Register to reply

Highway Accident Report by NTSB...Texting

by dlgoff
Tags: accident, highway, ntsbtexting, report
Share this thread:
dlgoff
#1
Dec13-11, 06:45 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,704
It's about time. Discuss please.

Ban the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices (other than those designed to support the driving task) for all drivers; (2) use the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration model of high visibility enforcement to support these bans; and (3) implement targeted communication campaigns to inform motorists of the new law and enforcement, and to warn them of the dangers associated with the nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011..._mo/index.html
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Wildfires and other burns play bigger role in climate change, professor finds
SR Labs research to expose BadUSB next week in Vegas
New study advances 'DNA revolution,' tells butterflies' evolutionary history
Greg Bernhardt
#2
Dec13-11, 06:47 PM
Admin
Greg Bernhardt's Avatar
P: 9,334
GPS ban I don't support, but texting is a problem. I see it all the time.
dlgoff
#3
Dec13-11, 07:05 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,704
Hum. Wasn't thinking about GPS. I guess it can be distracting; on the order of looking at your speedometer?

lisab
#4
Dec13-11, 07:13 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,979
Highway Accident Report by NTSB...Texting

Years ago, I reviewed this issue for my work. The research is quite clear: any sort of telephone conversation is distracting to drivers. When a driver talks on a phone, his or her attention narrows. Peripheral vision is dramatically reduced.

The research suggests the issue is not with the device, because it happens to drivers using "hands-free" phones, too.

The policy at my work was changed: no use of cell phones when driving, period.

My motto: "It can wait."
Evo
#5
Dec13-11, 07:15 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,485
Quote Quote by dlgoff View Post
Hum. Wasn't thinking about GPS. I guess it can be distracting; on the order of looking at your speedometer?
Those GPS driving directions are the cause of accidents, you can't read a small digital map and drive. The ones that call out directions are better, but what happened to getting directions before you leave? Then if you get lost, pull off the road and stop and check directions. Same for people with a paper map, get off the road!

One of the most horrific recent fatalities is where a woman was texting and didn't notice that traffic ahead of her had stopped and she rear ended a car driven by a another woman, the victim woman's car burst into flames and the woman was burned to death, I posted that article here.

No excuse for texting and driving. None.

I would be all for a device that disabled texting from a moving vehicle.
Jimmy Snyder
#6
Dec13-11, 07:21 PM
P: 2,179
My wife drives the car from the passenger seat. Turn here, stop there, you should have taken that left turn at Albequerque, etc. Then I got a GPS. I tossed it out after the first week. Turn here, stop there, you should have taken that left turn at Albequerque, etc. It's a wonder we haven't all been rear ended.
dlgoff
#7
Dec13-11, 07:22 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,704
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
The policy at my work was changed: no use of cell phones when driving, period.

My motto: "It can wait."
Exactly.

Quote Quote by Evo View Post
...but what happened to getting directions before you leave? Then if you get lost, pull off the road and stop and check directions.
That's the way I always did it, but what about the folks that can't even read a map (thinking voice GPS here)?
dlgoff
#8
Dec13-11, 07:23 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,704
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
My wife drives the car from the passenger seat. Turn here, stop there, you should have taken that left turn at Albequerque, etc. Then I got a GPS. I tossed it out after the first week. Turn here, stop there, you should have taken that left turn at Albequerque, etc. It's a wonder we haven't all been rear ended.


Never had a GPS but plenty of wives. I know what you mean.
zoobyshoe
#9
Dec13-11, 07:24 PM
zoobyshoe's Avatar
P: 5,625
I didn't realize this wasn't already illegal everywhere. It is illegal in California. I know people who've gotten tickets for fiddling with their phones at red lights, even.
Evo
#10
Dec13-11, 07:30 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,485
Passengers in cars are much more distracting than talking on cell phones. If you're talking on a cell phone, at least your eyes are on the road and not the passenger. People feel the need to make eye contact when they're talking to an actual person, so there is constant glancing at the "listener", then there is the need to look at the person you are speaking to to get that all important "facial and body language" feedback. Then when the passenger responds, there is that obligation to glance over continuously to give them "feedback". A cell phone has no feelings and doesn't need eye contact.

Second would be listening to music or even worse talk radio, your attention isn't on the road if you're lost in song or screaming at the radio. There should be silence when you are driving. Not to mention the inability to hear horns, screeching brakes, and sirens if you are listening to something else, usually too loud.

The worst is children in the car... Children whining, fighting, wanting things handed to them, taking things away from them. I've even witnessed women changing their baby's diapers while driving!!!
dlgoff
#11
Dec13-11, 07:37 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,704
Evo. I agree with all these distractions as being a problem. But even "thinking about something" can have serious consequences. e.g. My daughter turned right onto a 65mph highway after stopping at the county road intersection. Got rear ended by an oncoming car in broad daylight. She said she didn't see the oncoming car. Eyes saw, brain didn't register.
Pengwuino
#12
Dec13-11, 07:40 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Could GPS devices be considered devices to "support the driving task"?
Office_Shredder
#13
Dec13-11, 07:43 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Passengers in cars are much more distracting than talking on cell phones. If you're talking on a cell phone, at least your eyes are on the road and not the passenger. People feel the need to make eye contact when they're talking to an actual person, so there is constant glancing at the "listener", then there is the need to look at the person you are speaking to to get that all important "facial and body language" feedback. Then when the passenger responds, there is that obligation to glance over continuously to give them "feedback". A cell phone has no feelings and doesn't need eye contact.
This is actually the opposite of true. For example
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCog...JEP_A_2008.pdf

drivers showing a more pronounced tendency to drift during cell phone conversations compared to the passenger conversation condition
drivers in the cell phone condition were four times more likely to fail task completion than drivers in the passenger condition
The explanation that I've heard (and which I think sounds about right) is that passengers in the vehicle with you can see how you're doing in your surroundings and cease conversation when necessary (when executing turns, when traffic patterns shift, etc.) whereas somebody on a cell phone cannot.
Evo
#14
Dec13-11, 07:59 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,485
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
This is actually the opposite of true. For example
http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCog...JEP_A_2008.pdf





The explanation that I've heard (and which I think sounds about right) is that passengers in the vehicle with you can see how you're doing in your surroundings and cease conversation when necessary (when executing turns, when traffic patterns shift, etc.) whereas somebody on a cell phone cannot.
Well there is actual quantified proof that passengers are more distracting.

Passengers drive motorists to distraction says AA Insurance survey
The most frequent cause of driver distraction is other people in the car, according to new survey from AA Insurance.

Chatting to passengers is the greatest source of driver distraction - worse than using new technologies such as iPods, DVDs and car navigation systems.

A parliamentary investigation into driving distractions has warned that hundreds of drivers may be at risk of crashing because of the growth in video, audio and other electronic devices, which are increasingly being used while driving. But the investigation also found that the greatest source of driver distraction was not technology related, it was interacting with other passengers, placing renewed pressure on the Bracks Government to restrict P-plate drivers from carrying multiple passengers.

"While there has been much media focus on driving while using a mobile phone, and concern about new technology in vehicles, a variety of everyday activities are likely to be the major contributors to distraction-related crashes," said Labor MP Craig Langdon, a member of Parliament's Road Safety Committee, which conducted the inquiry.
http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ar...eID=19571&vf=1

http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distr...%20Driving.pdf

See page 16
Office_Shredder
#15
Dec13-11, 08:12 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,500
It's a bit unclear what that slideshow you posted is talking about. Is that just measuring how often such a distraction occurred without deciding on the severity of the distraction, or is it measuring how often an incident causes a distraction to a driver? It seems like it's measuring the former, which isn't a good way on deciding whether activities should be banned or not. Especially since the next slide indicates that people spent more time on their cell phones than talking to passengers anyway.

The Australian study you posted about has no numbers to talk about, and it's not explicitly made clear whether it's percent of time spent being distracted or severity of distraction (although in this case it seems by the language to be more likely talking about severity of distraction).

I find linking to original studies more effective because there's no ambiguity as to their measuring systems or methodologies
Evo
#16
Dec13-11, 08:18 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,485
Quote Quote by Office_Shredder View Post
It's a bit unclear what that slideshow you posted is talking about. Is that just measuring how often such a distraction occurred without deciding on the severity of the distraction, or is it measuring how often an incident causes a distraction to a driver? It seems like it's measuring the former, which isn't a good way on deciding whether activities should be banned or not. Especially since the next slide indicates that people spent more time on their cell phones than talking to passengers anyway.

The Australian study you posted about has no numbers to talk about, and it's not explicitly made clear whether it's percent of time spent being distracted or severity of distraction (although in this case it seems by the language to be more likely talking about severity of distraction).

I find linking to original studies more effective because there's no ambiguity as to their measuring systems or methodologies
It's an actual study, did you read it, or did you just glance at one slide?

And here is a list of studies.

http://www.drivingtips.org/Distracted-Driving.html

In case you aren't going to read it, you can just browse the results here.

Most of the information you hear or read about distracted driving is focused on cell phone use while driving. Evidence shows cell phone use is neither the most dangerous of distractions for drivers, nor is it the most common cause of car collisions.


In a Virginia Tech 100 car study, The most dangerous distracted driving activity was reaching for a moving object, making a crash 8 times more likely, while cell phone use was no higher than 2 1/2 times more likely to cause a collision.



Also crash statistics from at least two states, New York and Kentucky show cell phone use as a cause of much less than 1% of reported collisions.


In 2008 New York crash statistics showed inattention or driving distracted as the cause of 18% of collisions, while cell phone use was involved in only .3% of car crashes.

Kentucky 2008 crash data showed driver inattention or distracted driving as causing 24% of collisions and cell phone use as causing .8% of crashes.



It is worth noting New york has had laws against cell phone use while driving since 2001.

Kentucky just passed their first cell phone ban for drivers under 18, April 25th 2010, after these 2008 crash stats were reported.

Notice reported cell phone use in crashes is still under 1% in Kentucky even with cell phone use for all drivers being legal. (though the rate is slightly more than double that of New york.)

A NHSTA 2002 survey found .1% of drivers involved in collisions attributed the crash to cell phone use.

The conclusion here is, while Cell Phone use should not be ignored as a contribution to distracted driving collisions,other driving distractions are more common and actually cause more collisions than cell phone use.



Virginia Commonwealth university study in 2003 showed Looking at the scene of a crash caused the most collisons (16%) driver fatigue 12%, looking at other outside scenery 10%, passenger distraction 9%, while cell phone distraction was the cause of only 5% of the crashes.

NHSTA reports another 2003 study shows an outside object caused 23% of crashes while passengers caused 20% and cell phones 3.6%.
dlgoff
#17
Dec13-11, 08:21 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
dlgoff's Avatar
P: 2,704
Seems like it's not a case of whether it's a distraction, but to what degree the distraction is.

As in TEXTING. Just sayin'.
Evo
#18
Dec13-11, 08:26 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,485
Quote Quote by dlgoff View Post
Seems like it's not a case of whether it's a distraction, but to what degree the distraction is.

As in TEXTING. Just sayin'.
Texting has got to be the worst, it's reading and writing, you can't do both of those and drive safely. Not to mention you only have one hand to steer with. But talking on a cell phone is the least dangerous activity, based on actual results.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Texting classics... General Discussion 7
Q: DSLRs on a plane/NTSB paranoia Photography 5
Texting From Phone To Computer General Discussion 24