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

[scrabbler1]

This may belong in the "Books you read" section, but have any of you read the book about Reggie Shaw, the young man who was texting while driving and killed two rocket scientists in Utah back in 2010?


https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Wande...ebook/dp/B00HU5J20W/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1#navbar

 

[ERD50]

A similar thing happens to braking distance. Then add increased reaction time due to distracted driving...

Related to that, LED brake lights turn on faster than the old filament bulbs:

https://chemlinks.beloit.edu/BlueLight/pages/hp/an1155-3.pdf

Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) illuminate 200 milliseconds faster than
incandescent bulbs –

For an automobile this means a faster braking distance response time, about a full car length of extra stopping distance at 65 MPH.

-ERD50

 

[kombat]

A similar thing happens to braking distance. Then add increased reaction time due to distracted driving...

Right. So was the accident "caused by" distracted driving, and was aggravated by speed, or was it "caused by" speed, and aggravated by distracted driving? I would argue it's the former, which is why I took issue with the claim that speed alone is the "leading cause" of accidents. Had they not been distracted, the accident likely would not have happened at all.

If you're going to get into an accident, certainly you're better off the slower you're going. But I disagree with the claim that the speed itself is the root cause of the accident, more than all other factors.

 

[Alan]

Even professional truck drivers crash and kill people while texting.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...lty-crash-death-sharon-garrett-cambridgeshire

Thursday 4 August 2016 14.14 BST
A lorry driver has been found guilty of looking at a text message while at the wheel and causing a crash that killed a police officer.

Danny Warby, 28, was driving the 13.6-tonne light goods vehicle along the A141 in Cambridgeshire when it veered into oncoming traffic, seconds after he looked at the message on his iPhone, Peterborough crown court heard.

He clipped a lorry and showered two cars with debris before crashing into a Renault Clio driven by Cambridgeshire police officer Sharon Garrett, 48.

Garrett, a mother of two, who was on her way home from work, was pronounced dead at the scene on 6 June 2014.

 

[6miths]

Right. So was the accident "caused by" distracted driving, and was aggravated by speed, or was it "caused by" speed, and aggravated by distracted driving? I would argue it's the former, which is why I took issue with the claim that speed alone is the "leading cause" of accidents. Had they not been distracted, the accident likely would not have happened at all.

If you're going to get into an accident, certainly you're better off the slower you're going. But I disagree with the claim that the speed itself is the root cause of the accident, more than all other factors.

If you read what I wrote it said, "a leading cause" not "the leading cause". So I didn't in any way assert that speeding was the leading cause and quite agree with you that other factors, usually related to poor or impaired judgement are usually the root cause. If you feel better with the term 'excessive speed' or 'inappropriate for road conditions' then that is fine with me. I think a common saying is 'speed kills'. It didn't originate with me and while it is true that Mario Andretti didn't get into many accidents, he was driving on roads designed for high speed, with other drivers trained to drive at high speed, in vehicles designed... well you get where I am going. The average 20 year old male doesn't need a car that goes 150 mph. Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

 

[samclem]

A proposed law in New Jersey would ban drinking and driving. Drinking anything: coffee, water, etc. Also eating anything. More here.

I'm doubt it will pass--Starbucks, Tim Horton's McDonalds et al have soom pretty deep pockets.

I can see the argument for either side. But I also think drinking caffeinated beverages or even water can have a positive impact on driver alertness and safety. Clearly the danger of lifting a cup to your mouth differs a lot based on conditions at the time--busy city intersection/parking lot filed with pedestrians vs wide open highway in Montana.

I wonder how else we can improve safety. There are plenty of tradeoffs, and anyone who says "if a measure saves just one life, it is worth it" isn't thinking things through. If that were the standard, we'd be driving at 10 MPH max and swaddled in bubble wrap.

 

[ERD50]

... Clearly the danger of lifting a cup to your mouth differs a lot based on conditions at the time--busy city intersection/parking lot filed with pedestrians vs wide open highway in Montana.

I wonder how else we can improve safety. ...

Like I've commented on the 'self driving car' threads, I think that along with as much warning technology that is feasible at a good proce point, there should be tech that monitors the driver, to be sure they are focused on the road.

Check that the wheel is being attended to, check that the eyes are scanning the road, and looking to the side and in the rear-view mirror occasionally. So if you take a few seconds to take a sip of water, fine, but it would start warning you if your eyes were off the road for more than a few seconds.

That's a lot less variables than having these systems try to watch the road (and miss a Semi-Truck!). Just a video system looking into your eyes and monitoring eye movement. That should catch a lot of distracted driving. I'd like one for myself, I'm not perfect in this regard, and I sure would like one for my (adult) children.

-ERD50

 

[RobbieB]

You just use the hands free wi-fi speakerphone widget and press the big button.

 

[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.

 

[devans0]

Many use phones for map function or replace crap radio with podcasts. Cars have wifi built in. They can even summon help, if ads can be believed. My ten year old car has a plug for a phone dongle. I never have used it. Car companies enable it, not that it would matter.

I started driving a taller truck. I was amazed how many more I saw texting from my better view. I quit riding my bicycle on streets. Motorcycle? No freaking way. I drive the slow lane, let the speedsters race, and go the flow.

 

[ERD50]

'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]

...

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