Highway Accident Report by NTSB Texting

  • Thread starter Thread starter dlgoff
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Accident Report
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report regarding highway accidents related to texting while driving. Participants explore the broader issue of distractions caused by various electronic devices, including GPS, and the effectiveness of potential policy changes aimed at reducing these distractions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants advocate for banning nonemergency use of portable electronic devices while driving, citing the dangers of distractions.
  • Others express that while texting is a significant problem, they do not support a ban on GPS devices, although they acknowledge that GPS can also be distracting.
  • A participant mentions research indicating that any telephone conversation, including hands-free, can narrow a driver's attention and reduce peripheral vision.
  • There are claims that passengers can be more distracting than cell phone conversations because they require eye contact and continuous feedback, while a cell phone does not.
  • Another participant counters this by referencing research suggesting that passengers can adjust their conversation based on the driver's situation, potentially reducing distraction compared to cell phone use.
  • Some participants share personal anecdotes about distractions from both passengers and electronic devices, emphasizing the need for awareness and caution while driving.
  • There is a discussion about the legality of texting while driving, with some participants noting that it is already illegal in certain states.
  • One participant proposes the idea of a device that could disable texting in moving vehicles as a potential solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the dangers of various distractions while driving, with no clear consensus on the relative risks of texting versus other forms of distraction, such as passengers or GPS devices. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to mitigate these distractions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various studies and personal experiences, but there are limitations in the discussion regarding the applicability of these findings to all driving situations and the definitions of "distraction." Some assumptions about the effectiveness of proposed policies are also not fully explored.

  • #31


Okay, after reading the results of the onboard data, the conclusion is that they have no idea what causes crashes. :-p

Another important limitation of the study is that the measures of driving performance we were able to code and analyze – hands on steering wheel, direction of eye gaze, and vehicle wanderings or encroachments across travel lanes – have not been directly linked to crash risk. While we may intuitively feel that drivers who engage in activities that require them to take their hands off the steering wheel or their eyes off the road for short periods of time have a higher risk of crashing, we do not know this to be true. Neither do we know that increased wandering in the travel lane is associated with higher crash risks in real world driving.

Most importantly, we were unable to capture any measure of cognitive distraction, which has been linked in the literature to poorer driving performance and increased likelihood of crashing. Such studies have typically been carried out in more controlled settings, using driving simulators or instrumented vehicles (or drivers) on test tracks (see, e.g., Strayer, Drews and Johnston, 2003). Other studies have suggested that drivers’ fixed gaze may be an indicator of cognitive distraction. These studies distinguish two types of eye movements that can indicate a driver is distracted: either short glances away from the driving task, or the longer fixed gazes that signify a cognitive distraction. In our less controlled naturalistic driving study, we could not differentiate fixed gazes from the desirable category of “eyes directed at the roadway,” for example, when subjects were talking on a cell phone. Consequently, our study is not able to provide a definitive answer as to which activities, or which driver distractions, carry the greatest risks of crash involvement.
I give up, all the reports that cell phone talking is less hazardous than most other activities must be fraud aimed at at outlawing passengers, most specifically babies. :-p (that's in another study I posted that has police reports) Therefore I am now in favor of outlawing the use of babies in cars.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217550/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K