Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
3688 messages, Last post on Oct 27, 2009 at 11:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Mar 08, 2009 7:45 pm) I agree with this point. There is a finite amount of processing capacity, most models of cognition (with the exception of network-QHP) support a single channel processing area at some point. And the bottom line is that human beings don't need 100% of their processing power to drive the overwhelming majority of the time. Measures that increase driver workload are mostly associated with traction (driving on ice/snow/fresh gravel/mud) is more challenging. Even traffic is considerably lower down on the list. Curves increase workload at the onset and exit (when you have to turn the wheel and then turn it back straight), and even that doesn't require 100%. The layman's definition of "multi-tasking" applies to driving while performing other activities: doing lots of things--poorly. I know it's more fun to present dueling research findings, but this really is common sense. Or, the difference between opinion and anecdotal evidence, and facts. Facts: According to the CTIA-Wireless Association, over 250 million Americans now subscribe to a cellular-phone service. That, if factored against the latest U.S. Census population clock as of Tuesday evening, places the penetration rate at 82.4 percent -- which, I assume, is its highest point ever. In ten years, that number has more than quadrupled from 55 million subscribers in 1997. That means more phones. With an estimate that at least 10% of all drivers are on the phone at any given time. I believe the term used for that was Simple math. Year over year, another 10% reduction in highway fatalities...with another drop in crashes as well... Yup, safer roads, more phones, sounds like Armageddon out there. |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 8:16 pm) Is this an observation or a scientific fact? If by this you mean drivers can devote 100% of attention to driving for 5 seconds and then devote 100% of attention for 2 seconds to changing the radio....there is clearly a gap as to what we believe constitues the definition of safe driving. With the NTSB blaming the unfortunate LA train disaster on texting...with the engineer only needing to look ahead and not worry about drifting, the issue is clear. With the FAA banning pilots engaged in a landing pattern under 10000 feet with strict cockpit rules, seems they understand about the dangers of "multitasking" while performing ones primary job function. Maybe you wouldn't mind the pilot texting or chatting on the cell phone while landing a jumbo jet where you are a passenger, but I would. Doesn't seem like a lot of us really "get it" though, which is why the response is all rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (Mar 09, 2009 8:18 am) Fact. If by this you mean drivers can devote 100% of attention to driving for 5 seconds and then devote 100% of attention for 2 seconds to changing the radio....there is clearly a gap as to what we believe constitutes the definition of safe driving. If changing the radio setting takes 100% of your attention period, you shouldn't be driving at all, or you have some ridiculous, miserable to use aftermarket system. What I mean is drivers don't usually have to devote 100% of their attention to driving. The issue is bandwidth in the processor, and driving under normal circumstances doesn't overwhelm it. With the NTSB blaming the unfortunate LA train disaster on texting...with the engineer only needing to look ahead and not worry about drifting, the issue is clear The train engineer ran a red light. That was the cause of the crash. The other thing is just by the fact that its newsworthy makes it a rare occurrence. If it was common, it wouldn't be newsworthy, would it? With the FAA banning pilots engaged in a landing pattern under 10000 feet with strict cockpit rules, seems they understand about the dangers of "multitasking" while performing ones primary job function. Maybe you wouldn't mind the pilot texting or chatting on the cell phone while landing a jumbo jet where you are a passenger, but I would. While I realize you aren't bringing this up as a discussion point since its totally out or scope, it does kind of illustrate my point. While the 15 minutes on either end of a 7 hour flight might qualify as "peak workload" for a pilot, what about the other 6hrs and 30 minutes when the plane is on autopilot anyway and the pilot's workload is very close to nill? Multitasking might be the only thing keeping them awake. I used to think the sky was falling when cell phones first came out and that the roads were going to turn into rivers of blood and civilization was going to crumble as we know it, but the more I read, the more I experience, and the more I research, I realize that's just not happening. I think the way to deal with driving while distracted is by secondary enforcement. If you make good decisions about when and when not to use your devices, the laws won't affect you, but if you make poor decisions, there will be hefty burdens in the legal system. Doesn't seem like a lot of us really "get it" though, which is why the response is all rhetoric. Its more that certain people think that everyone else is just like them, the same abilities and limitations. They believe what they want to believe, even with evidence to the contrary. Then they complain about lack of data. Then they complain when the data is presented. Thankfully, this country allows everyone to express their views and opinions.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 09, 2009 6:18 pm) "While the accident investigation is not complete, initial investigation indicates that the Metrolink train’s engineer failed to stop for a red signal and was using his personal cell phone throughout his on-duty shift until seconds before the collision occurred. Other evidence indicates that accident risk increases when those who control vehicles use personal wireless devices." CPUC It'll probably take another 6 months or so for the final NTHSA report on the Metrolink wreck to be completed. |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 8:16 pm) While most humans probably don't need 100% of their processing power to drive most of the time, the least able among us are also the least likely to differentiate between good times to dial and bad times. (You know, the 17-year-old who is still struggling to stay between the lines while regulating his/her speed.) While Mozart and Einstein were geniuses who probably had a lot more processing power than most humans today, I wouldn't want either of them writing symphonies, solving complex equations, or using cell phones while driving if they were alive today. According to the CTIA-Wireless Association, over 250 million Americans now subscribe to a cellular-phone service. That, if factored against the latest U.S. Census population clock as of Tuesday evening, places the penetration rate at 82.4 percent -- which, I assume, is its highest point ever. In ten years, that number has more than quadrupled from 55 million subscribers in 1997. That means more phones. With an estimate that at least 10% of all drivers are on the phone at any given time. I believe the term used for that was Simple math. More meaningless statistics. Crystal meth use is up as well. It also has a higher penetration than ever before. Using your assumption about cell phone use and applying it to crystal meth: X% of all crystal meth users are on meth while driving at any given time, and applying your same improved highway safety assertion, one could conclude that drivers who are high on crank aren't any less safe than sober drivers. Statistics can be made to say whatever the user wants them to say. Hence the phrase: "Statistics lie and liars use statistics". (No offense intended). over year, another 10% reduction in highway fatalities...with another drop in crashes as well... There are lots of reasons for the decline in highway fatalities, not the least of which are improved automobile safety equipment and better highways. Cars get better every year--better able to avoid a crash and better able to mitigate injuries in the event of a crash. Highway signage and road markings continually improve. The only factor that never really improves is the human being driving the vehicle. My argument is that the number of highway fatalities continues to decline IN SPITE OF poorer performing drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vinnyny (Mar 10, 2009 1:05 am) Why do you keep bringing up special cases and applying them in aggregate? Are you advocating laws on just these drivers? Most states have those in process already. More meaningless statistics. In the real world, we call this "data." Its how informed decisions are made. You learn about an issue, research it, collect data, and make a decision about it. Or you can act out of ignorance and fear, but after the last 8 years, people aren't such fans of that anymore. There are lots of reasons for the decline in highway fatalities, not the least of which are improved automobile safety equipment and better highways. Cars get better every year--better able to avoid a crash and better able to mitigate injuries in the event of a crash. Highway signage and road markings continually improve. And until last year, vehicle miles traveled increased, the number of vehicles on the road increased, the number of immegrant drivers increased, etc. And so far, very little has been done to help a car AVOID a crash, just mitigate them. The only factor that never really improves is the human being driving the vehicle. Even that isn't exactly correct. If you look at skills and training, things like hand eye coordination, opportunity cost of task switching, etc that doesn't seem to be the case. Aging hurts the process, but driving skills compensate to a degree. My argument is that the number of highway fatalities continues to decline IN SPITE OF poorer performing drivers. So why don't we do something about the poor performing drivers? What does that have to do with cell phones?
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 09, 2009 6:18 pm) He ran a red light because he was texting and not driving the train. Rare occurence, yep, like a plain crash. While I realize you aren't bringing this up as a discussion point since its totally out or scope It's not out of scope, the FAA realized a long time ago, piloting heavy machinery requires a concentration to the task at hand. You still didn't respond to my observation/question, do you mind if the pilot or co-pilot texts or uses the cell phone while landing? I don't expect a response, because only a fool would say yes. (not a red herring either, very germane to the conversation) Its more that certain people think that everyone else is just like them, the same abilities and limitations If one wants to prove a point go to the racetrack. In the meantime, road safety and traffic laws have to be designed and built around the lowest common denominator. Even if it means trained race car drivers have to drive at the speed limit and not the speed they are capable of driving at. They believe what they want to believe, even with evidence to the contrary. So true. Then they complain about lack of data. I'm finding a solid basis of factual data never stops anyone from forming a conclusion. Do you? Then they complain when the data is presented. I would think most of the participants in this discussion would like to see a solid basis for a rational argument. Thankfully, this country allows everyone to express their views and opinions I heartedly agree.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 06, 2009 3:56 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 8:27 am) |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Mar 08, 2009 8:48 am) Safe enough? How long before another technology gadget is introduced and becomes popular and drivers will insist they absolutely have to use it while driving? They will say that it only partially distracts from driving and, after all, humans are equipped to "multi-task". No big deal. They will say, why don't police go after drivers who are "really" distracted, such as swatting kids, eating pizza, smacking a bee, etc.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Should cell phone drivers be singled out?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
