Drivers on the phone
- Thread starter iendicott
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Mad at urage
New Member
Critical analysis. There are holes in their interpretation of the results. Of course if the 'reports' support your pov then your use of them is entirely unbiasedThere's a word for that - picking holes where there aren't any, just because it doesn't support your point of view.
.Are you saying that an increase in separation distance, gentler braking (they do not say that the drivers collided with the pace car) and gentler acceleration are inappropriate responses to being asked to divert some of your attention when driving?
IMO interpreting these as "just as dangerous as" the aggressive driving observed by the intoxicated subjects is disingenuous to say the least.
The third paper in that link says:
"Distraction itself, notes McKnight and McKnight (1991), is not directly observable. It is a hypothetical construct that explains why performance of some task is degraded in the presence of certain conditions."
and
"Use of a cell phone while driving results in a reduction of car speed and an increase in the distance from the leader car."
Now these are selective quotes taken out of the context that the quoted paper wants them read, but then that paper is itself a 'Summary of the studies' for the Hawaiian legislator and is quoting parts of studies in order to make a particular recommendation. Of course interpretation is involved, but then there are other equally valid ways of interpreting the drivers' response of 'slow down and be more careful': Isn't that what road safety campaigners always ask for (I know I do)?
well, if it increase the distance, god knows how close the black range rover would have been behind the (equally daftly driven mini) i saw last night if he hadnt been on the phone..
on the motorway
at 90+
( cough err , not sure how i know that speed whistles....)
was a bit erratic, no signalling,, as it veeeered across to the slip road coming off,,, 'yap yap yap yap yap mobile held to right ear'..
wasn't quiet either, he had to weave around traffic...
on the motorway
at 90+
( cough err , not sure how i know that speed whistles....)
was a bit erratic, no signalling,, as it veeeered across to the slip road coming off,,, 'yap yap yap yap yap mobile held to right ear'..
wasn't quiet either, he had to weave around traffic...
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
Speed doesn't kill. It's the sudden stop the kills.
Mad at urage
New Member
I'm working my way sloooowly through them (I'm meant to be working after all).
The first paper doesn't even pretend to compare, it samples many distractions and shows that distracted drivers have more rashes than drivers who are not distracted. It is salutary to read the table of driver distractions which have resulted in crashes. It does report that 18% of all fatal distracted-driving crashes, but this is in the context of "involved" meaning that police reported that the cell phone was either in use at the time of the crash or was in the presence of the driver at the time of the crash. Thus the definition of a cell phone being "involved" is if it was present.
To give a fuller flavour in a reasonably short quote:
"Most of the distracted-driving-related fatalities (84%) were associated with the general classification of operating the vehicle in a careless or inattentive manner (could include cell phones [for States without cell phone identification on the reporting form], eating, talking to passenger, looking outside, etc.). It should be noted that the distracted-driving-related crashes and fatalities may be associated with multiple
categories of distraction."
As I have said, allow yourself to be distracted in the wrong environment and you are a dangerous driver. Any distraction (including "looking outside" at the pretties).
Edit: It is a frequent occurrence that my passenger will ask as we drive along: "Did you see that ...[some very unusual / interesting sight]" and I'll reply "No, sorry, I was watching the road". sometimes though I have to allow myself to take attention from actually driving through high density traffic, at speed, with vulnerable road users weaving around me - so that I can replan my route or spot a landmark. The safe way of doing this is to increase distance from other traffic and avoid sudden acceleration or steering (or braking so that the car behind doesn't hit me). This is I repeat the safe and correct response and not (as interpreted in at least one study) "impairment".
Arch
Married to Night Train
Another thing I get from watching those Traffic Cop type of shows, is that some people seem to think they have an unalienable right to do as they please.
Last week, there was a chap driving with heavily tinted front side windows, and these two cops pulled him up. His first tack was 'it's my Mum's car, she told me to drive it, I didn't know they were illegal'. Really slagging his Mum off, he was.
Then it turned out, he only had a provisional and no L plates, and it was all "I didn't know I had to have L plates". I'm not sure there was anyone with him either. And of course, ignorance (even if he really was ignorant) is no defence.
Then of course, it turns out that the car is registered in his name, and he already has 6 points on his prov licence.
As which point he starts on about 'how am I ever going to get my licence and drive legally if you keep stopping me and giving me points?" And he seemed to seriously believe that he had a good point, that he wouldn't be in any trouble if it wasn't for the pesky police catching him doing wrong.
At one point, he said "Ain't you got no heart?", and the traffic cop said to camera with a grin "We're traffic cops. We don't have hearts."
Last week, there was a chap driving with heavily tinted front side windows, and these two cops pulled him up. His first tack was 'it's my Mum's car, she told me to drive it, I didn't know they were illegal'. Really slagging his Mum off, he was.
Then it turned out, he only had a provisional and no L plates, and it was all "I didn't know I had to have L plates". I'm not sure there was anyone with him either. And of course, ignorance (even if he really was ignorant) is no defence.
Then of course, it turns out that the car is registered in his name, and he already has 6 points on his prov licence.
As which point he starts on about 'how am I ever going to get my licence and drive legally if you keep stopping me and giving me points?" And he seemed to seriously believe that he had a good point, that he wouldn't be in any trouble if it wasn't for the pesky police catching him doing wrong.
At one point, he said "Ain't you got no heart?", and the traffic cop said to camera with a grin "We're traffic cops. We don't have hearts."
Angelfishsolo
A Velocipedian
abo
Well-Known Member
Been going on since I was a boy racer, 20 years ago. They all used to have that laid back posture. The big stereos and daft bodykits were just really starting to appear. I was a bit different to the others, I had an upright, touring car seating style closer to the wheel, and Slayer on the tape player...
