hagen2456

Most surprising, in light of previous studies and my personal experince (and that of many, many others here). Actually, earlier studies found that even talking on a fixed phone or with passengers doubled the crash risk.

frozen fork

Sorry but that’s absolute rubbish. Australia worked it out to be equivalent of a BAC of 0.08. I’ve seen shows where they put confident drivers on a track with obstacles and they have to answer basic math questions (and I mean BASIC) whilst driving. They did VERY poorly. Anyway, even if it’s near baseline driving are we willing to put up with even a slight decrease in driving skill? I personally am not.

Looigi

Outlaw doing arithmetic while driving?

Road Fan

I agree with this scenario. The number of potential conflicts a road user may face is the number that he should be monitoring. Now consider that on a multilane highway, our texting fool will have to and may think to check two areas (forward and side blind zone) before changing lanes. Will he do so? Will he be able to do so before hitting the cyclist? Would it be easier for him, and on the integrity of your back wheel, if you weren't in his path at that time? Can you monitor approaching traffic in the adjacent lanes, using our little Take a Look or Racer mirrors? Or should we choose road positioning that reduces the number or immediacy of potential conflicts, as a matter of general strategy?

I wonder if it would be safer to put the text on a vehicle display that is no more than 15 degrees off the driver's forward eye position, so that if the driver does divert attention from the road ahead, the true picture is in his near-peripheral vision. A driver reading in his lap doesn't even have peripheral perception of what he should be monitoring, and cannot see your 5-watt rear blinky. A driver who has your 5 watt rear blinky in his peripheral visual field probably cannot ignore it.

In other words, if it might be inevitable that drivers will try to access Internet text, and it is extremely difficult to detect this behavior and enforce laws against it, perhaps it should be allowed in the least-risky mode. Then it would be reasonable for cars to force hand-helds to go into a "vehicle mode," where they cannot cause visual distractions.

Research has also shown that cognitive distraction can be bad even without visual distraction (look for Tom Dingus and Vicki Neal of VTTI). My idea would enable a cognitively distracted driver to be re-directed when an external event occurs. Perception/reaction times would still be increased compared to an alert driver with proper external attention, but it has to be better than that of the driver whose attention is in his (should not forget the women!) or her lap.

Road Fan

Not to further injure your sensitivities, but fact is, US cyclist deaths (google "pedalcyclist fatalities") total up to be a tiny fraction of all US traffic deaths. While it's vitally important to reduce unnecessary fatalities wherever they may occur, we're just not on the radar yet. Until we are, NHTSA isn't going to do anything for us. Bike facility changes attempt to help us.

I think it's much better to allow those who don't agree with you their measure of humanity rather than to advocate the eastern Oregon rancher wolf solution. Tends to open your mind to middle-path solutions to tough problems. The "just say no" solutions cancel out subtlety and proper consideration. What if one of your relatives goes to Oregon and a rancher mistakes him or her for a wolf while texting? Absurd, but if just anybody can legally shoot you, then just anybody can make you the victim of a stupid mistake. Do you like those odds? I don't.

Let me illustrate the kind of morality that may be going on in the minds at NHTSA. As an engineer I may have a solution to a problem that can save 20% of the lives of people now killed in car crashes, maybe 7000 per year. Mandating electronic stability controls for passenger cars is a good example. It's a virtue to save lives. Should I pursue the benefit I can achieve, or not pursue it because I can't save all the people now killed in car crashes? I think action is the moral high ground here. The perfect can be the enemy of the good. It would not be acceptable to not try to save 7000 people because you can't save 35,000.

Just shooting them is the moral low ground. Find a middle path, and achieve an incremental improvement in the situation.

mnemia

If you're already going to a technical solution (cars forcing phones into this special mode), why not just go all the way and have the phones prohibit texting entirely in that situation? If it can detect that it's in a car, then it's not at all "inevitable" that people will do it. The problem is a social one, not a technical one, as we could implement a technical solution right now if people agreed with its necessity. They don't and half measure like hands free laws or your idea actually might be counterproductive to the goal of getting people to stop entirely because they would entrench the idea that it's socially "okay" as long as you use these safety devices that we know don't fix the cognitive load problem. I know a LOT of motorists who argue that talking on the phone while driving is just fine if you use hands free mode, even though research proves otherwise.

Yesterday I was driving on a crowded freeway, and saw two different instances of people texting that I noticed. In both cases, I noticed because their driving was noticeably affected. One girl was drifting across the lane lines, while another guy was holding TWO smartphones up (work and personal?) and driving with his knees. If people think THAT is okay, the problem goes far beyond just visual distraction.

genec

This is the bottom line... folks think they are driving OK, but all too often it is easy to spot the cars where the driver is distracted... simply because their driving IS affected.

If this is so obvious to observers, then clearly the texting driver is NOT able to do their best at driving.

This is a social problem... and likely it will not be solved until motorists no longer have to multitask. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16197664

Road Fan

Your view is clearly that "this must stop." I don't think that is going to happen as in many other social problems, since people want to do what they want to, and laws do not stop them. Look at drug abuse, prohibition, illegal gambling, prostitution, speeding, running red lights, cheating on taxes, driving without insurance, driving without a license, underage smoking/drinking, and many other violations in modern life. You can argue that not all of those are crimes of the same seriousness, but they are all things that are hard to enforce, and that people do try to "get away with." Those all suggest to me that running incrementally through all the ways one may try and fail to stop it is decades of wasted opportunity, and we shouldn't bother. I think that the only possible solutions are piecemeal, and that we should find a way to allow it in a limited way with a technical solution that minimizes the negative effects of distraction. Technology to place visual information in the car would in my mind be a part of such solutions. Another would be use of voice to text. I definitely thing the driver's hands must remain on the wheel except for operating the controls we have now in cars. So these two methods would allow textual two way communication without taking the hands off the wheel or the eyes far away from the road. Doesn't solve the cognitive problem, but it eliminates some of the most critical associated issues. I think I wouldn't mind NHTSA attempting to motivate such improvement measures by awarding NCAP points for vehicles that offer such options. If that was done I'd not feel bad about vehicles turning off handhelds while in motion. Drivers would be able to buy a safer method.

As Genec may have suggested in post 57, it's hazardous driver behavior that must be limited. You are also against lack of good practice and judgement while in cars. I am, too. But there's a lot of poor judgement that has nothing to do with handheld devices. Tailgating in the rain is one example. Our state and local governments are similarly not good examples, look at the ridiculous level of road surface and marking maintenance, and poor choice of reflective materials, that sometimes cannot be seen in the rain even with HID headlights. There's a lot of bad judgment to be fixed in the world.

mnemia

While I do hope that robot cars may eventually provide a solution, I also think it's important to point out that no one "has" to multitask while driving now. It's simple and easy: put away the phones and other devices while driving. There is absolutely zero acceptable reason not to. That many disagree shows that people have a wildly inappropriate assessment of risks vs. benefits. People don't take driving seriously, and seriously overvalue the need to be constantly in touch. I think some of it is driven by the isolating nature of lengthy car commutes, too. Talking on a hands free phone is bad enough, but texting should be a DUI equivalent.

mnemia

I think you somewhat misunderstand the point I was making: what I was saying is that if we created the technical means to force phones to integrate with car systems in the way you describe, we would also then possess the technical means to just stop the behavior entirely by shutting off communication capability. The question I'm raising is why not do that, if we possess the means to do so? This behavior isn't like other social problems like speeding, tailgating, etc, where you have to regulate complex human behavior in order to put a stop to it: instead, it's a problem where we could end it entirely with the flip of a switch. I'm just saying that if credible research data shows that flipping that switch would save many lives, we should go ahead and do it. There is no value associated with allowing people to text while driving that is not completely outweighed by the lives lost. People may LIKE the freedom to be irresponsible with their own and other people's lives, but they shouldn't possess that freedom if we do have the absolute means to stop it. And we do. An easy way to enforce this regulation would be to do it at the network level: have cell networks shut off communication to phones that are moving too fast (as this can be monitored by the cell towers, even without GPS capability in the phones). Then there is no possible way for drivers to get around it by modifying their phones, etc. This is a destructive human behavior, but one that is entirely created by a technology that we've deployed with inadequate safeguards. We don't have to modify human behavior at all to stop it...we just have to modify the technology.

Limiting bad judgement is a lot harder than stopping drivers from texting, because it DOES involve regulating human behavior. While we certainly should try to do so (or alternately, try to remove the need for such good human judgement, as with robot cars), I believe that this is a fundamentally different proposition from just having technology enforce that phones be turned off while driving.

unterhausen

if you look at where cellphone coverage is available in this country, it borders even rural interstates. Get off the interstate, and phone coverage may be spotty

B. Carfree

I'm lucky to have several areas to ride that don't have cell phone coverage. I still have to ride those first and last twenty miles to get to them, but once I'm out of range I really do feel much safer. Of course that means that I don't have cell phone reception either, so I wear a Spot to let friends and family know where I am and to send them a "help me" message if necessary. (It's never been necessary; raps knuckles on head.)

B. Carfree

Overall, I agree with you. However, there is an unintended consequence and an amoral implication in that approach. As we have made cars safer for the occupants when a crash occurs, we have very likely increased the amount of risky behavior. At the very least, people who insist on driving with reckless disregard don't get the same rate of "cure" (death) as they would if we didn't have so many safety features. Meanwhile out on the road, those folks who are not surrounded by these marvels of modern engineering are even more vulnerable because of this increase in risky behavior. I know there are many roads that I have stopped riding on over the decades because the carelessness of the motorists has risen to a level that makes me too uncomfortable.

There may a bit of an amoral aspect to considering all lives as equal, or maybe it's just my own moral failing. Since motorists outnumber cyclists by thousands to one, anyone looking to increase the safety of our roads by decreasing fatalities would naturally look to making things safer for drivers (most cars only have one person in them). Yet, it is those very drivers who are doing the killing and injuring of innocent people. Is preventing serious injury/death to a thousand drunks/texters really as important as preventing an injury or death to a pedestrian or a cyclist? I know that when I read about a drunk driver who met his/her end in a solo encounter with a tree at 2:00 A.M. (pretty common where I live), I rejoice because that drunk didn't take anyone with him/her. Maybe I'm just a wicked bigot.

Road Fan

I guess I don't write as well as I used to, because you seem to be trying to convince me of points I advocated. Maybe I can restate, clarify, and amplify.

1. I see bad judgment as a general problem, with or without handhelds. You stated it, I agreed. It's not a point of argument between us. I did not advocate depending on human behavior modification; I'm not sure where you got that.
2. I think people will not accept a car as a product, if they cannot have the option of direct communication.
3. I think Congress will not legislate such a system. They have already authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a section of the US Department of Transportation, to regulate matters of passenger car safety. NHTSA has issued many regulations over the years, and they have the force of law.
4. I think NHTSA may also not be able to bring home such a regulation. It's not just a matter of technology. Why isn't an alcohol content sensor part of every car now? NHTSAs process of regulation requires lots of research, and the decision process involves the car companies. The OEMs will fear that drivers will refuse to buy cars where they cannot make phone calls, as in point #2 above. That's where major opposition will enter the picture. I'm not at all sure the technical solution you advocate, for the car to turn the phone off in all cars, will see the light of day. I think what may be a more feasible regulation is to inhibit cell phone use technically as you say, UNLESS the car is equipped with communication (text display, voice to text, and possible text to voice message delivery).

As far as limiting the freedom of individuals to take risk, that argument can cut against cyclists, too. Couldn't cycling be simply outlawed on that basis, that decision-amakers percieve hazards greater than cyclists do? It also lays precedences for an overly protective state. How do you control taht the freedoms you want shall be preserved while the freedoms you think others should not want are curtailed? Suppose someone else thinks the freedoms you want should be curtailed? These are not what the USA is based on, IMO.

I'm trying to imagine solutions to the distraction problem that I think (based on my life and engineering experience with government and big companies) might be feasible. I understand they may seem impure. I do know that not all technical solutions can be implemented in a social/societal context.

Road Fan

Regarding your first paragraph, I don't see how I advocated enabling risky behavior. My point was to mitigate what I see as some of the most risky aspects of distraction due to operating handhelds while driving: hands not in contact with the steering wheel, and eyes routinely diverted far from the forward driving field of view. I sugested a strategy that does those two things and allow that it does not as I presented it mitigate cognitve distraction. I also did not argue with the seriousness of cognirive distraction. I think I stated (perhaps in another post in this thread) that if the text display is near the driver's field of view, a cyclists' blinky can still draw the attention of a driver addressing text. You must have missed all that.

Regarding the equality of lives, I don't live in a world where considering all lives as equal can possibly be amoral. There are people I'm not able to help, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth it. If you think you can judge who deserves to live and who deserves to die, then I don't want you anywhere near the ability to do so outside of serving on a jury. Your whole second paragraph is very offensive. I think you said it in your last sentence, however! That was well done.

DX-MAN

I really fail to see how a device that disables distracted behavior would increase ANY risky behavior in the aftermath. It's not like ABS, which made idiots think they CAN'T skid out; it's a device that KEEPS people from doing one more stupid thing behind the wheel. Further, I don't see this as valuing a cyclist's life over a motorist's, either. It's valuing life over a perceived freedom. Period.

The OEMs would not have to worry about that if every new car sold in the USA after a certain date was required to have such a device (unable to circumvent, as well), including imports. And even if that WAS a valid worry, hell, maybe that would put a dozen more people on the path to pedaling happiness!

ModeratedUser150120149

Texting, Talking on cell phone? No doubt for many that is a hazardous thing to do. But, why limit the concern to motor vehicles?

Today I had a texting pedestrian walk right in front of me while I was driving. Had I not had my head out and looking around he would have been toast.
Recently I had a chain of bicycle riders ride in front of me and other traffic while all were texting. Maybe having a conversation on a club ride?
Last spring I gave a poor guy a heart attack when he was approaching me head on on a MUP and was ignoring my yells. Finally, when we were very, very close and I had a leg down I YELLED. His eyes were like saucers and he looked like he was in shock.
Then there was the guy in the toilet at the store who was talking on his cell while using the urinal. He had some decisions to make when he dropped the phone into the urinal and I was darn near dying of laughter at the sight.
Or there was the State Trooper who drove in front of me while I was riding my bike. Guess what? He was texting while watching for seat belt violations.

Maybe it would be better to require some better driver training to be able to handle the distractions? After all pilots and lots of other occupations are trained to handle multi tasking.

CB HI

YES, that was a very important study that the wireless companies commissioned.

Chris516

Sensitivities....hmmmm I was and don't expect NHTSA, or the NTSB to do anything for cyclists. That is because they deal with big issues/accidents like plane crashes, the massive car pileup a few days ago that was mentioned on BF. When I said my comment about things being done after motorists die, yet nothing being done when a cyclist dies, I was referring to the city/town/municipal level. Not the federal or state government level.

eastern Oregon rancher solution? (I have to think about that one)

Subtlety maybe. But proper consideration is given before any vocalizing is done.

I used to think with the 'middle of the road' mentality(cycling not included). Until I found that outlook to be too indecisive for my sanity.

No, I don't like the odds. But I will not be running scared because of those odds.

Over the last couple of days, while surfing the Net following the NHTSA and NTSB recommendations, I have read numerous suggestions of cell phones being made to automatically shut off when a vehicle is in motion.

There are several problems with that idea.

1. If someone is trying to get a hold of the driver in an emergency, and the driver knows who it is regardless of the reason, the only way(in that scenario) would be to shut off the vehicle and take the keys out of the ignition.

2. What if there is a passenger in the car and someone is trying to reach the passenger on their cell phone. The driver would still have to do the same thing for the passenger's cell phone, as the driver would have to do for their own cell phone.

3. It could potentially be made worse(again in theory) by, a car like the Nissan Leaf, which is totally electric. Would a person not be able to use their cell phone within a certain number of feet of the car. Due to any electrical field surrounding the car.

It just ends up being, that changing 'user behavior' is the best solution. I am not saying a motorist should be allowed to talk on their cell phone any time they want to. But that, by electronically making it hard to use the cell phone, could result in potentially not being able to use their cell phone when they need to.

Shooting who?

Chris516

That study is a joke. They didn't include how mental focus on the road drops drastically, when mentally focusing on the cell phone conversation or the texting. They only focused the study on the physical aspects.

Chris516

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing, about the guy who dropped his phone in the men's room.

I was thinking about pilots. Unfortunately, People that cannot multitask should not be put in positions that require a lot of multitasking.

christ0ph

I hope that nobody was hurt and that that message makes it outside of the internal company distribution to show how irresponsible he is. Someone should send it in to findlaw's dumbest criminals section.

christ0ph

Actually, that figure sounds like one from research done in driving simulators. The real life risk is clearly far higher because people on a street in their cars don't know to expect accidents.

But the talking with passengers figure is wrong because the passengers typically stop talking when the car is in a dangerous spot.

Go to PubMed and read some of the studies yourself. There are hundreds of them, from all over the world.


Where this is heading is mandatory autonomous driving. If people cannot drive responsibly, eventually they won't be allowed to. machines will do it for them. At least in urban areas.

christ0ph

Do some reading on how the tobacco companies prevented limits on smoking for something like 20 years after the evidence came out and you'll see the blueprint that US companies now follow whenever they want to obfuscate the truth on an issue.

christ0ph

They would do it by velocity. Its easy to tell when a phone is moving, they use that data to show how many people are/are not complying with the law now.

Nobody is telling them not to use their cell phone, just not WHILE they are DRIVING.


Eventually, soon, cars will drive themselves, and then someone could talk all they want, read a book, catch up on sleep. (And Detroit would be overjoyed because everyone who wanted to drive into a city or on a major highway would have to buy a new $50,000 car or take the bus.)

Remember, human beings survived without cell phones for a million years.

And years of telling people not to do it has been ignored. So what else is there to do?