Dangers of texting drivers....any data?
 

I have numerous cycling friends who mostly race bmx but do little cycling on roads. I have gotten into a debate with several of them who insist that riding on the left, against traffic, is safer. Bmx race tracks are heavily populated with kids, many if whom are future cyclists. One of these friends, who is a certified bmx coach, will actually go so far as to advise kids to ride on the left. I find this incredibly disturbing.
His main argument for salmoning is that riding with traffic is no longer safe due to texting drivers striking them from the rear. I've thrown all the normal arguments and statistics at them, with no success. Not sure where to go from here. Have found numerous sources showing that riding with traffic is statistically many times safer than against, but can't find anything out there that specifically, other than anecdotes, that addresses increased risks to cyclists associated with texting drivers and types of collisions resulting from distracted texters (as opposed to, say, intoxicated drivers). Anyone know of a source? Even some type of brochure to hand out at the track that addresses safe cycling would be helpful in curbing bad advice.

I'd say that since most if not all States recognize bicycles as vehicles, they are legally obligated to ride with the flow of traffic, not against it.

The advantage of riding in the wrong direction is that you get to see the driver before they kill you!

Seriously, though, the dangerous texting driver argument is stupid. The rules and laws still apply. We don't let automobile drivers make up their own rules and neither should bike riders.

Advising kids to break the law.

Great role model, Mr. coach.

The coach's suggestion doesn't make any sense. Drivers text in both directions of traffic. It's weird to assume that they'll see you more often if you're moving in the opposite direction. On the contrary, they won't expect you there and they will have less time to react to you, so they will be more dangerous.

Discounting the law for the moment, the relative safety of riding with or opposed to traffic may not be as different as claimed, but it's still very significant.

On the one hand, the salmon has the advantage of seeing what's coming, and if he's able to take evasive action may save himself.

OTOH - riding on the right greatly reduces the number of cars one encounters, with the difference increasing with speed, from the same at zero speed to half at one third the speed of traffic, and going down toward zero if riding at the same speed.

The right also means lower impact speeds since the two speeds are subtracted vs added. One look at the difference between a car head on and a rolling tail-end collision should convince just about anyone.

Lastly, drivers expect you on the right, and traffic entering from cross streets and driveways simply won't be looking in your direction when they begin coming across.

I think that, rather than rely on statistical data, you'll do better with explanations of the logic behind riding to the right.

Already used most of those arguments with no luck. Some people just don't listen to logic or data.

That's when you give up, and talk to some of the kids and parents directly.

Sadly the whole texting brouhaha is highly exaggerated and making people paranoid. Yes, it does cause an increase in accidents, but it's not a sea change, and the problems that exist always existed because drivers were always driving distracted, whether it was fiddling with the radio, eating a bagel and coffee, turning around to yell at their children, putting on makeup, and even reading the newspaper. Nothing's changed and out roads and streets are roughly as safe (or dangerous) as they've been for years. We just pin different labels on the causes when writing accident reports.

Stupid coach as an authority figure. Great.

Agree. this coach should be reported.

You’re not seriously going to use the “exaggerated and overblown argument because it’s always been like that” about texting and driving are you?

So now in these forums we’ll have the profile of an ideologue cyclist who ninja rides without a helmet running through red lights and stop signs while texting. You can search and read all the threads for the justification how their interpretation and judgment is better than anyone else's.

I guess I am. Read what I wrote. I'm not endorsing texting while driving, nor am I saying that texting isn't (probably) leading to an increase in accidents. What I am saying is that this newest form of distracted driving is just another in a long standing pattern, and not a sea change in road safety. Certainly not enough of a change to support the argument for switching sides and riding bikes on the left.

Like with all things, the media take the newest hot issue and focus plenty of attention on it, which has he effect of stirring up fears in disproportion to the problem. Distracted is a problem, it's just not a new problem.

We're talking BMX here... small wheels, not terribly fast speeds, highly maneuverable bikes... the ability to hop curbs and pot holes, do wheelies and jumps (in fact, practically mandatory skills). Technically bikes, and thus vehicles... but around here I see said BMX riders generally riding on sidewalks, islands in the road, and hopping around like a cross between essentially fast pedestrians and rabbits... kind of the Parkour riders of cycling. I rarely see them covering much in the way of distance... more like riding perpendicular to traffic, a'la frogger.

More importantly you're talking a subset or riders who not only are brain damaged children on a good day, but are pulling stupid stunts with minimal experience and handling skills. Pretty much the only way you could ask for a worse combination is if the kids were texting no handed while riding...which I have seen done.

Brain damaged children? My kid rode BMX before he eventually went on to MTB and Freeride. He tended to ride fairly close to home... generally taking to the back lots at the local malls to jump off of loading docks and the like, and he also went to the local canyons and rode mogul dirt mounds there.

Now college educated... hardly "brain damaged."

Updated study shines new light on phone use while driving | Virginia Tech | Virginia Tech


Although something tells me you will have a counter to the above. When folks have made up their minds why look further?

Rich

You are usually right about many things here, but I think you are dead wrong in this assumption that texting is like eating a bagel.
When was the last time we had a train derailment, or a head-on with another train because the engineer was eating a bagel, have a coffee, putting on makeup? Can't remember? But we have had professional drivers/operators cause death while texting on a phone. It's not a brohaha, and it's not highly exaggerated.. it is a fact. Using a cell phone with a video screen is all engaging.

You should know that just because no one is gathering any data on the relationship of BMX riding accidents with pre-existing brain damage doesn't mean that any hysterical statement made on the subject is incorrect. That is your standard response about cell phone "increased danger" to cyclists, isn't it?

Both you and the poster above are missing my point, or trying to shift the argument.

This isn't about texting and driving, it's about whether texting and driving has changed things enough that overall road safety is materially worse. Or even more specifically whether it's now safer to ride on the left as the coach advises (which IS what the tread is about).

Is texting dangerous, of course it is, as is drunk driving. But while it raises individual risk at the time, the impact on overall risk is mitigated by the fact that most aren't texting, and those who aren't doing it full time. So at any point and time along the road, the percentage of people texting is small. Doesn't mean they aren't a danger, it just means that you're not that likely to be affected.

You're train example is perfect. We've had a number of spectacular wrecks because of texting. But that doesn't mean that folks should abandon trains and drive instead. Just as fear of terrorism should prevent people from going about their lives.

Yes, we have problems and need to find ways to address them. But we should also maintain perspective, and not let focus on a problem have us make poor decisions like riding on the left side of the road, where the risks have been and remain much greater.

BTW- my bagel AND coffee example was intentional. Having watched drivers trying to manage both, while steering with their knees (not a rare stunt here in the NYC area), and even trying to spread cream cheese while doing it, I'll wager that if tested it would be found to be in the same category of distraction as texting.

Probably nearly as bad... and of course my point is that yes, these distractions have "always existed," so do we need more, such as one that demands your vision be off the road... IE the small text screen. Certainly drinking and eating are bad enough, but they don't demand your visual attention like spreading cream cheese, or texting.

As far as how many drivers are texting... I've seen estimates that as much as 20% of the motorists out there at any time are busy staring at a tiny screen.
Texting and Driving Statistics
https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

And of course those texting/driving rates tend to be higher for younger, LESS SKILLED motorists.

Distracted Driving : Facts And Statistics

But hey, we know that cell phones are not really a problem... cause you know, stats man, and nobody has like real proof man. So like... chill.

**************************************************

Oh and as an aside... then there is the driver I encountered... coffee, cigarette, juggling wheel with knees, and cradling cell phone on his shoulder... classic.

Really? I must have read a different title to this thread than you.

I suspect that some (many) of the posters who allegedly constantly see driving texters actually observe such behavior from motorists (or passengers) stuck in traffic or waiting at lights and extrapolate the frequency of that behavior to driving while underway in moving traffic conditions.

I suspect you are right - these folks simply don't know what they are talking about.

-mr. bill

We read the same headline, but I'm writing to the post in it's entirety, not the headline itself.

The OP is asking for data to counter the coach's rationale. While there's plenty of data supporting the argument that texting is dangerous, there's little total accident data showing an uptick (so far). Of course, texting is fairly new, and there is data lag, so maybe as more recent data is compiled we'll see a rise that might be attributed to texting.

Again, I'm not posting about texting per se, but only about the overall level of danger to bicyclists on the road, which -- so far -- hasn't increased materially (look a the data cited above). BTW - an increase in reported incidence in distracted driving is a tricky thing. Not because it hasn't happened, but because attitudes affect how data is recorded. The old "I didn't see her until it was too late" is now written up as "distracted". People who compile medical data have been dealing with this kind of skew for years, trying separate changes in incidence from improved diagnosis. It isn't easy.

GRIN.

I know I make my observations either while I am walking, and see moving motorists, or while biking and watching motorists, or as the very frequent passenger in my wife's car... again, while moving. But hey what do I know... I am clearly not a neutral observer... unlike some.

But hey, what do I know...

As a motorist, I would rate that factor first.

I agree. It's last because I like to finish strong.