Right, sorry, keeping right is codified. Tailgating, on the other hand, is iilegal…but realistically, pretty much everyone in the left (passing) laneis conditioned to get the hell out of the way when you see a car coming up really fast in your rearview mirror. That is definitely different from US highways, where the left lane may also only be for passing, but a lot of people are content to just park their asses there at exactly the speed limit and not feel bad about it.
That’s funny, I just took a drivers ed refresher (a requirement for parents whose kids get permits here in Massachusetts), and the instructor, a cop, said that he simply always put his cup in the same place so that he never had to look down for it.
After reading this thread, I feel like I need to check and see if I didn’t inadvertently add a bunch of people to my ignore list? Because it seems to me almost like Bullitt is having a conversation that is incongruous with the conversation that everyone else is having. Are there people in the thread actually saying that it’s okay to take their eyes off the road…
… And I just can’t see those posts? Like, not to get off on a tangent, but this whole thing reminds me of what bothers me most about #AllLivesMatter: was I transported to a universe where saying ‘texting while driving is bad’ has become semantically equivalent to saying that doing all those other things while driving isn’t bad? Because I didn’t realize that this was an either/or proposition; I didn’t realize that you had to pit every single fucked up thing that you can do while driving, or else it’s the same thing as condoning those things.
Seriously, where are the posts in this thread saying that it’s okay to eat/look at a map/play X-box/whatever the fuck while driving, and only texting is bad?
A lot of people saying that texting is super dangerous and causes a lot of accidents, but not a single citation to back it up. I have yet to see a study that takes into account the number of texts actually sent while driving and compared that to the actual number of accidents they claim was caused by texting.
Everything I’ve seen simply shows a high number of accidents that occurred while one of the drivers was sending or receiving a text. Considering how ubiquitous text messaging is, I don’t feel that any of these studies actually show a cause and effect relationship. If Americans spend x% of their day sending and receiving texts, and y% of their day driving a vehicle, and z% of their time driving is spent sending and receiving texts… I would expect a high number of accidents, n, where the driver was engaged in texting. But correlation doesn’t equal causation. Where are the studies that factor in the number of accidents which happen when the driver was not engaged in texting, or the number of texts sent that did not involve an accident. If the percentage of accidents “caused” by text messaging is no bigger than the percentage of texting that do not end in accidents, I don’t think there can be any claim about the actual danger of texting. It all seems to be a lot of, “Of course it’s dangerous!! How can it not be dangerous!?” and “I do it all the time. It’s not really a big deal. It’s no worse than fumbling with radio or trying to adjust the thermostat or fuck with the GPS.”
Where is the evidence?
I think the issue is that, of all the things you mention, only texting has become the hot button item, and laws seem to be only focused on texting–not distracted driving as a whole. Texting may have become the pit bull of the driving world. It’s getting all the bad hype, when there are other factors at play and other equally dangerous activities people do while driving that don’t even raise an eyebrow. Yet, it’s texting that gets all the rage and scorn from society.
Allow me to ask Mr. Google for you .
Texting While Driving Causes:
1. 1,600,000 accidents per year – National Safety Council
2. 330,000 injuries per year – Harvard Center for Risk Analysis Study
3. 11 teen deaths EVERY DAY – Ins. Institute for Hwy Safety Fatality Facts
4. Nearly 25% of ALL car accidents.
Nah, Bullitt is right. The precious reactions to his incredibly benign statement are absolutely absurd.
So this is about equivocation, then? “Society” isn’t raising enough of a stink about other forms of distracted driving besides texting, therefore “society” condones all forms of distracted driving except texting? Is that where we’re going with this? Other forms of distracted driving aren’t getting their “equal time”?
First of all, your numbers do not address the issue. What percentage of texting did NOT result in an accident? Second of all, your obviously biased cite is inflating their stats somewhere. According to the CDC (unbiased), 6 teens died everyday in 2013 due to vehicle accidents. That is only six per day, and is not limited to just accidents involving text messaging. So how can the truth be that 11 are dying every day because of texting while driving?
People text all the time. It does not surprise me that some activity which people are constantly engaged in would be occurring near the same time as their car accident, or anything else for that matter. This correlation does not prove that texting is causing these accidents, or that it is causing accidents at a higher rate than anything else a person does.
This should be very easy to prove. Simply compare this to the percentage of time drivers spend engaged in text messaging without getting into an accident.
I am not arguing for or against the claim that texting is dangerous. I’m just saying that I have never seen anything that actually proves it in any meaningful way.
Caveat emptor*, I didn’t check to see if this guy is legit, but if what he says is true, that’s friggin scary:
Tell me how in the universe that matters when has been shown to cause that degree of harm?
Are 11 teen deaths per day in any way lessened if the texting driver represents 50% or 2% or .0001% of those driving while texting?
What about 1,600,000 accidents per year? Does it matter if 1% or 10% of those texting are responsible for that? I assume you have insurance, - so guess who’s really paying for this?
The simple fact it might be me or my family who is an innocent victim of some moron texting while driving. I don’t need to know how many times someone gets away with it before causing another accident.
ETA. I’m willing to bet you never text while driving.
“Society”? You asked why Bullitt would bring up those other things in this thread. I said why I think he mentioned those things. Would Bullit have received the same outrage if he/she admitted to entering a destination into the GPS while driving? Why is that? What is it about using a cell phone in the car that sends people into a rage?
Personally, I would just like to see a study which doesn’t simply show a correlation and actually puts some effort into showing cause. Most Dopers here would not tolerate that kind of nonsense on any other issue, but for some reason it’s okay here. I don’t get it.
People drive all the time. It takes up a large portion of a person’s day. People also text all the time. The part of the Venn diagram where these two things happen at the same time is going to be huge when we consider the tens of millions of people on the road. It’s going to be even high when we consider how often teens are texting (constantly). Is it any surprise to anyone that there would be a large number of accidents in which one of the drivers was texting? If someone is texting 40% of their day, to include the 20% of the day they spend driving… eventually that person is going to get in an accident and there is a high chance that person would be texting when it happens. Does this prove causation?
SOME ONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! That’s your argument, then?
I don’t know. Do you? Is there a counterfactual that I’m not aware of?
Do you not understand the difference between correlation and causation? Just because some percent of accidents involve texting does not mean those accidents were caused be texting. People get in car accidents all of the time. People text all of the time. Is it fair to find the times where those two things intersect and label it a “cause” with making any effort to account for this?
I don’t think its good form to do this, especially when we’re talking about passing laws. I think that the burden of proof should be a little bit higher to start passing laws which restrict people from doing something.
Do I believe he would have received the same outrage if he/she admitted to entering a destination into the GPS while driving? Is that what you’re asking me? No, I don’t think he would have.
Yes, that is what I’m asking you. Is there a counterfactual on the Dope which corroborates your belief?
This discussion has inspired me to start a thread of my own. I hope that’s not a problem?
This is kind of what I am getting at. There really is “surprisingly little research” investigating this topic–it just seems to be accepted as fact. He mentions a single major study, and I would LOVE to see that. Does anyone have any clue as to the one he is referring to? I especially would like to see how the likely hood of each was determined. Four times for just talking? 10 times for BAC over .08? I wonder how they determined a baseline to serve as the control, and how they determined whether someone was simply “talking”. Was this from a survey of some time? Police reports? I am legitimately curious.
meh … I was safe texting while driving at the times I texted and drove … it’s a skill to be learned and I learned quickly. I’m fine with it being illegal, pulling over to text does improve the texting. I did find bidding on eBay while driving to be problematic, especially the last thirty seconds of an auction.
Texting while walking is dangerous, let’s see a show of hands on who’s had to wait at a green light because someone is walking through the intersection texting away?