Another Study Confirms Hands-Free Texting While Driving Is Unsafe 286
schwit1 writes with a followup to a story we discussed in April about how using voice-activated texting while driving was no safer than using your hands. Now, a study by AAA has found that using voice commands to send texts is more dangerous than simply talking on your cellphone.
"Texting a friend verbally while behind the wheel caused a 'large' amount of mental distraction compared with 'moderate/significant' for holding a phone conversation or talking with a passenger and 'small' when listening to music or an audio book, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found in a report released today. Automakers have promoted voice-based messaging as a safer alternative to taking hands off the wheel to place a call and talk on a handheld phone. About 9 million infotainment systems will be shipped this year in cars sold worldwide, with that number projected to rise to more than 62 million by 2018, according to a March report by London-based ABI Research. 'As we push towards these hands-free systems, we may be solving one problem while creating another,' said Joel Cooper, a University of Utah assistant research professor who worked on the study. 'Tread lightly. There's a lot of rush to develop these systems.' The findings from the largest U.S. motorist group bolster National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman's call to ban all phone conversations behind the wheel, even with hands-free devices."
No shit (Score:2)
And in other news, water is wet, and jumping off a tall building is a "bad idea."
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, I could stand at almost any intersection with a camera, and I bet at least 25% of all drivers are in the middle of talking or texting despite it being illegal. Some days, it seems like more.
As long as people still believe that they are so highly evolved they can do this without problem, it will continue to be one. Not unlike people who believe they're still good drivers when they're half hammered.
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, I could stand at almost any intersection with a camera, and I bet at least 25% of all drivers are in the middle of talking or texting despite it being illegal.
Illegal's not the problem. If it were safe yet illegal it would only be their problem. Since it's so dangerous it's everybody's problem.
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.
Re:No shit (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law.
Nice. So how about we amend TWD laws so that if you provide proof that a driver was TWDing (photo, video, etc... NOT while you are driving yourself, and not with automated equipment) then the $50 fine the person gets hammered with goes right into your pocket instead (minus some administrative overhead).
Re: (Score:3)
Then you are quite unimaginative.
I could go to an intersection close to my house and stand there with a camera, and I would be able to pick off people either texting or holding their phone while driving. Because every time I'm at that intersection I can see people doing exactly that.
If there was a bounty of $50 for photos like that, I could pay off my house in a few weeks. And I bet you can go to an awful lot of places and do the exac
Re: (Score:3)
Well gee golly, isn't talking on the cell phone supposed to be worse than drinking and driving. If you're seeing 25% of the drivers on their phone. And those studies were actually legitimate. Well, there must be hundreds dead on those corners.
Or perhaps those studies were aiming for a certain desired result... and talking on a cell phone is no where near as bad as drunk driving.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.
So you want your driver's license taken away because one of your neighbors killed someone while texting behind the wheel?
If you were texting while driving... yes.
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps part of the problem is that there are laws that impact no one but the person breaking the law. That leads to disrespect for law in general.
So you want your driver's license taken away because one of your neighbors killed someone while texting behind the wheel?
No, no, no... I want your driver's license taken away until you can prove that you're not a selfish fuckhead who is incapable of operating 2 tons of Rolling Steel Death without endangering everyone around you.
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is many people are dangerous even without the cell phone or texting. Removing those things doesn't make them safe.
BUT, most people are more dangerous when driving while texting or using a cell phone. Adding that makes them less safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No shit (Score:4, Interesting)
Anything distracting is going to make someone a worse driver than they already are. Removing those distractions reduces the risks. It may not make them "safe", but they'll be further on the spectrum towards safe than if they were texting and driving (mediocre is better than horrid, and horrid is better than guaranteed manslaughter). Anecdotal, but in my experience it's those idiots that think they are the best drivers and can text and call with no problems (completely oblivious to how they are drifting in their own lane). I've confronted people about drifting due to distractions.. all claim they weren't drifting in their lane! "No, I was driving fine!"
Re:No shit (Score:4, Informative)
For many people driving is a necessity. Therefore it is not seen as a privilege but as a right... "I have a job, pay on time for my car and insurance - I deserve to drive. "
If we had adequate mass transit or designed our communities for local living then it would be seen as a special privilege.
Re:No shit (Score:4, Insightful)
If losing your license means losing your job then perhaps you should drive more carefully?
Re: (Score:3)
I was thinking more along the lines of how Germany [expatica.com] handles driving licenses [internations.org]* - you have to be first aid certified, take (and pass) required training courses, pass both written and practical exams... all at your own expense.
Now, most people would balk at extending those kind of requirements stateside (I presume because they fear they won't be able to pass), but regardless of opinion there is a strong correlation between "advanced" driver training (and by "advanced" I mean more than the none that many US sta
Re: (Score:2)
So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Re: (Score:2)
So, 20 years ago, before all this got started, traffic fatality rates were higher (both absolutely and per mile traveled) than they are now.
Do any of these studies explain why it's a problem that accident rates have been DECLINING since long before texting or chatting on a cell while driving became common?
Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.
Re: (Score:2)
/sighs
They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.
Note that tech from the '70s does NOT imply continued improvement from, say 1990 to 2013, which would be covered by "20 years ago". I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!
In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because OTHER IMPROVEMENTS to safety are ongoing. The point which you can't seem to grasp is that they would be declining at a STEEPER RATE if people were not talking on their phones or texting.
Re: No shit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
/sighs
They haven't stopped declining SINCE cellphones became a big thing, either.
... and safety technology hasn't stopped increasing during that time period, either.
Here's my question to you: you say that traffic fatalities have been declining... what about overall accident rates? Unless they've been on the decline as well, and in similar or better numbers than the fatalities, you're really only helping me prove my point.
FWIW, according to this document from the census bureau, [census.gov] overall accident rates have remained fairly steady over the last few decades, with fatalities and serious injur
Re: (Score:3)
I wasn't talking about "traffic fatalities fell from 1980 to 2000, then stopped declining". I'm talking "they started declining way back, and ARE STILL DECLINING!
In spite of all the people talking on their cellphones.
And you somehow think that measuring fatalities is the metric?
That would imply that any unsafe act would result in only fatalities, no simple accidents, no injuries or property damage only accidents.
before we go on too far, not everything is declining. 2012 saw an increase in teen vehicle fatalities. Even so, there is an improper fixation on only fatalities.
http://ghsa.org/html/publications/pdf/spotlights/spotlight_teens12.pdf [ghsa.org]
A friends daughter has been involved in 2 TWD accidents. First time she
Re: (Score:2)
All of the technologies you mention would increase rather than decrease accident rates. Something like anti-lock brakes would decrease it.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in actual reality.
In actual reality people modify their behaviors based on risk. Airbags, seat belts, crumple zones, more resilient car frames, etc. do nothing to prevent accidents.
Sure they do - they make the car safer to drive.
If you don't believe me, try this: take your daily driver around a fairly perilous corner as fast as you're able to without losing control. Then, go get your hands on an older car of similar make, say pre-1980's, and take the same corner at the same speed. According to your hypothesis, they will both take the corner similarly, because, as you say, things like "more resilient car frames... do nothing to prevent accidents."
PS you may want to have the paramedics
Re: (Score:2)
Do they need to? Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and many, many other safety technologies have been around so long (at least since the 1970's), they're kind of a given.
Airbags, crash testing, frame strengthening, and the like DO NOTHING to prevent accidents. They simply make it more likely for people to survive a collision.
Re: (Score:2)
There are causes of accidents other than distracted driving. In the last 20 years many improvements have been made to the cars and roads. There has also been increased focus on DWI. Put those things together, and you have a declining accident rate, EVEN IF the rate of accidents from distracted driving is going up.
You make it sound like there is some acceptable rate of traffic deaths, and as long as we maintain that rate there is no reason to try to improve. The acceptable rate is 0, and once we hit that
Re: (Score:3)
You sound like some of the morons I see driving -- which includes weaving, tailgating 1 car length back at 45MPH, blowing through stop signs and red lights, and more -- while taking a "really important" phone call.
BTW, one of the best clues that someone is distracted is them driving up so close that they almost hit you, then back off and do it again. It you let them ahead of you, they will drop back if there is no one else to do this to.
The distracted driver is using other vehicles as reference points - probably using a lot of peripheral vision - on where they should drive, and how fast to go. But it isn't a very good system, seeing their nuisance factor.
And yes, I've seen all of those things happen within the last two weeks and had to take extreme measures to avoid accidents in two instances.
Driving while texting or talking on a phone should be treated exactly the same as DUI.
I'm personally in favor of cellphones being disabled while d
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely text at a stop light...ONLY at a stop light and ONLY when I have a friend to tell me if the light is green.
I ignore even business calls when I am driving, I also drive a manual SPECIFICALLY to keep my attention on the vehicle, of course driving a 480hp M5 makes you pay attention or youll end up making a guardrail look like twisted re-bar faster than you can say "hi, yeah im available"
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you would probably not be seeing an accident even if you stood there all year...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One of the non-obvious things they discovered was that it was dangerous to use a cell phone even if you don't take your eyes off the road.
When drivers approached an intersection, they would normally check for pedestrians with their eyes. when they approached an intersection listening to a digital device, they didn't check for pedestrians.
That wasn't obvious. Many people maintained that it would be safe to use digital devices if you didn't take your eyes off the road. For example, many legislatures passed la
And another study shows... (Score:3)
And other research shows that the sky is blue when It's daytime and there are no clouds. What does it take to convince people? Especially people stupid enough to text while driving?
Look, folks, a text isn't like a phone call. It's like email. That goddamned text will wait until you're stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as far as I know, this is only the second study that consider hand-free texting. So i'd say, I will only be convinced myself after a couple more.
Even worse (Score:4, Insightful)
What is more dangerous is having stupid people driving..... period. Whether they are texting, juggling, talking on the phone, or playing PS3. Especially when they try to merge onto a 65 MPH freeway going 30 MPH.
Re: (Score:3)
cell phones have created many more stupid people
Re: (Score:2)
Yo Dawg, I heard you like playing racing games. So I installed a PS2 in your car [youtube.com] so you can play Gran Turismo while driving.
Exactly what constitutes "radio"? (Score:2)
Are we talking vapid pop music, idiot morning DJ's, or "stimulating" discussions on Public Radio? My gut tells me that these aren't equally distracting. Additionally, what qualifies as "listening" to radio. There are some people who sing along to songs on the radio, or switch stations constantly. Is this what the experiment simulated, or did people just drive while passively listening?
Neat (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember last time when Texas A&M did this? They asked people to LOOK AT THE PHONES AND MAKE SURE THE TEXT WAS CORRECT. Of course it's more distracting. I don't know the details of this study, TFA is light on details and direction (though it mentions the A&M study).
In case no one here was aware - doing anything other than driving, when you're driving, means you aren't driving at 100%/
you don't think people would check normally? (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but whenever I use the voice-to-text capabilities in android there are multiple wrong words. Given that, I'd be willing to be that the vast majority of people would in fact check to make sure the text was correct before sending.
Re: (Score:3)
I wrote my own hands free texting app, that automatically determines when you're driving (based on speed). It solves this in a very simple way- after you speak your response, it repeats it and asks if you're sure you want to send. If you say no, it lets you re-enter your response. No need to look at a phone at all.
Cheap plug: Text Soundly is available at the Play Store here [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I mainly use the text-to-speech function if I'm walking and want to compose a text message. (Little danger of a high speed collision there.) One time I decided to use it as I started my car (but was still parked). It changed "each" in my text to my wife to "eat sh**" (yes, it put in asterisks). Next time, I'll keep take the extra few seconds to type out my message (while keeping the car in Park, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't so much with voice control, it's with the language.
You can't even talk to your spouse in the car without having him or her clarify what you are saying every few sentences. It's so ingrained into conversation that we don't notice it much. Asking a machine (with no ability to "comprehend" anything we say) to do any better is just silly, at least for the near to mid-range term.
Wife says "Romanesque" and slurs it slightly by mistake, and I hear "row man axe". Typically, I'll wait a sentence or
Re: (Score:2)
Which means,
Radio on? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Passengers in car? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Windows Open? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
hungry? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Tired? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Angry? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
Happy? YOU ARE UNSAFE!
basically by all these studies, unless you are driving with the concentration of a race car driver, YOU ARE UNSAFE!!!!!!!!! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!
Yet they ignore that most drivers are simply unsafe because they are far too stupid to be driving a car to begin with. Example, Tailgaiters, weavers (drif
Re: (Score:2)
Remember last time when Texas A&M did this? They asked people to LOOK AT THE PHONES AND MAKE SURE THE TEXT WAS CORRECT. Of course it's more distracting. I don't know the details of this study, TFA is light on details and direction (though it mentions the A&M study).
In case no one here was aware - doing anything other than driving, when you're driving, means you aren't driving at 100%/
Precisely. I suspect you have the right of it.
If people were merely using voice control to compose and send texts, without looking at the screen at all, there is no way that this activity could score worse than talking to a passenger. It is not logical.
Quality of hands free solution (Score:2)
Distracted driving (Score:3)
Like drunk driving, I would like to see that laws punish those that actually cause damage, not just arbitrarily set rules and regulation. If someone is driving recklessly, I don't care if they are distracted or just don't know how to drive, they should be ticketed. Why should a attentive reckless driver be treated better than a distracted driver. If someone gets into an auto incident because they are drunk or because they are texting, then assign the blame completely on them. Sure the other party might have done something wrong, but in most situations it is two way street. Both drivers have to be aware so that when mistakes are made, which we all do, everyone is aware enough to avoid the incident. If someone dies as a result, and it is not the distracted driver, then manslaughter charges and prison time should be the norm. Not wasting cops time setting up roadblocks to punish drivers that are otherwise safe.
Re: (Score:2)
All that sounds great, but then the majority of Slashdot posters also vehemently defend their 4th Amendment rights against improper search and seizure. Look at the thread about cops examining cell phones at crash sites.
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that assigning blame onto somebody requires investigative work, evidence gathering, due process and so on - can't count on the guilty party to voluntarily confess they were distracted, 5th Amendment and all - so how exactly is that going to mesh up w
Re: (Score:2)
If you are engaging in the activities that cause you to get punished at a roadblock, then you are NOT 'otherwise safe'. You just have not yet met the condition for your lack of safety to be exposed.
The main problem with your idea is that it requires someone to actually be harmed before any action is taken. That is just stupid. That harm could have easily been prevented in the first place, and it should have been.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like that type of law aims at reducing the number of people that get into accidents. If you ticket (or jail) people AFTER the accident, I do not think people would care as much and do it by themself. Once you are dead, you don't care about getting a ticket.
If you applied that to speeding, there are many cases where I could speed safely, but I do not because I need to keep my driving license. My judgement of when it is safe to speed or not is certainly not perfect, and that would make the road more da
Re: (Score:2)
Your judgment of whether or not to speed is nearly always better than the people who impose speed limits, though. Their claim, by establishing a speed limit, is "it is sufficiently unsafe to drive above speed X that it is worth using coercion backed up by violence against you to prevent you from doing so".
That changes based on traffic, road conditions, lighting conditions, and the type of vehicle. Speed limits, in attempting to say "well, you usually shouldn't go above 50mph", are overbroad: they ban certai
clear and concise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And really this is the major problem. I can't just say
"Siri, text wife, pickup milk on your way home".
Its NEVER that easy, and if it was it would be pretty safe to use while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered what the data would look like asking "Are you a safer driver than the average person?", "How many accidents have you been involved in?", "How many of those accidents do you feel were your fault?", "How many of those accidents were you found legally at fault for?". I get the feeling it'll be like self performance appraisals from engineers, where the good ones tend to rate themselves lower than others.
Most likely, but it depends on "how good" you're talking. I think "very good drivers" will rate themselves a little lower, but "slightly above average" are probably aware of it.
My answers:
Are you a safer driver than the average person?
Yes, I believe I am. Probably not "a lot safer", but generally speaking, I believe my situational awareness is better than most, and I drive a sports car which - when driven properly - is safer due to greater manoeuvrability than many other vehicles driving it recklessly as many sports car drivers do is much less safe; b
and in another study confirms.. (Score:2)
It Can Wait (Score:2)
I know this article is about hands-free, but, sadly, too many people seem to think that looking at a phone instead of the road for 15 seconds while travelling 60mph is just fine. The reality is that, in that time at that speed, you've traveled for a quarter mile. If *ANYTHING* happened in front of you during that time, you either have less time to react or no time to react. Each time you do that, you are playing Russian Roulette with your life and the lives of everyone else around you. If a text is THAT
Guns and cars (Score:2)
If you handle a gun, your priority is safety. Your safety and that of others. That is your first priority and the only priority.
Traffic is dangerous too, so it's the same there.
If your text messages are so important that it can't wait 10 minutes, you better be so bloody important that you can afford a driver.
The fact that there are people trying to challenge (Score:2)
So how are traffic cameras safe? (Score:2)
Apparently setting off extremely high-powered flashguns near the side of the road aimed at drivers -- blinding some people for significant periods of time -- is fine, since it's done for "safety". So are sending police around to make traffic stops with dazzlingly bright LED light bars.
What level of safety is the acceptable standard? (Score:2)
My guess is there isn't one -- whatever we do that increases safety today is never enough, and we're always demanding the next level of safety, chasing ever-more elusive risks and trying to eliminate them while failing to consider the costs of doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Autocorrect.
Re:This seems illogical. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well if you are Talking in the car with a passenger, he can tell you, Dude you need to stop your car. Vs talking to some one who doesn't have a stake in your driving safety (and can't know if he does).
I just recently got in an accident. I have a hands free unit. The phone rang, and the split second it took me to read who it was on the dashboard was long enough for me not to keep my eyes on the road to see the car in front of me doing a quick stop.
I didn't even pick up the phone, I was just wondering who it was, and it showed right on the dashboard.
If I am driving and someone is with me, and I get too distracted, or when I am riding with someone and see that they are about to do something dangerious. I can say, Hey the car is stopping!.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that situation any different than looking down at the clock on your dashboard? Or the radio? Or the fuel gauge or speedometwr?
Re:This seems illogical. (Score:5, Informative)
Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.
Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Concentration and alertness are not the same thing. The radio certainly interferes with concentration, and when you are looking for an address you are concentrating. Normal driving does not require concentration, it requires alterness. In fact, concentration interferes with alterness. One reason that beginning drivers are so bad is that they are concentrating so much on the mechanics of driving that they are not alert. There is no indication that the radio interferes with alertness.
Re: (Score:2)
And I forgot to add that looking at texts and talking on the phone takes concentration, which interferes with alertness.
Re: (Score:3)
And how is that situation any different than looking down at the clock on your dashboard? Or the radio? Or the fuel gauge or speedometwr?
Several ways. First, looking at the clock, radio, speedometer, etc is done at a time convenient for and chosen by the driver. There is no sense of urgency about it - it is not an interrupt. Most drivers are not going to be looking at those things except for when it is relatively safe to do so. On the other hand, many (most?) people treat an incoming phone call or text as something that must be dealt with RIGHT NOW.
Secondly, looking at those other things takes very little thought, and thus causes very little distraction. Reading a phone number or name takes a lot more thought, and distracts you for a longer period of time.
Does not compute.
It doesn't sound like jellomizer felt he was in an unsafe driving situation, so he went ahead and to checked out the incoming caller information. He could as easily have been glancing at the satellite radio to see what artist / song name is playing now, or switching the dash display to see what his instantaneous gas mileage is at the moment. As far as he knew, this was a convenient time, so he chose to do so.
Any of these tasks would require at least as much thought as would reading a phon
Re: (Score:2)
There are normally plenty of unplanned interrupts. Babies in cars cause them all the time for example. Under that reasoning, babies should be banned from cars.
It's possible that if you were distracted that easily from the road that you have to look at the phone right that second, you have some sort of neurological anomaly, for example autism spectrum where sudden actions in your periphery will instantly grab your attention. But most people aren't like this, and it isn't at all fair to make everybody else ch
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you can do that, great. Of course that means you have no reactions at all and should not be driving. So the next best thing is proposed - don't generate the interrupt in the first place.
Re:This seems illogical. (Score:5, Insightful)
One of 2 reasons for your accident.
1. You took longer than you think to read the name.
2. You were following too closely.
Answer is most likely 2. People follow MUCH too closely nowadays.
Re:This seems illogical. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This seems illogical. (Score:5, Interesting)
From previous Slashdot discussions I've come to learn that:
I wish this was post was a lot less serious, but you can check previous stories on people's driving behavior. There's plenty people partaking in traffic who honestly believe that 'technically safe driving' is what causes unsafe situations, and you really should err on the technically unsafe side to be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, because assholes cut in in an unsafe manner if you do leave a safe gap.
Ah! So instead of one unsafe driver, we now have two. Brilliant!
Re: (Score:3)
Stop tailgating and leave a safe distance between yourself and the car in front of you and that won't happen.
Texting, or talking, while driving is not the problem. Bad drivers are the problem. Texting and talking while driving makes bad drivers worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Radios didn't have the stigma of causing accidents that cell phones have, because they're generally operated by truck drivers, police and other emergency vehicles, pilots, racecar drivers, that sort of thing. They tend to not gossip. Wait, no, truck drivers will sometimes ramble over a CB, but there's a difference...
Most people give their conversation their primary attention. Their eyes will move with what they're saying, that's just wrong and bad. If your sentence trails off mid-word because you
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y_Jp6PxsSQ [youtube.com]
Re:This seems illogical. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's completely logical.
Your passenger, like you, has a significant interest in surviving your trip, and will tend to react by quieting down when you're in a tough spot, or help you out with a "Watch out!" if you're about to, say, pull into an occupied lane next to you.
The person on the other end of the phone, by contrast, isn't there with you and has no understanding of your current situation.
The basic thing to understand, though, about why hands-free makes no significant difference is that it's not the driver's hands or eyes that are the limiting factor, it's the driver's brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and if the driver is competent he will NOT be engaging in conversation with those people.
Re: (Score:2)
Its a lot like speaking a second language you're not that familiar with. Your natural flow and grammar doesn't always work and the response you get back isn't always what you expect. It just takes your brain more attention to handle it.
The brain also tends to have a greater problem following dis-embodied conversation. It takes less effort to talk to someone you can see than someone you can't.
There are nuances to how the brain processes things that tend to be a surprise the more we collectively learn about i
Re: (Score:2)
To me, talking on a cell phone while driving is like reading a book that has each sentence on its own page. It doesn't flow at all, and the attention needed to splice it together takes a lot of attention from other things.
And, yes, I do talk on the phone while driving. I've never gotten into an accident from it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?
Re: (Score:3)
So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?
Because they aren't new fangled technology and trying to blame them won't work because they're not new and scary.
Re: (Score:3)
So then why aren't the same people trying to banning dashboard gauges, clocks and radios?
Because they aren't new fangled technology and trying to blame them won't work because they're not new and scary.
Plus, the gauges/clock/radio in my car don't scream at me through the sound system until I give them my attention. Nor do they require me to enter a 4 digit PIN (on a touchscreen, no less) in order to access the information they provide.
Unlike a cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to read a comment [slashdot.org] or two before jumping in, trying to get first post, and making yourself look like an utter fool.
Re:doing anything but driving while driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they aren't distracting. You probably check the gauges, etc dozens of times during a trip, and never even realize it. If I asked you what the gauge said a few seconds after you looked at it you could probably not even tell me. However, if you got a text or phone call, I bet I could ask you 10 minutes later and you would know exactly who it was from. In the case of gauges no real 'processing' or memory is involved - you are just looking for a quick confirmation of something, and as soon as you have that you can forget about it. Not so with texts and phone calls.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm by no means a pilot, but I seem to remember they have a word or phrase for this. Constantly scanning the instruments, verifying they are what they are supposed to be but already moving on to the next one before the current one has even registered.
Re: (Score:2)
Any driving course will teach you how to avoid 'highway hypnosis'. If you are in a 'sterile driving environment' (ie staring straight ahead) you are doing it wrong. The correct way to fix that is to look at different things (when it is safe to do so). However, you should NOT be dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity (like by trying to identify a bird or something). If you are texting or phoning you ARE dedicating a significant part of your brain to that activity.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't. have a look at this guy. [slashdot.org]
Besides, this is about TEXTING. Yes, phones are dangerous but texting is moronically dangerous. If you dumb kids don't stop it, before you know it they'll mandate measures to disable cell phones in cars, and then even your passengers won't be able to phone, text, or google. Look at "open container" laws, if idiots didn't drink and drive, the passengers could have a beer.
So just stop it!
Re: (Score:2)
All I really want it for is Waze and to reply "driving" anyways. I have no real interest in texting while driving. I'm mostly bitching that I can't use my Bluetooth while not driving and it instantly came to mind. Seriously - what good is a video chat if you can't hear each other?
Re: (Score:2)
I've gone through numerous BT headsets in the last couple years trying to find a headset that
A) Would allow me to talk while riding a bicycle;
B) Wouldn't cut out randomly;
C) Wasn't more hassle than simply holding my phone to my ear;
D) Could play music when not in a conversation.
Sadly, every one I've tried sucks. Your Jawbone was actually one of the worst for audio noise while riding a bicycle, not doing much better than a sharty freebie headset.
I've pretty much given up on BT/wireless headsets. Every one I'
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you get that practice?
Re: (Score:2)
As a person who drives a lot for work and has to be always available to answer a phone call, I do use my cell-phone A LOT while driving. Texting while driving is the worst idea ever especially with touchscreens - a person actually needs to look at what he or she touches. I, personally, miss calls and don't answer texts (thank Android for speech recognition) if it is not safe.
I also can see why law is in place. Mostly because of teenagers who don't have proper driving skills but possess texting addictions.
A sandwich is a handheld device but nobody is banning food in the vehicles. They should. Some people would benefit from that.
Use the cellphone or not while driving it is always your judgement call.
It requires a lot less brainpower to use a sandwich than a phone. Even if the phone is hands-free.
Now, a hands-free sandwich... hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
... and these are the same people trying to ban the practical use of satnav devices while driving, leading to everyone reading maps in traffic.
I am sick of the automotive nanny state.
Re: (Score:2)
... and these are the same people trying to ban the practical use of satnav devices while driving, leading to everyone reading maps in traffic.
I am sick of the automotive nanny state.
Way to fail at the take-away message. The point is that anything that distracts you from the act of driving is dangerous.
If your GPS makes it easier for you to drive and pay attention then that's great, if you are constantly taking your eyes off the road to look at the GPS because you're a useless idiot who can't navigate for more than five minutes without one then you shouldn't even have a car, much less a GPS.
Perhaps we're just not restricting driving licenses as much as we should. (Which would probably p
Re: (Score:2)
I think the amount matters. If you are sending off one quick "running late" message and not proof-reading the text-to-speech accuracy, you are probably ok. If, however, you are texting back and forth with someone then you are much less safe and even more unsafe if you are looking at the phone to make sure that the text-to-speech program transcribed your message correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
I trust most people to make this distinction.
I don't trust cops to, especially when it's near the end of their quota period.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust most people to make this distinction.
I don't. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
no, brains are the key