Texting and Driving

[Audrey]

You know... if you're going to post a poll where any of the options is Nathan Fillion, I can't not vote for him.  I can't.  Not possible.  Will not compute.

 

IF you had allowed multiple selections, I would have also voted that both reading and typing constitute texting.

 

 

[Guest submarines]

Suspending a license for life is problematic (as Sparkly mentioned) because in most cases we simply do not have public transportation available. In many cases, it would cost someone a job because of lack of transportation to it. For example, where my mother lives, the nearest public transportation spot is 5 miles away over an enormous hill, as is the nearest semi-grocery store (dollar store type dealie). The nearest town with jobs is 20 miles away, and the nearest town with semi-decent public transportation is like 50.

 

Then this would be a *real* deterrent, if texting would cause one a job. I mean, if one is convicted of a crime or is severely injured, this would cause one his job as well.

 

Yeah, we are softies, because driving is seen as a necessity, not a privilege. And in many cases it is. Yet it seems that the police are really after those who are not buckled in. Which is ridiculous, because endangering one's own life should be totally legal. Putting others in danger, on the other hand, should be at least very heavily fined.

 

 

[Corraleno]

We know there are cases of people texting and having accidents.  What we do not have statistics on is how many people have read brief texts while driving and had no bad effects.

 

The most relevant statistic, IMO, would be how many people who cause accidents while texting have done it before with "no bad effects." Because I'm pretty sure no one who texts while driving picks up their phone thinking "well I'm not a very skilled driver, so there's a serious risk that I might kill or injure myself and/or others, but I'm gonna check this anyway."

 

Obviously even those who end up killing someone originally thought they were skilled enough to accomplish the task with "no bad effects"! That's exactly the issue: most of the time, typing or reading texts while driving doesn't cause a problem — until it does. And when it does, the "problem" is likely to be death or serious injury. 

 

There is no reason on earth why anyone needs to read or send texts while driving, and it is illegal in most states. Insisting that "it may be dangerous for other people, but it's OK for me to break the law because I have skillz" is indefensible IMO.

[Caroline]

Yeah there is no reason for it. Who is so important they can't hold off on reading a text? If they are that important they need a fancy gadget that reads stuff out loud to them.

If they are that important they need a driver.

[Dicentra]

How do people feel about talking on a non-Bluetooth enabled cell phone while driving?  (In other words, one you have to hold to your ear.)  More or less distracting than talking on a hands-free device?

[Danestress]

I think there are a lot of things that can make driving more dangerous, and we do constant cost/benefit analysis to decide if those things are worth the risk. And when we make those decisions, we are making decisions that affect other people.

 

Looking at a clock doesn't really increase risk much. To me, it seems worth the tiny risk. Having a passenger may increase the risk. But most people can justify having that passenger. I saw a report of a study that found that parents driving with kids were 12 times more distracted than people driving while using a cell phone. (Here, I found the news report http://abcnews.go.com/US/worst-driving-distractions-road-kids/story?id=18684711). I think there are ways we can reduce that risk - parents can learn what things to do to reduce distraction. But I can't see out-lawing driving with children. Smoking, changing the radio, listening to an audiobook, being in physical pain, drinking coffee, being tired, getting older, not having perfect vision, having a cold and sneezing .... All these things can present distractions (though a couple might also help us be paradoxically more alert). We each get to choose what is 'worth it' and then everyone else on the road has to live with it.

 

I personally don't see much benefit to reading a text while driving - even a short one. I don't think the possible benefit justifies the potential cost. I also kind of wish some mom's would pull over to deal with their children, and that people in a hurry would just get a grip. But I am not sure a law saying you can't drive with bickering kids in the car would be practical.

 

So on one hand, I don't think reading a text message is a good idea. But I do agree with SKL that it is not reasonable to say, "we should never ever do anything distracting because it only takes a split second." I think all of us regularly do small things to increase risk, and most people don't want to admit that, but it is true. I drive even when my seasonal allergies make a sneeze possible. I drink waster, adjust the a/c or radio, and have driven even when I was a bit tired.

[kiana]

Then this would be a *real* deterrent, if texting would cause one a job. I mean, if one is convicted of a crime or is severely injured, this would cause one his job as well.

 

Yeah, we are softies, because driving is seen as a necessity, not a privilege. And in many cases it is. Yet it seems that the police are really after those who are not buckled in. Which is ridiculous, because endangering one's own life should be totally legal. Putting others in danger, on the other hand, should be at least very heavily fined.

 

I guess that I don't buy the "if you just make the deterrent severe enough, people will stop". Some of them will, but many others (especially teenagers) are going to just believe they won't get caught. It doesn't make sense to me to continue punishing a 30 year old for stupid decisions made as a teenager. Even in countries where it *doesn't* ruin your life to lose your license, a few people still do it.

 

Another point is that when the penalty is sufficiently disproportionate, it tends to get very selectively enforced, because the police also don't like to ruin someone's life.

 

I'd rather see a more minor penalty that is enforced consistently and aggressively.

 

I agree with you about seat belts on adults.

[SKL]

The most relevant statistic, IMO, would be how many people who cause accidents while texting have done it before with "no bad effects." Because I'm pretty sure no one who texts while driving picks up their phone thinking "well I'm not a very skilled driver, so there's a serious risk that I might kill or injure myself and/or others, but I'm gonna check this anyway."

 

Obviously even those who end up killing someone originally thought they were skilled enough to accomplish the task with "no bad effects"! That's exactly the issue: most of the time, typing or reading texts while driving doesn't cause a problem — until it does. And when it does, the "problem" is likely to be death or serious injury. 

 

There is no reason on earth why anyone needs to read or send texts while driving, and it is illegal in most states. Insisting that "it may be dangerous for other people, but it's OK for me to break the law because I have skillz" is indefensible IMO.

 

It is not illegal in my state except for very young drivers.

 

I never said that typing and sending a text while driving was OK.

 

You could say there's no compelling reason to talk to your kids or let them talk while you're in the car.  That's an unnecessary distraction.  It can wait until you pull over or reach your destination.  But we don't outlaw every small distraction that usually can wait until later.  We require people to take responsibility for deciding what they can do safely as they drive.  And most of the time that works.  Sometimes it doesn't. 

 

Before there was "texting" there were car accidents.  The world is full of distractions.

 

Every time I had an at-fault fender bender (over my 30+ years of driving), I was reeling from a very bad, stressful day.  That was the only distraction involved in those cases.  Too bad we can't outlaw driving during a bad, stressful day.  I would bet a lot of lives would be saved if we could.

[Guest submarines]

How do people feel about talking on a non-Bluetooth enabled cell phone while driving?  (In other words, one you have to hold to your ear.)  More or less distracting than talking on a hands-free device?

 

I read a study that it doesn't matter where the device is hand held or hands free. It is the act of talking (i.e. shifting attention to someone who is not in the car) that is dangerous. One hand on the steering wheel is not a problem in most situations. Think of all the drivers who drive manual transmission.

 

[Annie G]

How do people feel about talking on a non-Bluetooth enabled cell phone while driving?  (In other words, one you have to hold to your ear.)  More or less distracting than talking on a hands-free device?

 

 

Where I live it's illegal to use a cell phone while driving unless it's hands free. But having said that...I don't know whether holding a phone is more or less distracting than using one hands free. But holding a phone does eliminate one whole hand on the steering wheel and that's not good if you need to quickly react to something on the road.  

[Miss Peregrine]

You know... if you're going to post a poll where any of the options is Nathan Fillion, I can't not vote for him. I can't. Not possible. Will not compute.

 

IF you had allowed multiple selections, I would have also voted that both reading and typing constitute texting.

I didn't see where to allow multiple votes. I will see if I can remedy that. :grin:

[SKL]

For me, talking on the phone while driving is very stressful.  Whoever is on the other end wants my full attention for an extended time period, and driving isn't a good time for that.  Usually I just pretend I didn't hear the phone ring.  If I must answer/call then I keep it very short.

 

I don't have hands-free, but I think it would be similar for me.  The hands are only a small part of the issue.  I usually drive one-handed anyway.

[Corraleno]

It is not illegal in my state except for very young drivers.

 

There are currently only 2 states where texting is unrestricted: Arizona and Montana. It is illegal for some but not all drivers (e.g. under 21, new license holders, bus drivers) in 4 states: Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is illegal for all drivers in the other 44 states, including Ohio, as well as DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.

Cell Phone Use and Texting While Driving Laws

 

The idea that reading a text is no problem, even though typing might be, is not true. In this experiment, for example, reading a text caused much slower reaction times even compared to drunk driving. At 35 mph, reading was actually more dangerous than typing. Here's a chart showing the results:

 

 

 

That is not the only study that suggested that texting while driving can be even more dangerous than drunk driving. But if someone claimed that driving under the influence might be dangerous for other people, but they are skilled enough to do it safely, people would be outraged. 

 

IMO we need to start treating texting (including reading texts) while driving with the same seriousness, and the same sorts of penalties, as drunk driving. Because it's at least as impairing as a .08 level of blood alcohol, and in some cases much more.

[Miss Peregrine]

 

This really sucks. I am so sorry.

 

Did you see her texting or did she actually admit to it?

[msrift]

I agree that hands-free or hand-held, it really doesn't matter. The fact that the one is legal and one is not is just legislating based on feelings and opinion instead of research. There are all those business people who simply *must* have their phones. Can't annoy the donors.

[FaithManor]

Nm

[maize]

There are currently only 2 states where texting is unrestricted: Arizona and Montana. It is illegal for some but not all drivers (e.g. under 21, new license holders, bus drivers) in 4 states: Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is illegal for all drivers in the other 44 states, including Ohio, as well as DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands.

Cell Phone Use and Texting While Driving Laws

 

The idea that reading a text is no problem, even though typing might be, is not true. In this experiment, for example, reading a text caused much slower reaction times even compared to drunk driving. At 35 mph, reading was actually more dangerous than typing. Here's a chart showing the results:

 

 

 

That is not the only study that suggested that texting while driving can be even more dangerous than drunk driving. But if someone claimed that driving under the influence might be dangerous for other people, but they are skilled enough to do it safely, people would be outraged. 

 

IMO we need to start treating texting (including reading texts) while driving with the same seriousness, and the same sorts of penalties, as drunk driving. Because it's at least as impairing as a .08 level of blood alcohol, and in some cases much more.

Thanks, it is helpful to see data. It looks like they are comparing the results of two different studies, I wonder why the results are so far apart?

[Corraleno]

No, it's two different people not different studies; Brown was 22 years old and Alterman was 37. The experiment was conducted by Car & Driver magazine.

 

Other studies have shown similar results, e.g.:

 

New research by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) claims using smartphones for social networking while driving is more dangerous than drink-driving or being high on cannabis behind the wheel. 

[Leav97]

Then this would be a *real* deterrent, if texting would cause one a job. I mean, if one is convicted of a crime or is severely injured, this would cause one his job as well.

 

Yeah, we are softies, because driving is seen as a necessity, not a privilege. And in many cases it is. Yet it seems that the police are really after those who are not buckled in. Which is ridiculous, because endangering one's own life should be totally legal. Putting others in danger, on the other hand, should be at least very heavily fined.

 

Warning GRAPHIC!

 

[SKL]

 

 

 

 

What's the source of this so I can read the description of the study myself?  If this is a case of someone having an ongoing conversation in texts while driving, that is completely different from what I'm talking about.

 

[Corraleno]

What's the source of this so I can read the description of the study myself?  If this is a case of someone having an ongoing conversation in texts while driving, that is completely different from what I'm talking about.

 

The source was a controlled experiment conducted by Car & Driver magazine; I linked it, as well as a British study that came to the same conclusions, in the post above. The subjects were asked to read a short text while driving, and to respond to simulated brake lights ahead of them, and their reaction time was recorded. It was repeated for typing a short text, and then the subjects drank alcohol until they were legally over the limit, and retested under the same conditions. The 22 year old's reflexes were much better than the 37 year old's, but both did far worse when texting than when drunk, at both low (35 mph) and fast (70 mph) speeds. 

 

According to the British study I linked above, texting reduced reaction time by 37% compared to 12.5% for drunk driving:

 

The study by the IAM used a driving simulator to see how reaction times were changed if the driver was attempting to access social networking sites while driving.

 

When sending and receiving Facebook messages, reaction times slowed by around 38% and participants often missed key events. 

 

Participants were unable to maintain a central lane position, resulting in an increased number of unintentional lane departures. They were also unable to respond as quickly to the car in front gradually changing speed.

 

The study then compared the outcomes with other studies of the level of impairment on driving for drivers who have consumed alcohol, taken cannabis, or are using a phone to text. The results were:

 

• Using a smartphone for social networking slows reaction times by 37.6%

• Texting slows reaction times by 37.4%

• Hands-free mobile phone conversation slows reaction times by 26.5%

• Cannabis slows reaction times by 21%

• Alcohol (above UK driving limit but below 100mg per 100ml of blood) slows reaction time by between 6% and 15%

• Alcohol at the legal limit slows reaction times by 12.5%

[Tammi K]

There is no reason on earth why anyone needs to read or send texts while driving, and it is illegal in most states. Insisting that "it may be dangerous for other people, but it's OK for me to break the law because I have skillz" is indefensible IMO.

:iagree:

 

I wish it was possible to 'Like' this more than one time!

[DragonFaerie]

I have not quite finished reading this whole thread, but I have noticed something quite interesting.  Has anyone else noticed that it's always "glancing" at a text or "taking a quick peek"?  It's READING!  It's reading while driving!  Not a "glance" or a "quick peek."  Call it what it is.

[Guest submarines]

 

The source was a controlled experiment conducted by Car & Driver magazine; I linked it, as well as a British study that came to the same conclusions, in the post above. The subjects were asked to read a short text while driving, and to respond to simulated brake lights ahead of them, and their reaction time was recorded. It was repeated for typing a short text, and then the subjects drank alcohol until they were legally over the limit, and retested under the same conditions. The 22 year old's reflexes were much better than the 37 year old's, but both did far worse when texting than when drunk, at both low (35 mph) and fast (70 mph) speeds. 

 

According to the British study I linked above, texting reduced reaction time by 37% compared to 12.5% for drunk driving:

 

If there were only 2 participants, then, unfortunately, this "experiment" it is rather meaningless. I wouldn't even call it an experiment. Maybe a demonstration?

 

[unsinkable]

I have not quite finished reading this whole thread, but I have noticed something quite interesting. Has anyone else noticed that it's always "glancing" at a text or "taking a quick peek"? It's READING! It's reading while driving! Not a "glance" or a "quick peek." Call it what it is.

I don't read or send texts while driving. Nor do I make phone calls.

 

But I can imagine a situation where someone receives a text with a street number or a movie time and he glances at the text while at a stoplight.

 

Quick peek and not different than looking at the time.

[lynn]

Reading, typing, everything to me is a distraction.  There is never, ever a reason to text or read a text while driving.  My kids will look at my phone for me if they hear it but I won't touch it at allw hen I am driving.   When we were driving to CT one state changed their signs to  "TEXT stops"  

[unsinkable]

Reading, typing, everything to me is a distraction. There is never, ever a reason to text or read a text while driving. My kids will look at my phone for me if they here it but I won't touch it at allw hen I am driving. When we were driving to CT one state changed their signs to "TEXT stops" not "REST stops

You don't need to answer this; I'm just mulling it over.

 

But this was brought up before...people read directions while driving. People interpret maps in order to determine directions.

 

What if the directions or maps are on a phone?

 

How is that different?

 

And again...I do not read, write texts or use the phone while driving.

[flyingiguana]

I have never actually seen a teen texting while driving. I see a LOT of adults doing it. And several police officers.

 

 

At the end of our block, a teen drove the family van into a utility pole.  She was not texting.  She was REACHING for the phone.  It wasn't even ringing.  It was just sitting on the dashboard as she took a turn too fast and she was afraid it would slide out the window.

 

None of the 5-6 teenagers in the car was hurt, but the van was totalled and I can only imagine how much it cost to replace the utility pole.  It involved a crane and a whole crew of guys working overtime into the night.

 

The phone shouldn't be out.  It should be off.

 

If one needs to look for directions, pull over.  (Don't just slow down in the middle of the street and expect traffic will notice you're parked in the way)

 

[Soror]

I watched something on Oprah once and it had all these people on there that thought they were expert texters and said it didn't effect their driving at all, they were wrong, every single one of them. Sometimes arrogance blinds us. Not everyone who drinks and drives causes a wreck but that doesn't mean it isn't wreckless and dangerous.

[flyingiguana]

Just waiting for the day when cars drive themselves and we can all sit back and text to our heart's content...

 

Personally I think pregnancy is the biggest driving hazard I face aside from sneezes. Seems to muddle my brain. I remember one day pulling up to a stop sign and waiting...waiting...waiting--then finally realizing it was never going to turn green :D

I do this even when I'm not pregnant.

 

Worse, I sometimes pull up to a stoplight and treat it like a stop sign.

 

 

[Guest submarines]

You don't need to answer this; I'm just mulling it over.

 

But this was brought up before...people read directions while driving. People interpret maps in order to determine directions.

 

What if the directions or maps are on a phone?

 

How is that different?

 

And again...I do not read, write texts or use the phone while driving.

 

I think most people can tolerate and appropriately filter and prioritize a decent amount of distraction. Some of those "distractions" make the driving safer--such as reading exit signs on the highway or finding a good time in traffic to look at the map or directions. Some of them are unavoidable--a crying baby, bickering kids.

 

I guess some people are saying they don't want to add an optional distraction, which, research shows, causes impairment. And others don't mind adding an optional distraction because they feel they are doing well with various other distractions, so what's one more?

 

But it is the same thing when weather conditions change, like a sudden heavy snow fall. Some people slow down to adjust their driving, and others speed ahead. Yeah, whatever.

[flyingiguana]

I sometimes have trouble driving when the radio's on.  Just carrying on a conversation with someone in the car can be enough to distract me.

 

I don't think I'm more distractable than other people.  I just notice it more than the average person.  And I do something about it.

 

Sure I could read while driving.  I could text while driving.  I'm talented like that.  And a fast reader.  And I have great peripheral vision.

 

But a moment's inattention at 30 mph, or 70 mph, while controlling a 2 ton vehicle is a lot different than a bit of distraction while walking.

 

P = mv

 

If you don't know what that means, you shouldn't have your phone anywhere near you while driving.  If you do know what it means, you WON'T have your phone anywhere near you while driving.

[SKL]

It's illegal to stop on the freeway to check directions.  You have to do it while driving or memorize the whole thing before you leave and hope for the best (assuming you don't have a navigator in the car).

 

I guess I'm just a person who says, never say never.  I may never do xyz but until I've been through every situation, I don't know.  I believe a mature, intelligent, unimpaired human is able to assess risks and make a decision based on circumstances.  We don't need a rule against everything that can possibly impact safety.  What we need is information so that intelligent humans can make intelligent decisions.

[OneStepAtATime]

It's illegal to stop on the freeway to check directions.  You have to do it while driving or memorize the whole thing before you leave and hope for the best (assuming you don't have a navigator in the car).

 

I guess I'm just a person who says, never say never.  I may never do xyz but until I've been through every situation, I don't know.  I believe a mature, intelligent, unimpaired human is able to assess risks and make a decision based on circumstances.  We don't need a rule against everything that can possibly impact safety.  What we need is information so that intelligent humans can make intelligent decisions.

I agree in principal.  

 

But instant communication seems to be an addiction these days, even with incredibly rational, intelligent human beings.  And when someone is addicted to something they don't always make intelligent decisions (and I am not saying you are a communication addict, I am just saying that in general I think this is part of the issue overall in our society today).  

 

(edited)

[unsinkable]

It's illegal to stop on the freeway to check directions. You have to do it while driving or memorize the whole thing before you leave and hope for the best (assuming you don't have a navigator in the car).

 

I guess I'm just a person who says, never say never. I may never do xyz but until I've been through every situation, I don't know. I believe a mature, intelligent, unimpaired human is able to assess risks and make a decision based on circumstances. We don't need a rule against everything that can possibly impact safety. What we need is information so that intelligent humans can make intelligent decisions.

:iagree:

 

Distracted driving was a problem long before cell phones and other gadgets. Safe, sensible drivers need to be aware of all the factors which are distracting, not simply cell phones and texting.

 

My poor DH was hit nearly head-on when he was a teen. The other driver swerved right into his lane. He had damage to his face, including a broken nose and cuts. He had other injuries, too.

 

Guess what the other driver was doing?

 

Delivering the PennySaver.

 

:svengo:

[OneStepAtATime]

I agree wholeheartedly that distracted driving has been around ever since the car was invented.

 

Honestly, I would like to see statistics on driving now vs. driving 40 years ago.  Percentage-wise are there more, the same, or fewer accidents than there were back then?    And how many accidents are related to phone use in a car vs. other types of distractions now and from earlier eras?  It just seems like I see a lot more people texting or reading texts on phones than i ever saw people doing other unnecessary things in their cars a few decades ago.  But I have no data to prove it.

[unsinkable]

I agree wholeheartedly that distracted driving has been around ever since the car was invented.

 

Honestly, I would like to see statistics on driving now vs. driving 40 years ago. Percentage-wise are there more, the same, or fewer accidents than there were back then? And how many accidents are related to phone use in a car vs. other types of distractions now and from earlier eras? It just seems like I see a lot more people texting or reading texts on phones than i ever saw people doing other unnecessary things in their cars a few decades ago. But I have no data to prove it.

This isn't exactly what you asked but the NHTSA says this:

 

 

"What do the studies say about the relative risk of cell phone use when compared to other tasks like drinking or eating?

 

Most crashes involve a relatively unique set of circumstances that make precise calculations of risk for engaging in different behaviors very difficult. Thus, the available research does not provide a definitive answer as to which behavior is riskier. Different studies and analyses have arrived at different relative risk estimates for different tasks. However, they all show elevated risk (or poorer driving performance) when the driver is distracted. It is also important to keep in mind that some activities are carried out more frequently and for longer periods of time and may result in greater risk."

[OneStepAtATime]

This isn't exactly what you asked but the NHTSA says this:

 

 

"What do the studies say about the relative risk of cell phone use when compared to other tasks like drinking or eating?

 

Most crashes involve a relatively unique set of circumstances that make precise calculations of risk for engaging in different behaviors very difficult. Thus, the available research does not provide a definitive answer as to which behavior is riskier. Different studies and analyses have arrived at different relative risk estimates for different tasks. However, they all show elevated risk (or poorer driving performance) when the driver is distracted. It is also important to keep in mind that some activities are carried out more frequently and for longer periods of time and may result in greater risk."

Thanks, unsinkable.   Appreciate the post.  In other words, too many variables to really have a definitive study.  Bottom line, anything you add into the mix that might distract you could add to the odds that you will not be focused at the moment you need to be focused on your driving is what I am reading from this, whether it is phone communication or GPS or screaming child or whatever...

 

From my perspective that still means that the best option is to not do things that could distract you since there will always be things that come up to distract you while driving.   Deliberately choosing to add more distractions is not a good option IMHO.

[maize]

 

The source was a controlled experiment conducted by Car & Driver magazine; I linked it, as well as a British study that came to the same conclusions, in the post above. The subjects were asked to read a short text while driving, and to respond to simulated brake lights ahead of them, and their reaction time was recorded. It was repeated for typing a short text, and then the subjects drank alcohol until they were legally over the limit, and retested under the same conditions. The 22 year old's reflexes were much better than the 37 year old's, but both did far worse when texting than when drunk, at both low (35 mph) and fast (70 mph) speeds.

 

According to the British study I linked above, texting reduced reaction time by 37% compared to 12.5% for drunk driving:

 

While I believe the case has sufficiently been made that texting while driving is dangerous (I.e., I D not mean what I am about to say as a minimization if that danger) I think we also need to distinguish between the temporary/momentary impairment of doing something like reading a text and the longer term effects of chemical impairment. A person who glances over to read a text may be momentarily impaired to a higher degree, so for that brief moment they become a road hazard. Of course a brief moment may be all it takes to cause an accident! But lest anyone think that driving while drunk is safer, please remember that drunkenness doesn't last just a moment, the drunk driver may have his reflexes impaired at a lower level, but they are impaired for the entire drive.

[SKL]

To me what it means is that you have to assess each situation intelligently and carefully before you decide what to do.

 

Even when it comes to, say, a kid acting up in the backseat.  Nobody would suggest we outlaw that.  But there are times when the parent ought to pull over or leave the kid with someone or change up something with the kid because it's too much distraction for save driving.  Whenever we have a discussion about rear facing car seats, someone will chime in that they turned their baby because the baby's behavior while rear facing was so distracting as to make the driving unsafe.  And then you will have someone say that they are wrong to make that choice.  The fact is that every trip has its own combination of risk factors and people need to be intelligent about risk.

 

Being intelligent about risk does not mean insisting on the lowest possible level of risk.  If it meant that, most of the driving that we do would not happen.

[OneStepAtATime]

While I believe the case has sufficiently been made that texting while driving is dangerous (I.e., I D not mean what I am about to say as a minimization if that danger) I think we also need to distinguish between the temporary/momentary impairment of doing something like reading a text and the longer term effects of chemical impairment. A person who glances over to read a text may be momentarily impaired to a higher degree, so for that brief moment they become a road hazard. Of course a brief moment may be all it takes to cause an accident! But lest anyone think that driving while drunk is safer, please remember that drunkenness doesn't last just a moment, the drunk driver may have his reflexes impaired at a lower level, but they are impaired for the entire drive.

I get what you are saying but I'm a bit confused by it.  I seriously doubt that anyone on this thread is saying that just because a study showed that during the brief time someone was texting they were more distracted than someone who was drinking alcohol/driving that drinking alcohol then driving is safer that texting.  I haven't read that response at all.   Yes, drinking then driving can cause impairment over a longer period of time.  It is a really bad idea.  Don't drink alcohol and drive.  I agree.  The fact that someone is even MORE impaired while reading a text than while under the influence of alcohol seems to me to say that while the duration is much, much shorter it is still a bad idea, especially since the action is completely unnecessary for safely operating your vehicle.  

[BarbecueMom]

 

The source was a controlled experiment conducted by Car & Driver magazine; I linked it, as well as a British study that came to the same conclusions, in the post above. The subjects were asked to read a short text while driving, and to respond to simulated brake lights ahead of them, and their reaction time was recorded. It was repeated for typing a short text, and then the subjects drank alcohol until they were legally over the limit, and retested under the same conditions. The 22 year old's reflexes were much better than the 37 year old's, but both did far worse when texting than when drunk, at both low (35 mph) and fast (70 mph)

 

I'm curious about the differences in reaction times between non-distracted 22yos and 37yos. I wonder if testing reaction times through a live test or simulator will eventually be a condition of keeping your license after a certain age.

[kiana]

I don't read or send texts while driving. Nor do I make phone calls.

 

But I can imagine a situation where someone receives a text with a street number or a movie time and he glances at the text while at a stoplight.

 

Quick peek and not different than looking at the time.

 

I don't get directions via text but if I did, I could certainly see briefly checking while stopped at a light without taking the time to pull into a parking lot.

 

 When we were driving to CT one state changed their signs to  "TEXT stops"  

NY State has done that. Not only that, but they've changed a lot of what used to be truck-only parking areas to general parking areas/text stops without services. I approve highly.

 

Worse, I sometimes pull up to a stoplight and treat it like a stop sign.

 

I did that once. I have no idea what I was thinking but I got cussed out by the cop who pulled me over. On the bright side, he didn't even ticket me -- I'll take a cussing out over a ticket any day.

 

He came up and wanted to know what my ****ing excuse was for ****ing going through ****ing red lights. I said "Stupidity?"

[Laura Corin]

But this was brought up before...people read directions while driving. People interpret maps in order to determine directions.

 

 

 

I don't think they should.  I only check the map/read directions whilst stationary.  If I miss a turning, too bad - I will wait until it's safe to stop and check the map.

 

L

[Laura Corin]

It's illegal to stop on the freeway to check directions.  You have to do it while driving or memorize the whole thing before you leave and hope for the best (assuming you don't have a navigator in the car).

 

If I can't remember, then I leave at the next exit, find a place to stop, check the directions, then rejoin the motorway.

 

L

[Corraleno]

I get what you are saying but I'm a bit confused by it.  I seriously doubt that anyone on this thread is saying that just because a study showed that during the brief time someone was texting they were more distracted than someone who was drinking alcohol then driving that drinking alcohol then driving is safer that texting.  I haven't read that response at all.   Yes, drinking then driving can cause impairment over a longer period of time.  It is a really bad idea.  Don't drink alcohol and drive.  I agree.  The fact that someone is even MORE impaired while reading a text than while under the influence of alcohol seems to me to say that while the duration is much, much shorter it is still a bad idea, especially since the action is completely unnecessary for safely operating your vehicle.  

 

:iagree: 

 

The point isn't that it's "safer" to drive drunk than it is to text; the point is that if the driver in front of you suddenly slams on the brakes, or a child suddenly runs into the street, it will take the person who is reading or typing on his phone as much as 3x longer to react than a person who is legally drunk — and both of them will have much slower reaction times than someone who is neither drunk nor texting. Depending on the speed the person is traveling, that can translate to a difference of a hundred feet or more before stopping — which can mean the difference between missing the car or child in front of you or slamming into them.

 

I just don't understand all the excuses along the lines of "well lots of things are distracting, we should all make our own decisions about the level of risk we're comfortable with." How would people react to someone who claims that about driving while drunk or high? It's one thing to gamble one's own life on the assumption that "well, texting doesn't really distract me," but it's quite another to risk other people's lives.

 

[SKL]

 

The point isn't that it's "safer" to drive drunk than it is to text; the point is that if the driver in front of you suddenly slams on the brakes, or a child suddenly runs into the street, it will take the person who is reading or typing on his phone as much as 3x longer to react than a person who is legally drunk — and both of them will have much slower reaction times than someone who is neither drunk nor texting. Depending on the speed the person is traveling, that can translate to a difference of a hundred feet or more before stopping — which can mean the difference between missing the car or child in front of you or slamming into them.

 

I just don't understand all the excuses along the lines of "well lots of things are distracting, we should all make our own decisions about the level of risk we're comfortable with." How would people react to someone who claims that about driving while drunk or high? It's one thing to gamble one's own life on the assumption that "well, texting doesn't really distract me," but it's quite another to risk other people's lives.

 

 

So people can decide to not look at their phone (or counsel their kid or look for a better radio station or open their drive-thru big mac) when they are in a residential area or driving behind another vehicle etc.

 

If we made every non-essential risk connected with cars illegal, much driving would be illegal.  Do you really need to drive your kid to an activity, or go to a house of worship, or go out to dinner with your husband?  Of course not.  It is completely unnecessary and it increases the risks to other people.  Yet most of us do these things.  Why?  Because while we know vehicular accidents are the cause of thousands of accidental deaths per year, we believe that we ourselves do not pose a risk when we drive - even though the truth is that nobody is perfect and bad things happen to good people.

 

The logic here is inconsistent.  A momentary occasional glance at a phone is not any more risky than a hundred other things most of us do, that we don't have to do, in a car.

[OneStepAtATime]

I can think of countless times where I or a family member or a friend were able to avoid an unexpected collision because we were paying attention to what was happening and were able to react quickly.  The incident was nothing, just a minor scare and we went about our day.  In any number of those situations if we, or the other driver, had been reading a text we would not have been able to react as quickly and would have had a collision.  There is NO WAY to predict from moment to moment when there will be nothing going on that could cause the driving situation to become unsafe because situations change rapidly.  But deliberately adding unnecessary distractions for the express desire to read a text is choosing to increase the risk factors.

 

I have a friend who had left our tv station to go eat.  We had an extended dinner break that day so he chose to drive a bit out of the area to a hole in the wall restaurant he was especially fond of.  He was in a 55 mph zone but it slows to a 40 mph zone on one stretch.  Two lane road, winds a bit, but not heavily traveled and mostly a clear view ahead.  He slowed as the sign requested and was driving along at the required speed with nothing else on the road.  No cross streets, no lights, no other cars in the immediate area.  Movement out of the corner of his eye caused him to look in his rear view mirror and see a car heading towards him at way above the legal speed limit.  The driver was not paying attention.  My friend managed to pull off the road and only got clipped.  Caused a lot of damage but no one was seriously hurt, just minor cuts and bruises and soreness, thank goodness.  Cops found that the other guy had been trying to read a map.  What if my friend had had a cell phone with him and decided to glance down to read an incoming text?

 

Reading texts while driving isn't necessary.  And it has been proven statistically to be unsafe.  So why in the world would I do it and risk my own life and the lives of others just so I can read my text messages?  

[unsinkable]

FYI

 

There is a message elsewhere asking people to delete the quotes that pertain to a recent accident.

 

There are quite a few in this thread.

[OneStepAtATime]

Thanks, unsinkable, for the heads up.