rgwinn

Absolutely!

and my question was more of a devils advocate. no offense meant.

And yes, I have been injured, high speed fall while skiing, of course not much to blame there except myself.

I now have an artificial right hip, and have had both of my shoulders fixed. And I have been skiing again, and I risk taking a fall every time I ride. But, the alternative is to stay home and wither away.

Number400

Ouch, well you certainly know pain then! Sorry, I am still twitchy from getting walloped on my bike and some of the things I see daily on my drive into work are insane. I am certainly more tuned into noticing bad driving decisions and distracted driving since getting hit. I hope that spidey sense dulls with time.

genec

Sure all that data is worth collecting... but who is doing it... is it being done at all... and bear in mind that not all collisions require investigations, thus there are NO follow up reports. And as I stated earlier, some states do not consider cell phone use a legal issue at all, so why would any data be taken.

https://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/l...hone_laws.html

But ILTB seems to be chanting the song of well there is no data, and in spite of several studies which show that cell phone use can be MORE distracting than drinking driving, ILTB declares that there appears to be a bunch of whiners here crying about apparent unproven dangers.

Perhaps ILTB can recall all the studies done on the evil effects of MJ by the government back in the day.... Oh wait, what studies.... And certainly one can hardly deny that "brain scrambling" is obviously one of the effects sought by MJ users.

As far as increases in automobile collisions... again we have to look at collisions verses deaths... cars have been made safer for vehicle occupants... so automotive safety trends are a somewhat poor indicator of any single variable... and again few stats exist unless a death also occurs. But there is a trend for increasing pedestrian deaths... which could be caused by peds using cell phones, or drivers using cell phones or... some other combination of variables just not studied... (big gulps vrs 16 oz sodas in cup holders... who knows...)

Maybe we will get the results of any data collected... in a few years, eh?

genec

The vast difference in what we are talking about here is that in all the activities you mention, you are not participating in a field of other people who can vastly affect your life by their actions or inactions. Cycling in traffic is something that one does while surrounded by other people, traffic, and those other people can make one critical mistake that can massively affect others.

SCUBA diving, rock climbing. etc., is on par with MTB riding, in that those things are fairly solo events... not done in an area filled with others.

rgwinn

The point is that there are risks associated with any activity, including death. On the road you don't have to worry about Sharks ;-) (unless you are hit by an Attorney talking on his cell phone)

howsteepisit

The question re cell phones is not how distracting they are, but does the accident rate reflect that the distractions inherent in cell phone use to be significant, as measured by auto accident rate or severity. Firstly, AAA and I believe the US Government estimates that cell phones only account for 7% of distracted driving, other factors being auto system, stereos, food, drinks and the like. But the real quest with respect to cell phones if they are all that dangerous have accident rates per car mile gone up since cell phones have become ubiquitous? IF thats the case, then those states that have banned cell phones should see a corresponding reduction in accident rate to pre cell phone days, offset by the amount of non-compliance or other factors. I have seen a good bit of information that cell phones are distracting. I have not seen accident rate comparative data over the years, or claiming that states with no cell phone laws have a lesser accident rate than those that do. In the absence of such data, saying that its safer to ban cells is at best a hypothetical discussion with no clear winners. Rigorous evaluations of accident data can shed light on if any effect is seen, My position being that if there is no actual demonstrable effect then the cell phone debate becomes political posturing.

Oh by the way, enacting state laws in no way proves anything, except political agendas being served.

genec

Sure there are risks... but in any activity one partaking in that activity can minimize the risks taken by themselves... but it is rather difficult to mitigate the risks presented by others, such as sharks, lawyers or drivers... which is why this about "riding on the street," not about "not cycling at all..."

genec

Show me any stats on "accident rates." Go ahead, find such rates. Since "accidents" that don't involve deaths don't have to be reported, to anyone... then there is no accurate set of such statistics to prove or disprove anything.

The only data available is for death by collision. Deaths have been decreasing... but no one has data that specifies exactly why... there is only speculation.

But again, do you have to slam yourself into a wall to know it will hurt? Or does the observation of people swerving about on the road while making phone calls/texts indicate that perhaps they are not "ideal drivers..."

Do you really need a smoking gun?


I wonder how often these "accidents" get reported...
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...be.kp6TLS_DzTM

Number400

In my opinion, you should NOT HAVE TO PASS A LAW banning texting while driving. Unfortunately, some people have little common sense and only learn from direct experience of causing a tragedy and the effects of doing so. So in the interest of public safety, laws are passed and are therefore enforceable. If you are caught breaking the law and have been warned/ticketed/fined and then continue to do so (caught again), then jail time should be next.

I think that human nature makes people continue to repeat bad/illegal behavior until they are caught and stopped.

howsteepisit

My point is that there is little data on accident rates, so claiming that cell phones cause an increase in accidents is just a he said she said argument. Yes, I need to know the risk in ramming the wall before I want to accept laws restricting it. Else you et cases like the Indiana legislature nearly legislating pi to be 3.

Edit Just to add, I am not in favor of cell phone use of any type while driving, I believe that all phone use while driving should be banned. But there is little data showing the risk of such behavior, so I can understand ILTB stance on handwaving exaggeration of risks.

Number400

^ I don't consider a cellphone any different than an an IPOD, GPS navigator, newspaper, car stereo, etc...paying attention to anything other than the road is the main issue. That being said, in the last 5 years I see more people looking straight down while driving and I don't think they are looking at their junk. Smartphones are too tempting and a growing number of people are using them while driving and that cannot be a good thing. It's not like smartphones/texting are helping people to avoid accidents and it does not take a certified, double blind, NIH, DOT, NTSB study to figure out that people texting while driving have killed and continue to do so. There was a proven case in PA of a woman who killed a policeman while she was texting and driving. There are daily headlines with real reports of texting and driving fatalities.

prathmann

AFAIK, there are no states that have banned cell phone use while driving. Some have banned the use of hand-held phones, but all the studies I've seen on distraction by phone use is that the problem is concentration on the conversation, not the use of the hands, so use of hands-free devices is just as distracting. Therefore I wouldn't expect to see any effect on accident rate based on these 'feel-good' laws that don't address the real issue.

rekmeyata

That's because people who wish to believe that everything is rosey will refuse to believe that something like cell phones in this case could possibly be an endangerment, yet the statistics are clear that 28% of accidents are caused by cell phone use while driving.

https://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...s-free-devices

https://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSCestimate...ndtexting.aspx

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accid...tatistics.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...iving/2142157/ This one is very interesting because the statistics shown above are actually on the LOW side of reality!

https://www.nydailynews.com/autos/cel...icle-1.1337271

I found page after page after page on the internet all saying the same stuff and all proving the statistics are accurate at least on the low end. It's you, the phone/text user, that refuses to believe the obvious.

Draconian measures are necessary when people are killing and hurting innocent children, fathers, mothers, grandparents, etc, etc, etc. But for some of you those deaths don't mean anything, so what if a few people die or are maimed for life as long as I have my right to use the phone and text anytime I want.

ModeratedUser150120149

Yes. +1

My personal experience is that a fairly wide sample of experiences have threatened my well being. A small sample:
-I'm using my cane walking on a sidewalk. I'm about 6 inches from the right edge. A female pedestrian pushes by me on the right side nearly toppling me.
-In the left turn lane of the highway. Light turns green. Before I can move my foot from brake to accelerator the car behind me honks the horn.
-On my bike riding in a crosswalk immediately after the Walk light illuminated. A car charged into, but not blocking, the crosswalk and then honks at me.
-Intersection where I have the Stop sign. Motor vehicles approaching from left and right. Both stop and wave me through, which I appreciate because it is hard to mount and dismount.

What do theyall have in common? Attitude. The problem isn't cell phones, or texting, or any other machine. It is attitudes. Drivers or riders; it is a matter of care and respect for others. Not sure what we can do about that. Sorry if this sounds "preachy". I don't mean it that way. But finding and focusing on the problem is important.

rekmeyata

The cell phone conversation got started because this was your FIRST post, note the first paragraph 2nd sentence.

So yes cell phone use did come up because it's damaging personal property, and hurting and killing people

genec

Cell phone use also represents the same "selfish attitude" noted by HawkOwl and by the OP... and really what it comes down to is the fact that there are too many of us on too little road space all trying to climb to the top of whatever respective heap we have to climb, while looking back at the approaching wave of whatever.... be it waves of cars, waves of younger peers or waves of competition... we all feel the need to "do it" now.

That "do it now" feeling is also heavily promoted by our it's gotta be there overnight, just fax it/Fedex it/instant coffee it or fast food it to me right now, instant gratification world.

We've stopped smelling the roses (unless of course they are packaged in an ad and delivered right to the door) and we've decided that little else matters except our own world... which means drivers go on red lights without stopping, cyclists go all the time and we all get crunched in some way.

How do we bring back the right attitude... I donno... seems like since disco died, we're all trying to meet the same deadline. Try reversing that trend.

Maybe we need the aliens to land...

I-Like-To-Bike

Maybe "we" should catch our breath and stop over generalizing and spewing platitudes; try going for a ride without such a heavy community "attitude" burden.

howsteepisit

Right on genec, I believe you have hit the problem right on the proverbial nails head. On thing I would add, is the current fad of multitasking. Study after study has shown that people cannot multitask, yet we through advertisements, glowing magazine articles, and employer requirements heap praise on multitasking. I have even seen articles on how you can answer email and phone calls while driving to work. In my poorly formed opinion on this, any article which implies that a driver can do anything except pay attention to driving is culpable and should be subject to co-liability in any traffic accident related civil lawsuit where multi-tasking was present.

By the way, to add other fuel to the fire, the NSC study that rekmeyata refers to is one of those backed into numbers. What was basically determined was that cell phone use was present in 23,24,or 25% of accident, the numbers in the brief report of the study bounce around in a couple of paragraphs. They then infer that any accident where there was cell phone use was caused by cell phone use. Its pretty clear what NSC agenda is wrt cell phones. Once again, I am in favor of making cell phone use illegal while driving, but the numbers which show the actual risk are only slowly being developed, so the question is how much law/regulation is appropriate based on inferred studies and opinion, rather than actual experience? Thats a very individual opinion, and all the A&S back and forth will not change many opinions.

But hey - its a discussion forum right?

howsteepisit

If "we" do this, then forums like this will die of lack of use. Yet I notice ILTB has posted nearly 18,000 replies. Spend much time riding ILTB?

genec

Maybe "we" need to lighten up... did you see how I ended that post... or were you too busy breathing heavy?

I-Like-To-Bike

Just got back from my daily 12 mile ride to the swimming pool and read the blurb above.

WHERE did you read those articles and WHO wrote them?

I-Like-To-Bike

Does that mean you were just joshing about "us" and don't believe anything you wrote in your diatribe?

howsteepisit

ILTB - Articles re how to be more efficient have been appearing in the popular press and in business magazines for years. Since I think the articles are generally foolish, I do not keep them nor pay particular attention to who writes them. If you dispute they exist thats fine. If you choose to think I am lying thats fine too - I know different and am not concerned with your over attention to requesting documentation of each and every thought and belief others have express.

I-Like-To-Bike

If I intend to refer to articles that I read to others in order to make a point, I try to remember who wrote it or at least where I saw it; at least if I intend to be taken seriously.

But that's me, others refer to something that they read somewhere and believe that is convincing.

FWIW I have never seen an article on how you can answer email while driving to work.

howsteepisit

Never seen/used a smartphone either I see. And since I was not aware I would need to be defending a position at the time I read some of the articles, why would I want to clutter my mind or files with bad advise. And I for sure have seen articles about how to sort/read/reply to messages while stuck in traffic. Less in the last few years, but say 4 or 5 years ago, there was a lot of such advise, especially in sales productivity literature. But as is clear you think I am lying - so be it. As to what is worth about what you have/have not seen - not worth a thing to me.