| |||||||||||||
GENIVI: moving an industry to open sourceGENIVI: moving an industry to open sourcePosted Aug 10, 2012 15:27 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: GENIVI: moving an industry to open source by dlang Parent article: GENIVI: moving an industry to open source
There is a big difference between this undisputed fact and equating distractions (especially cell phones) with drunk driving. University of Utah study concluded "Three years after the preliminary results first were presented at a scientific meeting and drew wide attention, University of Utah psychologists have published a study showing that motorists who talk on handheld or hands-free cellular phones are as impaired as drunken drivers."
(Log in to post comments)
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 15:28 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] Oh, and from the same study: The study reinforced earlier research by Strayer and Drews showing that hands-free cell phones are just as distracting as handheld cell phones because the conversation itself – not just manipulation of a handheld phone – distracts drivers from road conditions.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 15:40 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
so we need to also ban conversations with other people in the car if it's the conversation that's so horribly distracting.
or we need to admit that there isn't really anything so special about cell phones.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 16:50 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Nope. Real face-to-face conversation in cars tend to be much less distracting. Again, it's confirmed by multiple studies.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 18:50 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] Real face-to-face conversation in cars tend to be much less distracting. One would certainly hope that any conversation taking place in a car and involving the driver would not be a face-to-face conversation.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 19:23 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
apparently so are conversations that involve push-to-talk hardware (various two way radio systems, CB, Ham, etc)
or so it would seem due to the fact that they have been explicitly exempted from the laws regulating cell phones.
I just don't see why phone conversations are so much worse than all of these other types of distraction. I think it all boils down to a nice sounding soundbite.
I also have a hard time with the fact that they are equating something that slows reaction time (distraction) with something that impairs judgment (drunk driving)
While you have accidents caused by both causes, they are really not equivalent.
If you can retain your judgment, you can reduce distractions when conditions get worse (heavier traffic, weather conditions, etc). If you don't have judgment you don't realize there is any need to change anything.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 20:13 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] I just don't see why phone conversations are so much worse than all of these other types of distraction. I think it all boils down to a nice sounding soundbite. Multiple studies have confirmed that indeed, there's something special about being on a cell phone that distracts us much more than other things. I've posted a link to one such study and you can easily find others with a few minutes of googling. I'm not a psychologist so I don't know why it's the case, but I'm certainly convinced that it is the case.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 20:15 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] If you don't have judgment you don't realize there is any need to change anything. People who talk on cell phones while driving lack judgement. QED.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 17, 2012 12:23 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Check mate. Well played! And thanks for the laugh.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 10, 2012 20:11 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] As another poster said, face-to-face conversations are much, much less distracting than phone conversations. Also, if you have other people in the car, they can see the traffic conditions and be aware when it's time to shut up or yell "Look out!". Someone on the other end of the phone lacks that info.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 24, 2012 2:29 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
by the way, there are now starting to be studies coming out asking why, if using a phone is so bad, are the laws against cell phones (and the measured drop in cell phone usage) not showing any results in the accident or fatality rates.
a couple cases in point:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/why-cell-ph...
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/12/14/wayne.state.s...
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 27, 2012 16:59 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
Without reading your links, some questions I would have are:
- How is the drop in usage measured? Self-reporting? If so, there might be bias there.
Really, a decrease in the percentage of the rates due to cell phones would be the interesting numbers.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 27, 2012 22:12 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
These (and apparently other) studies were started to research the strange phenomenon that all these anti-cell phone laws have been passed on the justification that they would improve safety, but the accident and fatality rates have not changed as a result of the laws being passed.
so either
A) everyone is ignoring the law
or
B) cell phone use may not have been as much a factor as people thought.
In one of the links, they were reviewing the data from one of the early studies that showed that cell phone use was so horrible. They found that when the study was comparing "accident" days with "non-accident" days, they didn't account for the miles driven. If they changed the calculation to be by miles rather than by days, the rate of accidents with cell phone use was 1/5 the rate calculated in the original study, bringing it down to almost the accident rate for non-cell phone use.
In the other study, they did question people on their cell phone usage, and then had them drive the same route. They found that the people who reported high cell phone usage had many other driving habits that made them more likely to get into accidents (higher speeds +5mph, 2x more lane changes, etc), raising the question of if the cell phone use was the _cause_ of these people tending to have higher accident rates, or merely a _correlation_ with their other driving habits. This is just looking at the more extremes (use a phone frequently, and almost never use a phone), so it's hardly definitive either, but they are counterpoints to the "Cell phone usage is as bad as drunk driving" drumbeat that we ahve been hearing, so I thought I'd mention them.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 27, 2012 22:33 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Accidents decrease in the areas with _strict_ no-phone law enforcement. Unfortunately, they're hardly ever enforced - people just ignore them.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 27, 2012 23:54 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
do you have something to show this?
Also, if they are cracking down on no-phone rules, are they cracking down on all other questionable driving habits as well? if so, is it possible that that part of the crackdown is the cause of any decrease in the accident rate?
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 28, 2012 0:15 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Yes, I have a link to a police report about it. Only I can't find it right now.
Of course, it can be a result of the general crackdown. However, phones are clearly a contributing factor in a significant number of sever accidents.
GENIVI: moving an industry to open source Posted Aug 28, 2012 1:11 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the question is over how much of a contribution the phone is (especially compared to other distractions) and if it's really a "significiant" number of accidents.
I don't think that anyone disputes that some people drive significantly worse while talking on the phone, or that this results in some accidents.
The dispute comes when you assume that banning phones will significantly reduce accidents.
So far it appears that this isn't the case.
P.S. A law against something bad that everyone ignores is worse than not having a law against that same something, it encourages people to think of the law as something that doesn't really mean much, and it leads to people looking at cases where laws are enforced with the slant of "why were they really out to get that person"
Talking while driving Posted Aug 28, 2012 1:20 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] "All else being equal" is a tricky proposition even on the best days. There may be multiple arguments to explain why the accident rate has not gone down after forbidding "talking while driving", besides the two you mention:
Personally I think that the cellphone laws is not a good idea; one must exercise extreme caution when talking while driving, but also when talking hands-free, smoking (those who do), changing the music, talking to your spouse, seeing an accident nearby, and any other condition that diminishes your attention to the road. Since those other things are not going to be forbidden it makes little sense to fixate on cellphones. I think that the worst habit is filming a movie while driving; those actors that look to the passengers for minutes on end drive me crazy.
|
|||||||||||||