TV Segment - Distracted Driving

[Slow Train]

Tomorrow, April 20th, ABC News will have a segment on distracted driving and its dangers. As if we didn't already know!

[San Rensho]

Myth Busters did a segment on the relative impairments of driving drunk and driving while cell-phoning and- surprise! The cell phone drivers did significantly worse in the test.

[Wulfheir]

cnn.com has it on their main page right now.

[Slow Train]

And a Wash. Post article:

Study: Distraction Behind Most Car Crashes

By KEN THOMAS
The Associated Press
Thursday, April 20, 2006; 4:41 PM

BLACKSBURG, Va. -- Those sleep-deprived, multitasking drivers _ clutching cell phones, fiddling with their radios or applying lipstick _ apparently are causing lots of crashes.

Distracted drivers were involved in nearly eight out of 10 collisions or near-crashes, says a study released Thursday by the government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/20/AR2006042000769.html

With ever mounting evidence isn't time that we put some real teeth into laws baning cell phone use while driving????

[John E]

Distracted motorists scare me more than anything else on the road.

What this country desperately needs is the political will to hold motorists accountable for their actions and the consequences thereof.

[nova]

Myth Busters did a segment on the relative impairments of driving drunk and driving while cell-phoning and- surprise! The cell phone drivers did significantly worse in the test.

Yeh it was a slightly suprising result. I expected drunk driving to be at least a little more dangerous than the cell phone.

Just imagine driving drunk while talking on a cell phone and applying lipstick .......

[John Wilke]

And a Wash. Post article: Those sleep-deprived, multitasking drivers _ clutching cell phones, fiddling with their radios or applying lipstick _ apparently are causing lots of crashes.


Apparently?

This is news to people?

:o

jw

[ignominious]

Yeh it was a slightly suprising result. I expected drunk driving to be at least a little more dangerous than the cell phone.

Not that surprising when you think about it.

Most drink-drivers are congiscant of their impairment and an effort to compensate, albeit an impaired effort. Furthermore they aren't distracted by things away from the road, they simply lack the judgement and reactions to be able to operate safely.

On the other hand a driver paying attention to their cell isn't paying attention to their surroundings, their focusing on a small electrical device.

[remsav]

They thought it was around 25% but according to the study it's closer to 80% of accidents caused by distracted drivers. Maybe we should put black box and video surveillance in all new vehicles, which actually comes with newer models showing front/back just need to add the inside monitor for the driver to complete the package.

[genec]

Distracted motorists scare me more than anything else on the road.

What this country desperately needs is the political will to hold motorists accountable for their actions and the consequences thereof.

+1000

Instead we have only the will to aquire and sell more oil and the large vehicles that demand it...

Our "addiction to oil" will not be resolved until the supply is cut off.

Sad

[sbhikes]

The most recent accidents I have had (like one 10+ years ago) were caused by me being distracted. I had one gallon jugs I had just filled up with water at the store. As I came to a stop light they tipped over spilling water everywhere. Naturally my reaction was to reach down and try to pick them up. When I did so I rear-ended someone. Anyway, it's not surprising to me that these things cause accidents.

The thing with studies like these is that as a nation (at least in the US) we tend to have some sort of collective denial about distracted driving. So they have to do a lot of these studies, even if they are redundant, until it finally sinks in.

[bluebottle1]

What this country desperately needs is the political will to hold motorists accountable for their actions and the consequences thereof.

Exactly. I honestly don't believe we need more laws on the books to regulate cellphone use, etc. What we need is enforcement of the reckless driving laws we already have.

That said, in the last year, I swear I have noticed that literally half the people I see driving cars and trucks are doing so with cellphones glued to their ears. I won't even answer my cellphone when I'm driving a car, let alone place a call, so every time I have a near miss with someone on a cellphone, it just galls me.

[Bekologist]

The last time I lost control of an automobile was probably 15 years ago, when a cup of hot coffee tipped over in my lap as I was turning off a highway; I looked down and WHOOMP! right into the snowbank and over the embankment.

I clipped a car on my bicycle just last week though. I was shoulder checking in congested traffic, and the car ahead of me pulled up short; I was moving left to right into the middle lane, and tagged the trunk-just a little bit. good thing I wasn't dialing a phone at the same time or a bicyclist could have gotten seriously injured;)

[DCCommuter]

I have a theory that one of the reasons that some drivers resent cyclists is because driving around cyclists forces them to drive carefully -- which means not doing all of the distracting things they normally can do in the car. Several times I've heard people say things like, "I hate bicycles* in the road. I'm terrified I might hit one."

(* people who hate cyclists never seem to call them cyclists, they refer to "bicycles" as if there weren't a person attached and somehow an inanimate object got into the road all by itself.)

[patc]

(* people who hate cyclists never seem to call them cyclists, they refer to "bicycles" as if there weren't a person attached and somehow an inanimate object got into the road all by itself.)

What a great observation.

[ignominious]

What a great observation.

I think we're guilty of a similar crime. There's no shortage of times I've seen phrases like "I was buzzed by a car", "a car right hooked me". Unless you're living in ChristineWorldTM then it's pretty much the same depersonalisation. It's also using a unique identification method.

[genec]

I have a theory that one of the reasons that some drivers resent cyclists is because driving around cyclists forces them to drive carefully -- which means not doing all of the distracting things they normally can do in the car. Several times I've heard people say things like, "I hate bicycles* in the road. I'm terrified I might hit one."

(* people who hate cyclists never seem to call them cyclists, they refer to "bicycles" as if there weren't a person attached and somehow an inanimate object got into the road all by itself.)


And we would call motorists "cars" if it were not for the word nazis here on BF... of course we are occasionally guitly of using the term "cager."

It's really just simple shortcuts... not so much the dehumanizing of the situation.

I think your theory is probably right on about the motorists thought... my mother in law expressed exactly that opinion about driving around motorists on the quiet island she lives on... (frankly, at this point I am glad she no longer drives).

[genec]

Little humor from the local paper on this subject:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060421/images/breen21.gif

[Feldman]

Ignominious,dehumanizing drivers is no crime--it's a sensible, intelligent way to view the dangerous vermin we share the roads with. The best thing for any cyclist to keep in mind is "They're drivers, not people!"
I call it beneficial, positive bigotry.

[genec]

On the positive side, I have to wonder if all this attention will get motorists thinking about their driving habits.

The distraction issue is one that has bothered me for a long time... no matter how good we are as cyclists, there is no way to protect yourself from a car driven by a motorist that is not even looking at the road.

I don't care how VC or defensive or whatever you are... Not even sidewalks are safe.

[ignominious]

On the positive side, I have to wonder if all this attention will get motorists thinking about their driving habits.

The distraction issue is one that has bothered me for a long time... no matter how good we are as cyclists, there is no way to protect yourself from a car driven by a motorist that is not even looking at the road.

I don't care how VC or defensive or whatever you are... Not even sidewalks are safe.

I think that we're going to be hearing for the next week is "Well, I don't drive like that".

[closetbiker]

Big suprise.

Drivers are isolated in their comfortable suroundings distracted by what they have to deal with on the road by any numbers of things, and the items are growing every day. Map readouts, DVD players, a Big Mac in your hand as you drive, sheesh!

There was that AAA study that found "reaching and leaning" was the most frequent distraction, engaged in by 97 percent of test subjects. "Manipulating audio controls" came second with 91 percent, followed by "eating/drinking" with 71 percent. 50% groom themselves while driving, 40% read books or newspapers and/or wrote things down while driving, while only 30% used cell phones.

At work we all had to sit through a safety course that stressed the importance of safety awareness. Basic, simple, common sense stuff that said almost all "accidents" were related to, eyes not on task, mind not on task.

I contend that cyclists are hyper-aware because of our adrenaline and blood pumping elevation over the sedentry driver, we're more maneuverable, see better, hear things that no motorist can and are safer because of it.

Drivers get away with murder, passing away the time in outer-space.

[bike2math]

Yeh it was a slightly suprising result. I expected drunk driving to be at least a little more dangerous than the cell phone.

Just imagine driving drunk while talking on a cell phone and applying lipstick .......

Except that for legal reasons they kept the blood alcohol levels below the .08 threshold for CA.

I'm terrified of the habitual drinkers who can get their BA up well above .13 and still behave normally, until, that is, they need to apply the brake quickly. If I get stuck at work until late on a friday night I tend to be very very cautious on the way home.

Back to Myth Busters though: I sent them an email saying that they need to find somewhere that they could do the experiment again but instead get their BA's up to 0.11 or so. Maybe an island somewhere that doesn't have DUI laws.
I also think they should do the same experiment but while trying to adjust the car radio.

With regards to motorists. We need to end this idea that because it was an accident there was: A. nothing that could have been done, and B. no one is at fault.

It's really a simple equation: kill someone with a car = you killed someone.

Of course I'm against insanity defenses in addition so what do I know.

[HWS]

On the positive side, I have to wonder if all this attention will get motorists thinking about their driving habits.


People will continue to drive like idiots regardless of how many studies are done.

[genec]

It's really a simple equation: kill someone with a car = you killed someone.

Of course I'm against insanity defenses in addition so what do I know.

For a while now on BF I have touted that any motorist that kills either a pedestrian or a cyclist should permanently lose their license. I am really tired of the legal authorities coming out with some statement along the lines of "well, it was an accident, and the party involved really didn't mean it, and they will live with the guilt all their lives... so we decided not to prosecute." What a crock. The dead person, I am sure, really wanted to die... sheesh.

Nope, sorry, you kill a ped or cyclist because of your poor handling of the privilege of driving that you have been given, then you are out of the driving pool, period, bang, end of story. Of course a reasonable investigation should take place to ensure that the ped or cyclist was not at fault; pulling some bone head move such as running a stoplight or riding at night without lights... But if the driver "just didn't see" the victim due to something the motorist was doing or failed to do.... End of driving privileges. Period.

[ItsJustMe]

Most drink-drivers are congiscant of their impairment and an effort to compensate, albeit an impaired effort. (snip)

On the other hand a driver paying attention to their cell isn't paying attention to their surroundings, their [sic] focusing on a small electrical device.

Taking it a step farther, people who are driving drunk know that they are impared and try to compensate, as you say, but drivers using a cell phone will swear up and down that they are NOT impared, that no matter how many studies are done to show the dangers, THEY are somehow just as effective a driver when talking on the phone.

Remember, 95% of all drivers think they're 'above average'.

[San Rensho]

Taking it a step farther, people who are driving drunk know that they are impared and try to compensate, as you say, but drivers using a cell phone will swear up and down that they are NOT impared, that no matter how many studies are done to show the dangers, THEY are somehow just as effective a driver when talking on the phone.

Remember, 95% of all drivers think they're 'above average'.

+1

[sbhikes]

I contend that cyclists are hyper-aware because of our adrenaline and blood pumping elevation over the sedentry driver, we're more maneuverable, see better, hear things that no motorist can and are safer because of it.

Drivers get away with murder, passing away the time in outer-space.

I may be the exception but part of the reason I enjoy riding my bike is that I can let my mind drift away at times and not get in too much trouble for it.

[flipped4bikes]

I have a theory that one of the reasons that some drivers resent cyclists is because driving around cyclists forces them to drive carefully -- which means not doing all of the distracting things they normally can do in the car. Several times I've heard people say things like, "I hate bicycles* in the road. I'm terrified I might hit one."

(* people who hate cyclists never seem to call them cyclists, they refer to "bicycles" as if there weren't a person attached and somehow an inanimate object got into the road all by itself.)

Bingo! You are right on the mark with both of your points!

[AlmostTrick]

Good cartoon genec. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see a driver on a cell phone with one hand, while smoking a cigarette with the other. :eek: Just knowing that these drivers don't have any safety issues with doing this drives me nuts.

[WalterMitty]

People will continue to drive like idiots regardless of how many studies are done.

I'll plus one on that. Driving While Stupid (DWS) is the only offense we really need to stiffen laws to control.

The comedian Gallagher used to have a solution. He suggested we all have big suction darts with the word "STUPID" printed on an attached flag. If you saw somebody driving Stupid, you'd dart 'em. If a Cop saw a car driving by with 3 or more darts they'd be pulled over and fined for being an idiot.:D

Truely, if you crash while Stupid (drunk, distracted, sleepy, can't see-hear-smell, etc) that ought to be the end of your days terrorizing the roadways.:fight:

[closetbiker]

Good cartoon genec...Just knowing that these drivers don't have any safety issues with doing this drives me nuts.

I don't know weather it's a joke or not...

40% read books or newspapers and/or wrote things down while driving

...I know! It's a CAR-toon!

:lol:

[nemonis]

For a while now on BF I have touted that any motorist that kills either a pedestrian or a cyclist should permanently lose their license. I am really tired of the legal authorities coming out with some statement along the lines of "well, it was an accident, and the party involved really didn't mean it, and they will live with the guilt all their lives... so we decided not to prosecute." What a crock. The dead person, I am sure, really wanted to die... sheesh.

Nope, sorry, you kill a ped or cyclist because of your poor handling of the privilege of driving that you have been given, then you are out of the driving pool, period, bang, end of story. Of course a reasonable investigation should take place to ensure that the ped or cyclist was not at fault; pulling some bone head move such as running a stoplight or riding at night without lights... But if the driver "just didn't see" the victim due to something the motorist was doing or failed to do.... End of driving privileges. Period.

I think that is a good general idea, but I think you need to revise it a little bit. As you mentioned, the driver needs to be at fault. If someone is driving down the road and a cyclist runs a stop sign in front of their car, the driver may not be able to do anything about it. Second, completely leave the cyclist/pedestrian thing out of it. It doesn't matter if the person killed is in a car or truck, or on a motorcycle or bicycle, or walking. Any time there is a fatal accident where all of the fault rests on one driver (100%), that driver should lose their license for at least some period of time. I would recommend 10 years for a first offense, life for a second.

[Artmo]

Distracted motorists scare me more than anything else on the road.

What this country desperately needs is the political will to hold motorists accountable for their actions and the consequences thereof.

What this country needs is meaningful, strict driving tests instead of having multiple choice questions and being able to drive around a parking lot. US drivers must be the most innatentive, ill-disciplined and incompetent in the developed world. Almost all are driving with one hand on the wheel, a high proportion are doing something other than paying full attention to driving and one particular behavior I notice while cycling is that as they emerge from a side street, they invariably look right first. This is just stupid, as obviously the closest traffic would be from the left. The poor standards of driving result in the highest mortality rate per 100,000 population of any developed country.

[Artmo]

Apparently?

This is news to people?

:o

jw

That was my first reaction. Studies have been done in other countries to show that using a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving.