Distracted Drivers

Post by **Sylvus** » August 6, 2003, 2:34 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/08/06/di ... index.html

CNN wrote: Driver study: Cell phones not major distraction
Wednesday, August 6, 2003 Posted: 12:18 PM EDT (1618 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A study found that most drivers surveyed fiddle with their radios or engage in other distracting behavior, even when they're being watched as part of a study on distracted drivers.

Cell phones were not the major distraction, the study found. Only 30 percent of the subjects used a cell phone while their vehicle was moving, compared with 97 percent who leaned over to reach for something and 91 percent who fiddled with radio controls.

The study, released Wednesday by AAA, the auto club, and researchers at the University of North Carolina, tracked 70 drivers from North Carolina and Pennsylvania. (Interactive: Results of the study)

The drivers had miniature cameras placed in their cars for a week, and researchers randomly selected three hours to view their behavior. The first three hours of each tape were eliminated in the hope that drivers would act more naturally later in the week.

Drivers were distracted 16.1 percent of the time their vehicles were moving.

The study considered a wide range of behaviors to be distracting, including talking to passengers. Seventy-seven percent of drivers had conversations while driving.

"People may not realize how distracted they are," said Peter Kissinger, president of AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety. "Talking to a passenger seems quite safe, but even something that simple takes away from the road."

Recording the role of distractions
Jim Champagne, a former Louisiana state trooper who heads that state's highway safety commission, said studies like AAA's are critical because researchers still have no clear idea of the extent of the driver distraction problem. But he believes drivers who participated may have changed their behavior because of the cameras.

Ultimately, studying accident data will be the best way to understand the problem, Champagne said. In June, the federal government and the Governors Highway Safety Association asked states to start recording whether distraction played a role in accidents. Many are now making that change, Champagne said.

"We never have taken seriously that we need to be 100 percent attentive to our driving," Champagne said. "You can tell people that they shouldn't eat and drink while they're driving, but the bottom line is we're Americans, and we think we can do five or six things at a time."

AAA also suggested that states start including a section dedicated to the problem of distracted driving in driver education manuals. Manuals produced by only six states -- Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Virginia and Wisconsin -- now have such sections.

Ten states warn that radio dials can be a distraction, while 19 warn against cell phone use while driving, AAA said. Thirty-one states have enacted or are considering laws to ban or restrict the use of cell phones while driving.

Champagne said Louisiana lawmakers passed a bill this year to add a section on distraction to the state's driver manual.

Apparently me talking on my cell phone while driving isn't such a crime against god that everyone would have me believe. Looks like the clown with the "Hang up and drive" bumper sticker is probably eating a cheeseburger and looking for the latest Alan Jackson song on the radio and being just as unsafe as I am.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 6, 2003, 2:53 pm

What a bunch of bullshit. They only tracked 70 drivers, and they were only from 2 states.

Not a very conclusive test...at all.

EDIT: spelling error! Did not mean to annoy anyone.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 6, 2003, 3:58 pm

Eh seen WAY larger tests done by the Automobil Organization in Norway that concluded that cell phones are a huge distration for drivers, worse than fiddling with radios etc for the most part.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 6, 2003, 4:22 pm

I can run a better test by driving to and from work. I can get a better sample size just by witnessing jackass decisions behind the wheel and seeing what caused them. Sorry but a lot of people can't function their vehicle and talk on the cell. They can't stay in their lane, they can't notice a lane merge, they can't turn and stay in their lane while doing it, they don't move when the lights change or keep moving on one that turns red, and generally suck much ass.

People can be distracted by all sorts of things, but studies saying cell-phones don't cause a major distraction are probably run by a carrier.

Post by **Sylvus** » August 6, 2003, 4:25 pm

They weren't saying they don't cause a distraction, they were saying they weren't the major cause of distraction. People have always driven and eaten or fooled with the radio or put on makeup or talked to passengers in the car... But then cell phones become popular and everyone wants to blame them. I won't deny that someone talking on their phone is not paying full attention to driving, what chaps my ass is the people who bitch about that are also not paying attention to driving by doing one of the afforementioned acts. People in glass houses, and so forth...

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » August 6, 2003, 4:34 pm

Distracted is dropping a lit smoke...damn does that ever suck.

Another major one is passing a hottie and she is putting on make up. But, the applicator is being held by her large knockers.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » August 6, 2003, 4:48 pm

Again, if I was to take a sample size from idiot manuevers and what caused them, I would see cell phone use towards the top. They aren't a scapegoat, they're a problem.

My guess is that the idiots who can't do it would probably be an idiot while multi-tasking something else, but it's still a problem.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » August 6, 2003, 4:54 pm

I have this weird belief that those who play video games make the best drivers due to being able to multi-task and track multiple objects at varying speeds and not be distracted. Call me crazy but you know this silly notion carries a certain amount of logic. This is why women in general make such lousy drivers, they don't play games (-edit-as much)!

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 6, 2003, 5:01 pm

I have this weird belief that those who play video games make the best drivers due to being able to multi-task and track multiple objects at varying speeds and not be distracted. Call me crazy but you know this silly notion carries a certain amount of logic. This is why women in general make such lousy drivers, they don't play games

Thanks to the Internet, my left hand is now capable of many things I previously thought impossible.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » August 6, 2003, 5:02 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:I have this weird belief that those who play video games make the best drivers due to being able to multi-task and track multiple objects at varying speeds and not be distracted. Call me crazy but you know this silly notion carries a certain amount of logic. This is why women in general make such lousy drivers, they don't play games (-edit-as much)!

Hahaha Krimson! You're lucky Kooky isn't posting or paying attention!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 6, 2003, 5:38 pm

While I don't think that cell phones are the sole cause of of "distraction accidents," there's no doubt in my mind that they are a BIG contributor to a lot of them.

A sample size of 70 with a 2 state distribution is as good as no sample at all. It's statistically invalid to extrapolate to a population from a sample less than .000035% the size of the population.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 6, 2003, 5:49 pm

I'm surprised a test that poorly planned found its way to cnn.com's front page!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » August 6, 2003, 5:57 pm

Isn't Nokia one of CNN's largest advertisers?

Izna Marcos · Post by **Izna Marcos** » August 6, 2003, 6:08 pm

North Carolina to Penn, that explains a lot!

What they need to do is take those drivers to LA, and let them drive to San Fran. Drivers on cell phones here aren't necessarily bad, just stupid. They get into the fast lane, their phone rings, they answer, and then proceed to do 55 in the FAST LANE,(speed limits are mostly 65 on highways/freeways here), in rush hour traffic no less,thats if it's not stop and go. Course here, we just fly past them and give them the finger, it's a great way to make them hang up,and then they tail-gate you for the next 20 miles.

God i love california.

And for the record, i suck at driving, i know i do, i'm female, i'm allowed to damnit. "If you don't like the way i drive, stay off the sidewalk".But, my major distraction is neither eating or cell phones, its usually the radio, or talking to someone, occassionally i put makeup on in the car, but not often, only in emergencies.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 6, 2003, 6:43 pm

Izna Marcos wrote:North Carolina to Penn, that explains a lot!

What they need to do is take those drivers to LA, and let them drive to San Fran. Drivers on cell phones here aren't necessarily bad, just stupid. They get into the fast lane, their phone rings, they answer, and then proceed to do 55 in the FAST LANE,(speed limits are mostly 65 on highways/freeways here), in rush hour traffic no less,thats if it's not stop and go. Course here, we just fly past them and give them the finger, it's a great way to make them hang up,and then they tail-gate you for the next 20 miles.

God i love california.

And for the record, i suck at driving, i know i do, i'm female, i'm allowed to damnit. "If you don't like the way i drive, stay off the sidewalk".But, my major distraction is neither eating or cell phones, its usually the radio, or talking to someone, occassionally i put makeup on in the car, but not often, only in emergencies.

/vent ON

I totally agree with you Izna! LA drivers are the fucking worst. I am from SF bay area originally, and moved down to this deathpit know as LA last September. The drivers here are WAY more fucked-up than SF drivers, especially on one key point: They don't drive slow in the fucking fast lane!!
I don't know how many of these sorry-ass faggots I run into on a daily basis on my commute from Claremont to City of Industry and back, but I swear I feel like bumping everyone of the fuckers off Spy Hunter style.

MORAL: If you want to go slower, thats fine....JUST GET OUT OF THE FUCKING LEFT LANE!!

/vent OFF

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 6, 2003, 6:51 pm

If I remember right from the last time this stupid-as-fuck argument came up, distracted driving was responsible for around 20% of accidents. That's all of em, eating, changing the CD, beating the kids, etc.

So take you phone-hating, shove it way up in your ass and worry about the cause of the other 80%.

Do something useful with your life, for chrissakes.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 6, 2003, 6:56 pm

The other 80% are women drivers.

Any questions?

EDIT: This is a joke. I think women make fine drivers!

Izna Marcos · Post by **Izna Marcos** » August 6, 2003, 7:00 pm

And usually the best part is,in LA, you'll be behind them, they'll look in their rearview mirror, SEE YOU, and then go slower. So you proceed to go around them, and then they look at you as you pass them on the right side like YOU'RE the one with the problem. And then five minutes later, after they get off the phone they'll intentionally tailgate you, and then pass you.

It's funny, really. I know friends who have come to visit from other states who won't drive in LA, they think San Fran is fine, but would rather pay a $100 cab fare than drive in LA.I just tell them, just take 3 people, then you can, cheat, use the carpool lane.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » August 6, 2003, 7:39 pm

Fallanthas wrote:If I remember right from the last time this stupid-as-fuck argument came up, distracted driving was responsible for around 20% of accidents. That's all of em, eating, changing the CD, beating the kids, etc.

So take you phone-hating, shove it way up in your ass and worry about the cause of the other 80%.

Do something useful with your life, for chrissakes.

We have laws for most of that 80%, so fuck off

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 6, 2003, 7:57 pm

Any time I get blocked by a really slow driver in the fast lane or if some turbo speed freak with a bumper fetish comes flying up my ass they are usually on a cell phone.

This wasn't a very scientific study and the results should never have been posted.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 7, 2003, 4:26 pm

We have laws for most of that 80%, so fuck off

Silly me. I didn't know there was a law against eating in your car.

Actually, we have a law against distracted driving of any kind.

I suggest you do your homework, THEN fuck off, sir.

Kaelina · Post by **Kaelina** » August 7, 2003, 5:28 pm

Izna Marcos wrote:And for the record, i suck at driving, i know i do, i'm female, i'm allowed to damnit. "If you don't like the way i drive, stay off the sidewalk".But, my major distraction is neither eating or cell phones, its usually the radio, or talking to someone, occassionally i put makeup on in the car, but not often, only in emergencies.

There's no excuse for women to suck at driving, but the vast majority of them do. My theory is because most women are horrendous at judging distance and speed. 90% of the time when someone pulls out RIGHT in front of me onto the highway, it's a woman.

Women who put on makeup while driving a fucking car make me want to slay irl. Sorry, but there's just no such thing as a 'make-up emergency,' period. No wonder my fucking insurance premiums are so high. ><

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » August 7, 2003, 6:34 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
We have laws for most of that 80%, so fuck off

Silly me. I didn't know there was a law against eating in your car.

Actually, we have a law against distracted driving of any kind.

I suggest you do your homework, THEN fuck off, sir.

Re-read Trek's post...I think you misunderstood.

Uhhhmmm...are they really "laws"?

Izna Marcos · Post by **Izna Marcos** » August 7, 2003, 7:26 pm

Your a guy, you can think that, we however don't have that privilege when expected to look a certain way and are already 15 minutes late cuz of traffic.

As for if women are the worst drivers, i hardly think we're the only ones, when here in cali, men's insurance under 25 is HUGEly larger an amount than a woman's.Simply because men are more aggressive drivers, than woman, so they make you pay for it in advance. Women may be distracted, and not as good drivers, we aren't nearly as aggressive. Yes we cut people off, now and again, but i find myself waiting usually the extra five minutes for the light, then doing that. And most of my problem is usually speed limit, ironically i haven't gotten a ticket yet, and haven't been in more than one accident,which wasnt my fault.Ever try to get motorcycle insurance in the state of california?lol,it'll explain a lot more than i could...

Kaelina · Post by **Kaelina** » August 7, 2003, 7:38 pm

Izna Marcos wrote:Your a guy, you can think that, we however don't have that privilege when expected to look a certain way and are already 15 minutes late cuz of traffic.

I sincerely hope you are not referring to me in that statement.

When I say women in general are bad drivers -- they are. Men are more aggressive, and they cause their fair share of accidents as well. I didn't specifically state that you are a bad driver, as I've never witnessed you behind the wheel of a car. I'd be talking out of my ass to make such a specific claim.

However, you did admit to being guilty of applying make-up while driving a car. I think this is fucking retarded, regardless of the situation. It's MAKE-UP, for fuck's sake. Is that worth risking your (and others) life for?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 7, 2003, 8:01 pm

never mind

Post by **Xouqoa** » August 7, 2003, 8:04 pm

Izna Marcos wrote:Your a guy, you can think that, we however don't have that privilege when expected to look a certain way and are already 15 minutes late cuz of traffic.

I assure you, Kaelina is quite female!

Izna Marcos · Post by **Izna Marcos** » August 7, 2003, 8:06 pm

Well hun, when traffic is a dead stop, and i CHOOSE to use my mirror for my lipstick, i doubt i'll hurt anyone. However, seeing as i dont do it acutally WHILE in motion, i technically couldn't be hurting anyone, now could i? Rush hour traffic is usually when i do that, if i need to, i mean, which means 9 times out of 10 i'm just sitting there, so why not. Better than trying to put my contacts in...

Kaelina · Post by **Kaelina** » August 7, 2003, 9:35 pm

My opinion is based solely on the retarded things I've seen while driving or riding in a car. Nearly all of the times I've had someone almost hit me, it's been a woman behind the wheel. I've also seen how some of my female friends drive, vs. male friends. I've seen more women than men do some incomprehensibly stupid bullshit. Do all women suck at driving? No, not at all -- but I seem to be a magnet for the dumbass ones on the highway.

Just the other day on my way to work, I turned down a 3-lane ONE WAY street, and to my horror there was a car coming towards me at a rather fast rate of speed. Either it was a woman behind the wheel, or one hell of a cross-dresser. Statistics may be what they are, but personal experience has far more bearing on my opinion. =)

Putting on make-up even in rush hour traffic is retarded. Accidents still happen even when people are crawling at 5MPH. For the love of God, spend the extra 5 minutes at home and do it, or put it on in the bathroom at work...

edit: wtf at 'never mind'? =p

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 7, 2003, 11:40 pm

Skogen wrote:
Izna Marcos wrote:North Carolina to Penn, that explains a lot!

What they need to do is take those drivers to LA, and let them drive to San Fran. Drivers on cell phones here aren't necessarily bad, just stupid. They get into the fast lane, their phone rings, they answer, and then proceed to do 55 in the FAST LANE,(speed limits are mostly 65 on highways/freeways here), in rush hour traffic no less,thats if it's not stop and go. Course here, we just fly past them and give them the finger, it's a great way to make them hang up,and then they tail-gate you for the next 20 miles.

God i love california.

And for the record, i suck at driving, i know i do, i'm female, i'm allowed to damnit. "If you don't like the way i drive, stay off the sidewalk".But, my major distraction is neither eating or cell phones, its usually the radio, or talking to someone, occassionally i put makeup on in the car, but not often, only in emergencies.
/vent ON

I totally agree with you Izna! LA drivers are the fucking worst. I am from SF bay area originally, and moved down to this deathpit know as LA last September. The drivers here are WAY more fucked-up than SF drivers, especially on one key point: They don't drive slow in the fucking fast lane!!
I don't know how many of these sorry-ass faggots I run into on a daily basis on my commute from Claremont to City of Industry and back, but I swear I feel like bumping everyone of the fuckers off Spy Hunter style.

MORAL: If you want to go slower, thats fine....JUST GET OUT OF THE FUCKING LEFT LANE!!

/vent OFF

Funny you should say this. I live in Toronto Canada and the drivers here have no fucking clue what the left lane is for. I also travel extensively in the USA and on the Interstate highways I find that Americans do obey the rules of the road and only pass on the left.

However, I was in the LA area a month ago and drove down to San Diego and found that Californians drive like us Canucks. Must be a regional thing down south.

Cellular phones are not nearly the distraction that some believe. I have seen many many more dangerous things take place like reading a fucking road map doing 80 mph, or looking in the back seat for something while driving. Some people should not have licenses period.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 8, 2003, 12:26 pm

I understood him just fine, Skogen. We have laws for EVERY instance of driving distracted, not just 80%. His assertion that the other 80% are fine because of a law is ignorant and uninformed.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 8, 2003, 5:41 pm

In most Canadian jurrisdictions and I'm willing to bet most American ones as well, we have a law against "driving without due care and attention". If you are involved in an accident where buddy is yapping on his cell, eating, fucking with the radio, etc. the person can be charged... the only thing is that they usually only get charged if they are involved in an accident.

I agree that there are other distractions that are hazardous in vehicles, but that still doesn't make talking on a cell while driving any less dangerous: it IS a distraction and DOES impair your ability to react to possible hazards. An accident may not be your fault, strictly speaking, but wouldn't it be better to avoid it if possible?.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 8, 2003, 6:14 pm

True Wulf, but that wasn't the point.

Cell phones are responsible for such a small percentage of accidents. Yet people here and elsewhere seem perfectly willing to look past other causes of distracted driver accidents and go after talking on the damned phone.

It's like spending time swatting flies when there is a rhino charging.

http://www.technology-boiseoffice.com/t ... D=342&vw=2

Specifically the section on statistics.

Even NHTSA (National Highway and Traffic Safety Adminsitration, the guys that make the distracted driving radio spots) says that crashes attributable to cell phone use are an absurdly small percentage.

Involvement in a Crash as a Result of Wireless Phone Use
About one quarter (26%) of drivers have been involved in a crash in the past five years where there was damage to a vehicle. Slightly less than one percent (.6%) of those involved in a crash (.1% of all drivers) attribute the crash to wireless phone use. Drivers under age 30 are more likely to have been involved in such a crash, with .3% of all drivers this age having been in a crash they attribute to wireless phone use. [Figure 8-A]

Though the proportion of drivers involved in a crash they attribute to wireless phone use is very small, it relates to an estimated 292,000 drivers over the past five years. Female drivers report about two-thirds of these crash experiences (about 197,000). [Figure 8-B]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ ... racted.htm

Crusade if it makes you feel better, but you are writing off the majority of crashes to spend time on your own pet peeve.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 8, 2003, 6:32 pm

Yet people here and elsewhere seem perfectly willing to look past other causes of distracted driver accidents and go after talking on the damned phone.

No. No one said anything about abandoning other causes. Speeding has enforced laws, as do impaired driving, as do numerous other driving behaviours. All people in this thread have said is that there needs to be more conciousness about the hazard that talking on cells creates. No one except Trek has openly advocated putting a "cell phone driving law" on the books: most posts were anecdotal about how oblivious people are about the road around them while on the phone. As another example of a hazard, how many times do you come across instances of people hitting animals on highways? There is no law about it but there are posted warning signs in a lot of rural areas to raise awareness of this potential hazard.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » August 8, 2003, 6:41 pm

I count three posts specifically aimed at cell phone use, Wulf.

Y'all have a good weekend, eh?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 8, 2003, 8:41 pm

Ok, as I have stated before, I work as an Auto Insurance underwriter for one of the major Auto Insurers in the US....

We were talking about this test about 1.5 months ago when it was released to us originally from the University of Utah I believe. They tested people using a cellphone with and without a headset against people at 0.08 BAC since that's the "illegal" amount of drink allowed in most states....The results were in no way conclusive. There are WAY too many factors that could have been involved but were not.... If they want to convince the nation that cellphones themselves are bad, they need to come up with more actual PROOF that the cell phone user was not just a dumbass who "deserved" to be in an accident.

Plus how many drunk drivers have YOU heard of that are at EXACTLY 0.08% BAC?

This is just another crack at reducing distractions in the vehicles. Personally, I will not answer my cellphone UNLESS I have a headset already on. Also, If I need to turn to see, I have already made sure that the headset has enough slack for me to do so as comfortably as if I didn't have it on. I also refuse to talk on my cellphone if I am smoking since that limits me even more. Some people know their limits. Hell, I won't even listen to techno in the car anymore since it makes me wanna do all KINDS of crazy things on the roads here in Austin.

Like my grandfather told my mother when she drove on her own for the first time, "Watch out for all of the OTHER dumbasses on the road and you should be fine."

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » August 8, 2003, 8:49 pm

My driving teacher told me:

"Always assume that every other driver is insane - not an idiot, but insane. The idiot will always do something stupid, and you think you can count on it. The insane person will do stupid things only sometimes."

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 8, 2003, 9:00 pm

Women don't have accidents.....they CAUSE accidents!

*runs to hide behind a big rock and giggle*

Izna Marcos · Post by **Izna Marcos** » August 8, 2003, 10:43 pm

here's a question, if you buy a highway, can you stand out there with signs saying " get off the freeway!!" lol..