Should Distracted Driving Be Treated The Same As DUI's ?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths 'a few seconds' Our perception of time can be funny. 3 seconds at 60 mph is 264 feet! That's a long way! Given that humans have only traveled at these kinds of speeds autonomously for the last 100 years and at all for 200 years we just aren't really well designed to handle them. People really need to be paying close attention when driving. And because they often aren't or won't, I'm looking forward to self-driving cars and agree that most of the developing tech is good. Especially things that compensate for inattention like automatic braking.

Agreed, I just threw out 'a few seconds' to be descriptive, w/o doing the math.

But even when taking a sip of water on the road - I'm pretty sure I'm glancing up and down as I reach for the cup and put it back. If I'm doing it and being attentive, I probably only have my eyes off the road for a fraction of a second. The system could monitor that, and even adjust the timing for the speed.

Though one should pay attention while stopped. I've related how I avoided being rear-ended because I was (fortunately) paying attention, and got out of the way.

But I screw up from time to time, and I'd like a reminder to get on the stick. It's easy to drift away from 100% attention.

-ERD50

[samclem]

So, were does it stop?
-- Should we be allowed to drive if we have a cold? I'm sure that reduces reaction time and concentration.
-- Should we really allow deaf people to drive (as we do now). Being deaf clearly reduces one's ability to receive important auditory sensory input.
-- Radios! Obviously not only reduce the ability to hear what is going on outside, but serve as a source of distraction while tuning, adjusting volume, concentrating on the music/talk, etc.

Regarding the external sensors to monitor my eye movements, etc: If they start as an option, will they become mandatory (as seat belts did, as air bags did, as Electronic Stability Control (ESC) did)? Will they report back directly to police in real time? To my insurance company? I'd think linking an in-car breathalizer to some sort of biometric reader (to assure the driver is the one really giving the sample) might be a better place to start the electronic intrusion if we want to save lives.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem ... Regarding the external sensors to monitor my eye movements, etc: If they start as an option, will they become mandatory (as seat belts did, as air bags did, as Electronic Stability Control (ESC) did)? Will they report back directly to police in real time? To my insurance company? I'd think linking an in-car breathalizer to some sort of biometric reader (to assure the driver is the one really giving the sample) might be a better place to start the electronic intrusion if we want to save lives.

I'm not actually that concerned about the 'Big Brother' aspect of this (even though I'm a 'small government' kind of guy). I actually want it for my own benefit, and my loved ones.

As I've said, I'm not always as attentive as I should be, I have lapses. I'd like to have a monitor, to nudge me once in a while, when needed. And I'd like my kids and DW to have this help also.

And it would be better if everyone else on the road had it too. Less chance of a distracted driver rear-ending me, or drifting into my lane.

The trouble with a breathalyzer test is the habitual/addicted alcoholics manage to 'borrow' a car to drive. Every car needs it to protect us against them. While every incremental added distraction detection adds overall to our safety on the road.

-ERD50