The “War On Distracted Driving”, like most of the other wars in which the United States has participated in the past forty years, appears to be a rather muddled way of addressing an improperly defined problem. For the Ray LaHoods of the world, it has to be absolutely maddening that the “epidemic” of distracted driving has yet to lead to any sort of measurable decrease in road safety.
For them, I have some good news. While the plural of “anecdote” is never “data”, it would appear that a BlackBerry outage may have gained a crucial hill in the “War On Distracted Driving”. The problem: as usual, the hill is overseas somewhere.
The Arabian online paper The National reported over the weekend that, during last week’s European and Middle Eastern BlackBerry outage, drivers in Dubai and Abu Dhabi failed to run into each other with their usual vigor:
In Dubai, traffic accidents fell 20 per cent from average rates on the days BlackBerry users were unable to use its messaging service. In Abu Dhabi, the number of accidents this week fell 40 per cent and there were no fatal accidents.
On average there is a traffic accident every three minutes in Dubai, while in Abu Dhabi there is a fatal accident every two days.
Lt Gen Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the chief of Dubai Police, and Brig Gen Hussein Al Harethi, the director of the Abu Dhabi Police traffic department, linked the drop in accidents to the disruption of BlackBerry services between Tuesday and Thursday
Police around the world are notorious for saying whatever stupid, unproveable thing comes into their minds — in one famous case a few decades ago, a policeman estimated that a 4.5-liter US-spec Porsche 928 was doing “about 200mph” at the time of an accident — but in this case there may well be correlation between the service outage and an interruption in on-road fatalities. It’s already illegal to use a BlackBerry on the move in the Emirates, so there won’t be any new legislation as a result of these figures. Nor is it certain that there is any correlation between Arab text-and-crash accidents and conditions in North America. The cultures are very different, as made plain by the top comment on the National’s article:
police say, BlackBerry cuts made roads safer. The Headline Begs for Tough Fines (3000Dhs) for anyone using mobile phones while driving. If god had intended for you to drive and use a mobile communication Device, like a spider he would have given you 8 eyes.
I’ve already got 4 eyes (glasses) so… I’m cool to do it half the time I’m driving right?
Kidding, I NEVER check or respond to anything while I’m in the car unless I am parked somewhere with the engine off, or key in accessory position. I’ve almost been hit a few times by people who were phone-in-hand, obviously texting.
Well sure they almost hit you, they were probably trying to send a text about the guy who stopped his car and turned the engine off right there in the middle of the road!!! :)
I have to ask though, seriously? You really go through the trouble of turning your car off to answer a text? What if you are sitting in front of Starbucks, just got your coffee, about the pull out, and your wife texts you. You cant just put the car in park, you have to actually turn it off? Or you just missed the yellow light at the 15-min-red-light turn lane, you are first in line, you arent going anywhere for a while. You have to turn the car off to check out a couple emails while you wait?
“go through the trouble of turning your car off” Sometimes you have the extra 500 milliseconds to spare.
because it’s not just 500 milliseconds. it’s the time it takes to pull off the road find a place to park then turn your car off. and why? is it dangerous to check your messages while sitting at a stoplight? that statement just screams of elitism.
I don’t know if this is possible, but if so, cops should be looking at putting behind bars two kinds of traffice offenders (a) people who text while driving and (b) people who do not switch on their turn signals while changing lanes.
The plural of anecdotes may never be data but I can give any number of ‘anecdotes’ when accidents have been averted due to my extra caution around jerks belonging to the above mentioned categories..
As the driver of a 1937 Plymouth that was manufactured without turn signals, I must take exception to one aspect of your second category. I use hand signals. They’re still legal, at least where I drive.
You are an exception to the rule. The very fact that you use hand signals is reason enough to exclude you from the list of idiots that I see every single day here in S. Florida.
and congrats on still maintaining the ’37 Plymouth. I have zero knowledge about American iron (and thereby the quality of said Plymouth) but that you have one in driveable condition 74 years since its production year is reason enough to doff my hat at you Sir.
Agree completely, arun.
I’ll admit to doing both…even at the same time. Here in San Diego, we rarely use our turn signals. Although since changing my cell phone, I’ve been using it less while driving. It’s a lot heavier than my last one, making it harder to text with one hand…and I hate the touchscreen…
I’d rather they just punish those who run into others, no matter what form of negligence they prefer.
Thank God most people in my country can’t afford a car let alone a blackberry.
‘…distracted driving has yet to lead to any sort of measurable decrease in road safety.’
If you want to argue that because:
1.) There are no double-blind major university studies published in peer reviewed publications 2.) that use data from a decade of nationwide traffic statistics 3.) that adjusts for every conceivable external factor 4.) conclusively establishes a causal relationship between ‘A’ behavior and ‘B’ result, and 5.) therefore ‘there is no measureable decrease in road safety’…. go right ahead.
In fact, I’d love to see an article where you review the published studies and demonstrate this point.
There are however dozens and dozens of studies that support the claim that distracted driving is a significant cause of accidents the world over.
Perhaps Verizon has a study where they demonstrate cell phone usage while driving increases driver awareness, and is therefore a boon to traffic safety?
There are however dozens and dozens of studies that support the claim that distracted driving is a significant cause of accidents the world over.
There are numerous studies that demonstrate conclusively that individuals who drive simulated vehicles on simulated roads are involved in more simulated crashes than those who don’t.
Unfortunately, the real world data would appear to contradict these findings. As it turns out, phone users crash less often than those who don’t.
The alternative to distracted driving is to drive in a less distracted fashion. And that can actually be worse. A driver who attentively tailgates, speeds and cuts off other traffic is a greater hazard than is the driver who is too distracted to drive in such a hazardous manner.
The best thing for driving safety would be to get people to stop driving. The problem is with humans being themselves. But since we can’t fully automate the process, nanny devices and a culture that makes intoxicated driving socially unacceptable will have to suffice.
I hate to disagree with you, but perhaps you would respond to this? Below is a link to a 2010 publication from NHTSA that reviews actual accident statistics (not simulations).
‘Sixteen percent of fatal crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving.’
‘Twenty percent of injury crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving.’
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf
I found a Harvard study that attributed 570,000 accidents in 2008 to cell phone usage.
I read another 2003 study that reviewed databases and accident stats regarding distracted driving, which concluded that police UNDER-REPORT distracted driving when reporting accidents. Which suggests the reality is worse than what is actually presneted.
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1533/2/97314.0001.001.pdf
Professionally, I work with statistics regarding treatment outcomes. I read scientific studies every week. I know how to read between the lines and find wonky conclusions and bad conclusions. The NTHSA study is not marginal. The numbers are persuasive. If someone were going to dismiss a 20% finding on a study this large and inclusive, they would need some serious evidence.
So, where is this ‘real world data’ that contradicts these findings? Where are the studies that prove the opposite point?
There is a mountain of research to support the claim that distracted driving (cell phone use, talking with passengers, texting, etc) is more likely to result in an accident. I’ve spent the last 20 minutes looking for studies that draw the opposite conclusion (yes, studies that work with actual data, not simulations) and can find none. So please give me one reference or better, five or more, from a University or scientific organization.
but perhaps you would respond to this?
You are doing a good job of misinterpreting and misunderstanding data.
‘Sixteen percent of fatal crashes in 2009 involved reports of distracted driving.’
That may very well be accurate. However, you are falsely presuming that removing the distraction will result in the crashes not occurring.
The 16% figure, without context, doesn’t tell you anything. The figure only becomes useful if you know the overall percentage of drivers who are distracted at any given time. The question is not one of how many crashes involved distracted driving, but whether distracted drivers crash at higher rates than drivers who aren’t distracted.
Let’s take these bits of data — in 2002, NHTSA estimated that 12% of drivers are using a phone at any given time. Meanwhile, in that same year, a bit fewer than 2% of fatalities involved phone users.
That sounds terrible, of course. But crunch the numbers, and it becomes clear that those who aren’t using phones at the time that they crash — 88% of drivers — are involved in more than 98% of the crashes.
In other words, the non-phone users crash at higher rates than those who are using their phones. Those who aren’t on the phone crash at a rate six times higher than do those who are yakking away.
The University of Utah has performed a “naturalistic” study to observe how drivers in the real world behave with phones versus without them. And as it turns out:
when drivers conversed on the cell phone, they made fewer lane changes, had a lower overall mean speed, and a significant increase in travel time in the medium and high density driving conditions. Drivers on the cell phone were also much more likely to remain behind a slower moving lead vehicle than drivers in single-task condition.
Drivers drive differently on the phone. From a public safety standpoint, they actually drive in ways that are better for safety, precisely because the phone distracts them from doing things that they would otherwise be inclined to do such as speeding, weaving and tailgating.
The simulator studies miss this by their very nature. In their attempts to create a control, they miss the fact that in the real world, phone usage impacts many driver choices, not just one.
Data needs to be used appropriately. It is erroneous to presume that a driver who isn’t distracted is a safer driver. Again, breaking down the crash data would indicate that a distracted driver may actually be preferable to one who is focused, as the focused driver is more aggressive and is therefore more prone to crashing.
Aside from the data and studies, drivers distracted by cell phones are an OBVIOUS problem. In my daily driving I follow cars that are weaving while the driver is obviously texting, see drivers stay stopped at a light that has turned green because they are focused on their phone, and have even been rear ended twice by young female drivers who were watching their phone.
Anecdotal, sure, but enough anecdotal evidence makes it hard to ignore the obvious.
Yes, but I think people are willfully missing a big point….traffic fatalities may well be going down in number regardless of ‘phone use BUT….how do you prove that they might not reduce EVEN MORE if there were NO phone use?
how do you prove that they might not reduce EVEN MORE if there were NO phone use?
I already did. Those who are using their phones crash at lower rates than do those who don’t.
Lower is better. I know that you don’t want to believe it, but reality has an unpleasant way of contradicting belief.
Apples to oranges. There are FAR more people who don’t use a phone while driving than those who do.
There are FAR more people who don’t use a phone while driving than those who do.
Shouldn’t someone who believes himself to be as clever as you’d like to think you are know what a “rate” is?
Yeah. Like the rate of Toyota’s R&D expenditure vis-a-vis Ford’s.
That’s just what you’re good at. Studying charts and data. Keep at it.
@pch, +100!
That was one of the most clear explanations of the studies I have read. And also an excellent description of how the stats can be misinterpreted or twisted by those with an agenda.
People still use Blackberry these days? I ditched mine 2 years ago and never looked back.
Obama does.
……..common sense dictates that roads without blackberries would be somewhat safer than what we have, nobody seriously believes that no trauma has ever been caused. Road safety statistics have been improving for decades, and may or may not be masking the extent of the distracted driver problem. A definitive analysis is technologically feasible, but would require already overstretched law enforcement personnel (cops who have better things to do) to cross-reference “black box” data with drivers’ cell providers’ billing records in every incident…… that’s unlikely to happen soon….. for practical reasons, and privacy issues, often debated on this site.
As for me, guilty as charged….near misses, yep…..that’s why I’m trying to kick the habit.
…….the unnamed Emirates official, who blasphemously chastised readers about 8-eyed spiders, needs a lesson in ictha, er, arichnath, er,…..bugs! ….however, his point (women don’t get points there) is well taken.
Always have been and always will be for some type of a car/phone interlock. If your phone is turned on your car wont start
nice idea, but with the frequency that my phone doesnt work right, I would hate to be stranded because of some stupid software screwup.
One time I tried that “Drivesafe.ly” app, what a nightmare. It would randomly determine I was driving, and therefore activated itself. Then it would just start reading random text messages out loud, usually at the wrong times, like in meetings, or when I was making other phone calls. One time I was on the phone with a client and drivesafe.ly decided to start reading aloud a very personal and NSFW text message from about a month earlier… which the client could hear! Its funny now but at the time it was embarrassing, and I removed the app after that one!
Lucky you people your only concern are texting drivers. In my country it’s cheap motorcycles and scooters from China that the dumb masses here can now afford. They weave in and out of traffic without regard for anyone. Even the toddlers and babies and wives i.e. entire families, they carry with them. Most don’t have helmets on.
Um, yeah. Probably around the same time I made the above comment my friend’s brother got into a motorcycle accident and got hit by a dump truck in the next town. I’ve yet to ask the details or who’s at fault but it was fatal.