Making calls and texting when driving: discussion

[abe11825]

I live in the States, and lately, every few weeks to a few months, there is an accident on the train because one of the drivers was texting. Most recently, this happened almost 3 weeks ago. It's the second one in 6 months. The drivers are using their phones too much, and when they start texting, they start paying less attention to the tracks. This is causing too many collisions with other trains. The most recent incident was by a young man (I think he was 19 or 20, but not too sure), and because he admitted he was texting, there is now a ban on all MBTA workers to not even have their phones on their person. If they are caught with their phone even in their pocket, it's grounds for suspension / termination.

Texting while driving has come to people being too used to their phones and paying less attention to their surroundings. I can understand why employers (such as the MBTA) would ban the use of phones of any kind because one needs to focus on their task, not whatever their friend is writing them. If you're having a conversation via text with someone on the job or in your car, is it that important that you happen to cause an accident because of it?

I just want to point out as well, yes, I do text. But I don't text often enough to warrant my phone be out and on 24/7. Sometimes one needs to know when to shut it off and ignore the ringers...

 

[Boycey]

train drivers?

i think the weight should be on how many people you are likely affect by being distracted.

pedestrian<cyclist<motorbike<car<van<lorry...<plane etc.

though texting pedestrians piss me right off

 

[T & P]

train drivers?

i think the weight should be on how many people you are likely affect by being distracted.

pedestrian<cyclist<motorbike<car<van<lorry...<plane etc.

though texting pedestrians piss me right off

I guess texting while flying the Space Shuttle is out of the question?

 

[kained&able]

pfft more likely to get injured stirring the fuel tanks then txting on a space ship.


dave

 

[Boycey]

I guess texting while flying the Space Shuttle is out of the question?

if i asked if it's possible to get reception in orbit would this discussion get moved to the science forums?

e2a: ackshully i know that the mobile network runs on ground waves so sending a text is completely out of the question though you might be able to write one.

 

[ilovebush&blair]

i never send text messages when driving but i do read the ones i get, when i was a smoker i used to make a rollie when i driving at 90+ mph, now that was stupid....

 

[Roadkill]

Another case one or two years ago- extensively discussed here at the time- about a driver fined for texting whilst the car was stationary at a red lights comes to mind.

Some people agreed with the fine because, they argued, the driver was 'in charge of the vehicle' and apparently no driver can be trusted to put the phone down when the light turns green. Which is ludicrous IMO. We might as well fine drivers for reaching for a tissue, or pack of chewing gum while stopped at the lights, since we don't know whether they'll have the restrain to return both their hands and full attention to the task of driving once the traffic starts moving again.

I agree that someone texting whilst stationary in traffic isn't posing any great danger, but as soon as you start introducing caveats into the law and saying 'using a mobile phone behind the wheel is illegal unless x, y or z' then you overcomplicate things and leave all sorts of get-out clauses. As it stands the law is clear and simple: if you're driving, don't use a hand-held phone. It's not that hard to pull over if you really need to make a call or send a text, is it?

 

[soulman]

Using a mobile phone while driving

This was posted elsewhere so no idea if it's been done here. An eye opening test for anyone who hasn't seen it before - http://www.dft.gov.uk/drivingchallenge/

I never use a mobile phone when driving. I failed this challenge.

 

[xes]

I used a phone whilst driving once. I answered a call, and with 1 hand at my ear, I was most certainly NOT have any control going round the roundabout (nearly on 2 wheels) Nearly crashed the fucking car, I had to drop the phone to regain control of it.

I now ignore calls until I can find a decent spot to pull over.

which leads me to this......I had a call whilst driving back from a mates house one night. I was going through some windey old lanes and knew that there was a little car park where people stop to walk their dogs in the fields very close by. So in there I go, call the missed call back and the police drive in. So after my call, I then had to spend another 20 minutes whilst they checked my details becasue I had "stopped in an unusual place" (what, a car park? )

 

[Upchuck]

I counted right but failed the rest

 

[xes]

oh, I just failed that test aswell.

 

[dwenfish]

what a load of shit- ok sure it's difficult to concentrate on more than one thing at a time but what the fuck has that got to do with talking on a hands free mobile? are they going to ban anyone having a conversation in the car next?

 

[soulman]

what a load of shit- ok sure it's difficult to concentrate on more than one thing at a time but what the fuck has that got to do with talking on a hands free mobile? are they going to ban anyone having a conversation in the car next?

I take it you failed the test then dwenfish?

 

[Descartes]

Can I ask a question, how many of the people here protesting about drivers actually drive a car?

The figures given and the examples quoted clearly define the dangers, but out of how many accidents? It was found that shortly after seat belts being introduced the number of accidents increased and the speed of the accidents also increased. The greater impression of safety in wearing seat belts induced the drivers to increase speed. Anti-Lock Braking was another factor in the increase of accidents, again a false sense of security.

Conversations on hands free, I have found on numerous occasions I have mentally switched off from the conversation and had to ask the person to repeat themselves becasue the traffic conditions required a greater level of concentration. I have maintained a conversation for over six hours while on an over night run, her excuse was to keep me awake and I had to keep repeating myself to keep her awake.

Whilst I would not denigrate the research, I believe that driving experience and ability plays a considerable part in the safety level of your own driving, regardless of the hands free and talking while driving. How many times has the conversation helped to relieve the monotony of the drive and allow the driver to maintain a constant level of concentration?

As always the old saying comes to mind, a doctor called M Price read a paper to an 1894 gathering in which he referred to "the proverbial kinds of falsehoods, 'lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

 

[Descartes]

27 points and missed one of her questions and still saw that stupid rabbit...

 

[editor]

Threads merged.

 

[pogofish]

Got the number right, answered all the questions and saw the rabbit. Was that supposed to be difficult?

Still won't use a mobile in the car.

 

[editor]

Can I ask a question, how many of the people here protesting about drivers actually drive a car?

The lorry driver who slammed into the car and killed its occupant was most likely a far more experienced driver than you, so that kind of nullifies your argument. Or are you one of these drivers that think speed limits shouldn't really apply to you because you're so 'experienced'?

As always the old saying comes to mind, a doctor called M Price read a paper to an 1894 gathering in which he referred to "the proverbial kinds of falsehoods, 'lies, damned lies, and statistics.'"

That's a really, really crap argument. Will you be trotting out that maxim when a doctor prescribes a treatment based on research for a life threatening disease? Or will you suddenly be only to happy to accept the research?

 

[soulman]

Got the number right, answered all the questions and saw the rabbit. Was that supposed to be difficult?

Still won't use a mobile in the car.

Aye. What about Sat Nav?

The Daily Hate and the Telegraph are campaigning against them now

 

[pogofish]

Aye. What about Sat Nav?

Don't have one, never needed one - I like my maps and my sense of direction is not unreasonable.

The nearest thing to a satnav I'm likely to use is a list on the dash - Or maybe a printout from the AA routeplanner for longer trips.

Besides - I tend to view an unplanned diversion from a route as a potentially interesting act of fate - And I've landed-up in a few interesting places/situations because of it!

 

[Descartes]

was most likely a far more experienced driver than you

You know that for a fact, do you?

Will you be trotting out that maxim when a doctor prescribes a treatment based on research for a life threatening disease?

Show me the statistics, both on the research and the life threatening disease and then I can comment.

Or are you one of these drivers that think speed limits shouldn't really apply to you because you're so 'experienced'?

No, speed kills, I always worry who else might be on the road and take the necessary precautions.

Obviously, you are more than willing to accept the statistics that suit your argument. Trying to ridicule the messenger, doesn't change the message.

 

[editor]

You know that for a fact, do you?

I said it was "most likely" because he was a professional driver. Are you?

Show me the statistics, both on the research and the life threatening disease and then I can comment.

What are the flaws in the research I've linked to thus far please?

Obviously, you are more than willing to accept the statistics that suit your argument. Trying to ridicule the messenger, doesn't change the message.

Anyone trotting out that hoary old line about 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' without anything to back it up deserves a bit of ridicule. On its own, it's an utterly meaningless thing to say.

 

[Descartes]

I said it was "most likely" because he was a professional driver.

How do you know that?

What are the flaws in the research I've linked to thus far please?

Why a question in answer to my question? Surely, you have the 'FACTS', unrivalled and proven beyond any doubt? Todate, I haven't read any information that proves beyond reasonable doubt that your argument of using a phone, hands free or otherwise conclusively proves to be the cause of the accident. What time of day?, what were the circumstances? How long that day had the driver been ' at the wheel'? what other vehicles involved? How many people are killed or injured in similar accidents were no phone was being used? What were the vehicle involved? Road conditions?, time of day? Weather? Too many imponderables to form an informed decision from the information posted here. Dates, places, driver's name etc or is it just another case for Snopes.

On its own, it's an utterly meaningless thing to say.

Used time and again to disparage the overt willingness to subscribe to an unproven or disputed argument.

You can make figures prove or disprove virtually any argument and I am very surprised that you should seek to

 

[T & P]

Of course the question of what constitutes acceptable risk should be considered. That having a hands free conversation can be more distracting than having a conversation with someone in the car does not necessarily mean the former should be banned.

It'll be interesting to see whether governments push for a ban on the use of hands free devices. While most nations have been quick in deeming 'ordinary' mobile phone use unacceptable while driving, no nation seems to be a hurry to ban hands free use as well, as far as I'm aware.

 

[ymu]

I believe links to the research have been posted. If people want to critique the methods used it would be useful to refer to the papers and the methods they report. There's little point speculating about what the resulting numbers do and don't mean without knowing how they were obtained.

 

[ericjarvis]

Utah University driving simulation study

Carnegie Mellon study using MRI scans and driving simulators

Wikipedia overview

The US insurance industry position

There are a whole bundle of scientific studies out there. All come to pretty much the same conclusion. A phone conversation risks causing accidents whether you are driving, cycling, or even walking. Handheld or hands free. That's now indisputable, and the mechanisms are beginning to be quite well understood.

The problem is that most people approach the risk analysis from a purely personal point of view. They look at what has happened when they have used a phobile whilst driving and conclude that they can probably get away with it not causing a problem 999 times out of a thousand. They then assume that to be it. However you also have to look at it from the other direction. If there was only one car on the road there would be hardly any accidents. The useful risk analysis looks at traffic and not at a single driver.

If every driver risks an accident one time in a thousand phone calls, lets say one accident risk in a hundred actually leads to a crash. That's one accident caused per 100,000 calls. However you then have to look at how many calls there are. It has to be at least enough to account for several accidents every day. That's the analysis that is important. The sheer number of cars on the road means that a risk analysis from a personal POV is useless.

In my view drivers and cyclists should switch off their mobiles when travelling. Pedestrians should stand still whilst making or taking a call. Passengers in cars should keep an eye on what's happening on the road when in conversation with the driver. Everyone in a car should be aware that, however familiar an environment it is, when the thing is moving there is potential danger.

 

[ymu]

Of course the question of what constitutes acceptable risk should be considered. That having a hands free conversation can be more distracting than having a conversation with someone in the car does not necessarily mean the former should be banned.

It'll be interesting to see whether governments push for a ban on the use of hands free devices. While most nations have been quick in deeming 'ordinary' mobile phone use unacceptable while driving, no nation seems to be a hurry to ban hands free use as well, as far as I'm aware.

Well, yes. If we were that panic struck about avoidable deaths, we'd ban driving altogether. We won't because cars have a utility and we are willing to pay the price. We're unlikely to ban passengers or children in cars for this very reason.

Texting and holding a phone to your ear whilst driving are not considered necessary enough to be worth the additional risk incurred. Hands-free use may or may not be useful enough to be worth the additional risk - we don't know yet. Either way, if you have an accident whilst on the phone, expect it to be considered a contributory factor in exactly the same way as if you'd been reaching over to change the radio station or opening a packet of crisps at the time. It doesn't have to be against the law to be held against you.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Its called not driving with due care and attention. If you being a muppet talking to people behind you or chatting on your phone, its the same deal. I do wonder if all these people who are so quick to condem it have ever driven for hours at a time along a motorway.

 

[editor]

How do you know that?

He was driving a Scania HGV, and his job was described in court as being a "lorry driver," so I'd say that makes him a professional driver.

Why a question in answer to my question? Surely, you have the 'FACTS', unrivalled and proven beyond any doubt? Todate, I haven't read any information that proves beyond reasonable doubt that your argument of using a phone, hands free or otherwise conclusively proves to be the cause of the accident.

The jury took just an hour to convict him on the grounds that he had, "concentrated on the conversation to the point of being 'oblivious to all around him' and failed to spot a line of stationary traffic on the straight dual carriageway ahead."

I'd say that's 'conclusively proven' the case myself.

Used time and again to disparage the overt willingness to subscribe to an unproven or disputed argument.

The argument has been backed up by reams of research from several sources, linked repeatedly in several posts. Strangely, you seem unwilling to look at any of it.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

The jury took just an hour to convict him on the grounds that he had, "concentrated on the conversation to the point of being 'oblivious to all around him' and failed to spot a line of stationary traffic on the straight dual carriageway ahead."

So he was being an idiot then? I've sat a PCV test, just because you being paid to do the job and sat another test, doesn't make you a better driver then somebody who hasn't. I'd say the hours that these guys have to do has as much a bearing.