Smartphones May Be To Blame For Unprecedented Spike In Pedestrian Deaths, Says Report (cnn.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smartphones May Be To Blame For Unprecedented Spike In Pedestrian Deaths, Says Report (cnn.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday March 30, 2017 @07:00PM from the don't-text-and-drive dept.

According to a report from the Governors Highway Safety Association, the United States saw its largest annual increase in pedestrian fatalities since such record keeping began 40 years ago. "The [association] estimated there were 6,000 pedestrian deaths in 2016, the highest number in more than 20 years," reports CNN. "Since 2010, pedestrian fatalities have grown at four times the rate of overall traffic deaths." From the report: The thing that has changed dramatically in recent years is smartphone use. The volume of wireless data used from 2014 to 2015 more than doubled, according to the Wireless Association. Drivers and pedestrians who are distracted by their smartphones are less likely to be aware of their surroundings, creating the potential for danger. The Governors Highway Safety Association looked at data from the first six months of 2016 that came from 50 state highway safety offices and the District of Columbia. The complete data will be available later this year. The findings come as traffic safety experts have called for totally eliminating deaths on roadways. Near-term solutions include designing roads and vehicles to be safer. Cutting down on speeding and drunk driving are obvious targets.

131 of 200 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Darwin at work by hoover · 2017-03-30 19:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let Darwin do his work... ;-)

--
Ever wondered whats wrong with the world? http://www.ishmael.org/
1. Re:Darwin at work by senileoldfart · 2017-03-30 19:05 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
2. Re: Darwin at work by Z00L00K · 2017-03-30 19:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As long as it's the victim that's at fault it makes sense.
  But modern cars requires less and less attention to drive which forces the driver to keep the mind occupied on other things to not fall into a vegetative state.
  And cars today also have a lot of touch screens, which also requires the driver to look away from the traffic.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
3. Re:Darwin at work by LordHighExecutioner · 2017-03-30 19:49 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe also Samsung at work...
4. Re:Darwin at work by Freischutz · 2017-03-30 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Let Darwin do his work... ;-)
  Much as I like to sit down at a table at work with six other people who all have their noses buried in their smartphones and annoy them by starting a verbal conversation (and quite a lot of the time they are visibly annoyed at having to take their noses out of their little glowing tablets and talk) I'm also in favour of preventing unnecessary loss of life. To that end kind of liked this idea:
  
  https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
  
  The cafeteria at one of those ultra cool tech companies where everybody is under 30 must be a very quiet place, just lots of people sitting at tables, noses buried in smartphones group chatting with the other people at the table on Facebook.
5. Re:Darwin at work by Joce640k · 2017-03-30 21:07 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing of value is being lost.
  
  --
  No sig today...
6. Re:Darwin at work by Opportunist · 2017-03-30 21:38 · Score: 2
  
  That's one part of the equation. That's also why fiddling with your cellphone while operating a vehicle carries a pretty heavy fine, at least in sane and civilized countries.
  The other half is idiots with their eyes on the phone instead of traffic while walking about. At least they get an immediate feedback for their stupidity.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re: Darwin at work by houghi · 2017-03-30 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  As long as it's the victim that's at fault it makes sense.
  That is not how Darwin works.
  Even if the victims are all innocent, Darwin would still be at work.
  What will happen is that people will be able to jump out of the way extremely fast. Those that can't will die. So in a way traffic rules hold us back.
  I say, remove all these traffic rules and in just a few hundred or a few thousand generations we will have a population that can avoid traffic and enough sex to replace those that don't.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
8. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · 2017-03-30 21:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's not on the driver when a witless fuckstick walks out into traffic when they wouldn't have right of way.
  In many countries it is. Coincidentally those countries are also the ones with the lowest death rate for pedestrians and cyclists.
9. Re:Darwin at work by Chas · 2017-03-30 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Wish the scoring system went higher than 5.
  Considering the people I've seen walking along with their device out in front of their nose, oblivious to EVERYTHING, stumbling down the street...
  If you're THAT addicted to your device that you completely zone out from reality, yeah, you need to do the gene pool a favor and die off.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
10. Re:Darwin at work by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-03-30 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Let Darwin do his work... ;-)
  Just as wind turbines are selecting for smarter birds.
11. Re:Darwin at work by mjwx · 2017-03-30 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Let Darwin do his work... ;-)
  But Darwin works too slowly.
  
  This may not be solely due to pedestrians not paying attention because they're head is too far buried in their phones. A lot of drivers do the same and are depending on others to avoid the collision. The person who gets hit may not necessarily be the one on the phone.
  
  Beyond that, there is a cost we all have to bear from preventable deaths, most western countries will shut down roads, have emergency services, A&E triage, medivac choppers all of which have a direct or indirect cost to all of us. Even if we didn't have that, we still have to cost of paying someone to scrape them up off the pavement. We cant just leave them there as rotting corpses are a health hazard (which again, is a huge cost).
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
12. Re: Darwin at work by mrbester · 2017-03-30 23:06 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, the ruling is if there is a pedestrian or cyclist (or any legal user of the highway, so moped, ridden horse etc are included) *already* on the road, then they have right of way.
  Those not on the road *do not* have right of way over those who are. You can't just walk out into traffic.
  However, if a pedestrian is at a designated crossing point such as a zebra crossing those on the road are to stop *if safe to do so*. That still doesn't mean a pedestrian can blithely cross without first looking at that point, though many do.
  Initially, the driver will be considered at fault in law if they run someone over but that is not absolute and binding. For instance, if their view of the oblivious pedestrian was obscured by a parked vehicle or they simply couldn't stop in time whilst otherwise driving safely, they are not at fault, though they will still be blamed.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
13. Re:Darwin at work by hawkinspeter · 2017-03-30 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming that it's the pedestrians who are at fault in not looking where they are going, but it's more likely that it's car drivers using phones and not concentrating on what's happening on the road. Unfortunately, idiots in cars don't tend to die when they make stupid mistakes - it's the people around them.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
14. Re: Darwin at work by drinkypoo · 2017-03-30 23:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  However, if a pedestrian is at a designated crossing point such as a zebra crossing those on the road are to stop *if safe to do so*. That still doesn't mean a pedestrian can blithely cross without first looking at that point, though many do.
  It really depends on where you are. In the city of Santa Cruz, the driver is pretty much always at fault unless you have dashcam footage that proves that they were trying to commit suicide under your car.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Darwin at work by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2017-03-30 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically they were trying to evolve their Pokemon
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
16. Re: Darwin at work by jabuzz · 2017-03-30 23:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  For example in the UK when turning into a side road you must give way to all existing road users, and this includes pedestrians crossing the road. Unfortunately a lot of drivers don't understand this, much in the same way as they think putting their indicator on generates a right to pull out etc. rather than simply being a notification to other road users of your intentions, and nobody is actually required to give way to you whatsoever.
17. Re:Darwin at work by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-03-30 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  You're assuming that it's the pedestrians who are at fault in not looking where they are going, but it's more likely that it's car drivers using phones and not concentrating on what's happening on the road.
  And of course you have some evidence that "it's moe likely that it's the car drivers"? If so, could you provide it?
  Note that if it's the car drivers, one might expect a similar spike in traffic accidents, which we haven't seen....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
18. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · 2017-03-30 23:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually, the ruling is
  
  completely and entirely irrelevant because I was talking about some of the many countries OTHER than the USA where in many cases pedestrians either have right of way, or in cases where they don't have right of way often have guardian angle laws that mean the driver is liable by default unless proven otherwise by arduous court cases.
  
  For instance, if their view of the oblivious pedestrian was obscured by a parked vehicle
  Then in most countries the driver was driving recklessly and not adjusting his style to suite the conditions at the time. Often the driver here would be found liable even in countries who do consider the driver to have right of way over someone stepping into traffic. Likewise on your zebra crossing example.
19. Re: Darwin at work by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 23:43 · Score: 1
  
  Straw man argument "well I drove safely on the autobahn"
  No, the law was 55MPH and you willingly exceeded it, therefor you're at fault for being the idiot.
  I will agree with you that in many cases speed limits are too low, but that is not YOUR call. If you want to see the speed limit increased, petition the government agency responsible rather than break the law and white about it.
  In many cases (like here in BC, Canada) the speed limits were revised upwards, and we have the most dangerous roads in Canada due to the curvy roads as you go up and down valleys. People who do not regularly drive in BC/WA/OR tend to drive lead-footed here until they hit a curve and then they slam on their brakes. In poor weather, that means you're going to go flying off the curve.
  Which to go back to your argument about "well I drove on the autobahn", great, but that is a completely different set of road conditions than most of the US's poorly maintained interstates and bridges. The speed limits in most of the US and Canada are set based on a 95% percentile system and are the maximum speed under IDEAL conditions. In BC we also have a lot of yellow speed limit signs in places that have a second maximum limit under wet weather because while you could take a corner at 90km/h (roughly 55Mph) if you do while it is raining or have bald tires, you're going to fly off the road and roll down a cliff before landing in a ravine or creek.
20. Re:Darwin at work by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-03-30 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Is iOS's foundation still called Darwin? If that's the case, it's two Darwins at work for iPhone users!
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
21. Re: Darwin at work by tsqr · 2017-03-31 00:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  guardian angle laws
  
  That's acute way of looking at the problem.
22. Re:Darwin at work by hawkinspeter · 2017-03-31 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't happen to have any data on that, but if it was the pedestrians at fault, then one might expect a similar spike in sidewalk accidents, which we haven't seen....
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
23. Re:Darwin at work by hawkinspeter · 2017-03-31 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  I've had a quick look at UK (where I live) statistics (e.g. https://www.gov.uk/government/...), but it's not much help as we've had reducing number of pedestrian fatalities since 2004 (excepting 2011 which is blamed on heavy snow).
  
  As we have plenty of smartphones and plenty of smombies, that indicates that there's something else happening in the U.S. that's increasing fatalities, but it'd be premature to blame smartphones.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
24. Re: Darwin at work by rmdingler · 2017-03-31 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  As long as it's the victim that's at fault it makes sense.
  Of course, the thing about cellular phones is that their use by either the driver or the pedestrian can lead to an unfortunate vehicular altercation.
  Mobile personal computers aside, there are many forms of distraction... the person in the four thousand pound machine would seem to have the burden of attention placed upon him, fairly or otherwise.
  It's mostly fair, since many drivers eventually become pedestrians.
  
  --
  Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
  Ernest Hemingway
25. Re: Darwin at work by Alumoi · 2017-03-31 00:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  When I'm out walking, I expect drivers to stop at stop signs and red lights, but I have to trust that they will.
  When I'm out driving I expect pedestrians to stop and look both ways BEFORE crossing the street, but I have to trust that they will.
  When I'm out driving I expect pedestrians to cross the street ONLY at marked places, but I have to trust that they will. ....
  Shall I go on?
26. Re: Darwin at work by DickBreath · 2017-03-31 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  A better way to explain it is if a pedestrian walks in front of your vehicle within your stopping distance, then a collision with the pedestrian is guaranteed unless you can swerve and hit a baby buggy or plow into a bus stop instead.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
27. Re:Darwin at work by edx93 · 2017-03-31 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's all good if the pedestrian just mindlessly walks into traffic and didn't have the right of way. Sometimes it's the driver who's to blame. Just this morning I was poking around in the phone while waiting for the "walk" light (and sound). I hear it, briefly look up and start walking...only to almost be hit by a car. Fortunately, I was in the most hospital dense part of the country, but what the hell!? This never would have happened had the driver not ran the red light!
  Don't get me wrong - pedestrians can really be asshats who "deserve" to get run over (go drive by Harvard square and Boston University and you'll see what I mean), but other times it's the cars to blame. The reason we see more pedestrian deaths is that, regardless of whose fault it is, they are the small 150lbs of squishy meat. Not much compared to 2 tons of metal, so of course pedestrians lose. Point is: we all suck and need to be more attentive to what's around us.
28. Re:Darwin at work by thomn8r · 2017-03-31 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Hello Darwin my old friend...
29. Re:Darwin at work by Rastl · 2017-03-31 02:01 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  That's all good if the pedestrian just mindlessly walks into traffic and didn't have the right of way. Sometimes it's the driver who's to blame. Just this morning I was poking around in the phone while waiting for the "walk" light (and sound). I hear it, briefly look up and start walking...only to almost be hit by a car. Fortunately, I was in the most hospital dense part of the country, but what the hell!? This never would have happened had the driver not ran the red light!
  Hrm. Did I miss the part where you looked both ways before crossing the street? A walk light is not enough. You need to be aware of your surroundings. Briefly looking up from your phone doesn't count. YOU could have avoided the accident had you looked to see a car about to run a light and plow into you. So really you do share fault in this accident.
  People - put your darn phones away when you're in motion. That includes both walking and driving.
30. Re: Darwin at work by strikethree · 2017-03-31 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's not on the driver when a witless fuckstick walks out into traffic when they wouldn't have right of way.
  In many countries it is. Coincidentally those countries are also the ones with the lowest death rate for pedestrians and cyclists.
  Also coincidentally, those countries have the highest rate of innocent people convicted of murder because fucksticks forced (the laws of physics be a harsh mistress) someone else to murder them.
  See? It all balances out in the end. Not just one life ruined from stupidity anymore. We all share in the results of their stupidity.
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
31. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · 2017-03-31 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say "cute" as much as novel. By holding driver accountable for every injury instead of putting them in the right it breeds a very different kind of approach to driving. I'm from Australia where we had no such laws so it was amazing seeing the difference in other countries. In Amsterdam two weeks ago a pedestrian was killed when he walked onto the road. I know this because it made the national news in the Netherlands.
32. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · 2017-03-31 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Also coincidentally, those countries have the highest rate of innocent people convicted of murder because
  Nope. They have the lowest number of crashes. But good work talking out of your arse.
33. Re:Darwin at work by geekmux · 2017-03-31 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Let Darwin do his work... ;-)
  Well, it's not like we Award this behavior or anything.
  Oh, wait...
34. Re:Darwin at work by edx93 · 2017-03-31 02:56 · Score: 2
  
  So, let me get this straight: Mr. Green drives through a green light then WHAM! gets t-boned because Mr. Red blew the red light. Are you saying that they both share the blame because Mr Green didn't look both ways? How, good sir, is this any different? There's a reason why it's a "walk" sign (a pedestrian green light, if you will). Because, you know, it's safe for you to walk (but only if others follow the rules)...
35. Re: Darwin at work by tsqr · 2017-03-31 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I believe the appropriate response here is "whoosh".
  Though to be honest, "acute" would only be appropriate if the guardian angle was between 0 and 90 degrees. If it was between 90 and 180, "obtuse" would be more fitting.
36. Re: Darwin at work by geekmux · 2017-03-31 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  As long as it's the victim that's at fault it makes sense.
  But modern cars requires less and less attention to drive which forces the driver to keep the mind occupied on other things to not fall into a vegetative state.
  Cars still have a steering wheel. And pedals. The last feature that changed those basic pay-attention-dumbass requirements was the advent of cruise control, which came out decades ago, long before the smartphone.
  Drivers today are still obligated to take the same driving test as their parents did, because shit hasn't changed.
  
  And cars today also have a lot of touch screens, which also requires the driver to look away from the traffic.
  And many of those touchscreen features are disabled when the car is in motion, or are extended with controls that are on the steering wheel, minimizing the risk.
  I think we can dispel with the ain't-like-it-used-to-be bullshit excuses. People today think they can do anything behind the wheel, including operating a smartphone. Let's not defend moronic behavior.
37. Re: Darwin at work by drinkypoo · 2017-03-31 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Happens with vehicle to vehicle as well, where people will stop, pop it in reverse, then claim they got rear-ended.
  Hopefully they set off their airbags, or at minimum, yours. Because any time an airbag goes off, freeze frame data is stored which shows, among other things, what gear a car is in and in which direction it is moving.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
38. Re:Darwin at work by gweihir · 2017-03-31 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. I have been nearly run over by these morons as a _pedestrian_ several times now. People that are incapable to paying attention to direct threats (moving objects that may reasonably be expected to hit them) are not fit to run around on their own.
  And it can get even worse: There was a case in Germany recently, where a railway worker that was distracted by some mobile game killed a lot of people by making two trains collide. This moron gave specially designed "go ahead" signals without making sure (these signals are only used in situations were there is no technological protection against two trains entering the same rail track head-on) and then managed to send a warning signal on the wrong channel when he finally noticed his mistake and there was around 30 seconds left to do something. The two trains then collided head-on at full speed in a curve. All this in a work-place where there is an absolute prohibition against any distractions because of the danger. He is in prison now, but that does not help the dead or the injured and a lot of traumatized rescuers.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
39. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · 2017-03-31 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Oh woopse, time for a spelling improving coffee :-)
40. Re:Darwin at work by jwhyche · 2017-03-31 05:30 · Score: 2
  
  We call that "thinning the herd."
  
  --
  I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
41. Re:Darwin at work by Roger+W+Moore · 2017-03-31 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing of value is being lost.
  How about the mental health of the driver that now has to live with the fact that they killed someone? It might not be their fault at all but even so that sort of thing tends to weight heavily on people.
42. Re:Darwin at work by Kielistic · 2017-03-31 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Let me just look up the national registry of bump-intos.
43. Re:Darwin at work by Joce640k · 2017-03-31 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  I guess so.
  Also: Pedestrians don't usually have insurance so he might have to pay to fix his car, too.
  
  --
  No sig today...
44. Re: Darwin at work by drinkypoo · 2017-03-31 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Freeze frame data? Is that a technical term?
  Yes, yes it is. Not only will you find numerous examples if you develop the wherewithal to google "airbag freeze frame", but it's the terminology you will find used in the class to prepare you for the ASE A-6 exam, on which I got a 96. Why do you ask?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
45. Re: Darwin at work by gnasher719 · 2017-03-31 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  A better way to explain it is if a pedestrian walks in front of your vehicle within your stopping distance, then a collision with the pedestrian is guaranteed unless you can swerve and hit a baby buggy or plow into a bus stop instead.
  Actually, as you learn and become a good driver, you will just know which pedestrians are likely to do something absolutely stupid, and slow down your speed, and/or have an escape plan ready that doesn't involve the baby or the bus.
46. Re: Darwin at work by freeze128 · 2017-03-31 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Don't drive near playgrounds.
47. Re: Darwin at work by mrbester · 2017-03-31 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was referring to the UK, being British and having paid attention to the Highway Code in order to pass my driving test.
  Someone you can't see lurches out from behind a parked high sided van 10 feet away from you when you are driving along the road at 15mph, well before the limit, you hit them because there is no way you can avoid them and it's still your fault? Fuck off with that bollocks.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
48. Re: Darwin at work by david_thornley · 2017-03-31 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, there was the time when the family (including baby) appeared from behind the bus, where my wife had no way to see them. Had we been one lane over, I don't see how we could have missed them. They looked at us like we should normally stop at green lights in case pedestrians appear.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
49. Re: Darwin at work by david_thornley · 2017-03-31 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  What about times when I don't want to be THAT much of an obstacle on the road to obey the speed limit? We're all safer if we all move predictably and stay with the flow of traffic.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
50. Re:Darwin at work by david_thornley · 2017-03-31 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  edx93 said the driver ran the red. Drivers have no compulsion to turn right on red, or any right-of-way. If you want to turn on red, it's your job to avoid collisions.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
51. Re: Darwin at work by Ichijo · 2017-03-31 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  When I'm out driving I expect pedestrians to cross the street ONLY at marked places
  
  You shouldn't, because not all crosswalks are marked.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
52. Re: Darwin at work by Baloo+Uriza · 2017-04-01 18:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ostensibly, the US is one of those countries where it's primarily driver's responsibility to not run over people on foot.
  
  --
  Furries make the internet go.
53. Re: Darwin at work by strikethree · 2017-04-07 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Glad to know that the laws of physics can be overridden by man-made laws. GGWP
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
54. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · 2017-04-07 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Now you think the human mind is what is explained by laws of physics?
  Well yours may be given your very 1 dimensional ability to analyse cause and effect.
Smartphone using drivers by emj · 2017-03-30 19:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

The biggest problem is the infrastructure, drivers and cars not pedestrians, so I think you are missing the point completly.
I've often wondered why people look away from the act of random terror that cars subject us to in everyday life, instead the victims get blamed. At some point you have to understand that cars are a big health problem.
1. Re:Smartphone using drivers by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-03-30 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds plausible but I'd like to see some research into that. I had a quick look at some traffic statistics but couldn't find anything on pedestrians stepping into traffic whilst looking at their smartphone. Problem is that almost all accidents involving a pedestrian and a motor vehicle are attributed to the driver in the statistics (over here, it's almost always the driver's insurer who pays regardless of who caused the accident).
  
  One interesting thing I did manage to glean from the statistics is that fully 1/3rd of all deaths of pedestrians did not involve another party, but were caused by falls or bumping into a stationary object. Numbers for cyclists are about the same. And the vast majority of injuries did not involve another party. Cars are a big health problem but the numbers show a pretty steady overall decline (in terms of accidents as well as emissions, I might add); hopefully cars will drop below clumsiness as a cause of death of pedestrians.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Smartphone using drivers by Opportunist · 2017-03-30 21:36 · Score: 1
  
  So we should spend millions on childproofing the roads because alleged adults cannot be assed to look left and right before running after some pokemon?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:Smartphone using drivers by emj · 2017-03-30 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem is people like you, thinking only yourselves.
  Thank you! But I'm not sure how thinking for yourself would be a problem..
4. Re:Smartphone using drivers by emj · 2017-03-30 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  One interesting thing I did manage to glean from the statistics is that fully 1/3rd of all deaths of pedestrians did not involve another party, but were caused by falls or bumping into a stationary object. Numbers for cyclists are about the same. And the vast majority of injuries did not involve another party. Cars are a big health problem but the numbers show a pretty steady overall decline (in terms of accidents as well as emissions, I might add); hopefully cars will drop below clumsiness as a cause of death of pedestrians.
  Emissions is actually getting worse at least if you count from 1970, and death by the emissions from cars is going up. In Sweden are about 300% more people killed by pollution from cars than from actual accidents.
  Not sure what you want stats on, it's pretty hard to use traffic statistics because there are lots of strange pitfalls. E.g. cyclists injured by dooring is counted as a self inflicted injury in some countries.. But yes being injured by infrastrucure and bad maintenance is a real thing, but at least here most deaths and severe injuries in traffic are directly connected to cars.
5. Re:Smartphone using drivers by emj · 2017-03-30 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  So we should spend millions on childproofing the roads because alleged adults cannot be assed to look left and right before running after some pokemon?
  The people who are killed are not the ones using smartphones.
6. Re:Smartphone using drivers by Opportunist · 2017-03-30 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not? So that organ donor that jumped in front of my car because his eyes were glued to the damn smartphone could have killed me while getting away without a scratch if I didn't hit the brakes like there's no tomorrow (and most likely there would not have been one for him)?
  Somehow I doubt it.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:Smartphone using drivers by Mr+D+from+63 · 2017-03-30 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  That sounds plausible but I'd like to see some research into that. I had a quick look at some traffic statistics but couldn't find anything on pedestrians stepping into traffic whilst looking at their smartphone. Problem is that almost all accidents involving a pedestrian and a motor vehicle are attributed to the driver in the statistics (over here, it's almost always the driver's insurer who pays regardless of who caused the accident).
  One incident happened near me recently, a woman on her cell phone stepped off the sidewalk with a truck turning wide and killed her. She evidently did not even look and the driver had to watch his truck rear end with his mirror to make sure it cleared a car in the intersetction. It appears to be primarily her fault as the driver would never expect her to step out in front of him, but the driver has some blame. But we'll never know because everyone gets 'lawyered up' and I assume they settle. So it may never show up as a statistic.
8. Re:Smartphone using drivers by drinkypoo · 2017-03-30 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  So we should spend millions on childproofing the roads because alleged adults cannot be assed to look left and right before running after some pokemon?
  I find these allegations to be seriously overblown. If you look one direction and walk another, you're failing at walking. Unless you have an infirmity which prohibits it, failing at walking is failing at life, because it's literally the primary activity for which we evolved. We're better at it than anything else, which is hard to believe when you see someone trip over a curb because they're answering their gmail.
  I just went to a cheese festival in Petaluma. I have never seen so many adults fail at adulting, and a huge part of it was setting off in directions in which they hadn't looked. Several of them pinged off of me, as I'm 6'7" and about 300 lbs. Let's call it chunky, I'm too tall to be rotund. But there's still no excuse for not seeing me. I was wearing a fucking Hawaiian shirt for chrissakes.
  They say cheese is as addictive as drugs, but there's no need to act like crackheads over it. Adults are in short supply.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
9. Re:Smartphone using drivers by emj · 2017-03-31 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not? So that organ donor that jumped in front of my car because his eyes were glued to the damn smartphone
  
  You must drive really fast if you hit people so hard that their eyes are litereally glued to your smartphone.
10. Re:Smartphone using drivers by Opportunist · 2017-03-31 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Figure of speech. Jeesh.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:Smartphone using drivers by jhecht · 2017-03-31 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Drivers on smartphones are hazardous to everybody. Pedestrians on smartphones are hazardous to themselves. Cars can move faster, so distracted drivers are more dangerous per second distracted than slower-moving pedestrians. And city highway departments add to the problem when they redesign busy intersections so drivers can turn into streets at the same time when pedestrians have a WALK signal to cross them.
12. Re:Smartphone using drivers by Sloppy · 2017-03-31 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  So that organ donor that jumped in front of my car .. could have killed me while getting away without a scratch..?
  Sorry, I have to reluctantly admit that I don't have a clue. I was in the car next to you, and didn't see a thing. Your traffic incident doesn't sound as interesting as the video I was watching, anyway.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
13. Re:Smartphone using drivers by gnasher719 · 2017-03-31 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  But we'll never know because everyone gets 'lawyered up' and I assume they settle.
  The lorry driver will settle. His insurance will settle. The woman won't settle, but at least the earth on her grave will settle.
14. Re:Smartphone using drivers by david_thornley · 2017-03-31 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Pedestrians on smartphones (or just being really dumb) are a hazard to drivers. You can get PTSD from killing a pedestrian.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
15. Re:Smartphone using drivers by Opportunist · 2017-03-31 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you were lucky this time, next time one of those killer-pedestrians may jump into your car and kill you!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Probably not the case by The+Evil+Atheist · 2017-03-30 19:25 · Score: 5, Funny

No one died on their smartphones on my street today. Therefore this trend doesn't exist. It is in fact a conspiracy pushed by the chicken little pedestrian lobby in trying to take away my God given right to have a smartphone and be reckless with it.

--
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
i suspect drivers too by aepervius · 2017-03-30 19:28 · Score: 2

I can see the pedestrian traffic fatalitues in germany only slightly increased http://www.bast.de/EN/Publicat... granted i do not have the 2016 numbers but this is still below the 2005 numbers.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:i suspect drivers too by gnasher719 · 2017-03-31 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I can see the pedestrian traffic fatalitues in germany only slightly increased http://www.bast.de/EN/Publicat... [www.bast.de] granted i do not have the 2016 numbers but this is still below the 2005 numbers.
  On one street, they had two fatalities because pedestrians were using their phone and stepped right into traffic at a red pedestrian traffic light. So they installed red and green LEDs in the ground. Where you can't miss them when you're on your phone and looking in the right direction.
Don't forget those by RotateLeftByte · 2017-03-30 19:40 · Score: 2

with headphones, ear buds, air buds and all sorts of other things covering their ears. Not being able to hear what's going on around you is just IMHO silly.
Will listening the latest bang,bang,boom R&B thing save you from a collision? Not it won't and it may make you more liable to be hit by a vehicle.
Just you wait, the insurers will raise rates to cover themselves or eve better in their eyes, exclude anyone using a smartphone while walking or listening to tunes.

--
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
1. Re:Don't forget those by thegarbz · 2017-03-30 22:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not being able to hear what's going on around you is just IMHO silly.
  Given the general level of background noise in busy cities, coupled with the fact that most cars made in the past 2 decades are pretty damn quiet when not accelerating (where the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities occur), I highly doubt this makes a difference.
2. Re:Don't forget those by umafuckit · 2017-03-30 22:13 · Score: 2
  
  Not being able to hear what's going on around you is just IMHO silly.
  Given the general level of background noise in busy cities, coupled with the fact that most cars made in the past 2 decades are pretty damn quiet when not accelerating (where the highest rate of pedestrian fatalities occur), I highly doubt this makes a difference.
  I don't doubt it at all. When I walk with noise-caceling headphones around town I really feel the difference in terms of knowing what's around me. I make a habit of being much more cautious about turning my head fully to look around and checking twice. I would never ride a bicycle with those things. I see others doing it, though.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
3. Re:Don't forget those by thegarbz · 2017-03-30 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  I would never ride a bicycle with those things.
  As someone who cycles everywhere I can categorically tell you (yeah yeah appeal to authority fallacy, anecdote etc) that you don't hear cars until there's bugger all you can do about them unless:
  a) they slow down because they can't pass you.
  b) some raging impatient arsehole feels the need to demonstrate his arseholishness through the use of the horn.
4. Re:Don't forget those by Luthair · 2017-03-31 01:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think the biggest issue is that people assume when they have the right of way they don't need to pay attention. Unfortunately there are too many drivers who both don't understand who has the right of way, and others who don't pay attention to anything that isn't another car.
  The safest thing to do is assume everyone else is an idiot, while I always try to exercise my right of way (otherwise it leads to more people assuming others will give way) I'm also watching everyone. e.g. I'm looking out for cars behind me while approaching the intersection.
  As others have pointed out, cars are better and more isolating than ever. When cars were worse drivers needed to slow down more for corners, they didn't accelerate as quickly, etc. There is also more traffic than ever.
5. Re:Don't forget those by Admiral_Grinder · 2017-03-31 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  I second this as well. The sound of wind over your ears drowns out lots of sound. However, city buses are the worse though with rear mounted engines. I don't hear the bus until I see it going by.
6. Re:Don't forget those by umafuckit · 2017-03-31 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure this depends on the city and how busy the road is. I live in a smallish city and I can definitely hear nearby threats much of the time.
  
  --
  soylentnews.org
Not just driving and crossing the street... by sidetrack · 2017-03-30 19:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Perhaps more worrying is that people are getting distracted by the smartphones whilst voting, with disastrous consequences.
1. Re:Not just driving and crossing the street... by DickBreath · 2017-03-31 01:29 · Score: 2
  
  If cars can be self driving. Then voting booths can be self voting. It can't be that difficult to implement.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Shit article, no context by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 19:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Article cites 6000 pedestrian deaths in 2016, and calls it a spike, but offers no context of how much of an increase that is.
Article cites pedestrian death rate has grown 4 times the overall traffic fatality rate, again without citing the base rate of either.
This could be a huge increase, or hardly any one at all. 100 people per year could have died for first 15 years of the 20 year period, and then spiked up to 6000 in 2016, or, it could have been 5900 per year for first 15 years and slightly increased to 6000 in 2016, both sets probably fit the data, and are enormously different.
1. Re:Shit article, no context by Mashiki · 2017-03-30 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  You're right the article is shit. But I can fill in some of the blanks, at least from here in Canada. Toronto last year saw a 34% increase in the number of pedestrians being hit. There's fault and issues across the board, but the number of people being hit has increased. Whether it's drivers not signalling, cyclists being aggressive and thinking they're gods unto themselves and cutting off cars, or pedestrians not paying attention(because they've got shit jammed in their ears) and getting smeared by trucks/cars/buses, or those same vehicles not paying attention to crosswalk signs. Seems big cities have a problem, the small city I live in had 3 pedestrian hits last year. The pedestrian walked into traffic each time, and weren't paying attention.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Shit article, no context by emj · 2017-03-30 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  the small city I live in had 3 pedestrian hits last year. The pedestrian walked into traffic each time, and weren't paying attention.
  If those numbers are true for a longer period of time the traffic in your city work completly different from any other town I've ever read about, but I guess it could easily happen for 3 cases, if you have really badly streets.
3. Re:Shit article, no context by Highdude702 · 2017-03-30 22:49 · Score: 1
  
  Here in las vegas, We had so many people J-Walking and getting hit by vehicles because they would literally walk in front of oncoming traffic, they passed a law stating if youre not in the crosswalk with a walk signal, and you get hit by a car.. as long as the driver is sober it is the pedestrians fault. And to tell you the truth I've come close to running people over on purpose for it. People still walk in front of oncoming traffic. And then they want to yell at you like you shouldnt be driving on the road. Maybe its time we started driving on the sidewalks.
4. Re:Shit article, no context by Mashiki · 2017-03-31 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  If those numbers are true for a longer period of time the traffic in your city work completly different from any other town I've ever read about, but I guess it could easily happen for 3 cases, if you have really badly streets.
  It's usually the case of people in downtown getting hit because they're not using crosswalks. The city is mainly laid out that it pushes people to primary 4-lane roadways to travel across the city quickly. While streets with residential areas have more stop signs or RoW/4way yield intersections. With industrial areas always to the outside and new residential developments to the opposite direction but with plenty of road access(again 4lane) to speed traffic. They changed how they laid things out back oh 20 years ago when I was a kid there, because a bunch of school kids(g4-5) got hit. The schools was roughly 3-4 blocks from their homes, people would speed through the areas to get to work.
  Another example of a city which does something similar would be Tilsonburg, Ontario. The city is laid out in a similar way.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
Just yesterday morning by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-30 19:58 · Score: 1

There's plenty of construction on the streets of Montreal, and thursday on my way to work someone with both thumbs on their phone walked right into a meter-deep gravel ditch. Never so much as noticed the fat orange cones all around to make one detour by the other sidewalk.
I've also seen cyclists with both hands on their phone, and the inevitable results over the last few years. My favorite was the texting unicycle that smacked straight into the side of an ambulance. Seeing them just methodically come out of their vehicle, start treatment and ultimately take him away in it had this surreal charlie-chaplin feel to it.
1. Re:Just yesterday morning by Opportunist · 2017-03-30 22:25 · Score: 2
  
  My favorite was the texting unicycle that smacked straight into the side of an ambulance.
  And don't you wish you had your phone out so you could have filmed that to put on YouTube?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Just yesterday morning by Opportunist · 2017-03-30 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I prefer driving cars. If any crazies come too close, they're usually the ones that get killed.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not necessary by campuscodi · 2017-03-30 20:12 · Score: 1

I don't think we needed a scientific report/research to tell us this
Growng? by Carewolf · 2017-03-30 20:21 · Score: 1, Insightful

Wait Why is the overall rate of traffic deaths _growing_?
Jesus Christ America, you suck!
1. Re:Growng? by Carewolf · 2017-03-31 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  people in charge of speed limits and saftey standards wont be happy until your driving powerwheels to work. top speed 5mph! soo safe! wait, we still need a new nerf bumper design.
  Speed limits in the US are way lower than in Europe (dispite having lower population density), but the US still has an order of magnitude more traffic accidents and fatalities. The low speed-limits might actually be making it worse, as people get bored and unfocused.
Spike in pedestrian deaths by Chrisq · 2017-03-30 20:38 · Score: 1

The Spike in pedestrian deaths makes me think of this.
hmm by TheConway · 2017-03-30 20:38 · Score: 1

Correlation does not equal causation. Not entirely sure there is enough data being presented here to show that smartphones are the direct cause.
1. Re:hmm by DickBreath · 2017-03-31 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Correlation is causation. Using air conditioning makes the weather warmer outside. The ocean tides are the cause of the predictable motion of the moon. Increased atmospheric CO2 is why space telescopes are discovering more exoplanets. These things happen at the same time and must be cause and effect related.
  
  --
  
  I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Obligatory xkcd quote. by ctrl-alt-canc · 2017-03-30 20:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Nerd sniping. You don't ever need a smartphone!
Re:Suck on it, MILLENIAL BeauHD! by sheramil · 2017-03-30 21:02 · Score: 1

... of having their products reliably MURDER those poor wittew miwweniaw pedestrians merely minding their own business.
Go home, Elmer Fudd, you are drunk.
And it's daily by kilodelta · 2017-03-30 21:13 · Score: 1

That I get to walk behind some clod looking down at his/her mobile phone. So this study doesn't surprise me. There have been many, many, many times where I've wanted to shout "Put the fucking phone down and walk" But alas I just post about it online.
Re:Solution by Alain+Williams · 2017-03-30 21:56 · Score: 1

Police should start pulling over and ticketing drivers who are on their phones while driving.
That has been the case for a few years in the UK. However many ignored this and so recently the penalty when caught was doubled to 6 points; if you have 12 you are disqualified for some time. There has also been a recent media campaign "put your 'phone out of reach while driving". No one can claim that they don't know; I expect that many will still 'phone & drive.
Re: Smartphones are inanimate objects by Opportunist · 2017-03-30 22:26 · Score: 1

Politicians?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Touch Screens in Cars by Highdude702 · 2017-03-30 22:39 · Score: 1

Dont walk in front of one of those either.
Re: Smartphones are inanimate objects by Highdude702 · 2017-03-30 23:02 · Score: 1

this was a funny post, but couldnt submit because of too many caps cause slashdot sucks. so instead you get this post talking about how posting on slashdot sucks. Thanks guys!
Being cheap can save your life by John+Jorsett · 2017-03-30 23:12 · Score: 1

Even if I wanted to read my cheap, crappy phone while walking, sunlight obliterates the screen.
How to from the real Darth Vader by Mittengrabber · 2017-03-30 23:20 · Score: 2

Never happened to me, but then Darth Vader taught me to cross the road https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Use the Crosswalk! by ThatNakedGuy · 2017-03-30 23:23 · Score: 1

Here in Florida we have second-highest rate of pedestrian deaths in the country, and the reason is obvious to drivers.
Stupid people not using the crosswalk. I am constantly seeing people crossing the road dangerously, because they dont want to walk a few extra yards to a nearby crosswalk or wait for a light. It seems like every news story about a pedestrian death occurs outside a crosswalk.
Are parents not teaching their kids this basic life skill anymore?
Hire a few extra cops to patrol the sidewalks, start citing pedestrians for J walking and crossing outside a crosswalk, with an egregiously heavy fine. Start teaching proper crossing in school, if parents wont teach it.
I'm tired of people walking out into traffic a few yards from my car and expecting me to magically halt this 4000 pound chunk of metal and plastic from 45mph.
1. Re:Use the Crosswalk! by Jaime2 · 2017-03-31 05:39 · Score: 2
  
  I have an opposing viewpoint... I walk for exercise most days on my lunch hour. I work in an ostensibly "walk friendly" community with a ton of antique shops on main street. I plan my route so I only cross one street that's bigger than a residential side street.
  I get nearly killed at least once a month. It's almost always by someone turning left into a parking lot, so they're coming from my rear. The problem here isn't that people are on their phones. The problem is that drivers would mow down pedestrians at an alarming rate if we weren't constantly dodging cars. I once had a lady nearly kill me, then pull into the lot, get out of her car, and berate me for walking on the sidewalk that she needed to drive over.
  Another one that bothers me: Car is first at a red light and is turning left. There is no possibility that this car will go anywhere until the light turns green. However, the car slowly creeps forward until they are entirely blocking the crosswalk and ten feet in front of it (on the intersection side). I now have two choices - walk in front of the car, which is nearly in the other road, or walk behind the car. I used to walk behind the car, until one day, a car turned left and almost hit me. I realized that the left turning car couldn't see me because I was completely shielded by the SUV I walked behind. Now I always walk in front of them - or stop and stare at them until they back up.
2. Re:Use the Crosswalk! by Ichijo · 2017-03-31 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Hire a few extra cops to patrol the sidewalks, start citing pedestrians for J walking and crossing outside a crosswalk, with an egregiously heavy fine.
  
  Those pedestrian deaths wouldn't occur if the cars weren't there. Because of that and because cases of drivers violating the pedestrian's right of way [are] more common than pedestrians violating that of drivers, maybe the cops should do a better job of citing drivers who blast through crosswalks.
  Also, did you know that some crosswalks are unmarked? So what may look like a person jaywalking is actually someone crossing perfectly legally.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
And? by quonset · 2017-03-30 23:27 · Score: 1

I don't see a problem. Natural selection doing its thing.
We should be happy the herd is being culled. When enough people die eventually the remainder will become smart enough to realize they might want to look around when crossing the street.
Inappropriate Title by EugeneProctor · 2017-03-31 00:06 · Score: 1

Inattentive *drivers* and inattentive *pedestrians* are to blame for a spike in pedestrian deaths. A smartphone or whatever else is incidental. This title seems to imply that smartphones are directly at fault. Drivers have the responsibility for safely piloting their 4000 lb. machine down the road. And let's be realistic here - an inattentive pedestrian is much less likely to directly cause the death of another pedestrian than an inattentive driver is.
1. Re:Inappropriate Title by Jaime2 · 2017-03-31 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's better than that. If x is the increase in the of pedestrians that are being killed because they are inattentive during the smartphone boom, and y is the likelihood of a smartphone-using pedestrian being so consumed that they don't notice a car coming at them, then x(1-y) pedestrians are using smartphones and would have been killed if they hadn't noticed the car. Also, x(1-y)/z, where z is the proportion of walkers staring at their phone at any given time, is the total number of all walkers that are in harm's way. Assuming one-tenth of pedestrians are using smartphones, and one-tenth of the smartphone users bite it (the rest notice the car and move)... then the number of people that successfully run for their life from an inattentive driver that would have killed them is 100 times greater than the increase in fatalities.
  Substitute whatever y and z you want and it's obvious the drivers are a much bigger problem than the pedestrians.
Totally. See the Werner Herzog Documentary. by Qbertino · 2017-03-31 00:24 · Score: 4, Informative

I second that.
Just yesterday I nearly got run over on my bike by some SUV driver who was texting/dialing while driving.
Smartphones and texting while driving kill people. The problem is so obvious, that carriers had renowned filmmaker Werner Herzog do a freely available documentary on the problem a few years back to keep people from doing this ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Watch it and tell your friends to do that too. It's a must.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Ban Them!! by EzInKy · 2017-03-31 00:31 · Score: 1

I've actually witnessed pedestrians walk right into traffic oblivious to the fact that a "Yield" sign does not protect them from injury. It's as if they don't understand that their lives have little significance compared to those who have to get to work on time. People drive cars to get places fast, any hindrance to that goal slows down society significantly.

--
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Re: Suck on it, MILLENIAL BeauHD! by hackwrench · 2017-03-31 00:38 · Score: 1

Go home, drunk, you are Elmer Fudd!
My tale in Austria by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-31 00:46 · Score: 2

I was in Austria - Salzberg (Cool city for history buffs!) and walking and I came to a crosswalk and stopped to let a car go by.
He screeched to a halt and I just looked at him - bewildered since I'm an American.
With an extremely angry expression on his face, he waved frantically for me to cross. He would NOT drive through that crosswalk until I crossed. You bet your ass I did - I ran.
As a driver here in the States., I do that since IT'S THE LAW IN MY STATE OF GA. I get honked at, tailgated and treated like shit by my fellow drivers.
Americans are shitty, aggressive asshole drivers. And they are worse with their phones attached to their ears.
It should be illegal to use a cell phone while driving. Period.
1. Re:My tale in Austria by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-31 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  I've driven among a lot of places. American drivers are not the worst out there. Visit India, Mexico, or a Middle Eastern country... hell, visit Italy where when you are slowing down to turn right, a Fiat 500 will be going around you on the sidewalk. American driving is a product of the city planners, which is usually "ignore it until it is causing major issues economically, then do a fix", where there is zero thought other than an emergency fix for the moment. The town I live in is growing, but the city planners have not done a major road improvement since 1995, other than adding tollways.
  Compared to other places, Americans are OK. You do get the BMW dolts which are the people who will follow the Fiat 500 on a sidewalk, but generally most people obey the law and have common courtesy.
2. Re:My tale in Austria by pancompact · 2017-03-31 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  In Austria you get a hefty fine if they see on speed camera photos that you were using a smartphone. They need to do this because there are still to many drivers who will use their phone behind the wheel.
Plea to pedestrians... by fellip_nectar · 2017-03-31 00:59 · Score: 1

Please stop using your smartphones in public places. Scoring is supposed to be a challenge. -Frankenstein.

--
Worst. Signature. Ever.
Stupid people are to be blamed by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-03-31 01:09 · Score: 1

Not smartphones.
New Signals? by guzzirider · 2017-03-31 01:13 · Score: 1

The southern German city of Augsburg has installed traffic lights on the pavement so that pedestrians looking down at a smartphone won't miss the indication that it's unsafe to cross
Re:It's either smartphones by DickBreath · 2017-03-31 01:27 · Score: 1

Maybe FaceTwit is to blame? How about some statistics of how many pedestrian collision fatalities were using FaceTwit at the time.

Don't ban smartphones or religion. Ban FaceTwit.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Google will fix it. by DickBreath · 2017-03-31 01:39 · Score: 1

Google will give pedestrians walking directions. It will be a wonderful new feature.

"Walk two blocks north, then turn left to the West and cross at the crosswalk. Ignore any red lights or Don't Walk symbols. Then continue for one block to arrive at destination."

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Balances Out by DickBreath · 2017-03-31 01:41 · Score: 1

Not unless autonomous driving is programmed to collide only with smartphone using pedestrians. But I can see integration possibilities between the smartphone software and the self driving car software.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Smartphones or the earbuds plugged into them? by Nkwe · 2017-03-31 02:33 · Score: 1

Sure, many people are distracted by what is on their smartphone screens, but what about those listening to music and not paying attention to audio cues that impact their safety, such as the sounds of approaching cars? In some places in the US it is against the law to wear headphones / earbuds while driving. While being a pedestrian, it is not illegal, but it can certainly be dangerous if you can't hear the sound of an approaching car or other danger.
Evolution in action! by anegg · 2017-03-31 02:51 · Score: 1

(Nod to Larry Niven in Oath of Fealty)
Re:Solution by Sloppy · 2017-03-31 03:18 · Score: 1

Police should start pulling over and ticketing drivers who are on their phones while driving. .. It would be a great source of revenue
There's a lot of common sense here. Ask any mayor about crime, and he'll tell you he has only so many police officers; there just isn't the manpower. But ... but .. it would fund itself!
Now go read the conflict of interest thread from a story last week. There's a lot of common sense there too. And having the fines pay for the enforcement, would give an incentive for police to lie about whether or not someone was using their phone. (And no, phone records don't solve the problem, because talking to someone else is just one increasingly-insignificant use case of these little PCs.)
What to do?

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Thinning the heard! by p51d007 · 2017-03-31 04:40 · Score: 1

Darwinism at its finest!
Re:Touch Screens in Cars by Osgeld · 2017-03-31 06:10 · Score: 1

maybe they should
Re:Touch Screens in Cars by Highdude702 · 2017-03-31 06:19 · Score: 1

We couldn't get that lucky
Still learning their place by thunderclees · 2017-03-31 06:21 · Score: 1

When the television was first made available to the public both content creators and consumers had no idea what to do with it. This is partially why old sets looked like furniture so that they would find a place in the household like radio did. People are still struggling with determining where to use smartphones thus you have idiots using their amazingly bright smartphones in inappropriate places like the cinema or in restaurants and then walking into the path on oncoming traffic possibly being hit by other idiots distracted by using their smartphones.