- "Safety experts say" that it's true. The experts are not named or quoted. No evidence or reasoning is given to support the claim.
- Highway fatalities are up this year. However, they're still significantly down from 2007, when the iPhone was first introduced. Mobile has been booming for almost a decade - if we should "blame apps", why hasn't it been a concern before now?
- One driver who caused a fatal accident was using Snapchat shortly before the crash. This driver was also going at 115 mph. It goes without saying, therefore, that Snapchat is to blame, not speeding or general recklessness.
- "Insurance companies are convinced", according to one Robert Gordon. Gordon is actually named and quoted. However, the quote again doesn't provide evidence or reasoning.
Maybe it is actually true. I don't know. However, the evidence given is nowhere near strong enough to be convincing. There's also the issue that newspapers are direct competitors with the apps they're railing against (for ad dollars), and have been losing badly: http://charman-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/newsp....
I'm not sure if I've become more cognizant of bad journalism over time or simply hold journalism to a higher standard with the rise of publicly available data sets which could be used for real insight into questions like this. Whichever one, I am infrequently satisfied with the level of evidence that supports an article's conclusion. I would love to see a truly data-driven news publication that made quantifying uncertainty a priority over creating a digestible narrative for people who'd rather the author does the thinking for them.
Well said, and I share this intuition and desire 100%. I’ve been working on building a platform for data-driven journalism at https://numer.al -- It’s a prototype that turns public APIs into live D3 charts. (Working on embedding those into articles so that they stay up to date, link back to show their provenance, etc.) I think there’s a lot that can be done to bring journalism into the 21st century. If you’re interested in the things we’re working on, feel free to drop me a line: brian@numer.al.
This is pretty neat! My only complaint is that you haven't labelled the axes. You can estimate the Y-axis pretty well based on the listed number, but the X-axis is a mystery until you click the graph. Even two date labels at either end would be welcome.
I'm not sure if their understanding of data or statistics has decreased, but the level of journalism has definitely taken a nosedive. A friend of mine in journalism school says they are taught that accuracy isn't as important as being first or having a clickbait thanks to social media
>I'm not sure if their understanding of data or statistics has decreased, but the level of journalism has definitely taken a nosedive.
Not really surprising. The number of professional journalists is shrinking yet those that remain are expected to produce the same volume of output as was possible with a much larger staff.
Unfortunately, news today isn't meant to be as accurate as it is meant to be popular. Sure, accuracy will provide stability in the long term. But for immediate popularity, appealing titles are what creates viewers, which is revenue in terms of ads.
It's the sad reality of click bait, and it's hard to place blame. Is it the ad network? The"news" outlet? The viewers?
Maybe it's all three, but what I do know is that there is a problem with news on the web.
"One driver who caused a fatal accident was using Snapchat shortly before the crash. This driver was also going at 115 mph. It goes without saying, therefore, that Snapchat is to blame, not speeding or general recklessness."
The Snapchat was taken by the passenger. They were even hinting at racing being a factor. It seems like a bad example all around. I am sure apps contribute to some road fatalities but this was clearly a case of a driver crashing because they were going 115 miles a fucking hour on a populated road.
I see so many people looking down now at their phones while driving. I'm not sure why it's acceptable now, but it's commonplace. I counted at least 10 drivers on my 12 minute commute yesterday. The scariest one was someone coming in the opposite direction who didn't look up in the 5 seconds I was driving past him. It would have been easy for him to drift into a head on collision.
Oh god... here I go... as a motorcyclist (sorry) this is something that is utterly frightening.
I'm out there on the road doing my fu-cking damndest to make sure that I'm driving defensively and predictably, kind of just trying to ensure that I see my wife and twi girls that evening.
I'm at standing height next to your window, so I can see right in there while you text and check Facebook whilst piloting a 2 ton machine at upwards of 100kph.
The mind boggles at just how common this is, I'd say one in three on some days. At highway speeds.
I'm not a motorcyclist, but there's no way I'd do it now. People pay so little attention to what they do. And people get in their cars and they think they're the only ones in existence (except who they're texting); not courtesy at all.
Not OP. In my state, it is illegal, but we're pansies, and so a cop can't stop you for it - they can only cite you if they pull you over for something else.
Hand-held Cell Phone Use Ban: 14 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from using hand-held cell phones while driving.
All Cell Phone ban: No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but 37 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice or teen drivers, and 20 states and D.C. prohibit any cell phone use for school bus drivers.
Text Messaging ban: 46 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands ban text messaging for all drivers.
-2 states prohibit text messaging by novice or teen drivers.
-3 states restrict school bus drivers from texting.
If caught you you can be stopped and your phone impounded for one week and released only upon payment of a fine.
There was a news report recently indicating that only a very small percentage of these phones are ever recovered from the police which ties in with the stereotype for this kind of behaviour: Porsche SUV, Chanel sunglasses, ten spare phones at home.
Yes, some cell phone use/distracted driving is allowed for adults in most states[0], but most states do not allow 'young drivers' to use a cell phone at all[1]; and texting is specifically banned or partially banned for all drivers in all but two states (Montana and Arizona)[2].
Oh man, that feeling when you're stopped at a traffic light or an accident causes a sudden slowdown, and in your rearview mirror the car behind you is coming in way too fast but the driver isn't even looking because there's something on his or her lap that's more important. Or the people who think they have a heads-up display because they're holding the phone at the top of the steering wheel while typing on it. The thing that makes it extra scary is that you really can't do a dang thing about it once you're on the road next to these people. Like in the sudden-stop scenario, I try to leave a bit of extra space in front of me and have sometimes needed to use it to give extra stopping space to the texter behind me, but sometimes you're really packed in and all you can do is cross your fingers that the person will finish the message and look up in time.
I'll check my messages at a traffic light, or flick to the next song whilst driving. I don't see any particular danger in these things (apart from possibly angering the poor bugger behind me if I'm slow to notice the lights change). Much like ye olden days of changing a cassette or tuning the radio - there are times and place to pay less attention. People just need to be sensible.
Do that in the UK in front of a police officer, and expect several points on your licence and a fine.
You're only allowed to use a distracting device in similar circumstances as you are allowed to be drunk. Arguing with an officer that you are parked by the side of the road is not sufficient if for example you have the engine on. In some circumstances just sitting in the driver's seat while in possession of the keys and drunk is enough for a conviction.
The idea that using my iPod to play music results in a completely different response to using my iPhone despite the mechanism being functionally identical is laughable. I don't need to look at the screen to queue up the next song on shuffle, it's also no different from hitting next on the cd player...
I also use google maps on my phone as a sat nav (audio only is plenty effective to get me places). Again, this is somehow dangerous and illegal to be using but the same behaviour with an actual sat nav, which in my experience is far more labourious to set a destination on, is fine.
I am, of course, aware of the law (I'm in the UK). However in this case the law is an ass. "Driving without due care and attention" properly covers every eventuality.
I wonder if this law will sit around ad infinitum whilst we ignore the ever more complicated computers sat on the centre console just as (if not more) distracting than a phone...
It is just as illegal to drive distracted by a satnav as it is to drive distracted by an iphone in the UK. If you're holding it in your hand or looking away from the road to use it, then it is illegal.
Even if you aren't holding it in your hand of looking away from the road, but are significantly distracted, you can be prosecuted under the "Driving without due care attention" law as you state.
> It is just as illegal to drive distracted by a satnav as it is to drive distracted by an iphone in the UK.
Correct. However it is illegal to use a phone without being distracted dangerously, whilst using a satnav without being distracted dangerously is perfectly safe.
The Driving without due care and attention is a perfect catch all for dealing with bad driving behaviour. You can be done for eating crisps as easily as using a sat nav. The specific "using a mobile phone whilst behind the wheel of a car is 6 points on your license + a fine" is completely disproportionate in terms of what behaviours it implicitly approves (such as using sat nav safely whilst not moving) and the burden of proof (requiring the user to be "unsafe").
The reality is that policemen (of whom there are simply not enough) have discretion and a bit of common sense most of the time and use the tools at their disposal to punish people for driving badly whilst using their phone. This is good. I fundamentally disagree with singling out unsafe mobile phone use in law, however.
As an American who recently did some driving around the UK: things are different there! The level of attention needed to drive safely in the UK is off the charts compared to the US with all the twisty, narrow roads, one-lane bridges, and limited visibility. I knew that shit was about to get real when I saw my first "Oncoming Traffic in Middle of Road" sign. Touching my phone while driving never entered my mind—that was all outsourced to my wife in the passenger seat.
I drive but rarely, and finally had a chance last month to use my phone's voice-prompted turn-by-turn navigation mode. It was great! Like any human navigator I've ever worked with, except never hesitant or uncertain and always on the ball with the next turn well in advance of reaching it.
I really have no idea why anyone would want to navigate by looking at a moving map display. If you know where you're going, you're far better off to keep your eyes on the road and use the voice prompts to get there. If you don't know where you're going - well, that's a bigger problem, and one that no navigation system will solve.
When traversing an intersection with odd angles often the voice prompt will say something like "slight right" for the road I think of as straight ahead, or vice versa. A glance at the map clears these up.
Mine did that a couple of times even in the short route on which I tried it out. I didn't have trouble understanding what was meant, because the configuration of the intersections made only one interpretation sensible. I can see how that might not be true in all cases, but I'm not sure the occasional disambiguation is worth the distraction of a visible moving map display.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people doing it are never spotted by police officers. I walk to work most days, and I can't remember the last time I didn't see at least one person (usually it's at least half a dozen on a 30 minute walk) texting while driving.
This morning, as I dropped my daughter off at school, some woman pulled off from the side of the road and drove about 30 yards before bothering to look up to see if there were any kids crossing.
Do anything in a car in the UK and you can expect several points on your licence. They don't even have to be in front of you any more: they just record it on a camera
Family killed by a truck driver doing exactly this, including dashcam footage showing how quickly this happens if you are distracted for even a tiny amount of time. Very scary.
Timing at high speed has a lot to do with it, and lots of things can distract drivers from the road but the margin of error is slim here and so it seems very reasonable to legislate against this.
How many days in a row do I need to see this anecdotal evidence for it to be valid? At this point I'm up to probably a year solid of seeing folks fiddle with their phone instead of watching where they drive on my twelve minute commute.
How is it possible you haven't noted that these devices affect a subset of population in a manner that can be fairly described as 'mesmerized'?
"going 115 mph" on Snapchat. Isn't the mere fact that someone would feel compelled to chat at 115 mph enough? I remember my younger days when I edged closed to that number going from NYC to Troy on 95 and even adjusting the tune or lighting a cig was a very deliberate operation.
If you are texting at that speed, some part of your rational mind has been short circuited.
Interesting reaction to the quote from Robert Gordon of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. PCI is an umbrella lobby for insurers; their website says they represent writers of 42% of automobile policies in the U.S. Since insurers are in the business of understanding and quantifying the risks they insure against, I'm willing to assume that he and PCI are knowledgeable about this issue.
Also, just look at that graph they posted (can't be linked to because the labels are not included in the png file). Biggest spike in 50 years? More like a minor blip in a steady downwards trend.
There were 1.25 million estimated road fatalities worldwide in 2015, so a 1% blip would amount to 12.5 thousand. So yes this blip represents very real entirely avoidable deaths, as the offset of the traditional downward trend suggests.
Who said anything about worldwide fatalities? Apples and oranges.
"Entirely avoidable" is a strange term in this context. All 1.25 million deaths were technically avoidable, but not without causing significantly worse harm, suffering, and death instead.
We don't actually know what caused the increase, right now we're just speculating.
Now, the NHTSA puts a $6.0 million price tag on the economic value of preventing a US traffic fatality, and based on that figure we prevent as much as we can.
Yes but... evidence like this is hard to acquire - the most you can get is convincing circumstantial evidence (if the phone survives get accelerometer and activity use from it. That sounds like a worthwhile branch of forensics)
And even if we do it's hard to go from circumstantial to causal
But as a driver, I can (un)happily attest that I am distracted from the road if trying to do anything non trivial with my podcast app (the only thing I will let myself use)
Having physical on steering wheel buttons will reduce this but not end it.
Perhaps we just ban radios, phones etc as a precaution.
(Ok actually we can do an experiment - force 50% of drivers to never use a phone or similar and 50% donwhat they like. See who's dead after six months)
There have been quite a few simulator studies that have shown significantly worse driving for cell phone users. Granted it's a jump from that to the real world. I remember one from a while back that showed that cell phone users were as bad as drunk drivers with a relatively low intoxication but they were bad in different ways (distraction vs. aggression).
I'm sure there must be similar studies in real world settings or at least fenced of tracks or something (I only remember because I researched 3d simulation and these studies showed up).
Figuring out the cause of an accident post accident in a methodically clean (and legal) way is probably non-trivial though. I don't think it's horrible to hypothesize that more accidents could be related to some recent tech trend. I'd say texting would be a good variable conduct some research on (as opposed to cell phone calls etc.). Obviously the author went beyond formulating a hypothesis though.
> Granted it's a jump from that to the real world.
Not that much of a jump though.
I wonder how much more evidence is needed for people to accept that having an active smartphone within range of your eyes and ears while driving is a major risk factor? You don't even have to use the thing; just knowing that notifications can show up any time now is enough to distract our primate brain. We've evolved to be able to detect and act on minute movements spotted in the corners of our eyes on the grassy plains, because it might just be a tiger lurking there. It's a (very effective, if you are a hunter-gatherer on a steppe) survival mechanism.
By now there are plenty of studies performed in driving simulators that proof that smartphones distract you significantly. Of course hard empiric real world data is hard to get by, because people involved in a crash will tend to deny or downplay the use or presence of a smartphone, so data from real world accidents is of limited use. What we do have is a lot of anecdotal real world observations by participants and traffic experts, where people conclude that a smartphone did indeed distract them to the point of (near) accidents, or where police officers on highway patrol can pick out someone texting based purely on the swerving of their vehicle (which they then confirm when the overtake them). But the point is that real world data cannot be ethically obtained in a controlled scientific manner for this topic — you can't let one group drive using their smartphone and another not.
Even here on HN it seems like a lot of people are downplaying the risk of smartphones in traffic, despite ample evidence pointing to just that conclusion. Is this one of those inconvenient truths?
If we're talking about the same studies, then they also found that it was equally distracting to be talking to a passenger. God knows how dangerous it must be to go on a family outing.
In short, I'm skeptical about what those results really tell us.
Having said that, I have some sympathy with the article. I fundamentally don't like touch screens in cars (it stops me from considering a Tesla). They require all of your attention when you're using them and this is a bad thing imo.
Everything I've ever read indicated talking with a passenger was distracting but not as distracting as a cell phone. And cell phones are still distracting even of they are hands free. The most distracting activity is math problems.
> One driver who caused a fatal accident was using Snapchat shortly before the crash. This driver was also going at 115 mph.
I've always thought it was irresponsible that snapchat has a camera mode that overlays your current speed on the picture. What else is it going to be used for? Showing how fast your bus is travelling?
I'd say this is one of the greatest challenges journalists face: Sometimes you talk to a lot of people and do a lot of research only to find out there is no story.
"Smartphone usage increase while driving has caused more accidents" is a nice narrative that totally _makes sense_, but unfortunately only becomes newsworthy if there is evidence that the reporter can find-- perhaps from highway patrols and police officers, mobile data usage stats, or I suppose anecdotally from someone who studies this stuff.
But sometimes that's not available, or it is and goes against the original narrative. At that point the reporter can either choose to tell their editor that there is no story, or go out seeking confirmation of the original narrative.
Standard NY times reporting quality. You have to take it with a grain of salt or be in a position where their editorial viewpoint aligns with yours enough for you to ignore these evidence requirements.
It seems like Mark R. Rosekind, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is being quoted and is among those experts. Then it goes on to cite a couple cases and claim that the Department of Transportation and the National Safety Council are also worried. I mean really the citations keep going so I don't get your argument
while the headline is sensational the use of mobile devices leading to more accidents is not. as an avid motorcyclist I tend to pay more attention to what people are doing around me and especially those who can cross my path.
I cannot count on my drive to work the number of times I see people looking at their phones. The head down move which is all to obvious to the arm out towards the driver seat to the blatant on top of the steering wheel. I used to think it was bad they were using the phones while driving, but that isn't near as bad as what goes on today.
There is enough tech in smart phones to know when they are in modern cars and definitely to know they are moving. If anything they could blank the screen and with full connectivity of Apple and Google play type technologies they easily can tell if the car is operating. I know, but what about passengers. Well what about safety.
Distracted driving is as dangerous if not more than impaired driving. At least the impaired driver is making an effort at driving
Great point - so is it possible the fleet as a whole got less safe last year? Or less more safe than usual?
My recollection is that car buying is doing just fine lately so I doubt it, but would have been a good point to make in TFA instead of another anecdote.
They obviously have agenda. Perhaps some restrictions on apps are coming into legislation and they want to "soften" the public on the matter or just "test the waters". Same type of "journalism" you can see in illegal drugs themed articles
Or they just know that they have a significant population of readers who think computers and smartphones are unnatural, evil and genetically modified poison, and that they have another significant population of readers who will call them out on the bullshit. Igniting a powderkeg of polarized readers is a great way to drive traffic, and therefore ad money.
Yes, it seems like standard operating procedure for contemporary media.
The lure of the smartphone is pushing a number of drivers over the threshold of insufficient attention. They would be less distracted without.
It's not like drivers had an individually fixed amount of distraction that they would distribute on whatever media at hand, it's the attention that is limited and far too many drivers don't allocate it correctly when their phone is around. Unfortunately, using a smartphone while driving is far more common than using the newspaper while driving has ever been. This has everything to do with the difference between smartphones and newspapers.
Evidence given in the article:
- "Safety experts say" that it's true. The experts are not named or quoted. No evidence or reasoning is given to support the claim.
- Highway fatalities are up this year. However, they're still significantly down from 2007, when the iPhone was first introduced. Mobile has been booming for almost a decade - if we should "blame apps", why hasn't it been a concern before now?
- One driver who caused a fatal accident was using Snapchat shortly before the crash. This driver was also going at 115 mph. It goes without saying, therefore, that Snapchat is to blame, not speeding or general recklessness.
- "Insurance companies are convinced", according to one Robert Gordon. Gordon is actually named and quoted. However, the quote again doesn't provide evidence or reasoning.
Maybe it is actually true. I don't know. However, the evidence given is nowhere near strong enough to be convincing. There's also the issue that newspapers are direct competitors with the apps they're railing against (for ad dollars), and have been losing badly: http://charman-anderson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/newsp....