SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A vehicle traveling at 55 mph covers a distance greater than a football field in five seconds. With the average text taking approximately five seconds to read, that's at least a football field's worth of driver inattention. Texting while driving is dangerous, and possibly even fatal, especially in a highway work zone.
Now, researchers at the University of Missouri say drivers not paying attention—such as answering a phone call, a text message, or being distracted by a passenger—for any length of time are 29 times more likely to be involved in a collision or near collision in a highway work zone.
The results from this study could provide recommendations on "behavioral countermeasures" to state transportation agencies and the Federal Highway Administration, which are implementing countermeasures to decrease injuries and fatalities in a highway work zone. These recommendations include better public education, laws to ban texting and driving, and policies that deter driver distractions. The results could also be used when developing new technology, such as driverless vehicles.
Journal Reference:
Nipjyoti Bharadwaj et al. Risk Factors in Work Zone Safety Events: A Naturalistic Driving Study Analysis, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board (2019). DOI: 10.1177/0361198118821630
More data highlight the danger of texting while driving.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday March 06 2019, @04:14PM
Perhaps my sarcasm was lost, let me rant instead. The point is that the headline is clearly nonsense. The nature of the distraction, the driving conditions, etc etc is clearly incredibly significant. So for example if I spill burning coffee on my lap in thick fog, that is going to introduce a more significant risk than a moderately annoying radio show on a sunny day. They are both distractions, and the headline indicates they will both make me exactly 29 times more likely to have an accident which is obviously stupid. So the headline is junk, TFS is junk, and I can't be bothered to read TFA to decide if that is junk (I will instead dismiss it as "social science" and hence likely junk).