
Drivers Refuse to Put Down Their Phones. People Keep Dying - johnny313
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-distracted-drivers/
======
post_break
My horn usage has gone way up. Driving stick in the US you have to pay
attention to be in gear at the right time. In the past 10 years I've seen it
get exponentially worse as people put their heads down coming up to a red
light. Laws are written but not enforced. Friends and relatives die from drunk
or distracted driving and it's frustrating because even though driving is a
privileged and not a right people with multiple DUIs get back behind the
wheel. Honestly, texting and driving should have as strict punishments as a
DUI and I know that's an unpopular stance.

~~~
xwdv
Driving stick doesn’t mean anything. You can be texting and driving stick at
the same time easily. You don’t constantly need your hand on the shifter.

~~~
eebynight
You must not actually drive stick then. The only time I can see myself being
able to text while driving stick is on the highway and even then I wouldn’t
really be comfortable doing so.

When I used to drive auto I could literally have my phone in my right hand
with my left hand on the wheel at all times if I wanted to...

~~~
_Wintermute
There are plenty of countries where the majority of cars are manual
transmission and trust me, there's still plenty of people texting whilst
driving.

~~~
blaser-waffle
The US is predominately automatic, but outside of N. America most of the world
still uses manual.

I learned stick on a working holiday, driving utes in Western Australia

------
btrettel
As a cyclist I'm elevated above most drivers on the road. So I can see many
distracted drivers who try to be more subtle about it. Distracted driving is a
daily problem, but there's almost no enforcement of it.

I can recall one time where I talked to a driver stopped at a stoplight about
how he wasn't paying attention and couldn't stay in his lane. I told him to
put down the phone and watch the road. This driver tried to change the
subject, acting outraged that before he passed me I left the bike lane for
less than 10 seconds to pass another cyclist. I told him that's not illegal
but he wasn't having any of it. Apparently I'm just as bad as he is, which
makes his distracted driving okay. Except that what I did was legal and
perfectly safe, yet what he did was illegal and rather dangerous.

~~~
downerending
As a pedestrian, I'm often passed at close range, at speed by _bicyclists_
that have their head in their phones. It's difficult to fathom this level of
negligence.

~~~
frenchman_in_ny
I understand the frustration at a cyclist doing this, but are you more
bothered by a cyclist doing this or a driver doing this?

You say "it's difficult to fathom this level of negligence", but a driver
doing this is significantly more dangerous -- yet current laws don't take this
into account.

For example: a ticket for a cyclist running a red light in NYC is greater than
a ticket for a driver texting on their phone.

~~~
downerending
For the same act, of course a car is much more dangerous than a bicycle.

But, I've never been buzzed by a car going 20mph at a distance of under one
foot, and certainly not while I'm walking on a sidewalk. I am regularly buzzed
by bikes in this manner.

In general, drivers act with the knowledge that if they even tap a pedestrian,
they're likely to severely injure or kill them. They might be sloppy or
distracted, but they almost never willfully do this.

I encounter bicyclists playing "chicken" with me on sidewalks all the time.
There's a cold or smug look on their face as they ride directly toward me--
it's clear that I'd better step aside or be struck.

So, regardless of the actual numbers, cyclists seem more dangerous. I don't
think accurate statistics are being collected on this sort of thing, and I
think we should start.

(P.S. Have you really seen a bicyclist getting a ticket in NYC? Never seen
that in my life. Wow!)

~~~
btrettel
> In general, drivers act with the knowledge that if they even tap a
> pedestrian, they're likely to severely injure or kill them. They might be
> sloppy or distracted, but they almost never willfully do this.

In my experience as a cyclist and pedestrian, many drivers don't seem to act
with the knowledge that if they even tap a pedestrian or cyclist that they'll
severely injure or kill them. Many drivers do similar things to what you
describe cyclists as doing. Ultimately the percentage of jerks among drivers,
cyclists, and pedestrians is about the same.

> (P.S. Have you really seen a bicyclist getting a ticket in NYC? Never seen
> that in my life. Wow!)

Isn't NYC _famous_ for ticketing cyclists? E.g., for not riding in the bike
lane? (Which isn't illegal by the way.) I don't know specifically about the
claim previously made but it seems plausible to me.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-
IMaegzQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ)

I live in Austin and as a cyclist I've gone through bike stop sign enforcement
twice (getting a ticket neither time). My guess is that the same thing happens
regularly in NYC, but you're not paying attention for such things.

~~~
downerending
Lived in NYC for about four years and never saw a cyclist being ticketed or
even stopped. Even that guy that killed a pedestrian in Central Park wasn't
ticketed, AFAIK.

Only saw maybe four drivers get tickets, though, and two looked more like some
dispute about taxi regulations than actual moving violations.

I will say that NYC bicyclists are far more law-abiding and respectful than my
current "bike-friendly" city. (Never thought I'd type _those_ words...)

------
tarr11
Cell phone use is a small percentage of "distracted driving". We should be
careful not to conflate the two things.

In 2017, 3,166 fatalities (of 37,133 total) were attributed to "distracted
driving". Of those, 434 fatalities were associated with cell phone use. [0]

For comparison, there were 10,874 fatalities from DUIs in 2017. [1]

[0]
[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812700)

[1] [https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-
driving](https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving)

~~~
throwaway5752
The data is from police reports where there was an accident. Do you think that
it's underreported, and that people would not volunteer to an officer they
were using their cell phones? Your first link talks about this in the Data
Limitation section.

Also, and they don't note this, but people can be intoxicated and using a
mobile device. I suspect their model substantially unreports DUIs where
distraction was a factor. It is very easy to do a field test and chalk it up
to a DUI and not investigate further.

"Honestly, I think the real number of fatalities tied to cell phones is at
least three times the federal figure " \-
[https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/10/18/46...](https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/10/18/467836.htm)

------
loggable
There's so much emphasis on using your hands with the phone or not and with
most laws that allow hands-free usage, people think that's completely safe;
but it's not. No one talks about how distracting it is simply having a
conversation on the phone while driving. The hands really aren't the most
dangerous part of the equation.

Obviously, looking at the phone rather than the road is the worst part, but no
one seems to be talking about how hands-free systems aren't helping either and
are probably hurting by making people think they are being safe.

I also don't understand why the laws regarding cell phones and even drunk
driving are so lax. Any of these should result in an immediate ban on your
license for a long time. If I had a gun license and walked around shooting it,
I would lose that license as well as I proved I am not responsible enough to
operate it and that could result in death.

~~~
mywittyname
Drunk driving laws are far from lax. In fact, my state puts of signs bragging
about how bad you're fucked if you're caught driving drunk. Twenty thousand
dollars in fines and court costs plus two years in jail, inability to legally
drive for several more years plus the fact you can probably never afford
insurance again, is plenty harsh enough to convince rational people not to
drink and drive.

But, turns out alcoholics aren't rational people. So after they get out, they
drive drunk, but this time they don't have insurance (and they're too broke to
sue) so when they do cause an accident next time, the victim ends up needing
to pony up the cash to pay for it.

I have several drunk family members who've been caught drunk driving multiple
times. They've been to jail, and they don't have a license, but they still
drive. This is not a problem you solve by making laws harsher (unless maybe
you go to Sharia law levels of harsh and execute people after some number of
offenses). You have to tackle alcoholism.

~~~
huebomont
That's lax as hell. You kill someone with a car, you better not ever be able
to use a car again. Mandatory to sell your car, license revoked, ankle monitor
or something if needed to keep you out of your car. Don't play with people's
lives.

------
throwawaymath
I have a two-pronged proposal which, though unrealistic, is technically
feasible today and could probably work.

1\. Force people seeking a driver's license to undergo classes, regardless of
their prior self-education. In my opinion, a significant amount of
irresponsible and incompetent driving stems from the early failures in parents
teaching their kids properly. People not only don't learn everything they need
to, but they don't respect driving as the dangerous activity it is.

If someone succeeds in obtaining their license, they must then re-test every
five years to maintain it, regardless of their age and driving history.

2\. Augment the new mandatory classes with virtual reality lessons. The VR
headsets will ostensibly drill driving skills before they're practiced in a
real vehicle.

But the real reason they'll be used is to force candidates to experience high
fidelity simulations of hitting and killing people while in the vehicle. They
will be exposed to the immediate trauma involved in hitting a family in a
sedan, or killing a pedestrian who was adhering to the rules of the road. It
might also be helpful to force them to watch footage of people being seriously
injured and killed in vehicular collisions.

This recommendation comes from two hypotheses of mine. As the article states,
people overwhelmingly know distracted driving is dangerous, but they can't
help themselves. I believe this is because 1) they have no way to activate
empathy for the potential danger they present to others, and 2) they do not
take driving seriously enough. It is treated as an innate right with loose
rules, not a dangerous activity sustained only out of necessity to keep urban
society functioning.

Unfortunately, this proposal will never happen. I know parts of it are
extreme, but I don't see an alternative for fixing such a systemic problem
which _isn 't_ extreme.

~~~
stmfreak
LOL, you think children listen to parents when “taught properly”? We taught
our kids all the proper behaviors, for years. Loads of examples of
consequences, restrictions, lectures, etc. they still grow up and make poor
choices.

When it comes to acquiring good judgement, for most people there is no teacher
like experience.

~~~
throwawaymath
That's a good point. A lot of what you're saying is inevitable for most
adolescents due to contemporaneous hormonal and neurological changes they're
enduring.

To combat that, we could induce accelerated experience using VR simulation.

~~~
mrguyorama
I play VR driving games, including a steering wheel setup. Wouldn't you know
it, I crash a lot in games and drive in excess of 200mph, or drive a 20 ton
tractor trailer at 100mph weaving through traffic. If I crash, I reload.
Meanwhile, the couple times I've tried to actually drive above 100mph, I've
felt incredibly uncomfortable (despite my new car ostensibly being designed
for the autobahn and possibly higher than that speed)

VR isn't magic. Your brain is pretty good at subtly understanding you won't
die if you make a mistake

------
towndrunk
As a motorcyclist I fucking hate people who drive and txt. In my state it's
against the law and they don't give a fuck.

~~~
themattress
The best thing that learning to ride a motorcycle taught me is “always ride
like everyone is actively trying to kill you”.

~~~
cj
Which (for me) translates to making eye contact with drivers whenever at an
intersection, stop sign, or looking to see if people’s heads are up on the
road (or down in their lap) when passing on a freeway.

Riding a motorcycle is the fastest way to realize how little attention people
have on the road / surroundings when they drive.

~~~
techsupporter
> making eye contact with drivers whenever at an intersection, stop sign

The number of vehicles with very dark tinting on front windows has, in my
experience, increased dramatically. I do this, too, but it's getting to where
I can make eye contact less than half the time.

Maybe I need to bring a very bright flashlight so I can make sure I can see
the driver...

~~~
buckminster
And this is illegal in many places, but seems to be enforced even less than
the phone rules.

------
whalesalad
You gotta honk. I honk ALL THE TIME now. It’s just enough of a jolt to send a
signal to everyone around you that it’s time to snap back to attention. It
works marvelously. I don’t like doing it... but it really works. If the light
turns green and no one has moved for a few seconds I give a little tiny honk
and like clockwork you can see brake lights in every lane turn off and people
begin to activate.

I don’t think we can solve this with enforcement. We gotta start thinking
outside the box. I have no advice... I wish I did ... but it’s an epidemic.
Its a symptom of a much larger issue, I think, so we need to try and treat
that instead.

~~~
CydeWeys
Unfortunately the added honking causes huge quality of life issues, especially
in urban areas and at night.

Self-driving can't come soon enough.

~~~
throwawaymath
Speaking as someone who lives in Manhattan, you won't get much sympathy with
this complaint. Yes, honking can be annoying, and yes it's overused
(especially by trigger happy taxis).

But it's the only way to actually get someone's attention sometimes. If you
live in an urban area you should know what you're signing up for. People are
going to honk, even if it's annoying to the rest of us living in the city.

~~~
CydeWeys
I live in Manhattan too. "Just suck it up" isn't the correct response. You
even admit that it's annoying, so why roll over and resign yourself to it? One
asshole with a loud horn making lots of noise on the streets at night can
easily wake up hundreds of people. How is this remotely acceptable? It has a
real measured public health burden. We can and should do better; getting
proper sleep is important.

And by the way, the vast majority of horn use is illegal.

~~~
throwawaymath
I agree with everything you're saying. All I'm saying is you won't find much
sympathy. People really like honking, and it's probably not politically
tenable to legislate that away.

~~~
CydeWeys
I think the average person is more sympathetic than you are, to be blunt.
You're projecting here.

Loud honking (especially at night) is a common complaint that New Yorkers
frequently empathize over. Keep in mind that fully 78% of households in
Manhattan don't even own a car, so way more people are annoyed by honking than
ever do it.

And it's already illegal, no further legislation needed. The issue is with
enforcement.

~~~
throwawaymath
You still seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm personally sympathetic. I'm
saying most _other_ people just don't care much. If they did, they wouldn't
honk.

------
reaperducer
Selfish people doing selfish things.

Everyone thinks they're above average, that bad things will never happen to
them, that they're faster and have better reflexes than everyone else.

And then they kill someone.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
The odds are that any one use will not kill someone. Everyone thinks they can
beat the odds one more time.

------
hateful
Yes, it's been illegal for years - but EVERY DAY I see people on their phones
- talking, texting. My favorite move is when they're holding their phone like
a waiter - it's on speaker phone, but I would consider that in no way "hands
free" operation. And they are always driving recklessly (inconsistent speed,
sometimes swerving). It's absolutely out of control.

~~~
ajross
FWIW, the data doesn't really bear this out. Vehicle travel has been getting
steadily safer in the US for decades. Obviously there are problems that need
to be addressed, and those change over time, but the war is a long one and
we're winning. See:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

That's not to say driving with a phone is safe, but it's not a crisis. We
address it with the same tools we always have: law enforcement and regulation
of safety technologies.

~~~
jeromegv
We're winning. This is absolutely crazy that 36 000 deaths a year in the USA
is considered "winning". Like it couldn't get any better. Hey it's better than
the apocalypse from 30 years ago, we are WINNING. If terrorism was 36,000
deaths every year you can bet this would be a big topic of conversation.

Other data to look at, shared of accidents caused by distracted driving are
way way up. Perhaps if distracted driving was going down instead of going up,
we would be getting much lower than 36,000 death/year

Source: [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-are-you-a-
dis...](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-are-you-a-distracted-
driver-probably-heres-why/)

~~~
ajross
My point was that our reaction to this new problem of distracted driving
should be commensurate with our reaction to the "old problems" of, I dunno,
DUI or road rage or whatever. Because numerically it doesn't really make
sense.

By all means let's work to reduce traffic fatalities. Let's just do it in a
smarter way that "OMG phones in cars" \-- I mean, how about work on better
civil infrastructure choices so people aren't incentivized to drive in the
first place.

------
joe_the_user
It seems fatalities per 100 million VMT reached a minimum in 2014 (1.08) and
has crept back since then [1] (to 1.19 in 2016, 1.13 in 2018), still not much
above 2012 levels (1.14). I can only speculate that the decline has to do with
more safer models on the road and then distracted drivers perhaps bumped
things up very slightly again.

I think most drivers, at least those not always distracted, notice the
prevalence of distracted drivers on the road - cars that drive normally and
then, say, gradually slow down to well below the speed limit and the speed of
traffic. Which is to say, considering how common they are, it's remarkable
these drivers don't cause many more accidents - statistics altogether seem to
say they don't (correct me if I'm missing something). A factor to consider is
that the "not as dangerous as you think" quality of distracted drivers comes
because they do drive slowly, slowing traffic and thereby reducing accident
totals (years ago, the introduction of the 55 speed limit reduced traffic
fatalities a lot, see same wikipedia article).

Basically, the distraction trends seems to have made driving _more annoying_
but not that much more unsafe. Perhaps something still needs to be done but
that something might just some warning bells when driver driving outside the
norms.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Seems like most people I observe texting seem to do so at low risk times (e.g.
at stop light or in stop and go traffic). People looking at their phones in
traffic in areas where "things happen" (pedestrians present, traffic entering,
etc.) seem to be much rarer. There's not much opportunity to kill someone
accidentally in those kinds of conditions because of the low speed which is
probably why those accidents don't show in the death based statistics you're
looking at.

~~~
joe_the_user
Yeah, get situations of a traffic light turning green and no body moving -
it's incredibly annoying but not at all unsafe.

Maybe in the future, traffic can just stop entirely and everyone will
virtually work from their phones.

------
LinuxBender
Haven't there been some studies that associate smart phones with addictive
drugs? Something to do with dopamine dependency. If true, how do you ween
people off drugs?

~~~
fenwick67
Facebook is basically a slot machine. Checking your notifications, almost
always it's garbage but one day it could be an old friend reaching out to you.
It's designed to be addictive and it's very successful.

~~~
amatecha
Nice, that's one of the most insightful and concise summaries of social media
I've yet seen. Well worded.

~~~
sp332
If you want to learn more about it, the effect is usually called "intermittent
reinforcement". Check out the first two episodes of
[https://humanetech.com/podcast/](https://humanetech.com/podcast/)
(transcripts available)

------
pmcollins
Texting while driving should be treated with the same severity as drunk
driving. Full stop.

~~~
drunken-serval
I'm pretty sure it is. At least in Wisconsin. My uncle has double digit DUIs
and has never served time in jail.

------
middlering
Rewritten headline:

"People refuse to put down their phones. They keep dying, suffering, showing
many signs of addiction, still keep refusing."

Drivers are just a large subset of the population. The phone addiction is a
problem with the society as a whole. The impact of this addiction is just most
visible, as an externality, in drivers.

I'm not defending drivers, I'm just saying that drivers are people, and this
is a wider people issue, not a driver specific one. I write this as a runner,
cyclist, walker, and a very occasional driver.

------
t34543
It is not about saving lives, and mobile phone distractions are not as bad as
you think. Statistics are commonly misused. Speeding kills your pocketbook 2
explores this in depth, fact checking accident statistics in BC:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38)

~~~
chki
Generically referring to the Misuse of Statistics doesn't really add something
to the discussion though. Is there a specific critique of the statistics
regarding texting while driving?

~~~
bradlys
I think the video shows how they are frequently misused. I wouldn't be
surprised if the conclusions in the bloomberg article are also incorrect.

------
telesilla
Werner Herzog made this heartbreaking documentary on this topic. It has kept
me from being distracted by my phone when driving since I've seen it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qf85X3extY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qf85X3extY)

------
mkd1964
Phones have GPS. In states where texting and driving is banned, why isn't
there some way to program the phone so that it simply doesn't function if it
detects a speed of over 5-10 mph?

I just don't see a problem with that since it's already the law.

It could then send an automated message back to the caller letting them know
the owner appears to be driving and can't take your call.

I'm sure many of us here are old enough to remember life before cell phones
and I can guarantee you that there's almost never anything so emergent that it
can't wait until you get to your destination.

------
thrillgore
It might be time for a regulatory mandate here. Phones have to go offline if
they're running more than 15MPH unless docked or handsfree.

I can't believe i'm calling for regulation, but someone will. Question is do
we get ahead of it now or before a new Congress does?

I also feel like pointing out this article says there were 3,000 deaths from
phone use. Well, there were 40,000 from firearms in the US
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-
deaths.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html).
PRIORITIES!

~~~
steverb
So, how do you get the phone to know whether or not you are driving or merely
a passenger?

------
krilly
I have always connected this problem with automatic cars. I haven't looked at
statistical evidence, but I think this is a much bigger problem in the US than
the UK and I think it's because it's much easier to drive an auto with one
hand.

I often see established vloggers and public figures recording themselves with
a smartphone while driving and they always seem to be American.

I believe there has been some adjacent research done into the safety of manual
cars which has found that they can be safer since they demand more
concentration to drive.

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/auto-and-
vehicles/...](https://www.statefarm.com/simple-insights/auto-and-
vehicles/manual-vs-automatic-transmissions)

"Studies haven't really shown whether one is safer than the other."

~~~
bb123
I doubt that is relevant to the UK though.

~~~
ceejayoz
It's relevant to the hypothesis that automatic cars are safer.

------
nojvek
Unpopular opinion: Trying to look at it from a constraint problem.

1) telling people not to use their phones. I think this is a losing fight. Why
do people use their phones? Because waiting for red lights is boring. We have
a 3 minute red light (1 min per direction) in one of our junctions. Almost
every driver is distracted at end of 3 mins and somewhat on their phone.

I don’t think phones are going away anytime soon.

On the other hands I’d like cars to get a bit smarter. I’ve really been
enjoying my comma Eon. It does a great job of following lanes allowing me to
use my brain cycles for higher order environmental awareness about other cars.
I feel a bit less guilty changing to another Spotify track on my phone.

But it’s also a phone problem too. The touch interface is horrible. There is
no tactile feedback. Siri voice commands are really dumb as hell.

The phone could be mounted on the dash and the mobile is needs to guarantee
every app can be used via voice with almost as much efficiency and accuracy as
touching it.

Basically what I’m saying is. Let’s fight the problem at a deeper layer.

------
codesforhugs
What floors me about this article is that the data comes from phone users who
have installed TruMotion based software. In other words they know their
driving behavior is being actively tracked, and they STILL use their phones
while driving.

I have to think a good amount of these people are actually unable to make the
choice of not using their phone while driving, presumably because the habit is
so deeply ingrained.

------
kasane
I no longer bike in areas without dedicated bike lanes because of this, and
I'm not even sure how much safety a bike lane provides me.

~~~
downerending
The answer might turn out to be that it makes bicyclists _less_ safe.

A couple of years ago I moved to a place with extensive bike lanes and other
bike-friendly signage, road features, etc. Sounds awesome. But I've noticed
that it significantly adds to the mental load of driving here. I'm an
unusually conscientious driver, and I often encounter the feeling of hitting
my multitasking ceiling at intersections, partly due to the bicycle-friendly
increase in complexity. I suspect that many less careful blow through that
ceiling without realizing it.

I'd like to see the question studied.

~~~
btrettel
I think this is a real phenomena. Many traffic engineers don't seem to
appreciate it.

Earlier this year I did a small study of how often drivers yield to me, a
cylist, at certain crossings. These crossings are rather confusing, but the
city seems to believe that merely putting signs (sometimes multiple in
basically the same spot) telling drivers to yield to cyclists is enough. It's
not. Drivers nearly run over cyclists on a regular basis at these crossings.
According to my statistics drivers yield to cyclists only about 61% of the
time. See the slides here:

[http://trettel.org/pubs/2019/austin-
bac-2019-10-15.pdf](http://trettel.org/pubs/2019/austin-bac-2019-10-15.pdf)

There are multiple ways to fix this problem but Austin seems uninterested.

~~~
downerending
That's a great example of an over-complex pattern. The yield sign is awful--
hard to even tell whether it's for the cars or the bicycles.

Here's what worked for me, over thousands of miles of cycling back before bike
lanes, etc.:

1\. I rode as far right as I safely could, typically on the white line or a
foot away from the curb, and always with the flow of traffic.

2\. I was careful to ride in a straight line, following a completely
predictable path.

3\. I had a glasses-mounted rear-view mirror and kept an eye on traffic coming
up behind. I never needed to, but I was always ready to bail out to the right
in a split second. Towards that end, kept my bike in top shape and practiced
quick stops and counter-steering.

4\. Never made left turns if vehicles were present. Instead, passed through
the intersection, stopped on far side, dismounted, and lifted/turned bike 90
degrees.

5\. Reflective gear day and night. Never rode in poor visibility (e.g., rain
storm).

6\. Most importantly, _always_ yielded to all vehicular traffic all of the
time. If a car could intersect my path, I just stopped and waited, unless I
could make eye contact and it was clear that they saw me and intended to wait.

With that, never had a close call, nor even got honked at.

Now, you might say that that's not fair, or that you don't want to ride in
such a wimpy style. I understand. But I think it's the only safe(-ish) way to
ride on public streets.

------
mywittyname
I don't believe that laws are responsible for this plateau in distracted
driving, but instead the fact that hands-free phone integration in new cars
became pretty common six or so years ago. So now, even people buying used cars
are buying cars that have hands-free usage. My two cars from 2013 the barest
base models available of already cheap cars and they both have hands-free
support.

The graph showing the downward trend in distracted driving starting at ~2013
is solid evidence in favor of this explanation.

If laws were responsible for the reductions, then the article should point out
that states who didn't pass new laws also didn't see reductions in usage.

I do agree that this is a problem, but misidentifying the cause of the
downward trend is actively working against a solution. Perhaps we should be
passing laws that mandate vehicle-phone integration standards rather than
punitive traffic laws.

~~~
WhompingWindows
People need to actually use the hands-free option, though. Most of my older
relatives have newer cars, but none of them are tech-savvy or motivated enough
to set up the hands-free mode or learn how to use it.

------
thrwn_frthr_awy
Abstinence based policies are not working. We need to let people hold and talk
on their phone. Everyone is trying to hide their phone. Ride in a bus in the
bay area and you'll see ~25-50% of people on their phone on a given day. Are
there any studies of cities that allowing talking on the phone, but no
texting?

~~~
asdf21
Unpopular anecdote:

I used to have a great system for texting and driving, before it was made
illegal in CA -- I generally drive with my left hand, so I would hold my phone
up on the steering wheel with my right hand (at 3:00) and I would text as
needed with my right thumb. Since I was holding the phone up on the wheel, I
would never take my eyes off the road to text. I did this frequently for years
and years, was never really distracted, got very good at it (quick at thumb
typing), didn't have any issues to speak of.

Then, when it became illegal, I got like two tickets for doing this in two
years. So, I learned to start hiding my phone way down low on my lap to text.
Now, if I decide to text while driving, I constantly have to take my eyes off
the road and look way down at my lap to text, for seconds at a time. Texting
the easy and safe way, where the phone is held next to the steering wheel, has
been punished and gets tickets. Texting the unsafe way, holding the phone down
at lap level, rarely gets a ticket.

In the next couple years of holding my phone down at my lap level to text, I
had not gotten any tickets, but I did have some minor issues doing this. Since
I had to take my eyes off the road to text this way, I caught myself swerving
towards the center line, or the berm, etc., multiple times. And I almost rear
ended someone because traffic stopped when I was looking down at my lap for
1-2 seconds.

Because of these issues, I gave up texting and driving entirely, however, I
doubt most people ever will, as I tend to have a lot more self-control than
most people (I've completely quit drinking, quit smoking, quit gaming, etc.)
Overall, I find it very ironic that the safe(est) way of texting, where you
don't have to take your eyes off the road, is punished, while the unsafe,
dangerous way (holding your phone at lap level) is not.

Banning texting basically made it far less safe than it used to be -- everyone
holds their phone at lap level now, so of course that's a huge issue.

~~~
Zigurd
My first experience with a giant texting anus was with a guy in a big SUV who
I noticed was draping his hands over the top of the steering wheel while
driving too close behind me on the Merritt Parkway. Eventually I figured out
he was holding Blackberry (back in the day) and texting. All the way to New
York. Using me as a human shield. I'm sure he was delighted at his "system."

~~~
asdf21
A human shield from what?

~~~
Zigurd
He was "driving" by using my rear bumper as a guide.

------
droithomme
Cell phone use is known to impair driving as much as being drunk, and texting
more so.

Penalties need to be upgraded to match those of drunk driving convictions, and
enforced as strictly as drunk driving is. Including manslaughter and homicide
charges when the cell phone use is involved in an incident that results in
deaths.

------
minikites
Yet another benefit to limiting the need for cars in new building
developments. Plenty of pedestrians also look at their phones while walking
but a collision of two pedestrians is very unlikely to be fatal.

------
mentos
Apple might be able to implement some sort of "It seems as though you are
traveling in a car, we have disabled texting and driving." but then that has
the obvious issue of preventing passengers from texting.

If you were to embrace the problem, whats the safest way to let people text
and drive while on their phone? Something that doesn't force them to look down
off the road?

Hands free voice to text sucks.

Best thing I can think of is some sort of windshield heads up display and a
keyboard on your steering wheel hah

~~~
dudul
My wife just got a new iPhone, and it now comes with this feature where it
blocks texts/calls while you're driving. It's pretty cool.

~~~
towndrunk
But.... you can disable that.

------
hector_vasquez
This seems like an eminently solvable problem.

My car knows when its key fob is inside it with great precision, to the point
that I cannot even lock the doors while it is inside. My iPhone knows when it
is itself in the car, so when I want to use it while driving, I have to
dismiss a warning message, which I adeptly do with muscle memory.

Seems to me if cars supported driver and passenger authentication, most
illegal device usage could be stopped rather trivially.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
Couldn't the driver just authenticate as a passenger? It's not a good
assumption to assume that, because there's only one cell phone in the car,
it's going to be the drivers, so I don't know know an approach where the
driver just can't circumvent the restriction.

~~~
hector_vasquez
The car would need to authenticate the driver as the driver, and each
passenger as a passenger. Plenty of ways to do it. As an iPhone user, TouchID
and FaceID come to mind.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
That could be an option, I suppose. Not looking forward to the day I can't
drive my rental car because I own an Android.

------
mnm1
How do they know when these drivers are driving vs. being a passenger? Do they
rely on the driver to click a button to indicate that? Or do they just assume
that anytime a cellphone is going a certain speed, the user is driving? I did
not see this addressed in the article and frankly, without knowing this, their
data is completely useless. For all we know, they're gathering data on
passengers.

------
fetus8
In the last two weeks, I've seen two drivers with phones mounted on their
windshields, watching what appeared to be the news while driving on the
highway. Both instances were men, at least 40 or older. It shouldn't come as a
shock in 2019, but I was still pretty surprised in the moment. Unfortunately,
according to the article, my state has no such laws against this type of
behavior.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
No laws against distracted driving? That's kind of a general catch-all, but it
would fit...

~~~
fetus8
I guess the Bloomberg article is wrong...we do have laws that ban using a
phone while driving for manual entry (texting, web browsing). I wonder how
watching video content plays into that?

[https://leg.colorado.gov/content/distracted-driving-and-
cell...](https://leg.colorado.gov/content/distracted-driving-and-cell-phone-
use)

------
decasia
I know software isn't a panacea, but how hard would it be to design the cars
so that if you are alone in the car (and therefore obviously the driver),
mobile devices shift into hands-free-only mode?

I realize if you had multiple passengers it seems like a much harder technical
problem to detect whether the person using the phone is also driving.

~~~
Zigurd
With technologies like Nearby it is possible to determine if you are near
other individuals' devices. It is possible to infer you are in a car based on
samples from phone sensors. In addition, it is possible to tell you are not
driving a car based on your body movements. The kinds of apps your car insurer
likes you to run have to make all these inferences already (if they don't have
a hardware component independent of your phone).

~~~
decasia
That's so interesting, thanks! So it sounds like actually there could be a big
technical piece of the solution to this problem, if devices already know (or
could know) how to shift automatically into driving mode…

If only there were the regulatory will to implement this, over and above being
nudged (I guess?) by insurers…

~~~
Zigurd
To be fair it's a lot more complicated. One reason you don't hear much about
what insurance apps really do is that they don't really know the what all that
data can tell them. Another is that it would creep you out. Each use case has
different sensitivity to false positives/negatives. But, in general, if
they've got your accelerometer data and location, they, whoever "they" might
be, know you pretty well.

------
ummonk
If you were only putting your life in danger rather than other people’s, using
the phone while driving could actually be rational. Consider how much your
life expectancy reduces by using the phone while driving vs how much time you
waste due to commuting and not using the phone during that time.

------
therockspush
Ive noticed in the last month people mounting their phones on their steering
wheel or dash and watching tv. Full on Korean dramas or whatnot. As bad as
that is there is a special place in hell for drivers who make eye contact with
the passenger they are talking to while driving.

------
partiallypro
Sure, it's a problem, but motor vehicle deaths are down pretty substantially
in the past decade. The per capita rate is down nearly 50% since the 70s. A
lot of this is from safety standards, but I don't really see this as an
epidemic.

~~~
jarofghosts
The problem is that it's killing people that aren't in cars, see:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/pedestrian-cyclist-
dea...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/pedestrian-cyclist-deaths-
traffic.html)

~~~
partiallypro
New York expanded their bike lanes a few years ago, I would bet that has had a
much bigger impact.

------
davidw
Ok ok, but we shouldn't lose focus on the real threat to our cities:
e-scooters!

~~~
thrillgore
And vaping

------
redbeard0x0a
Driverless cars need to get here sooner rather than later.

~~~
whalesalad
Pipe dream. Even if a driverless car was to exist.. it has to contend with
millions of other vehicles all being driven by human beings.

George Hotz has a killer talk about why the general approach to autonomous
vehicles is flawed. I highly recommend it.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxuU5L2MEII](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IxuU5L2MEII)

~~~
munk-a
I disagree, as soon as driverless cars exist being able to manually drive a
car becomes a luxury and shifts from a right[1] to a privilege - when that
happens unsafe driving violations should immediately revoke that right and we
could quickly up the volume of self-driving cars. AI driving assistance might
be the missing puzzle piece here, once it'd mature we can start forcing people
on to it and once folks are on it then we can start banning full manuals and
forcing full automation as we will have upped driver predictability.

------
royaltheartist
Ban cars

------
iamten
Would AI drivers text and drive?

~~~
dundercoder
If you include telemetry, yes.

------
mullingitover
America's puritanical streak is a mile wide. We will ruin your life if you're
doing something fun like drinking and driving, but we'll turn a blind eye if
you're doing something equally reckless and dangerous like simply sending
someone else a text message and not looking at the road.

Texting and driving should obviously be treated the same as DUI if we're going
to be logically consistent about recklessly endangering your fellow drivers
and pedestrians, but I'm not optimistic about that happening.

