Get off the phone!! Seven out of ten US drivers put theirs and your lives at risk Over two-thirds of drivers are dangerously distracted by their smartphones. That's according to a survey of over 2,000 US road users quizzed about their activities while piloting a ton or so of metal down the freeway at high speed. In all, 61 per cent of drivers admitted to sending or reading text messages while behind the …
Using a mobile phone distracted driving = $250 fine
Using a new car's buitl in touch screen 48 zone climate control integrated radio panel in the wife's Prius that I can't understand even with the manual = ok
Using my phone's sat nav = $250 fine
Using a window mounted after market sat nav = illegal in the next state over
Using a new cars integrated sat nav = ok
It's almost as if the car makers and the legislators were working together somehow
It's not collusion, it's culture.
At first, cars were dangerous but useful, and treated that way. Then people got used to them. Still, they contained only the Controls.
Then came the Radio. People absolutely ADORED them, and happily ignored the very rare crash attributable to knob fiddling. It was just an acceptable price for the gift of music while travelling.
The point is that people got used to a risk/reward trade-off with radios, and that carries over to any device that seems to be 'part of the car.'
Cell phones and texting are seen as a personal thing, and so not 'covered' by virtue of proper installation.
Here in Oregon (Idaho awaits tomorrow) the fine for using a phone is $500 minimum.
The Rental Cheffy Equinox I'm driving has the integrated Satnav (thanks Avis for not charging me $15/day for it) and infotainment centre. The U/I is a total dogs breakfast. It makes no sense at all but that ok because if I crash while trying to get my mp3 player to be recognised as a valid source then I won't be banged up for using a non integrated device.
As far as pairing the phone, forget it. If it ain't an AT&T device the frigging thing don't wanna know. And this is even with my UK phone using the AT&T network.
The Subaru I had last year was an order of magnitude more usable.
Don't even get me started at the piss poor mpg (21.2 mile/US gal) even with a very light right foot.
Sure Gas is $3.09/gal here in Baker but even so a modern vehicle should get better mpg than that.
Back home in Blighty my 12yr old Saab 95 Estate can return 50mpg(uk gals) which ain't bad for a virtual tank of a car.
It makes no sense at all but that ok because if I crash while trying to get my mp3 player to be recognised as a valid source then I won't be banged up for using a non integrated device
With all due respect, but that sort of stuff you (try to) do BEFORE you drive off. If you are doing that while driving I'd applaud you being pulled off the road and being fined a fortune.
Using my phone's sat nav = $250 fine
Using a window mounted after market sat nav = illegal in the next state over
Using a new cars integrated sat nav = ok
The satnav in my last Ford disables input once the vehicle is in motion - with the exception of zooming, hitting the diversion button or selecting from the last 5 destinations. Everything else is locked, even if there is a passenger in the vehicle.
Additionally, the satnav in the window "could" fall off and cause a distraction or block certain controls, the built-in one can't.
I don't have a satnav in my current car; that said in the last 4 years I've probably used a satnav 3 times.
If 61% of people are doing this and the number of accidents aren't going through the roof it's almost as if we're not being told the truth about how dangerous it is.
Personally I don't ever text while I'm driving but I can just about see that someone doing so while their car is stationary in a traffic jam may not cause too many problems.
Of course the truth may be that this survey is complete bollocks.
An awful lot of people "get away with it". That is the problem. They are on a lonely stretch of road and wandering across 3 lanes doesn't cause an accident... This time.
I was in a car with a friend, her 4 children and her nanny. She was writing SMS as we were barrelling down the Autobahn. She drifted from the right lane onto the hard shoulder and back across all three lanes to almost hit the central reservation, before wandering back to the left lane. When she looked up, she was in the lane where she had started from! So no worries!
Since then I have refused to set foot in a car when she is driving.
It's a delicious thought - remove all penalties, nay encourage using a phone/tablets/laptops/blow-up-dolls while driving, and let natural selection sort 'em out.
Who are these fines for anyhow? The people who don't posess enough rational thought to realise that driving is dangerous, and driving while intentionally impairing their driving ability is a really bad idea. Therefore the fines are for people who should never have been allowed to drive in the first place.
It's a delicious thought - remove all penalties, nay encourage using a phone/tablets/laptops/blow-up-dolls while driving, and let natural selection sort 'em out.
I would be OK with that if it weren't for the fact that such idiots unfortunately have the habit of taking out innocent parties as well. Some issue as drunk driving. I am very OK with giving idiots the chance to remove themselves from the gene pool, hopefully whilst providing some amusement along the way, but the issue is that it tends to involve innocent bystanders.
"but the issue [with my master plan of voluntary bad driver culling] is that it tends to involve innocent bystanders."
You're right, to an extent, but I see it as more of a trade-off.
Either a one time period of increased danger to 'normal' people while the incompetent drivers remove themselves from the gene pool forever. The added danger tails off in direct proportion to the rate of culling.
Or the continual risk of incompetent drivers only texting-and-driving if they can't see a copper nearby coupled with the increased chance of them reproducing and passing the 'dumdum' gene onto their offspring who will grow up and inflict their dumb upon the next generation.
I'd prefer to bite the proverbial bullet and go with the first option but can't really hold it against you if you favour the latter.
Youth, in general, consider each and most every one immortal. Did you not notice who fights at the front vice who does not? Texting, talking to a girl in the seat behind you face to face, drinking and/or drugging, putting on makeup, hell shaving. Nothing bad is going to happen. "I spit in Darwin's face!"
Except these idiots can take innocent bystanders whose only crime was being in the wrong place in the wrong time with them.
You want to die in a moronic way? Fine, do it by trying to test if your gun's barrel is blocked by putting it to your head and repeatedly pulling the trigger. Don't do it in a way that can take out an innocent third party.
Oh, and touchscreen phones are infinitely harder to touch-type on.
With my former-former Nokia phone I could touch type with my eyes closed in the dark. Doing the same while driving was easy since I could hold both the steering wheel and the phone in one hand (the other hand was for the cigarette.)
Since I upgraded to a touchscreen phone, I can send a message by hitting the microphone icon and 8 tries later...maybe...send the message. Usually, I don't bother.
<rant>
As for distracted driving, two kids in the back seat is distracting. Picking up the map off of the floor is distracting. As someone said above, using a badly designed UI while driving is distracting.
The problem is that some losers' kid died and they started crying about it, and, oh, look, we can pass a fucking law. God forbid making the driving test comprehensive enough to weed out the bad drivers in the first place.
</rant>
The problem isn't the act of "texting", it's taking eyes off the road.
Numerous studies say otherwise. The problem is distraction, period. That's why hands-free phone operation is no less dangerous than holding the thing to your ear while driving.
"A University of Utah driving simulator study
found drivers using cell phones had
slower reaction times than drivers impaired by
alcohol at a .08 blood alcohol concentration,
the legal intoxication limit."
In other words, using a cell phone for 5 minutes while driving is as dangerous as being drunk for 5 minutes while driving.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty for murder, much less for being a pedestrian sharing a road with a car, but this is slightly dishonest. Drunk drivers are not drunk only for short intervals and otherwise sober. The numbers do not support the claim that testing/calling/using your hands is "as dangerous as" being a drunk driver, because drunk drivers are drunk continously.
I wait for the day when we see an actual meaningful comparison of drunk driving and testing, because that also would be interesting
Road & Track did one back in the 1990's ( I think...it may have been Car & Driver.) They had all of their columnists in a parking lot with cones and picked one to abstain. Everyone else drank. Their conclusion was that alcohol will impact your driving, but not necessarily in a bad way. Of course after that statement (which I've probably butchered) they said that they couldn't come out and say that .1BAC meant you were unable to drive.
What they proved was that alcohol effects everyone differently....and I agree. It make some people flinch at shadows but it makes me invincible.
Cheers
"reaction times"
And there you have it. You should be anticipating not reacting.
Only in an extreme emergency should you be reacting.
I could never understand the logic with enforcing eye-level stop lights. I'm sorry but if you need a light in your eye line before you realise that someone is stopping, you're driving too damn close in the first place.
When one sees brake lights several cars in front lighting up, that's when you should be easing up, as you are anticipating the cars closer in front of you will, in all likelihood, be doing the same, NOT when the car immediately in front lights up it's brakes lights.
And what happens if the driver in front merely eases off the accelerator? Are you going to crash because you didn't see the eye level brake light? Or are you actually keeping a reasonable distance from the car in front so that when you detect yourself getting a little closer, you can also ease off the accelerator. Or as most people seem to do these days, brake, even when it's not actually needed.
I hope you don't rely on brake lights if you are following behind me because my first action is to lift my accelerator foot, change to a lower gear if I need to slow a little more and so I have acceleration if required. Braking is my last action, and only if required following the previous actions.
Amazingly, I have never had an accident following a few bevvies, even when I was a young fella before people cared much about drunk driving. Anticipation was the key. Do that and there is no need to 'react'. Therefore speed of reaction becomes irrelevant.
Naturally I'm a bit more responsible these days, but even so.........
To finish my rant, it's about time that people realised that driving a car is not sitting in your living room in a comfy seat, while you chat to people, fiddle with your CD/radio, discipline the children or any other distracting thing. You actually have to concentrate on what you are doing and drive the damn thing. I fail to see that a phone is any different or why we need a 'special' law just for phones.
Oh, I guess that it proves that 'something is being done about crap driving'.
Queensland has just introduced a 'double demerit points' penalty for a second and subsequent offence in any one year, for using a mobile while driving. This could amount to loss of your licence for 3 bookings in a twelve month period. That's the good news.
All the boys in blue have to do now is catch the offenders. Despite the Minister's press release and TV interview yesterday, it seems only about 2000 fines have been issued in the last year. I think I've seen more than that in my local area over a similar period, (tradies, school Mums, etc) so maybe they need a better eye test for the Police Academy?
...........two different types of activity (if you use a hands free setup for talking). If you text whilst you drive however you are obliged to:
1. Drive one-handed whilst "thumb texting"
2. Take your eyes off the road and other users every few seconds.
3. Tackle two different intellectual objectives simultaneously - driving competently and composing your text.
What could possibly go wrong?
All absolutely true. But...
How dangerous is it to do that while stuck in a traffic jam and not moving?
How dangerous is it to do while stuck in a traffic slug slow down (5-10 mph, 4 cars wide, 4 to 8 cars ahead of you)?
How dangerous is it to do when you are the first car stopped at a 1 minute traffic light?
All of the above count as texting while driving. One of them actually has zero danger associated with it. While the others have some element of risk, it's not the same risk as moving at speed in moderate traffic which is probably the most dangerous situation (it's where you're most likely to encounter higher delta Vs between vehicles and have unexpected changes).
I'd install an VoIP ADA and a fax machine, so I can fax while driving. :)
But seriously, at driving school we learned you shouldn't do _anything_ distracting while driving. So no eating no smoking or anything. It's just foolish to text in any situation that would require your attention.
Eating or even smoking are not intellectually challenging activities. OK, reading some of these messages I see online makes them come under the 'not mentally challenging' category either, but you know what I mean - you don't have to think about it. No cigarette has ever struck up a conversation, and neither will the sandwich until you leave it out for too long and it develops new and interesting forms of life.
Texting or calling, OTOH, can demand more attention than is good for your driving, with especially texting also requiring you to take your eyes off the road (especially if you have auto-incorrect enabled). That does not compare with eating or smoking (the latter I personally find revolting, but that is not a valid argument to ban it).
"Eating or even smoking are not intellectually challenging activities."
In one smash I attended, when the driver was cut out of the vehicle she was found to be still holding onto the sandwich on the passenger seat that she'd reached for just before drifting across the centreline and under an oncoming cattle truck.
The fact that the car was 18 inches high after the event might give an indication of the survivability of the impact.
Apparently this is a relatively common occurance.
Last time Texas had a bill approved to ban texting while driving, Rick Perry killed it.
If you wanna see how prevalent texting while driving is, just watch people driving by at night; many have a phone glow on their faces.
It has gotten so bad that I've begun thinking of converting my Subaru (with a big wide sunroof) into a technical so that I can mount a howitzer and blow those effing morons off the road ...
As a mollycoddled European, you are obviously unaware of one of the finer points of Americana: The country doesn't set road laws - each State does. So it's actually impossible to pass a national law banning the use of cell phones. Even the so called national 55 law didn't actually create a national law. Instead it cut off highway funding if States didn't adopt a max 55 law. And once the idiocy of the law was fully revealed, even that was modified.
And yet cars are becoming more and more just smartphones that also provide transportation as seen on the latest Mitsubishi's infotainment system for Cadillacs.
I've just been reading a local news story about a woman who was driving erractically, struck a parked vehicle, and refused to stop when asked to do so by a police car.
Her reason was that she was under extreme pressure from her bladder and simply had to find a loo, she was using a phone satnav in one hand to find a loo and she wasn't going to stop for anyone!
A car however useful is still a lethal weapon in the wrong hands and when driver is distracted.
I've had my share on run ins with distracted drivers.
I had a close call a few years back with a lady talking on her mobile phone. She did a u turn and shot out of a junction clipping me with her driver side wing mirror as I was crossing the road. She was completely oblivious to what she had done and drove off.
One way or another these numbers are completely bolluxed.
There's no way that you can possibly have 70% of drivers on the road every minute of every day 4 beers drunk and have accident rates as low as we do. Which is not to say our accident rates are especially low, or that fiddling with your smart phone while driving is safe, only that they are too low to support the claimed results of the survey.
If you have ever driven a car with a non-synchro gearbox, drum brakes and non-isolated interiors, you will notice that there is little to no time to get distracted when driving if you don't want to crash, today car interiors are designed to feel like 5 stars hotel rooms, with better sits than those you have at home, so you can easly fall asleep driving, outstanding suspension and almost zero outside noise so you can't hear the motorcycle you just crashed and ran over on the lane next to you, and those wonderful auto gearboxes that makes possible for any moron to pick up the keys and "drive".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
