Driving While Texting Update
by Motte Brown on 06/25/2009 at 3:04 PM
I've covered this topic before but I thought I'd update it with some new data from a CNBC.com article: Texting while driving is worse than driving drunk. Much worse.
Car and Driver Magazine tested how long it takes to hit the brakes "when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading an e-mail, and when sending a text." Here are the results:
- Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
- Legally drunk: add 4 feet
- Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
- Sending a text: add 70 feet
That's a lot of cushion required for sending a text vs. drunk driving. But as dangerous as it is, the author of the CNBC.com article fears it'll take more deaths before public opinion changes about texting and driving.
1. Paige said the following at 4:40 PM on Jun 25:
My cousin's car was totaled by someone who was texting while driving - it's incredibly stupid. As of July 1, it will be illegal here in Virginia. I'm actually looking forward to it - it will give me an excuse for not texting my friends back right away. "I was driving - it's illegal!" :)
Though I guess I should be honest and say ... I did do it on the way home from work this evening. Gulp. Guess this new law will be good for me!
2. Leah said the following at 5:22 PM on Jun 25:
It's remarkable the difference between the US and Australia. I'm not sure why. In Australia not only is texting while driving illegal, but it's socially frowned upon too. People think you're an idiot if you do it. (It's a bit more acceptable if you're stopped at a red light).
Also, in Australia, the legal BAC is .05%. Interesting.
3. James said the following at 5:25 PM on Jun 25:
Oh..,
I really should park when I text next time.
4. Joanna said the following at 7:00 PM on Jun 25:
They even allow you to text and drive over there? It isn't illegal? If a text message is so important that you're willing to put your and other peoples lives on the line to answer it while driving, it is certainly important enough to justify the few minutes to pull off to the side of the road and deal with it while not driving.
5. Carol said the following at 10:09 PM on Jun 25:
Arkansas just made it illegal to text and drive. I still haven't figured out how they will prove you were texting and driving. I suppose they could confiscate the phone.
Not that I text and drive. It's much too dangerous for someone like me. I sometimes have near-accidents because I am thinking too hard.
6. brx said the following at 12:25 AM on Jun 26:
I still think the press and these tests are unfairly singling out one particular activity that can be distracting while driving.
Obvious common activities of significant driver distraction that aren't receiving press: adjusting the car stereo, reading a map, eating, paying attention to kids in the carseats.
I don't have a problem with treating all distracting activities equally, but singling this one out is not cool. It's particularly uncool because under the guise of saving lives, cell phone mfgs pushed this to legislators in order to create a market demand for voice-to-text products - the same way they did for the bluetooth 'hands-free' devices. Don't believe the hype because it's not about saving lives (and relatively few at that); it's about making money - and lots of it.
Seriously, if it was about saving lives, it would be waaay more cost-effective - in terms of numbers of lives saved - to take the money that's spent on hands-free for driving and will be spent on speech-to-text, and instead, give it to a group like World Vision.
Grace, peace & truth in legislation
7. Melody Ng said the following at 4:05 AM on Jun 26:
Hi Motte,
Here's a release by Intel on mobile etiquette. Thought you might be interested. Check it out. http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090617comp_sm.htm
8. Dan Gill said the following at 7:01 AM on Jun 26:
Look, texting while driving is stupid. But I've seen many of these studies that purportedly show how activities are "worse" than driving drunk.
It's all foolishness. Drunkenness impairs not only motor ability. It also impairs judgment. People do things under the influence of alcohol or drugs that they will not do when sober and straight.
In addition, one can choose the time and place of an activity such as talking on a cell phone, replacing a CD in the player, looking at a map, or even texting. One cannot just suspend drunkenness when traffic gets heavy or a decision may be required.
It's foolishness to compare driving under the influence to a voluntary activity.
9. obewan said the following at 12:58 PM on Jun 26:
I always thought and understanding of the extreme dangers of texting while driving was a major no-brainer.
It really grinds my gears as it is to see all the cell-phone talkers weaving and not paying attention to traffic lights.
Good thing I can't see them texting, or maybe that is what happens when they weave into my traffic lane. Happens all the time!
10. brx said the following at 2:42 PM on Jun 26:
Re: obewan [#9];
"Good thing I can't see them texting..."
Maybe they were adjusting the radio/cd/mp3 player. Maybe legislators should pass laws against doing that while driving too. Sheez, at this rate, I won't be surprised if the insurance companies push legislators to suggest cars come standard with black-box activity recorders for post-collision and pre-citation fault analysis. - And, insurance policies can then be filled with more profit-mining caveats regarding under what circumstances they will and will not pay out.
Heck, then we can just create a federal, single-payer, vehicle insurance department! Gee, that lines up nicely with the current admin's single-payer health-care plan!
Our ever-inflating pile of laws will not save us. Rather, I think it's discouraging a culture of good discernment and encouraging a culture of living according to the letter rather than the Spirit. I guess Jesus' message to Isreal wasn't enough; we need Him to come and give it again already. :)
11. Esther said the following at 9:19 AM on Jun 27:
I've long thought that if we're going to be banning anything that makes people drive distracted, that fast food drive-throughs should be on the top of the list. Really, can you focus on the road while eating a burger or searching for your fries?
12. Dan (real name) said the following at 9:29 PM on Jun 27:
I am not anti-technology, but does it bother anyone else how much our society obsesses, fawns and goes ga-ga over Facebook (I have a Facebook page, by the way), Twitter, and whatever else will come down the river? It seems lately that the more and more I go to my email homepage, that some of the lead stories on said page are not so much about the big story of the day, but how much people are blogging and twittering about the big story of the day? Should I really care about how much people are twittering or blogging about, for example, the late Michael Jackson? Who cares how many people are twittering or blogging!!!!
And why are most websites now comment-enabled? Has anyone noticed that most of the comments left on many sites are nothing but angry rants and acrimonious flame wars, even about things that DON'T MATTER IN THE END!?!?!? Besides, most people that post comments on websites apparently never took English class in school.
13. Tigger said the following at 11:53 PM on Jun 27:
If we are going to spend so much time in our cars and driving, which we practically demand and force onto people, then what is wrong with making it as safe as possible? I NEVER text while driving and rarely talk on the phone while driving. I even find having a passenger distracting. I do play with the radio, but I have the buttons memorized and never look at it. I cannot count the number of times I have been nearly been in an accident because of someone and their precious cell phone.
I cannot, CANNOT believe that people actually want to text and drive at the same time. It boggles my mind that my life is so unimportant to the next driver - as well as his or her life.
Put the phone down and enjoy the fresh air, music/quiet, and beauty around you. It's a great time to relax and think - in fact, some of the only quiet time we can find in the day is in the car.
14. Leah said the following at 7:14 AM on Jun 29:
brx (6) - Changing the radio really only requires your hand and nowhere near as much attention. Adjusting the seatbelt is the same. Telling kids off only requires your mouth and a fraction of your attention. Taking a mouthful from your water bottle only requires a hand. Texting requires your eyes, your hand, and your attention. I can't believe anyone would believe texting while driving is no more dangerous than telling kids off or changing the radio.
Dan Gill - these studies are showing the RESULTS of activities, not their physical affect on you. The RESULT of texting while driving is worse than the RESULTS of driving with the legal BAC. Of course its physical affect on you is different. But that just goes to show: the amount of distraction that texting creates causes a worse reaction time than the judgment impairment that a legal BAC creates.
Also, why was Dan's comment (12) published? I believe it is irrelevant, redundant and unnecessarily contentious (three of the categories that qualify a comment for non-posting). Sure I agree with some of what he said, but it doesn't belong here.
15. Woz said the following at 10:08 AM on Jun 29:
Dan,
Consider the irony of your post :)
Although I do agree with you.
16. Paul said the following at 12:12 PM on Jun 29:
People send text messages while driving in the US? Seriously?
17. Ashley Harris said the following at 2:21 PM on Jun 29:
Leah,
Dan's comment wasn't against another commenter. It was just a rant. So I didn't think it was harmful. Unnecessary? Certainly ;)
18. Dan (real name) said the following at 3:39 PM on Jun 29:
Thanks for allowing my comment! I have nothing against technology (I work in the physical sciences for a VERY large company), just wanted to state my mind.
19. Dan Gill said the following at 8:28 AM on Jun 30:
Leah, I think you miss the point of my post, or I didn't make my point clear. These are not accurate comparisons of how driving is impaired by an activity vs. how it is impaired by alcohol. They can test only a specific situation, and an artificially created situation at that.
As an example, I'll use talking on a cell phone. When I drive and talk, I have the choice of when I call, whether I answer a call, and where my attention goes. As anyone who has talked to me while I'm driving will tell you, my attention is mainly on driving, and conversation sort of falters. If I am in a heavy traffic situation, I won't answer a call. If I am driving and come up on a heavy traffic situation, I can say, "Wait a minute", and devote my whole attention to driving.
That is not possible while under the influence of alcohol.
In addition, alcohol and other drugs affect not only reaction time, but judgement, eyesight, coordination, and attitude.
These tests are simply inaccurate.
20. Leah said the following at 6:07 PM on Jun 30:
Dan Gill - I totally agree that it is worse for a person to be driving drunk than to be texting, because as you said, a person can put their phone down.
However , the following comment - In addition, alcohol and other drugs affect not only reaction time, but judgement, eyesight, coordination, and attitude. Is not entirely applicable, I believe. Your reaction time is affected by your eyesight and coordination, so they're not separate things to be rated. Texting affects your eyesight and coordination too, because you spend half the time looking at your phone and not the road!
These tests are not inaccurate. They don't take into account all aspects, but that doesn't make them redundant or inaccurate. Because the reality is, people do not always put their phone down when they should. And that texting impairs their reactions on the road, resulting in decisions and actions that are just as dangerous, if not more, than a drunk person in the same situation.
Ashley Harris - I know it wasn't against another commenter. I just thought it was pointless. It had NOTHING to do with this thread. Completely unrelated.
21. Dan Gill said the following at 6:28 AM on Jul 1:
Leah, you make my argument for me. You say the tests don't take into account all aspects. That is what makes them inaccurate. They cannot even pretend to test how someone is truly impaired by either alcohol or some activity.
Texting does not affect eyesight and coordination. It is a distraction only. It does not affect your ability to focus or your eye-hand coordination. Alcohol does.
And, no, with alcohol the increase in reaction time has nothing to do with eyesight and coordination. It is solely caused by the effect of the drug on the nervous system.
22. Dan (real name) said the following at 10:38 AM on Jul 1:
Leah #20
I don't think my post was completely unrelated as you say. The same comments I made can be applied to texting as well.
23. MarkS said the following at 8:56 AM on Jul 8:
I cannot believe the pervasive "it's not me" attitude about driving in this country. We all complain about traffic and danger and health risks. But it's "the dummies who can't drive" that cause all the problems.
Texting aside, what about talking to friends, managing kids, eating, reading Boundless, etc.
With 10s of thousands of people dying on our roads each year (how many without Christ?) why are we not more serious about doing everything we can to control what our car does? Do we need to be in an accident where a child dies before we consider the gravity of sending a 3000 pound projectile hurtling down the pavement at deadly speeds?
We can't live a Godly life without our eyes, minds and hearts continually on Christ. Likewise you can't PROPERLY control a vehicle without your full attention. While driving is what you are doing, it needs to be the ONLY thing you are doing. Anything else introduces some small risk, and how much risk is too much considering the potential consequences?