By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Its going to be the infrastructure if anything. They are certainly not going to put it in the phone. If you aren't talking they aren't making money.
A wreck caused by a bee sting has a cause, so do ones caused by heart attack, extra curricular activities in the vehicle, etc.
Getting hit by a meteor...that would be an accident.
Yes. Deer are to be expected in wooded areas, so speed should be reduced and driver really focus on road, shoulders and don't daydream or have conversation with passenger(s).
Good point about the jammers - we could just aim them at the roads eh?
Kind of off topic (what else is new) but the roads are more likely to use something like VII or DSRC
I don't "not like" ESC, I think its a safety device that shrinks the performance envelope of a vehicle. I think it will change the type of accident we see, much like ABS did, but not lower the overall quantity. Hopefully, it will make them less severe, especially in the case of high profile vehicles.
VII (Vehicle Infrastructure Integration) and DSRC (Dedicated Short Range Communication) are the next step in IVS (Intelligent Transportation Systems). Unlike things like ESC, this doesn't take any control from the driver. This provides information to the driver about the surroundings. One VERY STRONG application benefits older drivers-who typically have trouble with the stop or go decision with green/yellow lights-this can provide guidance on the duration of the light and if they should go or stop.
No computers driving the car for you, no lack of personal responsibility, just a little guidance to help make driving safer and easier.
So...I'm sitting at the light trying to make up my mind when my cell rings and some androgynous voice from the IVS yells at me to get it in gear? Cool. :shades:
So...I'm sitting at the light trying to make up my mind when my cell rings and some androgynous voice from the IVS yells at me to get it in gear? Cool.
I realize this is tongue-in-cheek, but I also realize I wasn't clear. A big issue with older drivers (especially pronounced in FL) is when older drivers approach an intersection with either a stale green light or a yellow light. They can't decide if they need to stop or continue through, so by making an less desirable decision, the either get rear ended or are involved in a broadside collision.
This can also be used to tell you in real time where the parking spaces are in a parking structure that is almost full (or on a college campus!!), or which lane is closed for road construction, or if there is an accident or emergency vehicle activity in the area, or if there is severe weather, or...you get the idea.
Ok, I stole the wording of your post and started up a new discussion:
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Please help me seed it with any other links you have; I was surprised to see that we have some (small) number of systems already going here in Boise from one of your links the other day. Thanks!
Ah, so instead of cutting the engine, the DSC Warning voice, came on and said, "you are about to spin out and collide with the railing, do you want me to intervene?", would be a more to your liking? Said of course with some tongue in cheek.
IVS has little or nothing to do with DSC. Getting real time traffic info and using that to re-route a course to a destination on your navigation system or crackberry is IVS.
Something that makes it so you hit the k-barrier with the front of the car instead of the side is DSC :P
Onstar is trying something sort of similar - the button can light up meaning there's news in your area that may be of interest - traffic congestion and the like.
One of these days I guess I should dump my land line and get a cell. Maybe when they do away with the batteries and go to fuel cell power.
One of these days I guess I should dump my land line and get a cell. Maybe when they do away with the batteries and go to fuel cell power.
The issue is with cell phone coverage and if the power goes out, it takes down the cell towers too. Or you can do VoIP using your cable connection, or Skype... all kinds of choices.
Ahh, makes sense. When we had the Toledo power black hole a couple of years ago, all the cell towers started to die because the back-up batteries were drained. In my subdivision, we seem to be one of the last to get power restored. The cable company comes out and puts a small generator on the switchbox on our corner (that box is also full of car batteries for back-up).
It was recently announced in newspaper that family of dead man is sueing the county police department because they did not have in place the very latest technology that would have been able to pinpoint the cell phone within perhaps a couple hundred feet. County police department responded to newspaper briefly that they indeed were in the process of putting in the improvements at time of accident and that they were not derelict. The courts will have to make determination if county police were in fact doing the hardware/software changes at the time of the accident. Did county have documentation of a project timeline and milestones that were being met?
I'm guessing that involves triangulation using towers in the area and the phone signal? If that was state of the art at the time of the wreck, you have to wonder if a jury (made up of county taxpayers) is going to hold the county to any kind of standard, much less the latest and greatest technology.
Your example does hammer my jammer idea....
As for the original tone of this discussion...in my opinion, it should be illegal for a driver to be using a cellphone, or any other hand held device while driving. If they are observed doing so, they should be ticketed for careless driving, or reckless driving if they are involved in an accident. What did some of these people do before there were cell phones....stop at every pay phone they came to??? I think most of them who are constantly on the cell phone do so just to make sure their brains still rattle. We carry a Tracfone when traveling, for emergencies only.
They have a form of that in Alaska - loser pays a part of the winner's lawyer fees and court costs. Not sure of the amount; seems like it's around 25%. The couple of lawyers I knew seemed plenty busy when I lived up there though. :P
How difficult is it to get hold of phone records if someone smacks into you and you suspect they were on the phone? Looks like that would be good evidence if you had to sue for damages.
I am pursuing my masters in electrical engineering at the university of alabama. I stumbled across your post on ITS ans had a question on the same and would really appreciate it if I can get reply from you all. Is there any commercially available or already deployed road-side to on-board(mobile unit or a receiver inside a communication devices or systems.
The states showing the biggest declines were New Hampshire and Missouri, whose fatality rates dropped by 23% and 13% respectively. In case you're wondering, neither New Hampshire or Missouri have restrictions on cell phone use. New Jersey, New York and Connecticut actually saw increases in fatalities and they are the 3 states that had hand held bans in effect during 2006. Washington DC also has a hand held ban and they did see a drop in fatalities of 23% but we're talking about a very small sample compared to the states.
These are not opinions simply facts. Interpret them as you choose.
nhtsa report
So 27 air bags, stability control, abs, brake assist, and other safety devices are paying off and doing their job. That is excellent news.
The states showing the biggest declines were New Hampshire and Missouri, whose fatality rates dropped by 23% and 13% respectively. In case you're wondering, neither New Hampshire or Missouri have restrictions on cell phone use. New Jersey, New York and Connecticut actually saw increases in fatalities and they are the 3 states that had hand held bans in effect during 2006. Washington DC also has a hand held ban and they did see a drop in fatalities of 23% but we're talking about a very small sample compared to the states.
I don't see any information about the total number of reported or tow-away crashes. Is it okay to talk on the phone while you drive as long as you don't kill anyone or are we concerned with people crashing into our cars as well?
Like I said in my post, I wasn't offering an opinion, just statistical facts. But my opinion is that it is definitely not okay for us to crash into other peoples cars/property or for them to do the same to us. The NHTSA releases a more detailed report later in the year, which includes property damage only accidents. I can only say that in the past this rate has always gone in the same direction as the fatality/injury rate.
Whether its due to air bags, stability control, abs, etc., the bottom line is that it is safer to drive on our roads today than at any other time in history. Could the roads be safer? Absolutely. Could this be accomplished through strict cell phone restrictions? That's not so clear. CA's hand held ban went into effect early this year. That's the biggest statistical sample out there and it will be interesting to see their numbers next year.
Californians are going to have to put down their cell phone and use a hands-free device starting in 2008 if they want to talk and drive at the same time under a bill Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger plans to sign into law today."Public safety is the governor's No. 1 priority, and this bill make the streets and highways of California safer by making sure drivers have both hands available for driving," said Margita Thompson, a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger.
What is clear, is that it is a huge problem. The problem is not the talking, it's the lack of attention to the road the talking and texting causes. While there probably is little statistical correlation between cell phone usage and car crashes, or cell phone usage and death I've seen enough to understand that common sense should prevail. These devices should be treated in the same vein as driving while under the influence.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was putting it on you...I was just trying to raise the question.
Well if the state and federal governments do come to the consensus that this is a problem hopefully they'll come up with a more effective approach than the one being used to combat driving under the influence. Despite all these safety features being added to automobiles and tougher laws being enacted alcohol related fatalities have remained pretty static over the past 15 years. It seems to me that a safer vehicle would provide greater protection regardless of whether the people involved are impaired or not.
That would seem like a good compromise. But, why wait until someone is injured/killed in an accident? I really don't see people cutting back even minimal cell phone usage on the off chance they may have an accident and be fined. Everyone using cell phones while driving think that accidents are beyond them.
On the other hand, for alcohol related fatalities to go up (even slightly) in spite of all these safety features, indicates to me that after years of progress, DUI has again become a growing problem.
-Frank
One trend I've noticed in this area is that both the drunk driver and any passengers involved in fatal accidents don't wear their safety belts (the paper always notes this, especially with fatalities).
Plus, they tend to drive old cars and trucks, which don't have as many safety features as the newest models. Drunk drivers, by and large, aren't totalling brand-new Accords or Volvos when they have an accident.
Alcohol related fatalities went up almost exactly in proportion with miles driven. I'm not sure it represent a growing problem but rather a problem that will require different approaches to make significant further progress. I think it will ultimately involve some non-intrusive technology that actually prevents a vehicle from being operated by an impaired driver. It would probably also catch the driver that is falling asleep, which probably represents a bigger problem than we are fully aware of.
The get-tough approach advocated for cell phone usage seems to have failed in curbing drunk driving fatalities.
That was basically my point. Laws tend to identify problems rather than solve them. Yet so many people derive a false sense of security from these laws the legislators feel compelled to churn them out. You'd think that we would have a perfect society by now.
The get tough attitude with a lot of laws, by some measuares have failed, murder, rape, child molestation. Yet, I would not want these laws off the books.
I also think tougher DUI and cell phone laws are in order. Make the fine bigger than @20 for cell phone usage and have sever penalities where cell phone usage is implicated in injury or fatalities crashes.
That's fine but what's your suggestion for actually solving or reducing these problems? We won't come up with real solutions until we accept the reality that our attempted solutions aren't working. I think it has been pretty well established that harsher penalties aren't an effective deterrent.
The US is either first or second in terms of the percentage of its population that is incarcerated. Russia's got the other top spot. Not really something to be proud of. Is this because we have more bad people or because our knee jerk reaction to solving social problems is punishment?
That is simple. Go through and execute those incarcerated for the more heinous crimes. Make some room for the drunks and cell phone users that cause fatal accidents. Or send the overflow to Sheriff Joe in Maricopa. He has plenty of room in the desert for a few million more. Pink under ware and bologna sandwiches are cheap.
People have to take responsibility for their actions, where they can't the government needs to step in and determine how to help the person take responsbility and if needed remove the person from free society.
I'm not sure if harsher penalities don't work. I hate to think what the roads would be like if all DUI laws were suddenly removed from the books.
Maybe we don't deal harshly enough with some issues. In Germany in order to use a hand held your engine must be off. Do you know what the penalty is for violating this law?
I never said that laws were totally ineffective. I'm sure that if you removed the DUI laws the roads would be less safe. What I'm contending is that when you enact a law there is an almost immediate impact on some people's behavior. There is also a certain level of non-compliance. I've seen the DUI laws get tougher over the years yet it doesn't seem to be making much of a dent in this level of non-compliance.
I have no idea what the penalty is in Germany for using a hand held while driving. Regardless of how severe this penalty is I'm certain some people are breaking this law and would continue to do so even if the penalty was increased.
My guess is that whether or not additional laws are passed against hand held cell phones they will start to disappear simply because a hands free device is more convenient while driving. Bluetooth is incorporated in most cell phones sold these days and the headsets are getting pretty cheap.
Those laws deal with moral issues. Even apart from any law or statute, it is immoral to murder someone; force a person to have sex without his or her consent; or have sex with a minor who is too young to understand the meaning - and possible consequences of - sexual activity.
The law reflects society's moral code by banning these activities.
Using a cell phone while driving is not a moral issue.
Second, we are talking about increasing the penalties for these acts, not completely legalizing these acts.
Finally, there is no proof that the "get tough" approach to dealing with these crimes has failed. The tougher penalties reflect increased public awareness of the occurrence of these activities (especially child molestation). This has spurred more victims to come forward with charges. Increased reporting and prosecution of a crime is not the same as an increase in the incidence of the crime. It was always happening; now people are spurred to come forward and report it.
With driving under the influence, fatalities have INCREASED even with the imposition of tougher penalties. Which should send a signal that we have reached the point of diminishing returns for dealing with this problem by lowering the blood alcohol content (BAC) threshold.
kdshapiro: I also think tougher DUI and cell phone laws are in order. Make the fine bigger than 20 for cell phone usage and have sever penalities where cell phone usage is implicated in injury or fatalities crashes.
We are already jailing more people for DUI, forcing more people than ever to install ignition interlock systems on vehicles and have lowered the blood alcohol content (BAC) level at which a person is considered intoxicated. How will we make the penalties tougher? Jail them more often? Not a good idea, considering that jails are already overcrowded.
And making the fine higher for cell phone usage will only spur resistance from police officers, who are reluctant to impose fines that they consider too stiff for certain offeneses. In Pennsylvania, we ran into this roadblock a few years ago when considering a bill that would place surcharges on tickets for various minor offenses. Local police did not want to levy these stricter fines on their neighbors and associates.
You are splitting hairs. While there are different flavors of "murder", killing someone because you were on the cell phone and ran a light or stop sign because your attention was diverted is still murder, even if it is called negligent homocide.
A car is no different a weapon than a gun or knife. You have to use it responsibly or either get your priviledges revoked or your freedom taken away.
I support tougher penalities and more jails, send the criminals to Maricopa county.
I reject some of your assertions, cops do not having to deal remains from highway fatalities. I think they would welcome measures that gives them the teeth and opportunity to keep the roads safe. Maybe it works that way in Penn. but here in the real world.
I know the cops would have welcomed giving those unfortunate teenagers who died while driving and text messaging a huge fine and have them think twice about their actions, than to call their parents to tell them their daughters have died in a totally preventable car crash.
We all want safe roads, no disagreement there.
Why is it that the three states with laws against hand held cell phones saw increases in fatalities and injuries in 2006 when the nation as a whole saw a decrease? I'm not stating that these laws actually made the roads less safe. It's more likely this result was somewhat of a fluke. But its pretty obvious they didn't make the roads significantly safer. So what's the point? I don't claim to have all the answers but I am smart enough to recognize when something doesn't work.