Advocacy & Safety - driving distractions

OK, I can't belive this hasn't been posted yet:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/07distracted.html

"Study reveals top distractions for drivers

The American Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety, which placed cameras in the cars of volunteers to record their behavior, is urging states to take action to educate drivers. Results were released Wednesday.

In the study, "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.

Despite cellphones' reputation as a driving
distraction, the AAA study found that only 30
percent of test subjects used them while driving."


So they should ban kids, radio's and drive through food outlets before they come after cell phone users.

Notice who did the study: AAA. They have a vested interest in promoting use of the automobile. Since they know eating, drinking and such can't realistically be banned, they show these as more distracting than cell phones.

I personally think that's a lot of baloney. Remember to consider the source of information before accepting it as 'fact.'

I notice that breastfeeding didn't make the list, although that might change if this idiot (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/20/loc_oh-breastfeeding20.html) beats her ticket.

Originally posted by hayneda
Notice who did the study: AAA. They have a vested interest in promoting use of the automobile. Since they know eating, drinking and such can't realistically be banned, they show these as more distracting than cell phones.

Eh? Please clarify your logic? How is banning the use of cellphones lessening the promotion of automobile usage? Perhaps if this study had been done by the GSM Group, AT&T Wireless, T-Mobile or Sprint, I'd have cause for doubt. AAA's vested interest is in people driving automobiles... not using mobile phones.

Originally posted by caloso
I notice that breastfeeding didn't make the list, although that might change if this idiot (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/20/loc_oh-breastfeeding20.html) beats her ticket.

I remember the old I Hate Bay Area Traffic (http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/2004/traffic.html) website which listed at least two testimonials of acts of "auto-erotic stimulation".

The other day I was passing a 7/11 and saw a kid driving a stick shift sports car and balancing a Big Gulp with his knees/hands and doing a poor job of it. Amazing he didn't hit someone.

It's all just proof that driving in the US is too cheap, convenient, and socially accepted. I'm hoping for the US to experience a catastrophic and humiliating military defeat in the Middle East thus drastically increasing our gasoline prices, causing the junkies (us) to enter rehab very rapidly; as a society we have a serious health and city-destroying addiction, the longer we keep it up the worse the cure is gonna be, and if it has to be done cold turkey then the sooner the better.

Originally posted by oscaregg
I'm hoping for the US to experience a catastrophic and humiliating military defeat in the Middle East thus drastically increasing our gasoline prices

Excuse me? You're hoping more people get killed just to satisfy your political views? I would say that's leaning a bit towards the sociopathic side. While, I'm not in agreement with the justification we used to instigate our military actions in the Middle East, I'm also not comfortable with our military being defeated and by implication racking up further and greater casualties. IMHO, I think we've already incurred a huge political defeat in the eyes of much of the world but I do not wish for a military defeat. At anyrate... I think it's best we stop this avenue of argument before this thread gets repositioned into the Political Discussions forum. This has nothing to do with US foreign policy but everything to do with domestic culture.

Originally posted by oscaregg
I'm hoping for the US to experience a catastrophic and humiliating military defeat in the Middle East thus drastically increasing our gasoline prices, causing the junkies (us) to enter rehab very rapidly; as a society we have a serious health and city-destroying addiction, the longer we keep it up the worse the cure is gonna be, and if it has to be done cold turkey then the sooner the better.

It is indeed a sad commentary on our society that 40K people killed per year on our roads is "acceptable." That's the equivalent of one 9/11 per month or three TWA Flight 800s per week.

Hey, where are all the "cell phones when driving is EVIL" guys?

I've always maintained that other distractions are just as bad or worse.
from:http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31148&highlight=cell+phones

Ok I know thie subject has been beat into the ground, but I'm going to beat this horse one more
time 'cause the damn thing will just not die.


Well I'm talking about all of them. It's very dangerous, and has caused countless deaths and
injuries. Moreover, the consequenses are much worse for those of us on bikes.

Originally posted by oscaregg
...I'm hoping for the US to experience a catastrophic and humiliating military defeat in the Middle East...

Every male in my family for five generations, including myself, has served in combat under the American flag so that you could have freedom to hate those that defend your way of life. My sister's husband leaves sometime this month for Iraq. I got back 12 years ago. I leave it at that. :mad:

Originally posted by khuon
Eh? Please clarify your logic? How is banning the use of cellphones lessening the promotion of automobile usage? Perhaps if this study had been done by the GSM Group, AT&T Wireless, T-Mobile or Sprint, I'd have cause for doubt. AAA's vested interest is in people driving automobiles... not using mobile phones.

If people had to stop while taking/making calls, there is a chance (albeit a slim one) that they might look at other alternatives. I already know of people who use public transport when they have to use their laptop to do extra work.

Some of you guys are wacky

Originally posted by Chris L
If people had to stop while taking/making calls, there is a chance (albeit a slim one) that they might look at other alternatives. I already know of people who use public transport when they have to use their laptop to do extra work.

That's pretty thin logic to justify your criticism of the report as "baloney". One of AAA's main businesses is auto insurance, so if they thought cell phone usage was a major cause of accidents I'm sure they would support curtailing their usage in cars.

So often in the forum I see automobile bashing. The problem isn't as much our love for cars dictating that we use them, it's their necessity. In most of the U.S. there isn't enough population density to justify extensive public transit. However, if you go to most of the big cities they do have it since they have the population to support it. When I'm travelling on the East Coast or in Europe I love taking the trains/subways.

Until we have around a billion people in the U.S., widespread public transit won't make sense. That would be better, right?

The AAA fights anything they see as restricting motorists. I had assumed that was pretty well known.

It makes no difference to me if I get run over by someone talking on the phone, or someone eating lunch. It works out the same for me.

Banning cellphones or distracting behavior is not the answer. Severe penalties for those causing accidents is. If you were looking at a prison term for reckless behavior or a crushing fine or revoked driving privleges for the results of inattention, then maybe you will hang up and drive, or eat the cheeseburger somewhere else.

Dan

from the same study,

more people (40% vs. 30%) read books or newspapers and/or wrote things down while driving, than used cell phones!

:eek:

Wow! The silence on this issue is deafening!
:eek:

From the same study again, 50% (vs. 30% using cell phones) groom themselves while driving!

After so many posts on them, now few seem to acknowlede the relative risk of cel phone use to other stupid things drivers do!

Don't get me wrong, to use one while driving is stupid and bad, but so is reading, putting on make-up, looking for that cassette and reaching into the back seat., and drivers do these things far more often!
:mad:

Originally posted by closetbiker
After so many posts on them, now few seem to acknowlede the relative risk of cel phone use to other stupid things drivers do!

Well, I think if you've read my past posts on the subject of driving and cellphones, you'll find I'm in silent agreement. I think the whole anti-cellphone thing is your typical fad/anti-fad reaction. Just a part of society. People love to complain and be vocal so if they can find something "fashionable" to complain about fashionably, more the better. Please stop clouding the issue with facts.

"For every action, there is an equal and opposite critical analysis."

Originally posted by hollow
So often in the forum I see automobile bashing. The problem isn't as much our love for cars dictating that we use them, it's their necessity. In most of the U.S. there isn't enough population density to justify extensive public transit. However, if you go to most of the big cities they do have it since they have the population to support it. When I'm travelling on the East Coast or in Europe I love taking the trains/subways.

Until we have around a billion people in the U.S., widespread public transit won't make sense. That would be better, right?

It isn't the cars per se that gets me, it's the irresponsible use of cars--and by that I don't mean driving while distracted, I mean use of personal vehicles for way to many short, local and/or unnecessary trips (for starters, can you say "drive the kids to school and back everyday?"). Plus the overall inefficiency of our nation's vehicle fleet (can you say "drive the kids to school every day in a 6,000 pound 9 mpg SUV?").

Why are we in this predicament in the first place? I think there are two major culprits: One is extremely poor land use planning--i.e. surburban sprawl--which favors, encourages and necessitates travel by personal motor vehicle, rather than by walking, cyling or transit. The oil, motor vehicle and road construction lobbies have encouraged these land use patterns by lobbying for the highways that allowed all this suburban sprawl to occur, and the government has, in most cases, been more than happy to accomodate these special interests. There are a few exceptions, such as Oregon's Land Use Laws which resulted in creation of the Portland Metropolitan Area Urban Growth Boundary, which encourages urban density and leads to walkable, cycleable and transit friendly development; and the defeat, also in Portland, of the Mount Hood Freeway proposal and funding and construction of new light rail lines instead. My wonderful, walkable, cycleable inner city urban neighborhood would no longer exist if the Mt. Hood Freeway had been built. Vancouver, BC has also rejected the US Freeway model that Judge Doom waxes so eloquent about, and the result has been a very vibrant downtown area with NO direct Freeway access at all. In fact, most of the older, walkable, cycleable neighborhoods in cities across the US, including in the northeast, grew up around local streetcar lines that have long since been paved over, but the neighborhoods still retain their character from a time when having a car was not a necessity (unlike the newer suburban developments).

The second is all about advertising, marketing, and 'product placement'. Twenty years ago there were a few Broncos and Blazers around. They were mostly owned by people living in rural areas that needed them to actually drive off-road for legitimate reasons. Now, practically every suburban driveway has at least one behemoth luxury Pickup Truck and/or SUV parked in it when in most cases a Honda Civic or equivalent would do just fine, thank you very much. And, if transportation alternatives were more readily available and/or more socially acceptable, and our roads were safer for activities like cycling and walking (which, in my opinion is primarily a matter of motorist reeducation), people would have real transportation choices, might not actually need to own a car (and/or could participate in a car-share program), and would probably be able to drive a whole lot less in general. But you can be damn sure that the vested interests--oil companies, automobile manufacturers, etc, will do their best to prevent this from happening. Just ask yourself this--if the auto manufacturers make such a good and useful product, why do they have to brainwash you into buying it from them by advertising so incessantly everywhere? Another way to look at this, from a more personal perspective, is that we as a society have just become way to obsessed with 'gear' and 'stuff', of which the personal motor vehicle is only the most obvious and vulgar example (there are readily apparent equivalents in the bicyclist world, as well), and we are encouraged in this obsession by the product manufacturers, through advertising, to replace real personality, self esteem and confidence with a surrogate in the form of a 'product'. In the case of motor vehicles, unfortunately, the 'product' we are exhorted to purchase may yet drive our society, culture and even our very species to extinction.

And, BTW--population control and resource conservation (or lack thereof) worldwide ARE probably the most significant environmental issues facing our planet...Not that anyone in our government in a position to be able to do something about these issues anytime soon gives a rat's ass...they're all to busy being selfish and greedy on a scale that's never been seen before...

Originally posted by khuon
I think the whole anti-cellphone thing is your typical fad/anti-fad reaction. Just a part of society. People love to complain and be vocal so if they can find something "fashionable" to complain about fashionably, more the better. Please stop clouding the issue with facts.


I agree!:thumbup:

Now if we can get all those that complain about cell phone use in cars to complain about police not pulling over those that drive without due care and attention whatever the cause of their lack of due care and attention.

Originally posted by closetbiker
Hey, where are all the "cell phones when driving is EVIL" guys?


Here I am!

:)

Walking is dangerous, too. The other day I started across the crosswalk (I had the little white stick man telling me it was my turn) and a lady cut me off in her spanky new sports car, turning across my path.

Road rage got the best of me, and in an instant, I reached out and tapped her car with the back of my hand. I'm amazed she didn't run over my feet. (Don't try this at home.)

She turned around and, going the wrong way on a one-way street, came after me. "Did you hit my car?" she demanded. Hmmm...

News headlines: MOTORIST HIT BY PEDESTRIAN

:roflmao:

Originally posted by Pete Clark
News headlines: MOTORIST HIT BY PEDESTRIAN

:roflmao:

Don't laugh too hard, if I know the media around here, that is exactly the sort of thing they would print.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
She turned around and, going the wrong way on a one-way street, came after me. "Did you hit my car?" she demanded. Hmmm...

So, what did you say back?

peas,

Jester

Originally posted by jester69
So, what did you say back?

peas,

Jester
I really regret the whole incident.

Peas.

;)

Originally posted by John E
It is indeed a sad commentary on our society that 40K people killed per year on our roads is "acceptable." That's the equivalent of one 9/11 per month or three TWA Flight 800s per week.

I once noticed that the amount of people killed per year by the auto is similar to the number of Americans killed in the Vietnam war. Now didn't people protest in droves about the needless deaths of our young people then? Why does no one protest needless automotive deaths? Maybe it's okay if people die if we're having FUN! I suppose the president was having fun in 1970...

And simultaneously, why do people who claim to be nice humans, or even GASP peace loving hippies, drive like homicidal maniacs knowing they could kill another driver, one of their passengers, a pedestrian, a biker, a kid etc.? It's a weird phenomenon - we could never get away with walking like that.

And to bring this back to the thread...
Didn't someone once say, "Frankly, the steering wheel is just in the way."

Clay

The second is all about advertising, marketing, and 'product placement'. Twenty years ago there were a few Broncos and Blazers around. They were mostly owned by people living in rural areas that needed them to actually drive off-road for legitimate reasons. Now, practically every suburban driveway has at least one behemoth luxury Pickup Truck and/or SUV parked in it when in most cases a Honda Civic or equivalent would do just fine, thank you very much

Excuse me, but who are you to decide what someone else should spend their money on? I drive a 6 cylinder truck, but if someone wants to spend the money on a Ford Excursion and pay for the gas and insurance it's none of my business. I'll use my money to pay my house off early. I will also never buy a brand new vehicle.
This country is about choices.

FXjohn

Originally posted by closetbiker
OK, I can't belive this hasn't been posted yet:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/07distracted.html

"Study reveals top distractions for drivers

The American Automobile Association's Foundation for Traffic Safety, which placed cameras in the cars of volunteers to record their behavior, is urging states to take action to educate drivers. Results were released Wednesday.

In the study, "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.

Despite cellphones' reputation as a driving
distraction, the AAA study found that only 30
percent of test subjects used them while driving."


So they should ban kids, radio's and drive through food outlets before they come after cell phone users.

i hope you guys see the glaring flaw in logic used to come to the conclusion they did. they are associating TIME spent doing a certain activity with the relative RISK of becoming distracted to the point of getting in an accident.

is it just me, or is it a LOT easier to fiddle with the radio than it is to operate a cell phone while driving? even if i spend 3 times more time playing with the radio than using my cell phone, if it's 5 times easier to do, then it's still safer than using the cell phone.

Originally posted by deliriou5
i hope you guys see the glaring flaw in logic used to come to the conclusion they did. they are associating TIME spent doing a certain activity with the relative RISK of becoming distracted to the point of getting in an accident.

is it just me, or is it a LOT easier to fiddle with the radio than it is to operate a cell phone while driving? even if i spend 3 times more time playing with the radio than using my cell phone, if it's 5 times easier to do, then it's still safer than using the cell phone.

You are assuming too many variables. The amount of time spent performing an activity which is familiar to a person trained in said activities will probably present less of a risk than that of an unfamilar (or not as familiar) activity engaged in even during a short period of time. One cannot make a blanket statement saying that operating a mobile phone is more risky than operating a radio. For some, the distraction factour may be the same. For others, one may be more. I think it's also safe to say that these effects will vary from person to person as well.

Yes, ergonomics does play a certain role in ease of operation but so does training whether formal or informal. People can get accustomed to operational procedure despite their perceived user-friendliness. Some people find that things which may be outwardly easy to use to be frustrating and difficult. Such is the case with MS-Windows for me for instance whereas I find using the "arcane" interfaces of Unix, VMS and even VM/CMS and CyberNOS to be much easier. ;)

Part of the probelm is that licenses are given out too easily. I see many people every day that shouldn't have one. Cell phones are a distraction just as everything else is in a car (listening to music, news, talking) and it is magnified for those that shouldn't be driving already.

Originally posted by FXjohn
Excuse me, but who are you to decide what someone else should spend their money on? I drive a 6 cylinder truck, but if someone wants to spend the money on a Ford Excursion and pay for the gas and insurance it's none of my business. I'll use my money to pay my house off early. I will also never buy a brand new vehicle.
This country is about choices.

FXjohn

I could give a rat's ass what people spend their money on. My problem is that these people are not making their own decisions. Advertising is all about influencing how people think and behave - in a word, psychologically manipulating their desires and their spending habits. Many dollars are spent by advertising companies figuring out how to convince you and I to desire and buy products we don't necessarily need, and that aren't necessarily good for us. Giant SUVs are right up there with cigarettes, as far as public health impacts go.

Where I do have a problem is that the impact of filling our public streets with these sorts of vehicles does not stop at the vehicle owner, it affects all of us. I am less safe riding my bicycle amongst these vehicles, we are all breathing more air pollution because of these vehicles, our soldiers are dying on foreign soil to provide oil and gas for these vehicles, and my tax dollars are paying for all the government subsidies these vehicles receive, including (1) the direct income tax deductions their owners receive, (2) funding for our military misadventures necessary to support the fuel consumption of these vehicles, and (3) building all the new unnecessary roads to accomodate all of these unnecessary vehicles.

I could give a rat's ass what people spend their money on. My problem is that these people are not making their own decisions. Advertising is all about influencing how people think and behave - in a word, psychologically manipulating their desires and their spending habits. Many dollars are spent by advertising companies figuring out how to convince you and I to desire and buy products we don't necessarily need, and that aren't necessarily good for us. Giant SUVs are right up there with cigarettes, as far as public health impacts go.

Where I do have a problem is that the impact of filling our public streets with these sorts of vehicles does not stop at the vehicle owner, it affects all of us. I am less safe riding my bicycle amongst these vehicles, we are all breathing more air pollution because of these vehicles, our soldiers are dying on foreign soil to provide oil and gas for these vehicles, and my tax dollars are paying for all the government subsidies these vehicles receive, including (1) the direct income tax deductions their owners receive, (2) funding for our military misadventures necessary to support the fuel consumption of these vehicles, and (3) building all the new unnecessary roads to accomodate all of these unnecessary vehicles.

I for one am not looking for a "rat's ass" and I make my own decisions, I don't let advertizing do it.
What is your take on airliners? How many thousands gallons of fuel do they consume carry 50 to a couple hundred people? Do they pollute? Let's all stop flying too.
A machine is only as safe as the person behind the wheel.
I thought we were wasting all these billions in Iraq because George Bush decided that. We had SUV's before Bush came to town.
I could go on all day long about things done with my taxes I don't like, including people getting their children subsidized in an obvious ploy for endearment. What about people who buy gigantic houses that are gross displays of wealth? Can we tell them they can't have it because they don't "need" it?
Volkswagon makes a three cylinder diesel that is available in Europe and gets 70mpg, I would buy one if I could.
No hokey new technology needed.
How many people use leafblowers when they could get the job done with a rake and possibly quicker? I can't control what other people spend their money on, and never will. If you or I consume anything at all we are just as guilty as anyone for tractor trailers filling up roads, belching smoke, to fill up the stores. A puny motor will never pull those loads.

FXjohn

Actually, I think we agree more than you think. And, of course since we are both 'embedded' in the American economy, society and culture, there will always be a certain amount of ambiguity and hypocrisy. I guess my main point is that, as a society and a nation, we are veering sharply away from sustainability at exactly the time we shouldn't be.

Actually, I think we agree more than you think. And, of course since we are both 'embedded' in the American economy, society and culture, there will always be a certain amount of ambiguity and hypocrisy. I guess my main point is that, as a society and a nation, we are veering sharply away from sustainability at exactly the time we shouldn't be.

We probably do! :beer:

The growing trend is for the middle class to disappear, disparity of rich and poor. India is taking computer jobs and China manufacturing. A lot of workers and technical people are being sold out by do-nothing managers. Sell out your neighbor to "get yours"
Farming seems to be the safest occupation trhese days, after doctoring and lawyering completely subsidized and stabilized by the Govt, and you can be your own boss. oops I digress!!

FXjohn