Distracted Cellphone drivers

[tzrider]

I used "distracted" in a thread about cell phone use, which would suggest I think it's the same thing. While I know it isn't, I think there are a lot of cell phones hiding in "details unknown."

 

[bojangle]

The problem with tallying cell phone related crashes is that it usually relies on the honesty of the driver. I ask, they say no, and it's not indicated in the report. That doesn't make them any less "at fault", but I'd say it's pretty well underreported.

This is compared to DUI cases where arrests don't rely on the honesty of the driver.

 

[tzrider]

In theory, proving cell phone use might not require the driver’s honesty either, but it may not be as practical to do as a sobriety test.

 

[EastBayDave]

I am saying, this is what I have observed over the 40+ years I have been riding on the street and car drivers not paying attention hasn't changed much at all.

They don't see us, they drift all over the road, etc.

This is the way it is.

Getting wound up about it is, in my view, as useful as getting wound up about finding mail in the mailbox when you get home every day.

Getting wound up about it just hurts you.

Expect they don't see us and will drift all over the place, plan to evade them and ride past them, using your evading plan, if necessary.

and live a much better, calmer, more enjoyable life.

Exactly, hasn't changed much except more folks on the phone when driving than there used to be...

The other thing is manners; where have they gone?

Back in the day, when I would buy something at the store, typically the teller would say "thank you." I would reply thank you....& off I'd go.

Nowadays people behind the register say "no problem!" Wha? It was almost a problem waiting on me? Where's the thank you?

I don't get it...???

 

[Maddevill]

Can't agree with this. If you're fiddling with your phone and recognize a problem ahead, you can put it down and deal with it. You can't become unintoxicated.

I got plowed into by a Ford F550 with a guy on his cell phone. He didn't deal with anything, including hitting his brakes.

Mad

 

[Whammy]

Today though, I went out for an hour at a popular busy intersection and I wrote 6 cell phone tickets. Im sure I missed many of the people using their cell phone. Im also sure there were many motorists that saw these people using a cell phone and wondered "why aren't the police ever around when we need them". In every city there are tickets being issued, but again almost every city is very understaffed. Ride safe, be aware, and do you're best to make it home safe.

God Bless you! stay safe!

 

[TheRiddler]

The problem with tallying cell phone related crashes is that it usually relies on the honesty of the driver. I ask, they say no, and it's not indicated in the report. That doesn't make them any less "at fault", but I'd say it's pretty well underreported.

This is compared to DUI cases where arrests don't rely on the honesty of the driver.

This is extremely accurate. We have a checkbox on the form for if a cellphone was in use, and how (handsfree or otherwise). Exactly 0% of people I've asked have told me they were using their cellphone, even when the other driver says they saw them on their phone. Even if them not being on their phone is likely a lie, I have to check the box that they weren't on their phone based on their statement.

The same is true in hit and run collisions; there is no option for "cellphone use unknown."

Once in less than a blue moon, I'll ask them what happened and they'll say they looked down at their phone. I suspect the recorded data is way off.

 

[Junkie]

is the no option for cellphone use unknown a new thing? looking at the CHP report from when I was hit and run'd on the bay bridge 3 years ago I see "cell phone unknown" checked for the guy who hit me

(I was also listed as vehicle/party 1, when I thought normally that was the at fault party, but the report put him at fault)

 

[DataDan]

The problem with statistics attributing X% of crashes to cellphone use is that there is no data to support it.

The LE estimates are much too low because they have no way to reliably determine whether a phone was in use.

Estimates from laboratory experiments are much too high. "Drive around this obstacle course while carrying on a texting conversation." Count cones hit, compare to non-texting runs. QED: Texting causes crashes. It proves no such thing, because that's not how people use cellphones in the real world.

The one experiment that was probably accurate is the Virginia Tech "100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study". Extensively instrumented cars were driven for a year by normal people in their normal routine. Vehicle dynamics and radar data identified crashes and near-crashes. Interior video identified all kinds of inattention--not just cell phone use but eating, drinking, reading, grooming, etc.

The key result reported was "population attributable risk," that is, the estimated percentage of crashes that result from various kinds of inattention. Cellphone use came it at 7%, evenly divided between dialing and yakking. Dialing risk was much higher than talking but was also much less frequent, so it contributed no more to the crash count. The absolute worst kind of inattention was drowsiness at more than 20% of crashes.

The downside of the 100-Car study for current purposes is that it was done more than 10 years ago, when smartphone functionality was in its infancy.

 

[DataDan]

is the no option for cellphone use unknown a new thing? looking at the CHP report from when I was hit and run'd on the bay bridge 3 years ago I see "cell phone unknown" checked for the guy who hit me

(I was also listed as vehicle/party 1, when I thought normally that was the at fault party, but the report put him at fault)

I don't think that's a hard and fast rule. In 2017 crashes on SWITRS, driver #1 was reported to be at fault 94% of the time. So it may be an initial assessment subject to revision when the investigation is complete.

 

[lam@barf]

Helmet cams and air horns. Scares the crap out of them when they realize they can't lie about what they were actually doing.

.

 

[David919]

The absolute worst kind of inattention was drowsiness at more than 20% of crashes.

I seem to remember hearing on KCBS recently, the spring forward fall back time change contributes up to 300 additional roadway deaths a year.

 

[Junkie]

I don't think that's a hard and fast rule. In 2017 crashes on SWITRS, driver #1 was reported to be at fault 94% of the time. So it may be an initial assessment subject to revision when the investigation is complete.

I don't believe there was ever any question as to who was at fault (lawyer stuff happened because he denied he was driving, but his insurance company didn't deny that his car was the at fault vehicle AFAIK)

I may have been party 1 because they knew my info immediately, while he didn't stop.

 

[mototireguy]

If I were judge, jury and executioner.

Anyone convicted of a distracted driving cell phone use violation should be ordered by the court to buy a cell phone cradle and attend a 2 hour class on how to use it.

 

[tuxumino]

identify and avoid, they usually give obvious clues to being on the cell phone: large gap between them and the car in front, poor lane discipline, in consistent speed and the tell tale glow of the phone in a dark car.

Thanks to the LEOs tryin to keep us safe out there

 

[moto-rama]

One of the main reasons I do not lane split. Plus, I'm never in that much of a hurry to put myself in that sort of jeopardy.

Dan

It has nothing to do with Ukiah's lack of traffic, and that you ride a 700lb bike named "Big Mama"...

 

[gixxerjeff]

It has nothing to do with Ukiah's lack of traffic, and that you ride a 700lb bike named "Big Mama"...

 

[LakeMerrit]

One of the main reasons I do not lane split. Plus, I'm never in that much of a hurry to put myself in that sort of jeopardy.

Dan

This is one of the main reasons I DO lane split. I'd rather keep my legs than lose them to a distracted driver rear-ender. I feel like most of the cell phone related accidents I pass are people not paying attention to the slowing/stopped traffic in front of them. Keep me out of that fucked up sandwich thank you very much.

 

[tzrider]

+1. Having been rear ended twice in my car by people playing with their phones, I'm a lot better off splitting.

 

[moto-rama]

This is one of the main reasons I DO lane split. I'd rather keep my legs than lose them to a distracted driver rear-ender. I feel like most of the cell phone related accidents I pass are people not paying attention to the slowing/stopped traffic in front of them. Keep me out of that fucked up sandwich thank you very much.

Exactly.

If I am in heavy traffic, any any speed, I make an effort to maintain a margin of space between me and any traffic around me, especially those on my 6. Tapping the brake light, and doing things that make it easier for drivers to see me helps, too.

That's the best benefit of lane-sharing, you have some control over what's directly in front of you and behind. When you are occupying the center part of a lane by yourself, you have only the lanes on either side as a margin, and only when they are unoccupied.

Lately I have been riding to and from SF from SJ at around 900-1000 AM on 280, and I have to admit it's totally Combat Driving School in both directions these days.
Cars are Much Faster, quieter and insulating, these days, with lots of distractions built-in to them. Blue tooth this and that, buttons, sliders, switches and all manner of weird shit. In the Olden Days, back when Moby Dick was a minnow, cars were slow, loud, windy, and were constantly reminding them of how fast they were traveling, on roads that had a 55 MPH speed limit.

Now, 280 has a "limit" of 186,000 miles per second, and no one has a clue how to actually drive the car they are sitting in. On top of that, have you ever Seen the people who are getting driver licenses? I was at DMV last week with my wife, and watched as people waited to take their "driving test".

Not very reassuring!