April 21, 2006
CAR ENGINES OUGHT TO BE RIGGED TO SEND A SHOCK THROUGH THE RECEIVER:
Distractions to blame in 8 of 10 car accidents (MONIFA THOMAS, 4/21/06, Chicago Sun-Times)
[E]ight out of 10 car accidents involve drivers who are distracted in some way, according to a study released Thursday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.More than 200 drivers were videotaped for thousands of hours behind the wheel during the four-year study.
The resulting data showed that, in nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes, someone or something distracted the driver at least three seconds before. [...]
Researchers found that reaching for a moving object in the car made a crash or near-crash 9 times more likely, while reading, applying makeup and dialing a hand-held device, such as a cell phone, all tripled the risk.
One of the real eye-openers of a long weekend trip by car was the sheer number of m[or]ongoloids chatting away on car phones as they drive. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 21, 2006 9:13 AM
I would estimate that probably 40% of the drivers I see are on the phone. Doesn't matter where - in the country, around the neighborhood, or on the interstates. And especially downtown.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 21, 2006 9:30 AMThese same mongoloids are walking, eating, and - yes - even urinating while talking on these devices. It's not a car thing. It's an "I'm so important" thing.
Posted by: obc at April 21, 2006 9:52 AMSpeaking of which, a buddy of mine drove cross country by himself in the late 80s and figured out that with a funnel, some tubing, and the drainage holes in the floorboard of his Suzuki Samurai there was really no reason to stop for bathroom breaks....
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2006 9:56 AMWhy go to the trouble? Recycle those empty wide mouthed iced tea bottles (less chance of spillage), cap and eject. (And while I've thought of doing this, never did. When I've driven long distance alone, those breaks were more to get off my numb butt for a few moments than to empty myself.)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at April 21, 2006 10:20 AM"mongoloids":
Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation, straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. ... Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
also mongoloid Offensive. Of or relating to Down syndrome.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?sm1=Im1vbmdvbG9pZHMiIA==&fw=0&fc=6&ss=-1&es=-1&gwp=11&ver=1.1.2.381&method=1
You're not pc, but I hope you're not offensive either. Similar to the "N" word, it is racist to use the "M" word as a disparaging remark.
Posted by: ic at April 21, 2006 11:10 AMI'm much more concerned about the guy yelling at his kids in the backseat or searching for that MP3 he wants to play than I am about someone talking on the phone.
Posted by: sharon at April 21, 2006 11:11 AMSheer number chatting away? This is new to you?
You really need to get out more.
On a recent family vacation, I was stunned to see that nearly every single new-looking truck, minivan, SUV--anything larger than a sedan, basically--had a DVD player inside. Bizarre.
Posted by: b at April 21, 2006 11:54 AMKids really like 'em, and if it keeps the kids quiet, then parents like 'em too.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 21, 2006 12:12 PMBut it is weird driving down a highway at night behind an SUV and you suddenly find yourself distracted by watching "Finding Nemo" on two small screens behind the rear window in front of you.
(I have enough distracting driving in unoccupied West Texas on the cellphone, let alone trying to do that in urban traffic. So I usually avoid making any calls while in the vehicle, though my safety instincts aren't strong enough to actually turn the phone off to avoid receiving any incoming calls while I'm at the wheel.)
Posted by: John at April 21, 2006 12:28 PM
IC is obviously not a Devo fan.
OJ and all,
Sharon had it right. Talking on a phone is no more distracting than talking to a passenger. (there is study on this)
The distractions that cause accidents are most likely dialing the cell phone, scrolling through the numbers, or such other types of things that require you to look away from the road.
If every phone had automatic voice dialing, many of these accidents would be avoided.
For those who really CAN'T talk and drive at the same time, one hopes they take themselves out of the gene pool. (but alas, they might take me while they are at it.)
Posted by: Bruno at April 21, 2006 1:36 PMHave overall accidents gone up since cell phones became popular?
Posted by: Bob at April 21, 2006 2:00 PMYou can't legislate against conversations with passengers--you can easily ban phones.
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2006 2:09 PMI'll bet there have been serious accidents when drivers have tried to change CDs or DVDs. They are bigger than cassettes and probably get dropped a lot more. Plus, in many vehicles, the DVD player is not right on the dash.
Phones are a problem, but trying to manipulate music, especially at night, can be a bigger problem.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 21, 2006 2:46 PMTry changing the CD on one of those in-the-trunk jobbies while you're driving. Man, that's a nightmare!
Posted by: Bryan at April 21, 2006 3:05 PMThat's why you keep someone in the trunk.
Posted by: oj at April 21, 2006 3:11 PM"[E]ight out of 10 car accidents"
Aren't drivers distracted 80% of the time?
John, your description of driving behind a van with two tiny screens showing "Finding Nemo" is hilarious. I can't get the image out of my mind.
Posted by: erp at April 22, 2006 6:05 PM