I think it should be ok to use a phone briefly when you are waiting at a red light or stuck in extremely congested (not moving) traffic. I live in a very congested area and I will use those moments to adjust the map if needed or to send a quick, "I'm on my way," text. Other than that, no, I don't use a phone and I hate when people use them and then drive stupidly.
Nope. It's still be proven as a distraction even when stopped at red lights. Your opinion is invalid. Unless you have research to back up your assertion.
Err, you can think that my opinion is invalid. That only means that you think it is invalid, not that it is so. That's fine. That is your right. And no, I'm not going to start some debate about empiricism and truth right now.
I think that in the grand scheme of problems in this world, stopping people who use phones at red lights is near the bottom of priorities. You can disagree.
Post by lasagnasshole on Jul 31, 2014 10:23:51 GMT -5
STOP IT with this nonsense about having a discussion with a passenger in your car being comparable to talking on the phone to someone outside the car.
It has to do with your brain activity. The best way I can think to describe this is to say that you sould read about Marshall McLuhan's concept of "hot" and "cold" media. When you are talking to someone who is not in the car, your brain is working to picture that person's face, his facial expressions, his surroundings, etc. You are not consciously trying to do this, but your brain is filling in the gaps when you aren't even realizing it.
There is actual research on this shit. Hands free devices do not change the MENTAL distraction.
Nope. It's still be proven as a distraction even when stopped at red lights. Your opinion is invalid. Unless you have research to back up your assertion.
Err, you can think that my opinion is invalid. That only means that you think it is invalid, not that it is so. That's fine. That is your right. And no, I'm not going to start some debate about empiricism and truth right now.
I think that in the grand scheme of problems in this world, stopping people who use phones at red lights is near the bottom of priorities. You can disagree.
STOP IT with this nonsense about having a discussion with a passenger in your car being comparable to talking on the phone to someone outside the car.
It has to do with your brain activity. The best way I can think to describe this is to say that you sould read about Marshall McLuhan's concept of "hot" and "cold" media. When you are talking to someone who is not in the car, your brain is working to picture that person's face, his facial expressions, his surroundings, etc. You are not consciously trying to do this, but your brain is filling in the gaps when you aren't even realizing it.
There is actual research on this shit. Hands free devices do not change the MENTAL distraction.
Yes. It's called cognitive distraction. It's a mental disconnect that requires more cognitive function to process what's going on and interact appropriately.
I recently started using bluetooth to connect my phone to my car. I listen to audiobooks and that's how it connects to the radio. I set it before I put the car in drive, though.
So I can't say I'm totally tech free while driving.
Post by niemand88f on Jul 31, 2014 10:42:11 GMT -5
More sources, direct links to pdfs of published studies from one lab that focuses on this topic. I particularly "like" the one saying cell phone use is just as bad as drunk driving. Even hands-free cell phone use. "Also noteworthy was the fact that the driving impairments associated with handheld and hands-free cell phone conversations were not significantly different. This observation is consistent with earlier reports (e.g., Patten et al., 2004; Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 1997; Strayer & Johnston, 2001) and suggests that legislative initiatives that restrict handheld devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to eliminate the problems associated with using cell phones while driving. This follows because the interference can be attributed in large part to the distracting effects of the phone conversations themselves, effects that appear to be attributable to the diversion of attention away from driving. "
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
Probably because it's so cumbersome and error prone. But just having a phone conversation or listening to navigation isn't any harder than if the person is in the car (in which case you might even turn to look at them during the conversation) talking to you or giving directions.
And why are built in nav systems to antiquated?
Well, it still is harder.... An adult passenger will generally naturally stop talking if a tricky situation arises, because they're in the car too and can see that everyone ahead is slamming on their brakes or an exit is coming up requiring several lane changes. The person on the phone or the navigation system will just keep talking through all that.
You are correct and Pamela is wrong. Talking on a phone also narrows your field of vision and requires much more brain power than an in-person conversation does.
Read the white paper I posted up thread a bit, pamela.
This finding addresses the common question about whether driver distraction comes from cell-phone use specifically or conversation generally.
Even when drivers used a hands-free cell phone, driving performance was significantly compromised. "Cell phone and passenger conversation differ in their impact on a driver's performance; these differences are apparent at the operational, tactical, and strategic levels of performance," the researchers wrote.
The study, led by Frank Drews, PhD, of the University of Utah, analyzed the driving performance of 41 mostly young adult drivers paired with 41 friends who served as conversation partners. Both sexes were equally represented.
In each of three experimental conditions (conversation with hands-free cell phone, conversation in the car, or no conversation), one person in each pair was randomly selected to be the "driver" and the other the conversation partner.
Drivers used a sophisticated simulator that presented a 24-mile multilane highway with on- and off-ramps, overpasses and two-lane traffic in each direction. Participants drove under an irregular-flow condition that mimics real highway conditions -- with other vehicles, in compliance with traffic laws, changing lanes and speeds. This context required "drivers" to pay attention to surrounding traffic.
In the cell-phone conversation condition, drivers' conversation partners were at another location. In the in-car conversation condition, partners sat next to their (simulated) drivers. In both cases, conversation partners were told to tell one another a previously undisclosed "close call" story about a time their lives were threatened.
All drivers were instructed to leave the simulated highway once they arrived at a rest area about eight miles from the starting point. Partners were told the driver had this task. The driving sequences took about 10 minutes to finish.
Drivers talking by cell phone drove significantly worse than drivers talking to passengers. The cell-phone users were more likely to drift in their lane, kept a greater distance between their car and the car in front, and were four times more likely to miss pulling off the highway at the rest area. Passenger conversation barely affected all three measures.
The authors said the problems could have stemmed from inattention "blindness," or insufficient processing of information from the driving environment. Cell-phone users may also have found it harder to hold in working memory the intent to exit at the rest area.
Conversation analyses revealed some interesting patterns, according to the researchers. When driving tasks got more complicated, drivers appeared to modulate the complexity of their speech, as measured by syllables-per-word. Drivers also talked more when using cell phones, perhaps, the authors speculated, because they were trying to control the conversation to avoid using the mental resources required to really listen to the other person.
Meanwhile, passengers took an active role in supporting the driver, often talking about surrounding traffic. That shared situational awareness could be helpful to the driver.
One of the boled parts about "kept a greater distance between their car and the car in front" seems more safe, not less safe. No?
And I am bad about driving and talking hands free - I do it. I call people all the time from the car b/c that is about the only time I can talk uninterrupted between work and the kids - I really need to stop. My kids are actually pretty good about reminding me not to pick-up my phone and I tell them that they get a "fun point" (part of our reward system) if they remind me. But, I still do it... even check a quick text message (not send) at a light or stopped waiting in traffic.
The number of people killed in distraction-affected crashes decreased slightly from 3,360 in 2011 to 3,328 in 2012. An estimated 421,000 people were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving a distracted driver, this was a nine percent increase from the estimated 387,000 people injured in 2011.
As of December 2012, 171.3 billion text messages were sent in the US (includes PR, the Territories, and Guam) every month. (CTIA)
10% of all drivers under the age of 20 involved in fatal crashes were reported as distracted at the time of the crash. This age group has the largest proportion of drivers who were distracted. Drivers in their 20s make up 27 percent of the distracted drivers in fatal crashes. (NHTSA)
At any given daylight moment across America, approximately 660,000 drivers are using cell phones or manipulating electronic devices while driving, a number that has held steady since 2010. (NOPUS)
Engaging in visual-manual subtasks (such as reaching for a phone, dialing and texting) associated with the use of hand-held phones and other portable devices increased the risk of getting into a crash by three times. (VTTI)
Five seconds is the average time your eyes are off the road while texting. When traveling at 55mph, that's enough time to cover the length of a football field blindfolded. (2009, VTTI) Headset cell phone use is not substantially safer than hand-held use. (VTTI)
A quarter of teens respond to a text message once or more every time they drive. 20 percent of teens and 10 percent of parents admit that they have extended, multi-message text conversations while driving. (UMTRI)
So here is my, "If pixy ran the world" solution. All newer cars would be fit with technology that would lock phones while the car is in motion. Obviously people think they know better than science (gee, whoda thunk that?), so it's time to take away their toys. Go full on nanny state.
Mainly I'm just tired that people are STILL using the, "It's not any different than having a convo with someone in the car," when clearly all the bodies of research say it is. Just because you think something doesn't make it true.
Yes, yes yes!! It's insane to me that people still don't get it.
I was in the car with my aunt and she was trying to get her phone out of her purse to text someone (my 16 year old niece who we would be seeing in like five min) while she was driving. I said I'll do it for you since you're DRIVING. Cue her arguing with me that "she personally doesn't believe the opinion that it's dangerous"
Ok, I said please look into the research, not opinion, and I just won't drive with her and she's not to drive my family around.
I mean, come on. I can see if one never heard of it, but to have the facts and research and still think it's ok?
She thinks I'm overboard about it and I overreact. Ummm, no.
When I tell people I put my phone in my purse in the back seat while driving they think I'm a nutter. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone half the time. I can't tell if people are legit clueless or willfully ignorant or something else. It's scary thinking all these people on the road on the phone.
If I had it my way phone and driving would be illegal, phones would disable in the car. Last I said that I was told so many emergencies could happen and how would emergency rescue be summoned?
One of the boled parts about "kept a greater distance between their car and the car in front" seems more safe, not less safe. No?
way back in the mist of prehistory, when I took driving class, we were taught to leave one car length per 10 mph of speed. It was a braking distance thing.
You try leaving six car lengths on any given freeway, even a not particularly busy one.
One of the boled parts about "kept a greater distance between their car and the car in front" seems more safe, not less safe. No?
way back in the mist of prehistory, when I took driving class, we were taught to leave one car length per 10 mph of speed. It was a braking distance thing.
You try leaving six car lengths on any given freeway, even a not particularly busy one.
Our defensive driving courses we take for work remind us to leave 3 car lengths between you and another car on the highway to make sure you have time to break at 65+ mph and also for merging/lane changing traffic. It's drilled in every year, so I wondered why that was bad.
Nope. It's still be proven as a distraction even when stopped at red lights. Your opinion is invalid. Unless you have research to back up your assertion.
Err, you can think that my opinion is invalid. That only means that you think it is invalid, not that it is so. That's fine. That is your right. And no, I'm not going to start some debate about empiricism and truth right now.
I think that in the grand scheme of problems in this world, stopping people who use phones at red lights is near the bottom of priorities. You can disagree.
But facts are facts and opinions don't just overshadow facts because we want them to or because they don't back u our position.
It may be at the bottom of priorities for you, but to the people who've lost their loved one(s) on account of others using phones when driving, it's a pretty big deal.
This is in no way a personal attack, it's just kind of a biggie and the more people (drivers) who realize this is factual info, the safer will will all be. As long as there are people who don't understand the facts and science, for whatever reason, we will all be at risk
way back in the mist of prehistory, when I took driving class, we were taught to leave one car length per 10 mph of speed. It was a braking distance thing.
You try leaving six car lengths on any given freeway, even a not particularly busy one.
Our defensive driving courses we take for work remind us to leave 3 car lengths between you and another car on the highway to make sure you have time to break at 65+ mph and also for merging/lane changing traffic. It's drilled in every year, so I wondered why that was bad.
Yeah, my h has to take defensive driving classes every two years for work and they tell them three car lengths too. And (knock on wood lol) he's not had an accident, even a fender bender, in the 15 years I've known him, on or off the job.
They are governed by OSHA for a lot of safety stuff, so this may be more OSHA rules than his actual company though, I'm not sure.
Our defensive driving courses we take for work remind us to leave 3 car lengths between you and another car on the highway to make sure you have time to break at 65+ mph and also for merging/lane changing traffic. It's drilled in every year, so I wondered why that was bad.
Yeah, my h has to take defensive driving classes every two years for work and they tell them three car lengths too. And (knock on wood lol) he's not had an accident, even a fender bender, in the 15 years I've known him, on or off the job.
They are governed by OSHA for a lot of safety stuff, so this may be more OSHA rules than his actual company though, I'm not sure.
I could be off on this because I heard it on the radio and can't find the article but from how it was explained. Leaving too much car space isn't the problem, it's the start/stop braking a lot in order to accomplish the extra space that's the problem. Because you have tunnel vision and aren't giving your full attention to driving, your brain perceives that you are closer to the car in front of you than you actually are, resulting in more unnecessary braking (and thus more fender benders).
On the flip side it also causes you to not realize that there are real issues you DO need to brake for because your reaction time is slowed.
All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
Am I incorrect or didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that this is unconstitutional?
All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
Am I incorrect or didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that this is unconstitutional?
Post by Wanderista on Jul 31, 2014 12:04:07 GMT -5
I am replying to the messages in this way since there are several. I never said I am in favor of driving with a cellphone. Quite the opposite. You aren't debating me here because I don't disagree. I won't defend people who drive with cellphones because I was never defending them in the first place. I am hardly in favor of people using their phones while driving "with wild abandon" or basically at all.
I did not say that driving while on a cellphone is unimportant. I said that stopping people who use a cellphone while stopped at a red light is IMO hardly a priority. All I've said is that if I am stuck at a light, I might dash out a, "Be there in 10 mins," or, "Stuck in traffic but coming," text and then the phone goes away. That doesn't require a source, it isn't an opinion. I'm not suggesting that it's something that everyone should do either. By the way, I keep an eye on the light or car in front if sending such a message and I live in a congested area where people sit at stoplights a lot. There are plenty of stats about how congested my area is.
The subject of whether all opinions need a source is a different one. We can agree to disagree there. A person does not need to dissertate continually in order to think, but then again, that's a whole separate topic. I'm not anti-empiricism at all but empiricism does not equate to policing peoples' thoughts (which is the effect of demanding a source for ANY comments .. that is a slippery slope, indeed). I'm not on trial and I'm not performing a viva, this does not mean that I am not entitled to think and reason. Declaring this invalid essentially suggests otherwise. If you want to disagree with me on this then I think that speaks for itself but go ahead.
I did not say that driving while on a cellphone is unimportant. I said that stopping people who use a cellphone while stopped at a red light is IMO hardly a priority. All I've said is that if I am stuck at a light, I might dash out a, "Be there in 10 mins," or, "Stuck in traffic but coming," text and then the phone goes away. That doesn't require a source, it isn't an opinion. I'm not suggesting that it's something that everyone should do either. By the way, I keep an eye on the light or car in front if sending such a message and I live in a congested area where people sit at stoplights a lot. There are plenty of stats about how congested my area is.
Source? If it's not an opinion, you should be able to find something to back you up here.
Am I incorrect or didn't the Supreme Court recently rule that this is unconstitutional?
I think it was in relation to traffic stops.
I just did some googling, and it's in the context of the police seizing a cell phone of a person they are arresting (though the phone could contain evidence of the crime, it's impinges too much on privacy). I don't think it addresses traffic accidents, but there's an argument to be made that the same reasoning that the court used would also apply to accidents (if not more so). So I guess it isn't clear, but I'm not sure I'd willingly hand my phone over to the police in that situation regardless of whether I'd been talking/texting.
I did not say that driving while on a cellphone is unimportant. I said that stopping people who use a cellphone while stopped at a red light is IMO hardly a priority. All I've said is that if I am stuck at a light, I might dash out a, "Be there in 10 mins," or, "Stuck in traffic but coming," text and then the phone goes away. That doesn't require a source, it isn't an opinion. I'm not suggesting that it's something that everyone should do either. By the way, I keep an eye on the light or car in front if sending such a message and I live in a congested area where people sit at stoplights a lot. There are plenty of stats about how congested my area is.
Source? If it's not an opinion, you should be able to find something to back you up here.
You are wrong. I'm sorry this upsets you.
I'm not upset at all. There's simply nothing to source. Also, it's not really a question of being wrong.
I am sure that I sound defensive largely because I was being asked to defend a point that I am not making. The internet does not always convey tone well. I'll debate but I am not upset over this. I am upset about many things that are happening in this world right now but not this.
Source? If it's not an opinion, you should be able to find something to back you up here.
You are wrong. I'm sorry this upsets you.
I'm not upset at all. There's simply nothing to source. Also, it's not really a question of being wrong.
I am sure that I sound defensive largely because I was being asked to defend a point that I am not making. The internet does not always convey tone well. I'll debate but I am not upset over this. I am upset about many things that are happening in this world right now but not this.
Tempest in a teacup ...
Yes, it is a question of being wrong. You assert that checking your phone at a light is perfectly fine. That there is nothing wrong with doing so. Ok, so what do you have other than your own personal experiences that are not clouded by the fact that you do not want to stop doing that action?
Downplaying the argument because you cannot find sources to back you up isn't helping your case. So again I ask, source?
All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
Wait - what?!? Was she arrested? I missed the story, sorry. Police need a warrant to search phones.
All I'm going to add is the first thing the cops did in my sister's car wreck yesterday was confiscate the cell phones. It has been termed "an ongoing investigation".
So.
Wait - what?!? Was she arrested? I missed the story, sorry. Police need a warrant to search phones.
Arguably, there's a distinction between confiscating the phone and actively searching the contents of the phone without a warrant. The phone itself could be a piece of evidence, but three police would need to submit a warrant affidavit before searching call history, etc. The Riley decision even specifically mentions turning the phone off or putting it into a particular type of evidence bag while awaiting a warrant as a counterpoint to the state's "destruction of evidence" argument.
Also, the exigent circumstances exception can still apply based on the facts of individual cases.