I expected to spend my lunch hour.
Drive the damn car. Talk later.
Isn't speaking to passengers a distraction too? If a conversation with a passenger starts to get too heated, there's no way to hang up on them.
Around here driving-schools and the books and whatnot teach you to simply tell any passengers to let you focus on driving if it feels distracting to you. You can always argue or chat or whatever when the car isn't moving anymore. Of course, just telling them to quiet down may not always work, but at least it's acknowledged that it can be a serious distraction.
People that are terrified of Ebola, terrorists, vaccines, etc. will quite willingly smoke, drive distracted, and cross subway tracks.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Fine. You don't need to use the phone. Nobody is forcing you. To provide a counterpoint, I put my bluetooth headset on my ear when I get in the car. I can answer the phone by a tap on the headset. (Years ago, I used to answer the physical phone and hold it up - this was bad, and not as safe - I could tell I was not as safe a driver that way). My house is indeed 38 miles away. But that doesn't mean everything is. "Your dad is in the hospital, come quick" would mean I should drive in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT direction instead of blithely driving home and then having to reverse myself when I get there. Even a "pickup some food for yourself on the way home, we won't be here to eat with you" saves me quite a bit of time. Honestly having done this both ways (hand held and hands free), I don't care what the studies show for the general case. When I am in the driver seat it is a specific case - that doesn't always follow the general. While some people may be distracted by a voice in their ear as much as they are by actually holding the phone, not everyone is.
I wonder how much of this is distraction and how much of this is driver rage at Siri not understanding what the driver is asking or responding, as it does in most cases, with "Sorry, I can't do that".
Most passengers aren't half-deaf, mostly unhelpful bitches like Siri.
Screw you.
Drive the car. No one cares if you have to go back out and pick up that special thing from the grocery store. Coordinate that before you get in the car..
Drive the goddamn car.
But, no...you're a special snowflake that can do all of it at once, perfectly and all the time.
Hint...no, you can't. You're just a flake.
Or looking good. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Because I'm pretty sure that talking to one's significant other is equally distracting.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Hell, a billboard's sole purpose is to garner your attention but interestingly enough, nobody seems to care about those.
Passengers are present in the car with you and are aware of the surrounding conditions. Someone on the phone is not.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The nearest beach is 528 miles east. - Siri
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
"noting that the research did not document that cognitive distraction leads to crashes. Conversely, physical activities, such as reaching for a phone, texting or reading emails while driving do create distractions that cause collisions."
Why can't anybody do a good study on this? must studies start based on a study that came to it's numbers just by assumption, not actual data.
Other studies don't take into account what is too much distraction., just that there was a distraction.
They don't take into account how 'deep' the distraction is' That don't baseline against normal driving; which is also full of distraction, they don't take into account the fact that people aren't even really paying attention after about 11 minutes.Even tho' they thing they are paying attention.
It's insane.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is anyone else irritated by an explicit link to the beta site in this summary? You can edit 'tech-beta.slashdot.org' to be just 'tech.slashdot.org' and they do still offer the link back to the real site once you get there, but it's still annoying.
Maybe the solution is "just don't click on links while on Slashdot." That's a grand old tradition here anyway, I guess.
Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
what about road signs, especially not well written ones ?
Siri, as usual was giving me confusing and last second directions saying "Turn Left", in a very confusing series of intersections in Oakland where it looked like she was wrong (and was of course). However, while looking around trying to read street signs, the light turned red just as I got to the intersection, and I was still at about 40mph, after having just got off the Freeway. So, I figured it would be safer to run the light than slam on the brakes and risk stopping in the middle of the intersection. Immediately I saw flashing red lights, I pulled over and apologized to the CHP Officer while handing him my papers, explaining the situation with Siri and the light etc and you know what? He came back, handed me back my papers and said he decided to give me a break on the ticket and let me go. Thanks Ponch! Seems the California Highway Patrol is all to familiar with how much a distraction Siri can be. And what the fuck is up with her 10 mile warning! Two mile I can understand, but 10? Fucking annoying.
next to you than? Does talking to people in the back seat cause more a chance of crashing too?
I said passengers, not kids. Kids are an entirely different life form.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
To be fair, conducting a study about distracted driving in Utah is like hosting a philosophical debate in the mosh pit of a Gwar concert. It can be done, but the noise is going to be overwhelming.
I lived and drove there for ten years, which taught me fear as I have never known. Utah drivers don't need any help being terrible, but they welcome it anyway.
In the UK advertising billboards are forbidden along motorways. Hence the proliferation of dead, high sided vehicles parked in fields with advertising on them.
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Good question.
Considering research suggests that mobile phones are more distracting than passengers, it's probably overstepping to ban talking to passengers. It's also a lot harder to do.
I didn't see any mention of Cortana or Google Now. Doesn't seem like a very good study if it excludes those. As a consumer, I'd like to know if any voice recognition performed a lot better during driving than the others. Also, I wonder how distracted they were having gear strapped to their heads?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I've had two "love taps" from behind, one by a tailgater in dense traffic, one by a lady putting on makeup while driving.
Then I got rear-ended by some punk teen in his hopped-up Tacoma with a big tacky add-on tach, gauges on the a-pillar, etc. That impact lifted the rear of my Miata and twisted her lengthwise. Instant kill. I was ok, the car died protecting me. It was a fun 10 years that I had that car, and I still miss her.
So now, whenever I stop at a light or stopsign, or when in traffic which is slowing down, I keep an eye on the rear view mirror. If I see an approaching car and I think they're not stopping -- or if I actually *see* them working the phone, I flash my brakelights and honk the horn lots. Saved me already once, for-sure. Guy looks up and the nose went down, he was hard on the brakes. Then he looks up, as if saying "What?!"
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
are orders of magnitude more distracting than these device related distractions. Are we going to ban children in cars next?
I think the whole driving while "distracted" issue boils down to the type of distraction. My two cents... ACTIVE A phone call is an active engagement. You talk. The other person then talks. You are expecting feedback, so part of your brain is tuning in to receive that potential incoming response, therefore causing some people to not focus on other activities (such as driving). Another example would be texting. You get a text. You actively look at it, then respond back. PASSIVE A horrible song comes on the radio. You slightly lean forward and turn a physical knob or physical button to change the channel. You are not expecting further input form the radio. You just want it off of what is on there now. Another example would be turning the heater on/off. You just lean over, grab a dial, and turn it down. You are not expecting feedback from the heater other than for it to get hotter/colder. No unexpected feedback. Another example would be eating a hamburger. You have the hamburger in one hand and driving with the other. No need to look down at the hamburger or listen to the hamburger, it just is passively being eaten. Talking to another person IN THE SAME CAR could also be seen as passive. You are not trying to dial someone. You are not trying to hit a button to respond. You are just opening your mouth and talking. Those same systems that allow you to talk are not tied up with hand-eye coordination of driving. To counter that, if you have two kids in the back seat and they are fighting causing you to look up into the mirror while you talk, then that would switch to active and not passive.
Kids in the back seat begging for attention.
I don't know how I made it through childhood without my parents having a wreck every day.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
At first I thought, "No way! My hands-free function on my car is great, and far less distracting." Then I remember the frustrations I had when I first started using it. This is an example of the type of "conversation" I would have:
Car: "Voice command please." ...etc, etc, etc
Me:"Call Marty Klugman"
Car: "Calling Mary Kliegleman. Say yes or no."
Me:"No"
Car: "Voice command please"
Me:"Call Mar-ty Klug-man!"
Car: "Calling Harry Chelphon. Say yes or no"
Me:"NO!"
The next thing I know I'm arguing; YELLING at my Car!
Yeah, that was distracting, and dangerous. I'm glad there was no other traffic around.
Proverbs 21:19
I think BMW does it right. You hold a steering wheel button down for a moment and you have Siri with most functionality except things blocked during driving mode. Texting, Calls, appointments, notes, and music all work nicely. It's awesome, easy, and works.
The BMW speech recognition for the vehicle's functions works really well too. If you're busy you also have a live concierge to help with almost anything.
BMW's iDrive is amazing, it's engineered so that you rarely have to take your eyes off the road to operate it. BMW has a whole video and discussin about it. When you do have to look at the screen you can still see the road well. It was designed this way and has been refined over many years. I love it. For example each button has a slightly different shape and height right next to the wheel which you can even "click" with your wrist. They feel different so you build muscle memory right away.
Some of the others out there such as Ford, Lincoln, Toyota, Lexus, and more basically just tried to stick an iPad-like touch screen or Franken-mouse in the cabin that is confusing and distracting even if you read the manual and learn the ins and outs.
Mercedes has something that tries to be like iDrive but fails in so many ways. If you want examples ask. I had a 2014 Mercedes and was so disappointed with the day-to-day usability. The bullet points are there, but it's the little things that don't click.
I spent a lot of time with a lot of vehicles over the last few years as I've bought a few. BMW's tech and perhaps Audi's have always impressed me in how they are sophisticated, understated, and actually really useful. If it was made illegal I would argue against it.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Sorry, but real life doesn't work that way. The distance driven is a major contributing factor towards getting in a car wreck. When something comes up at the last minute, if you change directions to take a more optimal path immediately (as opposed to going all the way home and then going back out), you not only reduce your exposure to accidents by driving fewer miles, but also reduce the odds of other people getting into wrecks by having fewer cars on the road for some portion of your total drive time.
Thus, statistically speaking, if taking a short phone call or glancing down at a text message can save just a few extra minutes of driving, chances are you've made the roads safer by taking that call or reading that text message, not the other way around. Sending a text message, on the other hand, is a different story, because of the cognitive load involved, but that's really a separate issue.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Current ios version with siri plugged into a charger. "hey siri, call home" works perfectly and I dont have to touch it.
What did they use? an iphone 3S for their study? I have more of an argument with my HTC ONE M8 trying to get freaking voice dialing to work. Android has utter crap for it's dialing capabilities and needs to be updated.
yes I carry and daily use an M8 and a 5C, so I know more about this than 90% of you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Has anyone made a study of how much mobile usage in a car does NOT result in crashes?
I can guarantee that 100% of crashes involved oxygen, so we really must ban oxygen use in cars.
It should be pretty obvious that another missing, presumed unconsidered, dimension is people's ability to choose when they might reasonably use a mobile device whilst driving, and for how long.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Even when you're home on the couch. And touching your phone has actually caused tsunamis. And Ebola.
Put someone in a driving simulator and have them do something that might distract them. Does that make sense?
Put ME in a driving simulator and I'm already distracted. This isn't my car. The instruments aren't in the right places. It's confusing! And now you hand me a complicated device to use while 'driving'?
I had a bit of distraction the first few times I used the bluetooth system in my car. It could have been dangerous. The microphone was in the ceiling and the incoming via the radio, controls on the steering wheel and the phone was in my pocket. Dialing out was via voice commands. After a while it all seemed quite natural. Were these test subjects given time to adapt to the strange surroundings (like a week or two)?
Often when a study like this is done; to test the safety of distracting devices, or cigarettes or marijuana or alcohol ... there is a moral component. The people paying for the study want it to give certain results. Someone at AAA decided to do this- I wonder how old they are. It often seems to me that it is older people who fuss about such things (hey, I'm old but not fussy). In any case this particular study seems useless and biased.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I find it interesting that the article mentions three kind of distraction; cognitive distraction, visual distraction and physical distraction yet only measures cognitive distraction. I would think that the sum of all three distraction modes would be the definitive indicator as to what whether hand held or hands free is better. For example, I bet hand held has much higher visual and physical distraction numbers than hands free.
Yet another study to prove a theory rather than do a complete test.
That pilots aren't distracted while communicating to ground controllers or flight deck crews? Are drivers similarly distracted by conversations with passengers?
I sense something amiss here
Holy bad math batman! You are making a quantitative comparison without actually having quantities. Suppose the average phone call/text message saves 1 mile of driving; the average chance of an accident per 1 mile driven is 1 in 100,000; and the average chance of accident due to taking a call/reading a text is 1 in 10,000. Then by answering a call, one increases the chances of an accident 10x. I have no idea how close to reality those numbers are, but neither do you.
weinersmith
I'm sure there are studies of driver distraction when talking to someone who is in the car with them, but I've never seen those studies publicized or discussed. Common sense suggests that talking to someone sitting next to you, which includes normal human behaviors like looking at them for visual cues, has to be far more dangerous than hands-free cell calling. It's possible initiating a hands-free call is briefly more distracting than an in-car conversation, but that's a UI design issue.
City busses in Seattle have "don't talk to the driver while the bus is in motion" signs... for a good reason: they don't want you to distract the driver. So, why aren't there laws restricting conversations with people in your car? Beyond the practical impossibility of enforcing such a law, I suspect this has to do with technophobia, where "tech" is defined as something that seems new, rather than the tech we are already embedded in and used to. Cars themselves have gotten to the point of being assumed infrastructure, which is why we accept the general carnage on our roadways without question, while being up in arms about an increase in accidents due to mobile usage.
Another example of this kind of technophobia (or maybe technophilia in that it's what people want to hear about) is the publicity about studies of bacteria on cell phones. Sure, cell phones are rife with bacteria. But what about other things you have in your pocket, touch regularly, and would never think to clean, like keys and wallets? Keys have to be at least as bacteria-infested as your phone, and they haven't killed us off yet (except indirectly, through car crashes and sitting too much at the office). But I haven't seen any studies of general pocket-stuff bacteria publicized here or anywhere else. I suspect they exist, but where's the angst? Like the bacteria themselves, keys have been with us for a while now, so no angst.
Other commenters have noted that laws against cell phone use and texting do little to reduce usage. The advent of always-on remote connectivity to people and information is the killer app for self-driving cars. Young people instinctively realize driving cars get in the way of this connection, so they have stopped wanting to drive cars. Making a self-driving car is super hard/slow, but not much harder/slower than getting auto makers to do decent telematics UI design.
I wish we could move toward pre-80's tactile controls. There certainly would be a lot more work creating limited interfaces that could work with them. It seems to me that it's less distracting when a function is a distinct control with some good feedback, like a switch or knob, than the controls that seem to line my dash these days.
It's probably not so much worth worrying about anymore. Automatic cruise control and braking are soon going to be the standard, and ease us into nearly automated driving. Computers don't get distracted.
I love my computer -- You make me feel alright (Bad Religion)
I think BMW does it right. You hold a steering wheel button down for a moment and you have Siri with most functionality except things blocked during driving mode. Texting, Calls, appointments, notes, and music all work nicely. It's awesome, easy, and works.
The BMW speech recognition for the vehicle's functions works really well too. If you're busy you also have a live concierge to help with almost anything.
BMW's iDrive is amazing, it's engineered so that you rarely have to take your eyes off the road to operate it. BMW has a whole video and discussion about it. When you do have to look at the screen you can still see the road well. It was designed this way and has been refined over many years. I love it. For example each button has a slightly different shape and height right next to the wheel which you can even "click" with your wrist. They feel different so you build muscle memory right away.
Some of the others out there such as Ford, Lincoln, Toyota, Lexus, and more basically just tried to stick an iPad-like touch screen or Franken-mouse in the cabin that is confusing and distracting even if you read the manual and learn the ins and outs.
Mercedes has something that tries to be like iDrive but fails in so many ways. If you want examples ask. I had a 2014 Mercedes and was so disappointed with the day-to-day usability. The bullet points are there, but it's the little things that don't click.
I spent a lot of time with a lot of vehicles over the last few years as I've bought a few. BMW's tech and perhaps Audi's have always impressed me in how they are sophisticated, understated, and actually really useful. If it was made illegal I would argue against it.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
Admit it -- you didn't expect the German Inquisition!
I could be a little bit distracted by using the navigation function on my smartphone, or I could be extremely distracted, and even make sudden maneuvers to catch turn-offs when I'm totally fucking lost because of incompetent or non-existent road signage.
I know who I'd rather share the road with.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Actually, I do know how close to reality those numbers are. They're not close at all. The odds of an fatal accident are less than 1.3 per 100 million miles traveled, and the odds of any accident are about 231 per 100 million miles. So you're off by more than a factor of 4 in your accident rate per mile. And even though there's a lot of correlative "evidence" that suggests cell phones cause a lot of accidents, there's much stronger evidence suggesting that this is not, in fact, the case. In fact, the numbers actually suggest that the opposite may be true—that increased cell phone use has reduced the rate of accidents.
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Now this is decidedly not the case for teenage drivers. They still suck at driving, and as a result, it is quite possible that the extra risk from reading that text will be greater than the reduced risk from the extra miles. We shouldn't allow teens to use cell phones while driving for the same reason that we don't allow them to drive with other kids in the car—every little distraction is a problem if you lack the driving experience to do it instinctually. But the numbers strongly suggest that such prohibitions are completely ineffectual when applied to the population as a whole. (Although that's about the California law, similar studies have been done in other states that have passed anti-phone laws, and AFAIK, they've all consistently shown that such laws have no statistically significant effect on accident or fatality rates. None.)
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth. Glancing at a cell phone and reading a short message is no more dangerous than glancing down at the radio or the air conditioner or any of the other random things in your car that you might look at for two or three seconds. As risk factors go, it is almost completely lost in the noise.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time. The total risk requires you to multiply that risk times only the portion of your trip that it affects. Even if reading that text made you 100x more likely to have a wreck during those three seconds out of a twenty minute trip, the total risk averaged over the trip as a whole would still be somewhere around a 25% total increase. By contrast, if not taking that call means that you drive 30% more miles, the odds of you being of an accident increase by 30%, because accident rates are roughly linear in the number of miles driven. And I'm not convinced for one minute that it makes you 100x more likely to have a wreck, because for the overwhelming majority of those 3-second periods, there will be nothing happening in front of you whatsoever. I'm not convinced that you're even 10x more likely.
But suppose we go with your numbers and assume that your odds of an accident per mile is 1 in 100,000, and skimming a text gives you a whopping 1 in 10,000 chance of a wreck. That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Congratulations, you win the "dumbass" award. look forward to seeing you in the Darwin Awards.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Over the past couple of decades, as cell phone usage grew from essentially nobody having one to roughly everyone having one, the number of accidents per mile has been steadily decreasing. This suggests that in the grand scheme of things, either cell phones have no appreciable effect on accident rates, or that any effect that they have is more than negated by other factors, ranging from better braking and traction control to the extra cognitive ability resulting from people doing more multitasking in their daily lives.
Which, if true, would mean that if people didn't use cell phones while driving, the accident rate could be an unknown amount lower than it is.
In other words, the numbers agree with me and disagree with you. The cell phone distraction myth is just that: a myth.
Your numbers provided zero evidence to support that claim. At best, the numbers suggest that current strategies for reducing cell phone usage don't reduce accidents. This might just mean that instead of lowering the number of cell phone users, the laws make it more likely for people to hide their phones on their laps while driving, making them even more distracted.
What you're fundamentally missing is that the increased risk associated with skimming a text is over a very short period of time.
I wasn't "fundamentally missing" anything, I was making an assumption - not intended to be realistic - to illustrate why your original argument, being devoid of any evidence, was meaningless.
That means that if reading the text saves at least ten miles of driving, you're still better off reading the text than not reading it. That's not a particularly high bar. The average American has a 25.5 minute commute each way, so assuming you're equally likely to be asked to stop at any point along that route, using your numbers, on average, you're still better off reading the text message than not reading it, assuming you get it near the beginning of your trip.
Assuming every text people get is saving them ten miles of driving on average!? There is no way in hell that is anywhere close to realistic. The vast majority of calls or texts people get have absolutely nothing to do with driving. Now, if you have an agreement with, say, your spouse to only call you during your errand if something has changed, and you only take calls/texts from them and nobody else, then there is a possibility that overall you are reducing risk. But that's a fairly niche scenario.
weinersmith
If they based the rules of consent of Adult reasoning, some kids would be having sex at ten, others still wouldn't be allowed to at 50..
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..