Nat. Governors Assn-Cell Use/Texting not as bad as portrayed
If texting and/or cell usage is so so so so deadly, where are all of the accidents? Only a very tiny fraction of people drink and drive drunk, and they account for half of all fatalities. 2/3 of people talk on their phone and 18% of people text... where are the 100,000's of deaths if it is worse than drunk driving? Source: USA Today / Governors Highway Safety Association Quote: The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) urges states to hold off on banning the practice until more research is done to gauge the effectiveness of such laws. "The problem is the research is conflicting on the issue," says Barbara Harsha, executive director of the group, which advises states on traffic safety. "We don't know if handheld bans are effective, and we don't know if they actually make the problem worse." The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said last year it found no reduction in crashes after handheld cellphones were banned in California, Connecticut, New York and Washington, D.C. Posted: 25 Jan 2011 04:09 pm Ron wrote: Mady wrote: They need to work on banning use of cellphones and texting while driving before worrying about pets. If only there were a way to legislate common sense. Really? With a cellphone and/or texting *I'M* in control of whether I take my eyes off the road. I have experience to know if I can glance down for 1/2 or 1 second. I know whether or not I can answer an incoming call safely. With a loose cat or unruly/unpredictable dog the animal is in control of the distraction. The advocates of electronic device banning love to cite studies showing how texting is as bad as (or even worse than) drunk driving. REALLY? With virtually every single teen and 20-whatever person in the country having and using cellphones and texting while driving over the last 5 to 10 years, where is the increase of fatalities? The rate of highway fatalities is way way down, correlating with a reduction of alcohol involved fatalities. In other words, the "texting distraction" is really insignificant. When anti-drunk driving enforcement started up, there was a correlated decrease in highway fatalities. While texting and talking increased, virtually no increase in fatalities. I'm not saying either is a great thing but.... good Lord. Do we really want the government controlling every aspect of our lives? Telling you what you can and can't do at every moment based on the flimsiest of evidence and hype? Now that they've won the hands-free battle and most states require it, advocates are of course saying that hands-free isn't the answer either; that "the problem" is one of mental distraction, not of the physical holding of the phone. What's next, no talking to your passengers? No arguing with your spouse? No burger on the fly? No smoking? Separate bubble compartment for the driver? Reduce the speed limit to 45? (Hey! It'll save energy too!) Posted: 25 Jan 2011 06:28 pm Ron wrote: Now all that was off the top of my head. Want the backup for what I've said? Let's go to Ray LaHood's own http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/ for the spin (er... facts) What are the sources of distracted driving? (Well, the ones the Feds think are important, no pets, or smoking listed here!) * Using a cell phone * Eating and drinking * Talking to passengers * Grooming * Reading, including maps * Using a PDA or navigation system * Watching a video * Changing the radio station, CD, or Mp3 player. Got it? A whole list of no-no's. How many of all accidents involved "Distracted Driving" of all sorts? "20 percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving. (NHTSA)." How many of those are cell-phone related? "Of those killed in distracted-driving-related crashed, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a distraction (18% of fatalities in distraction-related crashes). (NHTSA)" [Note: no year given, and note that the phone was reported as a distraction but not necessarily listed as a/the CAUSE] So, 18% of 20% of all accidents are cell-phone related. That's 3.6% of all accidents. Lemme repeat that: 3.6% of accidents. In fact, over the last few years, fatal crashes and fatalities have DROPPED LIKE A STONE from about 43,000 to about 34,000 in 2009. Those darn cell-phoners!!! http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Here's a good one!!! "The age group with the greatest proportion of distracted drivers was the under-20 age group – 16 percent of all drivers younger than 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported to have been distracted while driving. (NHTSA)" HEY!!! The under 20 group is BETTER (16% of under 20's vs 20% of everyone), yet they're the ones with restrictions! I wonder why? Maybe they don't vote but it makes their parents feel better! LOL (now THAT was an unexpected statistic! LOL) Oh wait... here it comes! "Using a cell phone use while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)" Oh Yeah! All those hugely impaired drunk-like drivers out there everyday all the time! We're awash in accidents because of them!! I'd like to see THOSE test conditions! I saw one test on TV where the tester waited for the driver to look down at his phone then started a crossing vehicle in front of him. The REALITY is most people use their devices wisely and are distracted only when they've pre-scanned things to ensure they're safe. They are impaired for a second at a time and do not pose the kind of risk that a drunk driver poses. That is COMPLETELY a cynical scare tactic by politicians who know better. Now 995 deaths is nothing to sneeze at, and we should look at ways to improve safety. But I don't want to give the federal government control over what is going on inside my car, and THAT is the agenda, and texting is the easy "common sense that isn't right" target. |
|
|
| I listen to WLW out of Cincinnati mostly and recently there was a caller to one of the talk shows who summed it up pretty good. He said 'If you wreck while texting you're not good at one of those tasks. More then likely, you're not good at either.' I drove a semi for a while and they always pounded into our heads that the biggest cause of accidents was driver inattentiveness - not paying attention. Hell, the latest Mercedes ad almost promote this. They have four people who openly claim they weren't paying attention... Vance |
| I'm on the fence I guess... I think for one human to cause the death of another human, that one is too many. If someone does something stupid to cause their own death....well..... there are darwin awards for that. Traffic and population is up, therefore accidents go up. I personally don't feel very many accidents are due to texting etc but rather caused by an idiot driver who can't multitask and probably shouldn't be driving anyway if they have the attention span of a gnat. It's been against the law here for a couple of years now. IMO it's just an income generator. |
Willowsprite wrote: Traffic and population is up, therefore accidents go up. Actually in the US, while population is up, I don't know about traffic because of the recession in the US. Still over the last few years, fatal crashes and fatalities have DROPPED LIKE A STONE from about 43,000 to about 34,000 in 2009. Of course this is the same time period that all of this cell phone usage and texting has dramatically INcreased. |
| I think a lot of it is the cars. With all the advancements in things like ABS and airbags and other safety features, folks are becoming lower quality drivers because they know, (or think) the cars will protect them if the push the limits. I work a couple miles past a HS career training center, (CTC). Those kids are raised driving these cars and they push the limits daily; weaving in and out of lanes and such. Just this morning I got blown away by one who had to be doing well over 80 as I had my cruise set just under 70. Not two miles after he passed me, he was sitting on the CTC ramp, waiting fo the light to change. I'm guessing he was late. I spend a lot of time on the highway and see this all the time. It's the dumbing down of America in a new direction. Vance |
| Well, I do think there is something to the perceived safety issue, but that would tend to argue for MORE accidents...then again, the cars ARE much safer and seatbelt use is up. But kids have ALWAYS been invincible and have always driven like maniacs. Then again crappy cars have 250 and 300 horsepower now and can get out of control real quick. When I got married in 1986, my Oldsmobile Firenza had 89 horsepower. I can't imagine my 1971 Datsun 510 (in 1983) had any more than that. It's complicated. |
The whole premise of this thread, that people can effectively "multi-task" is a complete, total and unadulterated load of codswallup!  So called multi-tasking is for appropriately programmed computers and robots and for them only!! NOT PEOPLE!! ESPECIALLY NOT PEOPLE AT THE CONTROLS OF A MOVING CAR - TRUCK - BUS - PLANE - TRAIN ETC.. Biological entities, most especially humans, simply cannot effectively do two thought intensive activities simultaneously, especially when those activities involve significant physical coordination of muscle motor skills. Anytime anyone does anything other than driving behind the wheel of a car they are demonstrating just how self-important, selfish, stupid, completely deviod of common sence and utterly socially irresponsible that they are. Texting, cell phone conversations, putting on make-up, reading a book, playing with a GPS, watching that DVD receiver in your dashboard or even just eating when a car is in motion is just plain moronic - actually in the words of a good friend - completely arseholic. If you are behind the wheel of a moving vehicle drive AND DRIVE ONLY!!!!! You are in a rapidly-changing chaotic environment that takes a lot of concentration, eye-to-hand/feet motor co-ordiantion and constant vigilence. This sort of arrogant self-justification that "I can do this just fine even though nobody else can" is reprehensible and DOES ULTIMATLEY KILL others. Yes you might be able to control if you take your eyes off the road and hands off the wheel or not, but you CANNOT control the inevitable natural, physical and often trajic CONSEQUENCES that come because of those choices. Do you still support such stupidity? Well then I suppose that you would equally support the pilot of a fully loaded airbus A380 pilot "choosing" to look away from his/her insturments to text while on short final at night in a highly turbulent storm? There is no difference in what is being done - small scale disasters instead of large scale is no excuse to be irresponsible. Come on people grow up, be responsible for your actions and accept that there are physical limitations as to what can and cannot be done, even for you yourself, no matter how "special" you migh think that you are. The fact is that you are only 1 of 6 billion people on this planet and 99.5% of us are within 3% of each others fundamental mental and physical capabilities. Unless you are some kind of natural elite athlete or scolastic genius you have no more natural skills or capabilites than the next person in line. Yes truth sucks. Seriously pissed off by this thread and the attitudes expressed by those who think that they are special, have greater skills and hence have some sort of "right" to endanger others. Carl |
| Putting texting aside for the moment, I think in general driving skills are terrible in North America, and that's because the whole structure of driving education and licensing is geared towards putting as many drivers out there as quickly as possible, because more drivers = more automotive consumers and the whole auto-industry (not just actual manufacture and retail of vehicles, but all the infrastructure) is massively important to North America's economy. Required driving education and testing is absolutely pathetic in North America. I think driver education should be much more demanding, and the test stricter. I think, unless there's some physical impediment that prevents it, new drivers should all have to learn how to drive standard and use a standard car while taking their tests. This is the case in a lot of European countries (where driving skills ARE better). (Of course, I would be scared witless to drive in India or many places in Africa and Asia). So I would much much prefer to see greater effort put into improving everyone's driving skills from the get-go, then just applying band-aid "try and make 'em better through random enforcement" that we do in North America. |
| Driving skills could be better, and people don't multitask. Drivers, especially those with experience, survey the situation and then glance at their devices when they believe it is safe to do so. That's why it is "so safe" to use these devices while you are driving. The numbers back it up. |
Carl Lindon wrote: Biological entities, most especially humans, simply cannot effectively do two thought intensive activities simultaneously, especially when those activities involve significant physical coordination of muscle motor skills. I have to disagree... most women I've met can, and do, on a daily basis. Some men too LOL Ron wrote: Drivers, especially those with experience, survey the situation and then glance at their devices when they believe it is safe to do so. That's why it is "so safe" to use these devices while you are driving. The numbers back it up. I have to agree here... |
| Carl, A380 pilots regularly take their eyes "off the road" to look at their flight instruments, especially while landing. It is part of their job to do so. Just because there is less traffic in the air doesn't refute that fact. That's why the development of heads up instrumentation has been undertaken, but then again, that implies multitasking, doesn't it? Just as well, car drivers are required to look at their car's instruments; speedometer, gas gauge, dashboard warnings, rearview/sideview mirrors. School bus drivers have a heck of a job. Experienced drivers don't take their eyes off the road when they are in situations that require their attention. They don't dial their phones while going through intersections. They aren't impaired in their motor skill like intoxicated drivers are. The tests I've seen for texting impairment are ridiculous. Like I said, the participant is told to participate in the distraction. When they do, the emergent situation is started manually. They are following a tractor trailer at the "minimum safe following distance" and when they look down the truck brakes in front of them. Experienced drivers don't follow a tractor trailer at that distance to begin with because they can't see the traffic in front of the truck, and they certainly wouldn't dial a phone at that time. ...and there's really no need to shout and call me and others immature, stupid, self-important, arrogant morons.  |
Ron wrote: Carl, A380 pilots regularly take their eyes "off the road" to look at their flight instruments, especially while landing. It is part of their job to do so. Just because there is less traffic in the air doesn't refute that fact. That's why the development of heads up instrumentation has been undertaken, but then again, that implies multitasking, doesn't it? Just as well, car drivers are required to look at their car's instruments; speedometer, gas gauge, dashboard warnings, rearview/sideview mirrors. School bus drivers have a heck of a job. Experienced drivers don't take their eyes off the road when they are in situations that require their attention. They don't dial their phones while going through intersections. They aren't impaired in their motor skill like intoxicated drivers are. The tests I've seen for texting impairment are ridiculous. Like I said, the participant is told to participate in the distraction. When they do, the emergent situation is started manually. They are following a tractor trailer at the "minimum safe following distance" and when they look down the truck brakes in front of them. Experienced drivers don't follow a tractor trailer at that distance to begin with because they can't see the traffic in front of the truck, and they certainly wouldn't dial a phone at that time. ...and there's really no need to shout and call me and others immature, stupid, self-important, arrogant morons. Ron, Pilots don't look down to text while landing and civilian HUDs are being developed specifically to mitigate the problems that occur when looking down at the instrument panel. Besides there are also 2 pilots in most commercial aircraft to divide the work load. Your comparison is at best misplaced if not completely specious. Dashboards in cars have been developed to be located and arranged in the driver's peripheral vision thus minimizing the time spent looking away from the road and the time needed to acquire the needed information - speed - fuel level etc.. And checking gauges, mirrors and other legitmate driving controls and instruments generally take far less time than does a texting episode. (I suspect that your 1/2 to 1 second glances to text is rather conservative and that the average reality is much more than that timeframe.) That is why the old center of the console dashboards were predominately done away with over 40 years ago, too far out of a driver's perpheral vision taking far too much time for routine checks to be safe. It is also why digital dashboard were never widely adopted after a brief "flirtation" with them in the mid to late 80s. Digital dashboard actually took too much time to "read" compared to the quick glance which is all that is required with analog guages. The digital dashboards were found to be the root cause of a number of accidents. Unfortunately we are now seeing a bit of a resurgence in the ergonomically deficient centre console dashboards on some cars such as the Toyota Yaris and Echo - at least they are high mounted instead of down low as was once the case. It is just one way to reduce tooling costs for cars that are sold in left and right hand drive configurations and boost company profits at the cost of increased consumer risks. Yes I know what I am talking about by experience. The "company" has rented these little things for me a couple of times and it was absolutly horrible to drive for many reasons but the central dashboard was a specific driving hazard that really bothered me. As for school bus drivers - they scare the bejebeers out of me. Most of them who drove me as a kid and most who I see nowadays are either retired geriatrics who should probably have their licences revoked but drive because they need the income or they are just plain aggressive because of the size of their vehicles and disregard normal driving practises - and all of this with anywhere up to 60 chldren onboard. Yes it is tough job and drivers should be valued and paid accordingly instead of lowest contract price wins meaning bus companies hire the cheapest labour available. Maybe YOU Ron as an experienced driver don't take your eyes off the road in critical situations. But don't extrapolate your practices to the "experienced" driving population as a whole. I have seen many an experienced driver messing with cell phones, GPS's, DVD recievers etc., and they are not all teenagers or early 20 somethings. Just a few days ago I was waiting for my bus and saw a 30 something woman using her eyeliner pencil in the rear view mirror while driving on a main road at 70 kph. Unfortunately we have to legislate to the lowest common denominator so anti-cellphone etc laws are needed. Given the choice most people will say they are better than the general population and can safely do things that nobody else can. It is just another form of self denial which endangers other people. I never said anything that implied the concentration impairment of "multi-tasking" was in any way the same as alcohol induced physical impairment so where did that comment originate. So texting impairement tests are ridiculous are they? I'd submit that they represent real world situations and are very accurate. Real life emergency situations can develop in mere tenths of a second. While any one driver will rarely experience the situations you describe the fact is that they are the very situations that would otherwise be easily avoided but can result in serious injury accidents when a driver is distracted by texting, cell phones stc. Given the number of people on the roads on any given day and average responce times it is inevitable that these situations occur and distracted drivers end up in accidents of their own responsiblity. What about people who unexpectedly and unreasonably don't yield at intersections - can the average "experienced" driver avoid them while texting? What about mechanical failures while texting, unexpected road condition changes due to frost or other quick acting damages or God forbid a child run out chasing a ball or just running out to see a friend. Again maybe you Ron are suffiencely responsible and experienced to not be texting or otherwise "multi-tasking" under these conditions but many are not. In fact it seems MOST are not. Even around my subdivision I have to be extremely careful while walking my dogs because people have cell phones welded to their damned ears and aren't paying attention to other traffic or the road, let alone pedestrians with dogs. I was very careful not to identify any one person and deliberately refrained from pulling out quotes in my initial post to this thread so it wouldn't become a personal attack on anyone in specific. I call things the way I see them. You (the global you) may not like where you stand with me but you will always know where you stand with me. If I were to advocate something that is widely accepted as dangerous, irresponsible or selfish and which you diligently oppose you would have every reason, and in fact a moral duty to call me out for it in whatever harsh words were appropriate. Pathetically lousy driving is almost ubiquitous and bad enough in itself. Add to it that distracted driving is now pandemic and it is demonstrably the cause of many accidents, injuries (minor and serious) and a finite number of deaths. Yes this still pisses me off big time and I'll contnue to rail against such bevahiours and those who advocate them to any degree and deny its harmfull, even murderous effects. Carl |
| Carl. 3.6% QED |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|