Dangers of Driving Distracted

[cmcpokey]

my xmas gift for you peter..

Amazon.com: How to Lie with Statistics: Darrell Huff, Irving Geis: Books

 

Amazon.com: How to Lie with Statistics: Darrell Huff, Irving Geis: Books

[G35COUPE]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

Never would.
The claims by some that speed has no impact is as dangerous and silly as those claiming "speed" is. EXCESSIVE speed for the circumstances is the issue that should be addressed. For example, the UK law on mobiles is they must not be used in the car unless hands free. SO ... IF you are parked at the side of the road with the engine running you are actually committing an offence and CAN be charged Stupid huh ! AND it's NOT illegal to use a two-way radio ! So you can do all the things the mobile phone and get no ticket. Gotta love the implication that the police force are in some way immune from the "distraction"


BTW, you got links to that full study anywhere ?
As far as I see it said accidents INCREASED ... not the accident RATE.
So how many more CARS were on the roads during the period ?

That is a well publicised "massaging" of the statistics we've seen here in the UK !!

Well said! I feel the human factor (stupidity) kills far more people on the roads than speed actually does. No one is willing to measure the extent to which the human factor (stupidity) contributes to road hazards. So, how the statisticians link speed to traffic accidents, without a mediating factor such as human factor (stupidity), continues to outstand me.

The problem with the statistics they use to justify speed limits and traffic camera installations, is that they use descriptive statistics for their calculations, which isn't usually statistically significant, while they sometimes use inferential statistics such as regression and correlation analysis, which does poorly in linking cause and effect.

So, anyone who cares for the truth about the linkage between speed and accidents, should first ask themselves, "what compeled the driver to loose focus (cellphone use, texting, lipstick application, etc), move at that high rate of speed, drive at such a low rate of speed, conduct aggressive steering response and driving, etc?"

At the end of the day, the human factor (stupidity), continues to be the single biggest culprit in road accidents. Of course, other factors such as auto design/capabilities, road design, type of tires, etc, could play a role here.

Unfortunately, the politics of road design, construction, and management, compels politicians to be untruthful about the human factor (stupidity) associated with road accidents and hazard. Can you imagine what would happen to a politican, politically, if he told his constituents that their stupidity was at the heart of their road hazards????? it would certainly be a rampage at the office of the politician. So, they shroud the truth and keep mum.

In their disingenious efforts to do something about accidents, politicans use highway speed control (higher or lower posted speeds) as a surrogate for the ever obvious problem of the human factor (stupidity) in road accidents. That human factor is called stupidity. A stupid person at high speeds is as dangerous as a stupid person at low speeds.

And, i feel a good surrogate in measuring potential for human stupidity may lie somewhere in the credit reports of most people. Of course, such financial information would be inaccurate if one's credit record has been destroyed by identity thieves, or by large medical bills, or by a job loss or layoff, etc. These are legitimate extenuating circumstances. The fact is that the vast majority of credit issues/problems are a function of some sort of poor decision-making, which strikes at the heart of the theory on stupidity. Discussing the theory of stupidity without equally studying the decision-making process, is futile.

So stupidity in one area, can be carried over to other areas of a person's life. It is an almost fixed state of mind, decision-making process, and condition, that lingers within the person from one challenging situation to the other. It doesn't go away or get exorcised out of a person by simply sprinkling some pixie dust. It requires active engagement of one's mind with different activities, with the intent of improving one's mental capacity and outcome.

[cmcpokey]

Originally Posted by G35COUPE

The problem with the statistics they use to justify speed limits and traffic camera installations, is that they use descriptive statistics for their calculations, which isn't usually statistically significant, while they sometimes use inferential statistics such as regression and correlation analysis, which does poorly in linking cause and effect.

except in the first article they did find statistical significance, without needing regression. and so has every study on this topic.

[Matra et Alpine]

ahem, "shown" ? Yeah by twists !!
I'm not saying speed is NOT an issue, but arbitrary "tests" to communicate the alteration in accident rate by speed is fundamentally flawed.
Flawed because speed is not linked to conditions or driver ability or vehicle ability in these studies.
Having taken a Camaro Z28 above 70mph whilst in the US on business (MANY years ago) then it was an accident waiting to happen. So speed yes ... but the real cause was poor design or wear ( it was a rental ).

The many examples from the UK could fill a book. IN the defence of speed cameras one was cited where the accident rate was reduced by over 50%. Now there were only about 8 accidents a year, so you struggle to say it was a large enough sample ... but the REAL point was they redeisgned the junction about 100m from the speed camera. So in reality the safety was because of better road design and NOT "speed enforcement". But it DID earn the local police force partnership lots and LOTS of money ! btw that camera is now removed

For a failry sensible analysis of the statistics used see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/lie.html ansd http://www.safespeed.org.uk/phone.html

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

my xmas gift for you peter..
Amazon.com: How to Lie with Statistics: Darrell Huff, Irving Geis: Books

As a Merketing Manager and a Businss Decelpoment Manager for a multinational we had no need to read books to learn the skills



Here's a great quote I foune in a UK safety organsiaion leaflet ...

Originally Posted by RoSPA

Fatal crashes can, and do, occur because a driver chose to unwrap a sweet, take a

drink or light a cigarette while driving.

Safe driving needs concentration; avoid unnecessary distractions.

THe last sentence sums up my views

[G35COUPE]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

except in the first article they did find statistical significance, without needing regression. and so has every study on this topic.

Do you think the study actually rose to the level of cause and effect? And if it didn't, what then would have been the factors, whether mediating or moderating factors that can explain the cause and effect of speed being linked to accidents?

What i am trying to say here is this: the human factor, auto design, road design and construction, etc, play a role in accidents. Yet, they are completely ignored in these studies, because I beleive the real aim of highway speed posts and these studies, isn't to make people safe, but to take advantage of a loophole in scientific logic, to continue to make free money off unsuspecting speeding citizens.

For example, a person driving a BMW M-3, assuming human factor and road conditions are held constant and are normal, maybe safer at 70 miles per hour than someone driving a Ford Pinto at 50 miles per hour. Simply, vehicle design and capability, may be able to explain this variance in safety levels, assuming again that the human factor and road conditions are held constant and assuming it is normal. In fact, I am finding out these days that driving a vehicle with immense capabilty, may in fact, be dangerous to others driving vehicles with much lower performance capabilities even at very low speeds. For example, a small car following a BMW M-3 closely behind, is in danger of slamming into the rear of the BMW M-3 if the M-3 ever brakes suddenly. Of course, the larger and sharper response brakes in the M-3 would account for this.

So, my argument here is that the current pseudo-science of linking road accidents/hazards to speed, is very flawed and crude.

Its like asking a Rocket Scientist to only consider positive acceleration in the design of a rocket, without taking into account, mass, weight, negative acceleration, atmospheric pressure, in that design. What do you think would happen with such a design? It will be flawed.

[cmcpokey]

Originally Posted by G35COUPE

Do you think the study actually rose to the level of cause and effect? And if it didn't, what then would have been the factors, whether mediating or moderating factors that can explain the cause and effect of speed being linked to accidents?

What i am trying to say here is this: the human factor, auto design, road design and construction, etc, play a role in accidents. Yet, they are completely ignored in these studies, because I beleive the real aim of highway speed posts and these studies, isn't to make people safe, but to take advantage of a loophole in scientific logic, to continue to make free money off unsuspecting speeding citizens.

For example, a person driving a BMW M-3, assuming human factor and road conditions are held constant and are normal, maybe safer at 70 miles per hour than someone driving a Ford Pinto at 50 miles per hour. Simply, vehicle design and capability, may be able to explain this variance in safety levels, assuming again that the human factor and road conditions are held constant and assuming it is normal. In fact, I am finding out these days that driving a vehicle with immense capabilty, may in fact, be dangerous to others driving vehicles with much lower performance capabilities even at very low speeds. For example, a small car following a BMW M-3 closely behind, is in danger of slamming into the rear of the BMW M-3 if the M-3 ever brakes suddenly. Of course, the larger and sharper response brakes in the M-3 would account for this.

So, my argument here is that the current pseudo-science of linking road accidents/hazards to speed, is very flawed and crude.

Its like asking a Rocket Scientist to only consider positive acceleration in the design of a rocket, without taking into account, mass, weight, negative acceleration, atmospheric pressure, in that design. What do you think would happen with such a design? It will be flawed.

you are correct on everything you say.

the problem is, i am not talking about speeding. i am talking about the topic of the thread, and that is using cell phones while driving. those are the studies i am referring to, and there are statistically significant experimental results that cellphone usage while driving is equivalent to being legally drunk.

here is an Op-Ed that distills all of the arguments into a much shorter, but almost devoid of the data, easier to read document. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22dowd.html

[cargirl1990]

how about Ricers as another reason to dangerous driving.

[G35COUPE]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

you are correct on everything you say.

the problem is, i am not talking about speeding. i am talking about the topic of the thread, and that is using cell phones while driving. those are the studies i am referring to, and there are statistically significant experimental results that cellphone usage while driving is equivalent to being legally drunk.

here is an Op-Ed that distills all of the arguments into a much shorter, but almost devoid of the data, easier to read document. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22dowd.html

I agree completely with you. Thanks for the excellent NYTIMES article.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by cmcpokey

you are correct on everything you say.

the problem is, i am not talking about speeding. i am talking about the topic of the thread, and that is using cell phones while driving. those are the studies i am referring to, and there are statistically significant experimental results that cellphone usage while driving is equivalent to being legally drunk.

here is an Op-Ed that distills all of the arguments into a much shorter, but almost devoid of the data, easier to read document. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/opinion/22dowd.html

if you can read it, it might be easier, but I am not yet a member of the NYT community, so I don't have access. Anybody volunteering to make his ID and password available?

A little bit off-topic but not so long ago Classic and Sportscars filled its final page with interviews with people who own/drive classic cars. One of the questions related to what was an absolute necessity to carry on such a trip. You must by now have guessed the answer that came from many of the interviewees....

[NSXType-R]

Originally Posted by henk4

if you can read it, it might be easier, but I am not yet a member of the NYT community, so I don't have access. Anybody volunteering to make his ID and password available?

A little bit off-topic but not so long ago Classic and Sportscars filled its final page with interviews with people who own/drive classic cars. One of the questions related to what was an absolute necessity to carry on such a trip. You must by now have guessed the answer that came from many of the interviewees....

The NY Times ID should be free. Just fiddle with it.

Good points everyone, I like how everyone that has replied so far has a good sense of safety, unlike the general American public.

It's really odd that people in the government don't put the lives of their citizens that they serve first- it's the citizens that elected them into their positions in the first place.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by NSXType-R

It's really odd that people in the government don't put the lives of their citizens that they serve first- it's the citizens that elected them into their positions in the first place.

it is not odd at all, because it means a restriction of the "FREEDOM of the INDIVIDUAL" the holy grail of the American politicians and most citizens as well. (but not only American politicians and citizens.)

[Type17]

Originally Posted by cargirl1990

how about Ricers as another reason to dangerous driving.

How fast can a ricer really go in a 92 Civic DX with a cold air intake and cat back exhaust? I don't find them dangerous, I find them stupid for wasting their time, money, and having poor taste.

I don't find driving un-natural, I don't find it a dangerous activity, and I don't find talking on your cellphone that big of a deal. In my opinion driving is a very natural thing for modern day humans.

As for talking on a cellphone while driving, some people can do it, some people can't. If I'm driving my Chrysler (auto) I can be on my phone all day and the person behind me would never know it. I drive with one hand anyways, and I don't find it that stressful/distracting to glance for a split second to see where the phone is, then I pick it up with my un-used hand (usually my right) and answer the phone while driving with my other hand. All while taking my eyes of the road for the same if not less amount of time as checking my speed.

Some people can't stay in their lane even if they were the only person in the car, no cellphone, no radio, and using both hands. It has nothing to do with being distracted, it has to do with sucking at driving. Make the tests harder and more challenging if anything...

However if I'm in my 3000GT I avoid using the phone unless on the highway or in a cruising gear since I don't have 3 hands to steer, shift, and hold my cellphone at the same time.

BTW, the phone isn't only for emergencies and you're kidding yourself if you say that you only got it for emergencies, ESPECIALLY teenage boys. Unless of course you think calling your girlfriend or texting the cute waitress at the local cafe an emergency.

I don't find people talking to you in the car a distraction either. Why can't you keep your eyes on the road when you talk to someone? It's ridiculous to expect people to be silent while in the car. It's no different than listening to the radio while driving... do you constantly look at your head unit when it's on? No, hopefully not... then there's absolutely no reason to look at the person talking behind you or next to you.

[G35COUPE]

Originally Posted by Type17

How fast can a ricer really go in a 92 Civic DX with a cold air intake and cat back exhaust? I don't find them dangerous, I find them stupid for wasting their time, money, and having poor taste.

I don't find driving un-natural, I don't find it a dangerous activity, and I don't find talking on your cellphone that big of a deal. In my opinion driving is a very natural thing for modern day humans.

As for talking on a cellphone while driving, some people can do it, some people can't. If I'm driving my Chrysler (auto) I can be on my phone all day and the person behind me would never know it. I drive with one hand anyways, and I don't find it that stressful/distracting to glance for a split second to see where the phone is, then I pick it up with my un-used hand (usually my right) and answer the phone while driving with my other hand. All while taking my eyes of the road for the same if not less amount of time as checking my speed.

Some people can't stay in their lane even if they were the only person in the car, no cellphone, no radio, and using both hands. It has nothing to do with being distracted, it has to do with sucking at driving. Make the tests harder and more challenging if anything...

However if I'm in my 3000GT I avoid using the phone unless on the highway or in a cruising gear since I don't have 3 hands to steer, shift, and hold my cellphone at the same time.

BTW, the phone isn't only for emergencies and you're kidding yourself if you say that you only got it for emergencies, ESPECIALLY teenage boys. Unless of course you think calling your girlfriend or texting the cute waitress at the local cafe an emergency.

I don't find people talking to you in the car a distraction either. Why can't you keep your eyes on the road when you talk to someone? It's ridiculous to expect people to be silent while in the car. It's no different than listening to the radio while driving... do you constantly look at your head unit when it's on? No, hopefully not... then there's absolutely no reason to look at the person talking behind you or next to you.

Strike 1: How do you drive with one hand, especially if you were to suddenly hit an unexpected road bump??? Most dangerous driving technique I have ever heard.

Strike 2: What do you define as a "modern day man" that has changed so much since "ancient man"-----hunting and gathering or texting and e-mailing?

Strike 3: Can you tell me what makes cars, roads, traffic signs, as natural to man today as with items like an apple, grass, trees, bees, rivers, etc?

Strike 4: If you can convince us that you can eat and sleep at the same time, then we will be convinced that you are capable of driving and talking at the same time, without any consequence.

Strike 5: What is a crusing gear in a 3000GT??

Strike 6: Since bluetooth technology is available, what has denied you the ability to adopt that technology, even with your manual tranny 3000GT, since you beleive these things are so natural to "modern day man"??


I am very confused with the inexplicable comments you have made

[cmcpokey]

Here you are Pieter,

Whirling Dervish Drivers

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: July 21, 2009
WASHINGTON


One night several years ago, my mom slipped and broke a bone in her neck. I stayed late at the hospital with her. Driving home on a mostly deserted road, I checked my cellphone messages.

I didn’t notice either the red light coming up or the car stopped at the light. I banged into the back of it, and even though the damage was minor, it was a scary moment.

I admitted that I was upset and distracted, took the blame and swore to myself I’d never use a cellphone in a car again. But, of course, I did. D.C. police will pull you over if they see you using a cellphone that you’re holding up to your ear, but not if you’re hands-free.

Ominously, research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — suppressed for years and released on Tuesday after petitions were filed by advocacy groups — shows that there are “negligible differences” in accident risk whether you’re holding the phone or not. Hands-free devices may even enhance the danger by lulling you into complacency.

It is the conversation that pulls focus. My greatest fear is that I’m going to be in a taxi when the driver gets a call from his wife to tell him that she’s run off with his sexy cousin.

In a March New Yorker profile, Tony Gilroy, the screenwriter of “Michael Clayton” and “Duplicity,” told the nightmare tale of being in a New York taxi when the cell-chatting driver ran a red light and hit another car.

“So they’re lifting the other guy out of the car, and I’m thinking, I’m lucky,” he said, adding: “Then I see them come at my cab with those things, the Jaws of Life.” He’d fractured his rib and hip.

Studies show that drivers who talk on cellphones are four times more likely to be in a crash and drive just as erratically as people with an 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level.

In one study cited by the highway safety agency, “drivers found it easier to drive drunk than to drive while using a phone, even when it was hands-free.”

The agency buried its head in the sand, keeping the research to itself for years and ignoring the fact that soon nearly all Americans would own cellphones and that the phones are always getting smarter and more demanding, putting a multimedia empire at your fingertips while you’re piloting a potentially lethal piece of artillery.

Americans are so addicted to techno-surfing that they’ve gotten hubristic about how many machines they can juggle simultaneously. One reporter I know recently filed a story from his laptop while driving on the Pacific Coast Highway.

As John Ratey, the Harvard professor of psychiatry who specializes in the science of attention, told The Times’s Matt Richtel for his chilling series, “Driven to Distraction,” using digital devices gives you “a dopamine squirt.”

That explains the Pavlovian impulse of people who are out with friends or dates to ignore them and check their BlackBerrys and cellphones, even if 99 out of 100 messages are uninteresting. They’re truffle-hunting for that scintillating one.

Americans woke up one day to find that they were don’t-miss-a-moment addicts who feel compelled to respond to all messages immediately.

The tech industry is our drug dealer, feeding the intense social and economic pressure to stay constantly in touch with employers, colleagues, friends and family.

It also explains why Christopher Hill, a 21-year-old from Oklahoma who killed a woman last September when he ran a red light while on his cellphone and rammed into her S.U.V., tried to keep dialing and driving with a headset his mother gave him two months after the accident.

He “found his mind wandering into his phone call so much that ‘I nearly missed a light,’ ” he told Richtel. Now he says he rarely uses the phone.

Hollywood offered a cautionary story with the depressing “Seven Pounds,” which begins with Will Smith spoiling his perfect life when he BlackBerrys while driving in his fancy car with his gorgeous new fiancée. He crashes into another car, killing six strangers and his girlfriend. The movie ends with a poisonous jellyfish in an icy bathtub. Don’t ask.

Left, literally, to our own devices, we spiral out of control. States should outlaw drivers from talking on phones — except in an emergency — and using digital devices that cause you to drift and swerve; or at least mandate a $10,000 fine for getting in an accident while phoning or Twittering.

Auto companies are busy creating new crack hits for our self-destructive cravings. Ford is developing a system that would let drivers use phones and music players and surf the Internet with voice commands and audible responses.

Sounds like a computerized death machine. But, as our dealers know, we’ll never disconnect.