"I won't text and drive if it is against the law"..wow!

[Inthemiddle]

Did you know that talking to passengers results in more deaths than talking and texting combined? Should we outlaw passengers in cars?

And studies show that the chin bar on motorcycle helmets is the area most likely to incur an impact in motorcycle accidents. This has led people to erroneously conclude that one's chin region is the area that needs the most protection in the event of a motorcycle accident. Would you now like to consider alternative explanations?

 

[Inthemiddle]

Does anyone else here think the world was a better place before cell phones?

Aye!

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Driving is not a right-it's a privilege. You don't have the right to endanger other people on the road-because you can't wait a little while to call somebody (or are too cheap to buy hands-free). This is why if you rack up too many points, get a DUI, or something similar-you're not permitted to drive. Text-and diving, or talking on the phone is the same thing. It can wait.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I just dont understand the hands free thing.

Its just like talking to someone sitting in the car next to you

Not it isn't.

Driving is one of the most cognitively complex activities. To drive safely, we have to concentrate, observe and process information quickly and correctly. We have to respond to all sorts of information that is constantly bombarding us from all directions as we drive. We have to be able to estimate speed and distance quickly and correctly. Driving really requires 100% of our attention.

When we speak on the cell phone while we are driving, we may think we are multi tasking. In fact, our brains do not really “multi task”. Our attention is divided between activities, and our brain switches quickly from one activity to the other.

The danger of talking on a cell phone while driving lies in the fact that the brain can’t process separate streams of information efficiently. Furthermore, it is “hard-wired” to prioritize attention to the cell phone conversation. Since words spoken during a cell phone conversation “disappear” once they are spoken, the brain must attend closely to the audio information to be sure it captures the conversation.

The visual view of the road or highway does not change as rapidly as the audio information, so the brain periodically ignores some of the visual information. Also, when people are talking on the phone, they are not just talking; they are seeing all kinds of images in their mind. This visualization may be harmless most of the time, but it can be a real tragedy when a pedestrian steps into traffic or a car swerves into another lane. When we are talking on the phone, the brain lacks the processing power to react quickly enough to these changing situations.

Conversely, driving and talking to a passenger in the car is not dangerous because adult riders help keep the driver alert and can also point out dangerous conditions, and are quieter in heavy traffic or hazardous weather.

So which cognitive skills are most affected by cell phone use? Attention, visual scanning, information processing and decision making are the most affected cognitive skills. When you think about driving, you realize how much you need these cognitive skills, and how risky it could be to reduce the effectiveness of any of these functions when you’re driving.

The bottom line is that talking on the cell phone while driving is dangerous. Safe driving is not just about keeping our eyes on the road and our hands on the wheel; it’s about focusing our brains on one of the most cognitively-challenging activities we routinely perform.

CogniFit's blog: Driving, Cell Phones And Cognitive Abilities

More here:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC White Paper - Distracted Driving 3-10.pdf

Funny thing is that a ban on cell phones makes absolutely no difference in the accident rate.

http://inside.mines.edu/~dkaffine/CELLACCIDENTS.pdf

From your link:

One important caveat worth mentioning is that we are unable to separate the
effect of compliance from an effect of cell phone use on accidents. In other words, while we find that accidents did not decrease due to the cell phone ban, we are unable to say if the lack of an effect is because cell phone use does not affect accidents, because drivers substituted to other disruptive - but legal - hands-free or text messaging technologies, or because weak compliance failed to reduce cell phone use. Nor can we determine if increased enforcement efforts designed to raise compliance levels would lead to a reduction in accidents.

One set of studies has used driving simulators in laboratory settings to explore the effects of cell phone use while driving. The evidence from driving simulators generally shows that cell phone use adversely affects driving. Strayer and Johnston (2001) demonstrate that drivers talking on a cell phone are more likely to miss trac cues or respond with delay, and later work shows that these effects are not limited to hand-held cell phone operation (Strayer et al., 2003). Specically, these studies showed that hands-free cell phone operators were just as likely to create accident risks as hand-held cell phone operators.
Strayer et al. (2006) characterize the relative impact of driving while talking on the phone
and that driver impairment is roughly equivalent to driving while intoxicated. While
these studies take a scientic approach to controlling environmental conditions, they may
be of limited policy relevance if, for example, drivers behave differently in a simulator than
on the road;6 moreover, this type of research provides little information about whether
government regulation can effectively mitigate risks.

It isn't clear why the rate did not decrease. What is clear is that distractions cause accidents and talking on the phone/texting while driving is a distraction. This isn't rocket science it's common sense. When one is driving one's focus should be 100% on the road. Your cognitive skills are affected when you're on the phone while behind the wheel. You may think you're 'multi-tasking'; you're not. Why risk an accident? There isn't anything that can't wait until the driver is at their destination and if there's an emergency where you have to talk/call someone, pull over. There are already distracted/reckless driver laws on the books; they need to enforce those laws (with respect to talking/texting/driving) that exist with hefty fines for those who break them, as well as points.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I swear I heard a radio personality when news about the NHTSB suggested banning of text/driving.."
well if it becomes a law I won't do it"!

YES really.
What is it with truly ignorant people who IGNORE the more fundamental laws of nature like oh for example:

A car traveling at 30 mph travels in 44 feet on one second.
reaction time from lifting eyes from texting to braking: 1.5 seconds. (accident reconstructionists simply to use a standard reaction time number, such as 1.5 seconds, when analyzing a case.
Visual Expert Human Factors: Driver Reaction Time

That means by the time a normal driver
1) raises their eyes from their texting
2) slams on the brakes

They have traveled 66 feet.

Using driving rules 1 car length for every 10 miles per hour and
Average car length 13 feet that means at 30 mph means or
3 car lengths or ~ 40 feet.

So our texting driver travels 66 feet before seeing the car in front and slamming the brakes on!

BAMM!!!
Before slamming on the brakes.. ACCIDENT!!!
And that's assuming the driver is driving 1 car length/10 mph!

Laws of physics and physiology supercede laws of MAN every time!

BUT of course this radio personality LIKE almost all nanny state children KNOW that they don't want to get caught by a cop breaking the LAWS of Man!!

REALITY CHECK Yesterday I was driving 50 mph and young tattooed girl was driving next lane beside me side-by-side.. NOT 5 car lengths from car in front.. AND TEXTING WHILE DRIVING!
GEEZ... there ought to be a law!!!
DUH.. there IS... LAW of common SENSE and golden Rule!

If from pre-school and up, from 2 year old watching TV to advertising the same amount of time and money that was spent on "global warming" and "Greening" were spent on teaching people common sense.. i.e.
YOU don't TEXT and Drive at the same time!
You don't expect a cop on every corner to be as inexpensive as each of us having common sense i.e. don't text and drive...
If that were the meme of the day constantly beaten into all of us again like global warming/greening.. THERE wouldn't be the need of a "law against..."!
We'd be following "common SENSE" laws.. i.e. you can't stop your car fast enough if you are texting and driving for example!!!

Should I start classifying people with myth in their name the same way I classify people who use truth?

Are you aware that, despite the uproar about texting and driving and how everyone is doing it, highway fatalities are at their lowest level in decades?

I guess my point went way over your head!
Again.. why does it take a law of man to supposedly protect people when the law of physics supercedes man's law?

Or another way for you..
WHY doesn't common sense be taught at the same level and intensity as global warming or "greening"?

Why is it necessary to have more rules. More laws.
For example.. some one text while driving kills someone.
The sixth of the Ten commandments... "thou shalt not kill."
Pretty clear. Now we all agree different circumstances have different penalties but a driver is doing "reckless" driving if texting and not paying attention! Therefore some time must be served!

BUT to add another level of laws regarding "texting while driving"???

More importantly WHY not emphasize in school constantly the values of common sense and i.e. DON"T TEXT while Driving..common sense!

YET trillions are spent on useless educational courses when fundamentals of common sense are NOT!
Think about it.. if kids were taught the practical nature of WHY you can't text and drive???

Their parents ought to be teaching them the dangers of texting and driving along with the dangers of drinking and driving.

 

[Inthemiddle]

It's no wonder why so many people doubt that the evolutionary process exists. We've had automobiles the whole time, since Darwin. And cars are the anti-Darwin. Stupid people drive drunk and text while behind the wheel....the smart people are the ones who get killed. Then hospitals fix up the stupid people so they can do it again. President Camacho anyone?

 

[Nova78]

Law or not texting in a car is just plain dumb!

 

[freedombecki]

I've always wondered how do they prove you were texting.

In Georgia it's against the law. What if I'm dialing a number, it's going to look like I'm punching buttons on my phone the same it would as if I were texting. Do they confiscate your phone and look and see what times text were sent or perhaps not sent?

Digital tracking

 

[healthmyths]

Law or not texting in a car is just plain dumb!

That was my point! Common sense is something that is being replaced with rules,regulations and laws and this continuing dumbing down i.e. lack of common sense is truly evidence of darwinism!

I mean why does it take a law to tell someone if you aren't watching the road you will have an accident!

I mean tell them to drive with a blindfold and they would think you are crazy.. but point out texting requires NOT looking while driving and they say "duh" and then continue to text!