"Awareness of the Dangers and Consequences of Distracted Driving"
Facts:
Distracted driving is the number one killer of American teens. Alcohol-related accidents among teens have dropped by 60% but DD accidents have increased by 40%.
Cell phone users are 4x's more likely to get into a car accident than if they were not distracted by talking on the phone. Drunk drivers share the same statistic.
Texting makes you 8x's more likely to get into a car accident. That's 2x's more likely that if you were DRIVING DRUNK.
Brain power used while driving decreases by 40% when a driver listens to conversation or music.
Drivers on mobile phones are more impaired than drivers at .08 BAC (University of Utah study).
More than 80% of drivers admit to blatantly hazardous behavior: changing clothes, steering with a foot, painting nails and shaving.
Driving is a full-time job. Despite the handy drink holders and fold out trays in cars. They're not dining areas.
Despite the lighted make-up mirrors built into sunshades, cars aren't make-up counters.
Despite all the gadgets that enable us to place cell phone calls, our cars are not makeshift phone booths.
Nor are they time machines!
For Lauren Mulkie and all the lives that's been lost.... Please make changes in your own driving habits!
Saturday
Texting while driving is dangerous
On Nanny State Legislation
Posted by: David Strayer
Texting while driving is dangerous. The odds of crashing are 8 times higher than driving without distraction. That’s worse than the crash risk for drivers intoxicated by alcohol at the legal limit! Despite the blatantly obvious impairments from text messaging, less than half of states have laws that prohibit this activity.
Think about that for a moment. Every state has laws against drunk driving. But less than half prohibit text messaging while driving and many of the laws that are in effect are so poorly enforced that they are ineffective.
This raises two related questions. First, why do only 19 states prohibit an activity that is more risky than drunk driving? Second, why are the laws that are in place so poorly enforced?
First, let’s address regulatory inaction.
The state legislature in Arizona, for example, recently rejected a measure that would have prohibited texting while driving. One state senator was quoted as saying “Arizonans know it’s dangerous to text while driving and should be trusted to make the right decision.” Another referred to proposal as “nanny state legislation” that tries to regulate how people live their lives.
But, we regulate acceptable driving behavior all the time. You are prohibited from driving under the influence of alcohol. You are required to stop at traffic lights. You are required to drive at the posted speed. These regulations help to make driving safer (imagine if stopping at red lights was optional).
It would be nice if we could trust drivers to make the right decisions. But people don’t always make the right decisions. That’s why we have drunk driving laws.
That’s why prohibiting text messaging while driving is a good idea. 50% of teen drivers report sending or receiving texts while behind the wheel. If people were making the right decisions, then the percentage of teens texting and driving should be ZERO.
Now let’s turn to the enforcement issue.
The enforcement for the laws restricting texting and driving has been poor. In many states, fewer than a dozen drivers have been cited for the violation of the law. This is puzzling because every day thousands of drivers send or receive texts while driving.
One part of the problem is that many laws are “secondary offense” laws, meaning that you cannot be pulled over for texting unless you violate a primary offense law (such as speeding or running a red light). These secondary offense laws are “feel good” laws that have no teeth.
Another part of the problem is that laws that attempt to regulate driver distraction are not always rigorously enforced. Some have claimed that it is difficult to discern when a driver is texting…
However, the impairments to a driver when they text are so obvious that you can spot an impaired driver a mile away. When I drive with my teenage sons, they have no trouble identifying drivers who are texting. I have no doubt that skilled law enforcement officers can do a better job than my teenage sons. But it does beg the question: “Why are more tickets not issued?”.
In the end, for text messaging laws to be effective, they need to be as stringently enforced as drunk driving laws.
Cell phone use more distracting to drivers than chatting with passengers
When it comes to driving, not all conversations are alike.
A study published in December 2008 by psychologists at
the University of Utah found that drivers talking on cell
phones made signifi cantly more driving errors than those
who talked in person to passengers.
The researchers paired 41 drivers with friends. Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 49, but most were young
(the average age was 20), with men and women about
equally represented. During each of three experimental
conditions, one member of the pair was randomly chosen
to be the driver and the other was designated the partner.
During each experiment, the driver operated a driving
simulator that not only mimicked actual traffi c conditions
but also measured aspects of driving performance.
In the first experiment, the driver used a hands-free
cell phone to talk with the conversation partner, who was
located elsewhere. In the second experiment, the driver
and passenger talked while seated next to each other in
the driving simulator. In the third experiment, the two sat
next to one another but did not talk.
Drivers holding conversations by cell phone were four
times as likely to miss pulling off at a rest area (as previously
instructed) as those talking to passengers in person.
Th e cell phone users were also more likely than the others
to drift in their lanes and to keep more distance between
their cars and those in front of them.
The researchers speculate that driving while talking on
a cell phone may make it harder for someone to process
external information and concentrate on driving conditions—
a condition they termed “inattention blindness.”
Drews F.A., et al. “Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated
Driving,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (Dec. 15,
2008), Vol. 14, No. 4 (in press).
A study published in December 2008 by psychologists at
the University of Utah found that drivers talking on cell
phones made signifi cantly more driving errors than those
who talked in person to passengers.
The researchers paired 41 drivers with friends. Participants
ranged in age from 18 to 49, but most were young
(the average age was 20), with men and women about
equally represented. During each of three experimental
conditions, one member of the pair was randomly chosen
to be the driver and the other was designated the partner.
During each experiment, the driver operated a driving
simulator that not only mimicked actual traffi c conditions
but also measured aspects of driving performance.
In the first experiment, the driver used a hands-free
cell phone to talk with the conversation partner, who was
located elsewhere. In the second experiment, the driver
and passenger talked while seated next to each other in
the driving simulator. In the third experiment, the two sat
next to one another but did not talk.
Drivers holding conversations by cell phone were four
times as likely to miss pulling off at a rest area (as previously
instructed) as those talking to passengers in person.
Th e cell phone users were also more likely than the others
to drift in their lanes and to keep more distance between
their cars and those in front of them.
The researchers speculate that driving while talking on
a cell phone may make it harder for someone to process
external information and concentrate on driving conditions—
a condition they termed “inattention blindness.”
Drews F.A., et al. “Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated
Driving,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (Dec. 15,
2008), Vol. 14, No. 4 (in press).
1997 NEJM-ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CELLULAR-TELEPHONE CALLS AND MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS
Background
Because of a belief that the use of
cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions,
several countries have restricted their use in
motor vehicles, and others are considering such
regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the
case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular
telephone while driving increases the risk of a
motor vehicle collision.
Methods
We studied 699 drivers who had cellular
telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle
collisions resulting in substantial property damage
but no personal injury. Each person’s cellular-telephone
calls on the day of the collision and during
the previous week were analyzed through the use of
detailed billing records.
Results
A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls
were made during the 14-month study period. The
risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone
was four times higher than the risk when a cellular
telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95
percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative
risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal
characteristics such as age and driving experience;
calls close to the time of the collision were particularly
hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed
within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with
1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the
collision; P0.001); and units that allowed the hands
to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage
over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant).
Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called
emergency services after the collision, suggesting
that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages
in the aftermath of an event.
Conclusions
The use of cellular telephones in motor
vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the
risk of a collision during the brief period of a call.
Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however,
need to take into account the benefits of the
technology and the role of individual responsibility
Because of a belief that the use of
cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions,
several countries have restricted their use in
motor vehicles, and others are considering such
regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the
case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular
telephone while driving increases the risk of a
motor vehicle collision.
Methods
We studied 699 drivers who had cellular
telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle
collisions resulting in substantial property damage
but no personal injury. Each person’s cellular-telephone
calls on the day of the collision and during
the previous week were analyzed through the use of
detailed billing records.
Results
A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls
were made during the 14-month study period. The
risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone
was four times higher than the risk when a cellular
telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95
percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative
risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal
characteristics such as age and driving experience;
calls close to the time of the collision were particularly
hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed
within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with
1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the
collision; P0.001); and units that allowed the hands
to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage
over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant).
Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called
emergency services after the collision, suggesting
that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages
in the aftermath of an event.
Conclusions
The use of cellular telephones in motor
vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the
risk of a collision during the brief period of a call.
Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however,
need to take into account the benefits of the
technology and the role of individual responsibility
University of Utah Researcher David Strayer
Think you can drive and text or talk at the same time? Science shows your brain just can't keep up. University of Utah researcher David Strayer has been studying distracted drivers for 10 years. "The brain just doesn't work the way we'd like it to work," he says. "We can't multitask the way that a lot of people think they can."
David's research found that talking on a cell phone quadruples your risk of an accident. "For comparison purposes, someone who's drunk at a 0.08 blood alcohol level has a four-time crash increase. So talking on a cell phone is about the same as driving drunk," he says. "When you're text messaging, the crash risk goes up to eight times."
David's research found that talking on a cell phone quadruples your risk of an accident. "For comparison purposes, someone who's drunk at a 0.08 blood alcohol level has a four-time crash increase. So talking on a cell phone is about the same as driving drunk," he says. "When you're text messaging, the crash risk goes up to eight times."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.jpg)