from the just-project-camera-views-onto-the-phone dept.
Zendrive makes technology that monitors how people are driving, so they took the data from 3 million drivers taking 570 million trips over 5.6 billion miles. They found that drivers used their phones for an average of three and a half minutes in 88 out of a hundred trips. From their study:
Everyday, that’s the equivalent of people behind the wheel talking or texting on 5.6-million car rides from our sample alone. When extrapolated for the entire U.S. driving population, the number goes up to roughly 600-million distracted trips a day….This finding is frightening, especially when you consider that a 2-second distraction is long enough to increase your likelihood of crashing by over 20-times. In other words, that’s equivalent to 105 opportunities an hour that you could nearly kill yourself and/or others.
One can download PDFs of the full report and the executive summary.
So that explains the steady stream of accidents despite the prevalence of anti-lock brakes, cameras, and accident avoidance features in passenger vehicles.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:08PM (4 children)
The third link map by state, in the spirit of the famous xkcd comic where most maps are just population maps, appear to be the same as
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.gif [censusscope.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:36PM
See also: http://www.businessinsider.my/university-of-michigan-car-crash-study-2014-7/ [businessinsider.my]
So there's some correlation of driver phone usage with road fatalities. However there appear to be significant exceptions too.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday April 26 2017, @12:58AM (2 children)
I'm not seeing much similarity. The map at your link is labelled "Percentage of a county's population identifying as both black or African-American and non-Hispanic." The highest percentages are in the southeastern part of the U.S.--a legacy of slavery, I assume.
On the map in the article, Vermont is shown as having the greatest "phone use ratio" and Oregon is shown as having the least. On the racial map, both are coloured yellow, indicating no more than 5.3% black or African-American.
As of the 2010 census, Vermont was the second-whitest state in the Union after Maine.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont#Population_characteristics [wikipedia.org]
Maine has intermediate phone usage. As for Oregon (emphasis mine),
In 2010, 78.5% of the population was white alone (meaning of no other race and non-Hispanic), 1.7% was black or African American alone, 1.1% was Native American or Alaska native alone, 3.6% was Asian alone, 0.3% was Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone, 0.1% was another race alone, and 2.9% was multiracial. Hispanics or Latinos made up 11.7% of the total population.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon [wikipedia.org]
Some states in the southeast are shown as having high phone usage, but so are several in the central part of the country, and in the northeast. Really the whole eastern part has middling to high usage, and the usage is middling to low in the western part.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:39PM (1 child)
Your individual anecdotes are probably correct but the most striking part of the 3rd link to "looking at the phone" was the general red glow from the american south. Which is in fact a legacy of slavery as you mention.
I'd be willing to throw down other cultural southern characteristics. Obviously consuming chicken -n- waffles results in looking at your phone while driving. Ditto cornmeal grits and sweetened iced tea.
Another correlation is not causation (or ... is it?) is the paragraph above everything is both very unhealthy to eat, and incredibly delicious.
None the less the maps are similar enough such that if you look around while you're driving and most of the drivers around you are black folks, then odds are high most of the people are looking at their phones, regardless of cause and effect.
Some programmer is going to put that in a self driving car ruleset and get accused of racism. A lot of real world facts are racist, LOL.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday April 26 2017, @10:28PM
> Your individual anecdotes are probably correct but the most striking part of the 3rd link to "looking at the phone" was the general red glow from the american south.
Are we looking at the same thing? I'm unsure what you mean by the third link, but I looked at a map, labelled "Phone Use Ratio," that is part of the article:
http://blog.zendrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Phoneuse-Map-500x348.png [zendrive.com]
On that map, dark red indicates more frequent use, whilst yellow denotes less use. The states shaded most darkly are all in the east--including the northeast; those coloured yellow are all in the west. It appears that New York and New Hampshire are coloured the same as Florida, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are the same as Alabama, and Connecticut and New Jersey are the same as Alabama and Arkansas, etc. There does indeed appear to be especially high usage in Mississippi and Louisiana, but as I remarked the highest is in Vermont.
None the less the maps are similar enough such that if you look around while you're driving and most of the drivers around you are black folks, then odds are high most of the people are looking at their phones, regardless of cause and effect.
I wondered whether that was your meaning. Disregarding the northeastern and central parts of the United States, the maps are indeed similar. Choosing to disregard them strikes me as a cognitive bias.
> A lot of real world facts are racist, LOL.
Like the link between green jelly beans and acne.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant [explainxkcd.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:27PM (30 children)
My phone stays in a cubby hole next to the radio while I'm moving. There is nothing you can possibly impart to me through speech or written word that is worth smashing up my vehicle to find out; especially with me inside it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:35PM (17 children)
Some people know how to judge when it's safe to look at their phones, just like some people know when it's still safe to drive with a little alcohol in the system.
Life sucks, because the rest of us have to pretend to be as stupid as your ilk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:15PM
A little alcohol in the Mr. Fusion will produce 1.21 gigawatts.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday April 25 2017, @02:11PM (2 children)
Yes but sadly not everybody is smart enough to keep their focus on the road. I don't use my phone while driving, other than answering occasional calls via bluetooth. I had an interesting experience once, when I was in a car at speeds up to 150 mph for about a 2 hour very fast drive. The driver regularly used his phone to text or talk to people, but I never got the impression that he lost focus or did anything dangerous (other than speeding). Despite the high speeds, even on back roads in a former USSR country, I was never worried because this person was a very skilled driver.
But I'll never get into a car with some of the people I know, because they're slaves of their phone, always driving below the speed limit, swerving across the road.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:00PM (1 child)
speeds up to 150 mph
I never got the impression that he lost focus or did anything dangerous (other than speeding).
"No your honor, I didn't feel threatened even though I had a loaded gun to my head."
What in god's name required you to be driving presumably 3x the speed limit?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:31PM
What in god's name required you to be driving presumably 3x the speed limit?
I guess it was about twice the speed limit most of the time. I needed to catch a plane at an airport after finishing a job and the owner of the company personally drove me there in his AMG. When I went to the place a couple of days earlier, he sent someone to pick me up at the airport, and that trip took 8 hours, including a car repair. So the drive in the AMG was 4 times faster and I really wasn't worried, also because I owned an AMG myself at the time and was familiar with high speeds (on the autobahn in Germany where it's allowed).
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:27PM (8 children)
Taking your eyes off the road any time you're moving is dangerously idiotic. Stop doing it!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:56PM (2 children)
So you have a HUD to tell you what your speed is, then? Or would refocusing on the windshield layer technically count as "eyes off the road" anyway.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday April 25 2017, @06:14PM
I can't drive in rain without corrective lenses for that reason (focusing on the wind-shield). Corrective lenses let me see "though" the rain by focusing on the far distance.
I briefly tried a speedometer HUD app on my phone. Found I probably spent too much time looking at it. That, and without using tape, the chance of breakage was high.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:39PM
It only takes a fraction of a second to glance at the speedometer. Not so a text.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:59PM (4 children)
So you never look in your mirrors?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:37PM (3 children)
A glance when changing lanes. Also an occasional glance at the speedometer. Ever had a deer cross the interstate right in front of you? You might hit it even if you're looking intently.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:52PM (2 children)
Taking your eyes off the road any time you're moving is dangerously idiotic. Stop doing it!
A glance when changing lanes. Also an occasional glance at the speedometer.
So you're a hypocrite?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
No, I have a brain. Glancing at your mirror before changing lanes is safer than not doing so, as with your speedometer. It's a matter of what's safest, glancing at a mirror or not? With a phone, keeping your eyes on the road is safer for you and everyone else on that road.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:58PM
Glancing at your mirror before changing lanes is safer than not doing so,
You're supposed to be looking over your shoulder to check your blind spots before changing lanes.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:48PM
We'll see how competent you feel after you've killed some kids with your vehicle.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:49PM (2 children)
Yup. Idiots think they are the "special one". Alcohol and drugs don't affect them in the same way as everyone else. Only they know the secret to mastering distracted driving. Heck, some snowflakes think even gravity is something that they control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:30PM (1 child)
Traffic deaths that are related to alcohol in some way are 31% of traffic-related deaths. Not only are there tons of people driving around under the influence of alcohol, but they don't seem to be a very big problem in the grand scheme. What are those other 69% of doing?!
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:59PM
they don't seem to be a very big problem in the grand scheme
A third of traffic deaths, and you're saying it's not very big? Really?
I'm constantly impressed by the reliability of these two heuristics:
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:39PM (2 children)
My phone stays in a cubby hole next to the radio while I'm moving. There is nothing you can possibly impart to me through speech
So you don't listen to the radio then?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:37PM (1 child)
The radio doesn't demand your attention like a conversation does; you don't have to spare attention from driving to think of how you're going to reply.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:22AM
I agree with TMB over the phone. I normally have mine OFF when I am driving. It takes my full undivided attention to properly control my van. Even then, I am not completely error-free.
Its not the static things along the road that cause me the most problems, rather it is other people who do the darndest things, like opening car doors right in front of me, or motorcyclists trying to lane-split when I only have inches between me and other traffic.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:42PM
My phone's in the same place (and usually in airplane mode too, as there's no point in eating battery trying to reach distant cell towers or nonexistent wifi during a drive of any length, which is most drives around here.) My phone is there to serve me. Not the other way around.
I do keep a much more wary eye on other drivers these days though... there's no way around that particular necessity as far as I'm concerned. I've seen many roll-throughs at red lights where the driver was visibly fooling with their damned phone, for instance. If they're doing it in town, they're sure as hell doing it on the highway, too.
I've also significantly reduced the amount I drive, gotten rid of my motorcycles and sports car [cries a little], and now only drive a 3/4 ton pickup, my take on "let's drive a tank." My SO and I shop more extensively, and have instantiated more storage here at home, including refrigeration, which reduces required trips. Which – frankly – is annoying, because I like driving. But times change. Ya do what ya gotta do.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by driven on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:50PM (1 child)
And yet they keep making vehicles with large touch screen interfaces. I keep wondering: how is that considered safe and why is it so different than using your phone when driving?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:54PM
At least some vehicles lock out the interface while the vehicle is in motion.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by mcgrew on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:22PM (1 child)
The headline tells me that 88% of drivers are witless morons.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday April 26 2017, @02:58AM
The headline is about a percentage of trips, not a percentage of drivers. I conclude that some trips are too banal to share on social media.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday April 25 2017, @09:13PM (3 children)
Thank you.
You can already see the clearly young moron complaining that you are old and unable to deal with tech :)
I want to give these morons $2,500 tickets each. Something so fucking bad, that you literally cannot afford to drive for a week or too. There needs to be heavy, heavy, fines. At this point, I'm not averse to jail time. Something like 72 hours if they catch you on the phone, and you were driving erratically.
I'm concerned. Every time I drive, and that's not hyperbole, I see somebody *completely* unaware of what is going on around them. Driving a little slower, and they weave in their lane. I pass them and, I'm not kidding, their entire head is looking down on the phone in their hands WHILE trying to text one-handed. The smarter ones have started using Google to translate for them, but that is hardly much better.
It's become a huge problem in the last few years, and I place the blame directly on the entitled Millenials and their vast ignorance and stupidity. I became old enough to hate the young :)
They don't know how to drive, but they don't even know how to *concentrate* on one thing at one time. Even when they are watching movies, they need to be looking at their phones and live tweeting it. It's like systemic ADHD, and these young idiots have zero ability to drive large vehicles safely.
I sincerely hope that automated driving gets here soon. We've lost the ability to drive safely, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes worse.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:03PM (2 children)
entitled Millenials and their vast ignorance and stupidity
That's allowed, so long as you're not claiming any other generation is really any better :P
As a closely-related example: I have little doubt that if you compared the drink-driving rates among millennials against older drivers, you'd find millennials to be doing it a good deal less.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:37PM (1 child)
That's only because Millenials own less cars, have fewer drivers licenses, use Uber, and drive less in general. Most of my younger relatives don't even have a drivers license, and seemingly have no interests in doing so. This is a known problem discussed in the automotive industries and they are worried about it.
I pick on the Millenials because they are the stupidest and most inept generation we've ever had. I'll put the blame on technology. I honestly believe that technology has programmed them to be ADHD bastards that couldn't concentrate on just a single thing for 15 minutes without feeling actual pain.
It doesn't help that when we poll them about civil rights that some of those dumb fuckers cannot even understand the value of free speech, anonymity, privacy, etc. They are dangerously ignorant.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday April 27 2017, @09:52PM
That's only because Millenials own less cars, have fewer drivers licenses, use Uber, and drive less in general.
I meant proportionally. I think it's fair to say that's pretty obvious.
I pick on the Millenials because they are the stupidest and most inept generation we've ever had.
Well the upward drift of IQ hasn't stopped.
I'll put the blame on technology. I honestly believe that technology has programmed them to be ADHD bastards that couldn't concentrate on just a single thing for 15 minutes without feeling actual pain.
Could well be.
when we poll them about civil rights that some of those dumb fuckers cannot even understand the value of free speech, anonymity, privacy, etc. They are dangerously ignorant.
I agree, that's dangerous, and possibly a consequence of overly sheltered upbringing.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DavePolaschek on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:35PM (1 child)
Which is interesting, because while I see an awful lot of people staring at their phones while on the roads, I also see people reading books, applying mascara and eye-liner, etc. I guess the 2/3 of the states where people are more distracted than here must be real Death Race 2000 zones.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:37PM
Competent people are capable of performing complex tasks successfully. [soylentnews.org]
Minnesotans have a large Scandinavian and German population, right? Well, those are some of the smartest people on the planet.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:39PM (2 children)
Time for some reasonable pitpicks of the article:
Zendrive’s uses the technology built into smartphones to measure driving, so by virtue of running on a smartphone, Zendrive can measure phone use while driving. Use is detected when the driver handles the phone for a certain period of time for various purposes such as talking, texting or navigating.
1)
I wonder if selecting the next podcast/audiobook while stopped at a stop sign counts as "texting while driving" because I certainly do that a lot. My guess is they're relying on "Driving_state = over 5 mph on the gps". Its difficult to kill people while "driving" at zero MPH, I'm pretty comfy playing with my phone while at zero MPH. Its a constant battle between I want to hold the phone up so as to peripheral vision the road vs being seen driving with a phone is like being seen driving with an open can of beer so I want to hide it.
I also tend to screw around with my phone while my wife drives the car, so I'm sure the NSA has a permanent record of my driving while texting, but since technically what I'm doing is texting while being a passenger moving at 25 MPH, I'm not behind the wheel, its fairly safe. I'd argue by my shutting up and playing android minecraft or shitposting on SN I'm ignoring my wife so she can focus on driving making it safer when I "text and drive" according to the automated analysis.
If I'm driving while navigating because I'm lost, I WILL either really F up because I'm lost or because I'm old I know how to use legacy paper maps, so its worth considering that people Fing around with navigation are simultaneously both dangerous AND doing the least dangerous thing they can do to get out of that situation. The fundamental danger is people getting lost, the getting into an accident while trying to get un-lost is a mere symptom and it doesn't really matter if I was trying to get un-lost using a paper map or a phone other than the phone is safer than the map. Likewise if I popped a tire and started calling my wife or AAA or whatever before I came to a stop, and got into an accident, the problem is not the phone, but the car died leading to an accident.
Another interesting driving while navigating or audio situation is now that I have wife/kids I usually am in a car because I'm taxi-driver-dad so I'll simply hand my car to wife/kid and say "select the next podcast" or "change the navigation point to closest gas station" or whatever. Its the ultimate voice operated assistant. Its more reliable and faster than Alexa. The point of this is I'm sure when I hand my phone to the wife I'm going on record as yet another 5 minutes of evil nazi texting while driving and yes I am driving and yes my phone is being used at the same time, with but since my wife is operating my phone I'm not seeing the safety problem here.
I suspect when you add up all the "naughty time" that in my situation isn't naughty, I'm probably well over the reported numbers, yet also perfectly safe. So I'm making up for you guys who lock the phone in the glove compartment, or at least signal they do for internet good boy points.
2)
Its interesting that the ham radio people have been talking on the radio for 50 years while driving while supposedly not being a risk. Ditto police/fire/ambulance/pilot. It seems multitasking is a lower IQ / lower performer problem. Its culturally impossible to talk about human biological differences so it'll be impossible to talk about "some folks are safe talking on the phone, some aren't". We have to live under a fiction that human driving performance is a simple binary "can do it" / "can't do it" but reality is there's going to be people who most certainly can use their phone while driving because they have superior judgment and will only do it when its safe.
3)
Smart phones came out in 2007. Boatloads of app-billionaires and social media junk came out then, its all kinda ancient history now. The report indicates driving safety was pretty chill until 2015. Logically the cause of an explosion in death rates in 2015 must be something that happened 8 years ago. Um, sure. I mean, why not blame the increase in 2015 on the Ford Pinto fuel tank explosions, it makes about as much sense.
4)
What are they selling? This stuff isn't free. The topic is hyper politically correct. Always follow the money. Is there a patent troll trying to license "lock screen over 5 mph as a service" for a trillion dollars?
(Score: 1) by fyngyrz on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:47PM
I'm a ham. I have quite an array of radios on the dash. But they're never on when I'm driving, not even just to receive. I fool with them parked out in the country (where there is zero interference) and when parked in parking lots, waiting for my SO to find her way out of the various big box stores. Which has been known to take a while. ⏳
I keep a guitar in the vehicle too; again, it's a parking-lot indulgence.
You can load up a vehicle with all manner of cool fun and still not be stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:12PM
Well, that depends where you are stopped, doesn't it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BenJeremy on Tuesday April 25 2017, @12:51PM (2 children)
Seriously, just back away from the keyboard before typing nonsense like that.
Glancing at your phone isn't causing "all those" accidents. There are lots of factors. Inattentiveness caused by distractions like phones are certainly a factor, but if you are driving in an open stretch of road, with reasonable control, checking the wife's last minute request to pick up something on the way home, or to review a traffic alert, isn't going to cause you to crash.
That said, tailgating, a bad practice without distractions, combined with the same activity, can mean trouble. Looking at your phone while otherwise driving badly, can most certainly lead to bad things.
If that 88% always got into accidents the moment they checked their phones... the highways would be nothing but endless junkyards of burned out wrecks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @01:24PM (1 child)
But that does not mean that a person who texts and drives is an inattentive driver.
Causation versus Correlation. How does it work?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:50PM
Kind of by definition, yes, yes it does. Next you'll claim that it's possible that someone can be shitfaced drunk and still driving safely.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:31PM
There seems to be several problems with the methodology.
(Score: 2) by tekk on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:36PM (4 children)
I 'look at' my phone when driving; I drive across the state every so often and I occasionally have to reach down and shift my phone (sits by the gear shift) to make sure that google maps is visible in case the text to speech marblemouths the directions. I also might change songs at a stop light, are they making sure that the vehicle is moving when they count it as use?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:49PM (3 children)
This is (partially) explained in TFA. The app uses smartphone sensors to determine "trips", which presumably is defined as when the app thinks you got into a car to when the app thinks you got out of the car. "Phone usage" is defined as handling the phone for some (unspecified) minimum amount of time. All phone usage during a trip is counted.
So I believe the answer to your question is "For the purposes of this study, phone usage at a red light counts as using while driving."
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 25 2017, @04:07PM (2 children)
So basically, this study is complete and utter bullshit.
Here's some good reasons someone might be using their smartphone in a vehicle:
1) Using a GPS navigation program like Google Maps or Waze. Do you really want people to go back to the days of trying to read paper maps while driving?
2) Person is a passenger (since it's using the sensors to determine "trips"). What kind of moron thinks a passenger shouldn't be using their phone?
3) Driver is stopped at a red light.
4) Driver is talking on the phone, using the phone's Bluetooth feature combined with the car's BT hands-free calling system.
Personally, I use my phone every time I'm in my car and I'm going farther than a few miles (i.e., other than my regular (short) commute or to my local grocery store). It's on a convenient dashboard mount, so it's constantly in view. Normally, it's always showing Google Maps.
Does this stupid study also count the usage of a car's built-in nav system as "phone use"? If not, why not? Because it's no different than using Google Maps, except that the car's system is clunkier and crappier and 5-10 years out-of-date even when brand-new.
These highly-biased anti-smartphone studies are really getting on my nerves, because they're conflating all use of smartphones with the worst uses (namely, texting while driving). It's like coming out with a "scientific study" showing that we should ban all cars today (right now, without having any viable alternatives) because a few people have used cars to drive into pedestrians.
Moreover, even texting isn't dangerous, in some cars: some cars let you compose texts by pressing a button on the steering wheel and speaking some commands and your message. On my car, I can place phone calls pretty easily that way: (button) "call John Smith" and suddenly it's dialing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 25 2017, @05:14PM
False dichotomy.
Nobody is. TFA describes their methodology, and the app is supposed to distinguish between passenger and driver use. That being said, I do believe their method is unreliable (as explained elsethread) which does call the results into question.
Attentiveness is still required from drivers in this situation. A study like this is right to include such usage.
Hands-free usage presumably does not count as handling.
It does not count. This study limits itself specifically to smartphone use. That's fine—even though multiple factors contribute to driver distraction it's reasonable to ask questions about specific issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @01:00AM
was I the only one that actually pulled over to read the map I had tucked in the passenger side door?
(Score: 2) by snufu on Tuesday April 25 2017, @03:56PM
The sooner the better.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Tuesday April 25 2017, @07:12PM (2 children)
How do they know you are driving or just a passenger in the car ? If my phone rings I hand it to my GF who answers it for me, thus neither points to my paying attention to the dang thing while driving. I do have it Bluetooth connected but find that that is as distracting as talking on it by hand so I avoid it as well.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @08:57PM (1 child)
This is explained in TFA. The phone's sensors are used to determine (a) which side of the car the phone is on while travelling, and (b) which side of the car was used to exit. Supposedly this distinguishes between driver and passenger use.
I see several problems with this approach.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @07:53AM
Its gonna be fascinating when we discover that the "new, shiny" phones ship with a security chip in them that alerts nearby police squad cars as to where the phone is being used in a car by the driver.... so the police can pull the driver over and get a $300 "contribution" for the city.
Around where I live, I am quite confident the police force could easily fund their own way and probably several city councilmen's pet projects from automotive cellphone users.