Category - ADI

Nice to see that the American educational system is no better than ours. After years of dumbing down and inflated grades to make people look better than they are, the same people seem to be at universities, demonstrating a very rudimentary understanding of accident statistics and the factors which affect them.

This report (via The Telegraph) from MIT says that mobile phone bans in cars might be ineffective because those who use mobiles are already bad drivers.

I would hope that most of those reading this can already see the obvious problem with this statement. If someone is already a bad driver, using a mobile phone will just make them worse.

The study leader, Bryan Reimer, is quoted (it’s an American quote, hence the spelling):

It’s clear that cell phones in and of themselves impair the ability to manage the demands of driving.

But the fundamental problem may be the behavior of the individuals willing to pick up the technology.

You cannot possibly suggest that using a mobile phone doesn’t impair your ability to concentrate on driving, yet that’s what this guy is implying in spite of that first sentence. Why do so many academics try to be clever and find conflict or uncertainty where there is none? If you fiddle with the radio or CD, try to open a packet of sweets or sandwiches, tip your head back to drink, try to feed the sprog in the baby seat at the side of or behind you… or piss about with your mobile phone, then you are distracted.

Banning the use of mobile phones – and enforcing it with hefty penalties – addresses just one part of the overall problem. People being rubbish drivers at the genetic level is part of the same problem, but totally unconnected with mobile phone distraction while driving.

To make matters worse, the “study” only involved 108 people, and those were split into three age groups (giving only 36 per group if it was an equal split). They were also “asked” to grade themselves as frequent or infrequent mobile phone users while driving (so objectivity has just sailed away over the horizon).

The findings were reported earlier this month in ‘Accident Analysis & Prevention’ and may explain why cell phone bans do not seem to work.

‘Cell phone bans have reduced cell phone use by drivers, but the perplexing thing is that they haven’t reduced crashes,’ said Russ Rader, a spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in Arlington, Virginia…

They don’t work because the whole issue is far more complex than this “study” has assumed, and people just ignore the bans, for God’s sake! In the UK, you’re looking at a fixed penalty of £60 and 3 points on your licence at the very least. If it goes to court then £1,000 and a ban is quite likely. Yet when I’m out on the roads, it can be as many as 50% of other road users pratting about on phones at traffic lights (i.e. when I get chance to look). Some of them – predominantly women, I’m afraid – are obviously texting or networking, and not merely talking.

‘There is no question in anyone’s mind that talking on a cell phone increases risk,’ said Reimer.

Then why bloody well suggest the opposite, and say to the media that bans don’t work? The only logical action from that is to change the law so people can use them, especially as far as the typical journalist’s brain in concerned. And that’s just stupid when you’ve also just said that using one increases risk!

As I say, the whole issue is far more complex, and extant research – on many more people – has shown:

…that if you’re using any mobile phone when driving, you’re four times more likely to crash. You also have significantly worse reaction times than someone driving after drinking alcohol at the legal limit.

To find out how difficult it is to focus on several things while driving, try the Driving Challenge. This online game highlights the dangers of using your phone when driving.

Try the Driving Challenge

See that? See how complex it is, now that we know that those genetically bad drivers are still potentially (no research has tried to nitpick this aspect separately yet) affected by distraction more with their mobiles than they are with alcohol?

The MIT “study” only really shows that driver attitude and character might be a factor in distraction.It absolutely does not prove that phone bans don’t work, The accident statistics are too complex for such an immature conclusion to be drawn from such limited and flawed (allowing people to grade themselves) data.

Back in February I commented on a publicity stunt by a school which had found a very unique selling point for its driving lessons. Quentin Willson – a self-styled driving expert and pistonhead (and ex-presenter of Top Gear) – was championing it.

Well, it looks like someone over in Oz has got hold of it and is similarly passing it off as a great idea with heaps of fuzzy logic and contradictory information.

Australia has its own problems with maniac young drivers frequently wrapping themselves round Eucalyptus trees and unsuspecting kangaroos. In spite of this, the insane idea that the problems can be solved by encouraging kids – and I mean young children – to drool over cars and give them access to the keys has still surfaced.

The Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) is behind the initiative and keen for the program to be funded by government and used in all secondary schools across Australia.

The pilot, being run in Adelaide, will try to teach 12 to 18-year-olds good driving habits before they can pick up any bad habits from their parents or friends.

Sue Evans is a four-times Australian Rally champion with partner Simon and is taking part in a trial of the program at Heathfield High School in the Adelaide hills.

I like the word “oxymoron”. Having a motor sport group style itself as road safety advocate is a good example of one. Having a rally driver championing it is another:

With a teenage son learning to drive, she says the family is passionate about educating the young on good driving.

“As a rally car co-driver, I take road safety very seriously,” she said.

Just because someone has kids and drives a car – and quite a few people do, though this simple fact seems to escape many – doesn’t necessarily make them experts on road safety. And being a rally driver certainly doesn’t. I can think of at least two examples of racing drivers from the recent past who didn’t actually hold driving licences, so all their “skill” was on the track.

Children should be kept away from cars proper until they’re old enough to drive legally. And parents of children who can’t wait should be dealt with as unfit in many cases.

Giving lessons to 12-year olds is not the way to deal with underage driving. Either over here or anywhere else. It’s just the way the weak-minded get round dealing with the real problem.