Cars in the news - June 18, 2004

[freetobegay]

What Causes Most Car Accidents?


While cell phones have recently sprung up as a common cause of car accidents, a study, the largest to date on crashes involving distracted drivers, found that rubbernecking causes far more accidents than cell phone use.

The largest number of accidents was caused by drivers looking at other accidents, traffic or roadside incidents. Comparatively, cell phone use ranked as the sixth highest cause. The study included data on more than 2,700 accidents involving distracted drivers between June and November 2002.

Moreover, some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single distracted driver.

According to the study, rubbernecking accounted for 16 percent of accidents reported. This was followed by driver fatigue, which was responsible for 12 percent, looking at scenery or landmarks (10 percent), passenger or child distractions (nine percent), adjusting the radio, tape or CD player (seven percent), and cell phone use (five percent).


http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm

[mstrsplinter326]

1. It's a good thing it's illegal to dial and drive in Indiana

But it's still ok to be a horrid driver and get a license...

[iverglas]

2. lemme see

According to the study, rubbernecking accounted for 16 percent of accidents reported. This was followed by driver fatigue, which was responsible for 12 percent, looking at scenery or landmarks (10 percent), passenger or child distractions (nine percent), adjusting the radio, tape or CD player (seven percent), and cell phone use (five percent).

I wouldn't propose banning rubbernecking or looking around, or having an unruly child -- all while driving, that is. I just can't think of an objective standard for assessing violation. Those will just have to be some of the little risks we assume when we drive -- that someone else will be rubbernecking or looking around, or have an unruly child in the car.

Being tired ... well, that would be a hard one in most circumstances. Amazingly, though, we do address it. Commercial drivers are subject to rules about the number of hours in a day they may drive, and must keep accurate logs of their time. Since they drive far more than most regular people, they are a reasonable target group for such rules. Maybe I could be required to keep a log of my driving time when I'm going long distances, and prosecuted if I were found to have exceeded a limit, but again, this just looks like it would be an unenforceable rule.

Of course, if I do cause a crash when I'm driving sleepless, and there is evidence of my sleeplessness, I'll be liable, criminally and civilly. So there's that little deterrent effect.

Radios, CDs, tape players -- and, might I add, cigarettes and lighters, and hot coffee -- are problematic. Ban them as installed accessories, and people will just bring their own. No easy way to tell whether they're in use. Probably unenforceable, and probably overkill to ban them.

Adjusting the music: 7 per cent of accidents. Using a cell phone: 5 per cent of accidents. Other and perhaps more interesting ways of looking at the numbers would be:

- what percentage of people who use music in their cars have accidents, vs. the percentage of people who use cell phones in their cars;

- what percentage of cell phone uses coincided with in accidents, vs. the percentage of music uses;

Cell phones. It's hard to tell, or measure, when somebody is looking at scenery or being distracted by an unruly child. But it's pretty damned easy to tell when somebody's on a hand (or shoulder) -held cell phone. (And not just from their moronic driving.)

Banning cell phone use while driving sounds pretty straightforward to me. Ban it, and enforce the ban: pull over anyone seen with a cell phone glued to his/her head. And heck, there's even completely objective evidence available to corroborate the cop's observations: cell phone usage records. Kinda like a breathalyzer.

So, if there were complete compliance with the law, 5% of accidents would be eliminated. That's pretty impressive.

Compliance with the law might well not be 100%. But deterrent enforcement and punishment practices, and education campaigns, could certainly get it down a bit.

Hmm. How 'bout cell phone jammers that are activated when the car is in gear? A completely painless way to achieve the purpose. Maybe anybody caught using a cell phone while driving could be required to have one installed on his/her car for the duration of the term of probation imposed, or have his/her driver's licence be conditional on having it installed, or however those on-board breathalyzer things work.


Okay, I've tried. I've assumed that there was a point for which the article in question was posted, even though no point was stated or even implied.

So, how'd I do? Was there a point?

[LibLabUK]

4. Hmm..

"How 'bout cell phone jammers that are activated when the car is in gear?"

I think that that is technically very difficult, not so much the feat of jamming, but restricting it to a specific area especially one as small as the interior of a car. There is also the problem with the jamming covering more of the spectrum than just the mobile phone frequencies and affecting things like the emergency services' radio systems.


Personally I fully support the UK's recently introduced ban on the use of handheld mobile phones and other data devices whilst in control of a moving vehicle.

I don't care whether they're only responsible for 1% of accidents.

Now if we can do something about bad drivers and stupid pedestrians too it'd be driving utopia.

[iverglas]

7. darn

I think that that is technically very difficult, ...

Yeah, I knew it was too good to be true. But you just never know what those nuts and bolts folks might come up with before long.

Personally I fully support the UK's recently introduced ban on the use of handheld mobile phones and other data devices whilst in control of a moving vehicle.

Damn right. And we can't get us one o' them here too soon for me.

[CO Liberal]

3. If You Have a Problem With Cars, FTBG....

...then stay off the highways. But your posts have nothing to do with the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

[el_gato]

5. Did the poster say it had something to do with gun violence?

NO

by the way, I hope you were being sarcastic with you "stay off the highway" remark

[CO Liberal]

6. Then Why Did He Post This on This Forum???

Or the other thread he started about cars? Obviously, he's trying the old "cars-kill-more-people-than-guns" ploy some of you pro-gunners drag out of the intellectual cesspool where so many of your ideas originate.

It's never flown before - it won't fly now.

[Wcross]

8. Is this not the Justice/Public SAFETY forum?

There is a definite public safety issue regarding cell phone use while driving. I have more to fear from distracted drivers than any other threat I can imagine.