Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

30 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Darwin at work by hoover · · 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 Z00L00K · · 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.
    2. Re:Darwin at work by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Nothing of value is being lost.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Darwin at work by Opportunist · · 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.
    4. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · · 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.

    5. Re: Darwin at work by mrbester · · 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!"
    6. Re: Darwin at work by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    7. Re: Darwin at work by jabuzz · · 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.

    8. Re: Darwin at work by thegarbz · · 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.

    9. Re: Darwin at work by tsqr · · Score: 5, Funny

      guardian angle laws

      That's acute way of looking at the problem.

    10. Re:Darwin at work by hawkinspeter · · 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
    11. Re: Darwin at work by Alumoi · · 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?

    12. Re:Darwin at work by edx93 · · 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)...

    13. Re: Darwin at work by tsqr · · 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.

    14. Re:Darwin at work by jwhyche · · 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.
  2. Smartphone using drivers by emj · · 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.

  3. Probably not the case by The+Evil+Atheist · · 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.
  4. i suspect drivers too by aepervius · · 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
  5. Don't forget those by RotateLeftByte · · 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 umafuckit · · 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.

    2. Re:Don't forget those by Luthair · · 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.

  6. Not just driving and crossing the street... by sidetrack · · 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 · · 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.
  7. Shit article, no context by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Obligatory xkcd quote. by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nerd sniping. You don't ever need a smartphone!

  9. Re:Just yesterday morning by Opportunist · · 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.
  10. How to from the real Darth Vader by Mittengrabber · · Score: 2

    Never happened to me, but then Darth Vader taught me to cross the road https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  11. Totally. See the Werner Herzog Documentary. by Qbertino · · 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
  12. My tale in Austria by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:Use the Crosswalk! by Jaime2 · · 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.