Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

kdshapiro · May 2005

Your POV is your POV, but it is not a view that is shared by scientists who have studied this. You can read the studies. If you want to believe the following activities while driving are equal in terms loss of attention, please be my guest. I will avoid the LIE from now on:

eating, drinking, applying eye makeup/combing your hair, reading the paper, talking on the cell phone/using hands free, conversing with passengers, having a fight with your spouse, adjusting the radio.

BTW - more and more, I'm seeing people with their heads directly under the rear-view mirror while driving and talking on the phone at the same time. Both hands are on the wheel, but the neck is tilted holding the phone against the shoulder. As a result the head winds up under the rear-view mirror. I guess 1) you can't be cited since both hands are one the wheel and 2) it's much safer to drive like that. :sick:

snakeweasel · May 2005

Thats my entire point, its not the cell phone but the driver failure to adequately concentrate on their driving. When I am on the phone (which is rare be it in the car or at home) I use hands free devices with voice activation so my distraction level is minimized. Also I utilize something that all cell phones have many times when people call me, its called voice mail.

Any ways one time I saw a guy that was trying to drive a stick and work his cell phone. I stayed away from him.

kdshapiro · May 2005

"its not the cell phone but the driver failure"

That's the point scientists have studied this and have concluded cell phones and driving don't mix. Even using hands-free your driving changes when on the hands-free.

snakeweasel · May 2005

Actually the studies I have seen are inconclusive at best. the only studies I have seen that do support that fact are suspicious at best (i.e. promoted by groups trying to outlaw cell phone usage while driving).

I actually seen a study that suggested talking on a cell phone with a hands free device may actually safer than talking to someone in the car since you do not have the temptation to turn and look at the person you are talking to.

li_sailor · May 2005

Your POV is your POV, but it is not a view that is shared by scientists who have studied this.

I've read some of the studies. Some scientists share my POV and some don't. It's hardly rock-solid.

I'm hardly ever on the LIE and besides, probability theorists would not agree with your approach, but be my guest :=)

BTW, I never said that all those activities were equal. I said that, all else being equal, I don't think cell phone conversations are more distracting than passenger conversations. Of your list, I would say that fighting with your spouse is the most distracting (perfectly legal). I'm not counting reading the paper, which qualifies for suicide/homicide, not distraction.

kdshapiro · May 2005

I have never read a study that actually stated that talking on a cell phone is equal to or less than the danger conversing whilst driving.

The studies I've read were in disagreement as to how much of your brain leaves the road for the duration, not if your brain leaves the road.

bjw1 · May 2005

I talk on my cell and drive, not all the time but occasionally, but when i do i dont have any problems, you must have the ability to multi task, and have the mental capacity to do both at the same time, not making fun of people here, but some people can do it and some cant, and those who cant are the ones who cause the accidents. In a football analogy a qb must read the defense, know where the recievers are, and know where the pressure is coming from all in about 1.5 to 2 seconds, thats why some qbs are not good and the good ones can do this, same principle, talking on the cell phne, you have to keep track of the conversation, traffic, your speed, your speed to the relation to traffic flow, peds, and other road dangers. thats my opinion, you can comment on this or not but its my opinion on this matter.

li_sailor · May 2005

A compendium of studies

Study 1: Intense or complex conversation leads to the greatest increases in overlooking significant highway traffic conditions...engaging in casual conversation was less of a problem...

Study2: ...changing a cassette tape was more distracting than talking on a car phone.

Study 3: nothing comparing the 2

Another study

Other distractions, such as looking at outside objects and other people in the vehicle, pose a greater risk of contributing to crashes than cell phone use.

Another thing to think about is that while cell phone use is up significantly in the last few years, accident rates are not up, per VMT. If cell phones were a significantly higher distraction factor over other distractions, they would be skyrocketing.

My conclusion? Allowing distractions to affect your driving is Inconsiderate. Cell phone use, per se, is not.

bottgers · May 2005

Talking on cell phone while driving by itself isn't necessarily that dangerous, it's when it's combined with speeding and tailgaiting when it becomes very dangerous, and I see this all the time.

imidazol97 · May 2005

I certainly have the mental capacity... I'm not one you're painting as "deficient."

However I had to make a business call after I left work. I discussed money matters that I realized needed to be clarified before the person left work today. I used the phone on a light traffic area. I don't recall about 1 1/2 miles of driving, through 3 stoplights, over an interstate, past a Walmart entrance. I assume I stopped, and avoided other cars. I doubt that I tailgated. But I was engrossed in the conversation and thinking about the right questions to ask about retirement money handling.

Was I driving as well as I normally would have? I doubt it. I did not have the option of stopping; I was due at my son's school at the end of the drive.

kdshapiro · May 2005

That's exactly the point.

Changing a cassette tape while certainly taking your brain off the road is done for about 1.5 seconds. That's a bit different than a conversation that takes you away from driving for maybe many minutes. And, when changing a cassette I certainly remember the driving details, for it's almost an automatic reflex. Talking about very detail, memory oriented or emotional matters, pulls from our ability to focus on driving.

It's been proven people can't multi-task. We of course can multi-process, but when we multi-task all tasks suffer.

There are those who believe they are the exceptions of course.

xwesx · May 2005

I mostly agree with you, li. However, the major difference between conversations in-car and on a cell phone is like bigguy pointed out... The person on the other end of the line has no idea what you are experiencing in your car and is oblivious of any dangers you may encounter. The passenger (one would hope) is not. Both are equally distracting from a driver-paying-attention-to-something-other-than-driving perspective.

I will readily admit that I am not particularly effective at multitasking, but unless I am driving in an area that requires no maneuvering I find it very difficult to carry on a conversation with passengers. My wife is convinced that I just don't listen to her, but honestly my brain just does not register what she's saying when I am maneuvering the roadways. Often, I will have to ask her what she said once we've stopped and more than once, in standard but stressful situations (like trying to slip a left turn through heavy traffic), I have "shhhhhh'd" her to her obvious annoyance. Not because I do not want to hear what she has to say, but because I DO want to hear it and cannot listen to her and provide 100% attention to the road at the same time.

*shrugs* At least if you have a handheld phone, never mind the fact that the one hand is NOT on the wheel (how many of us drive with 2 hands all the time, anyway?), you can just drop it in emergencies!

I do not use a cell phone, and I could not tell you whether I would ever use one while driving or not, but just from the seat of my pants I would say no. I know myself well enough to know that I cannot multi-task well enough to feel safe while doing so. Now, whether all drivers know themselves well enough?

xwesx · May 2005

---> Frankly, I think it's more a question of what can be enforced. One can be observed using a cell phone and given a citation. One cannot be cited for speaking, let alone listening. Too bad, it could be useful:

"You haven't been listening to a word I've said, have you?!?"

"Can't, dear, it would be illegal."

or

"Didn't I tell you about tonite?"

"Was I driving at the time, dear?" <---------------

LOL!!! That's me, I swear it. My #1 response to my wife's inquiry of "You haven't been listening to a word I've said, have you?!?" is, "I'm sorry, but I was driving."

xwesx · May 2005

Yes, it is 1.5 seconds, but I have seen people die in that time. In the late '90s, I used to commute in and out of Anchorage during the summer months. In a one-week time span, I saw a brand new silver Ram truck in the left lane drift off onto the shoulder of the road, then suddenly over-correct (this is about 5 car lengths in front of me), skid for a few feet, then rolled about 10 times before coming to a stop in the median. Speed was about 70 mph. The young gal driving died and her father was in the hospital for a week. She was putting a CD into the deck and undoubtedly inexperience played a big roll in this one. Three days later, in nearly the same spot on the road, a small Saturn sedan with two occupants in the left lane did the same thing.... Drifted onto the shoulder (about 10 car lengths in front of me), over-corrected, and did two 360s (on the tires, no rolling) on dry pavement before coming to a stop in the right lane. I nearly broad-sided it in my '69 C20 but managed to jerk it into the ditch and back up onto the road to avoid the collision. Whew... that one got my heart a-pumpin'. Hers too, apparently, because she immediately drove to the shoulder and remained there far longer than I did...... :surprise:

I'm sure that none of the surviving occupants of those vehicles ever looked the same way at routine activities in the car while driving.... Even ones that only take 1.5 seconds. The moral of the story is to never take any activity that distracts from driving for granted. Not to say you cannot or should not do it, but do not take it for granted.

kdshapiro · May 2005

Of course, at 70 mph one is moving faster than 66 feet/sec. At 70mph I would not divert my eyes or focus from the road one iota. No phones, no cds no tapes, no lunch, no shaving, no brushing the teeth, no applying makeup. :sick:

If you're trying to show that any action that takes away from the road can result in death, I'm with you on that.

Where I live there have been a number of deaths directly attributable to the lack of attention paid to the road by drivers who were on the phone.

There's a joke by a caller to a local talk show that went something like this: The caller complained with the increased usage in cell phones, the roads have become so dangerous he was afraid to eat his lunch while driving to work.

jipster · May 2005

This one is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Much like Kramer Vs Sue Ellen Mishkey(the braless wonder) in the Seinfeld t.v series. Billboards with scantily clad women from beer advertisments and radio stations. I'd say as much a distraction as trying to talk on two cell phones at once while driving 70 mph...for those without the car driving discipline and focus that I have of course.

euphonium · May 2005

Consider using a cell 'phone while in the process of thoughtful love making - NO!

So, why consider using it when driving? Both activities require more than your nonchalant attention to the primary function.

kdshapiro · May 2005

"Consider using a cell 'phone "..

Some people would, and it's those same people who believe it has no effect on their concentration to the primary task.

jipster · May 2005

Some people(I am told) need to use the cell phone when they are lost and need direction...in car driving AND in the example cited above.

black_tulip · May 2005

Consider using a cell 'phone while in the process of thoughtful love making - NO!
Poor analogy. If I was doing that 3 hours a day, I'd probably use a cell phone during that activity as well!

gambit293 · May 2005

Presenting my top-10 inconsiderate-driving peeves! These are the ones that bug me the most and most-consistently. It's important to mention that there are many degrees of the following behaviours/traits as well as many exceptions. Truthfully, most of the items below are acceptable in and of themselves; it's when they are combined that I start to get POed.

10. SUV drivers - I don't really want to start a huge debate here, but there are many features inherent in SUV designs that makes me despise them as a car driver. There are SUV drivers who understand this and drive accordingly, but there are plenty enough who charge on in complete oblivion.

9. Merge Cutters - I'm willingly to let this slide in the case of poor sign placement or lack of adequate prior notification.

8. Cellphone yakkers - This week's special feature in the Inconsiderate Driver's Forum! As others have already said, some people can handle driving while using a cellphone; others clearly cannot.

7. Tailgaters - Most of them, though some are worse than others.

6. No use of turn signals. - Lack of communication, IMO, is one major cause of accidents and road rage.

5. Block intersections and driveways. - It just takes a teeny weeny bit of foresight to see that you're not going to clear the intersection and will ultimately block traffic. IMO, this is one clear test to distinguish good drivers from just-wanna-get-from-A-to-B drivers.

4. Cutoff -> slowdown Nine out of ten times, I'm fine with it if someone cuts me off, even without signalling. But if you cut me off, and don't speed up in time (or even slow down), you're pushing it.

3. Left Lane Camping. - Discussed to death already.

2. Speed up whenever someone tries to pass. - Combined with 3., truly one of life's biggest annoyances.

1. Speed up to cut you off as soon as they see your turn signal. - I hate this because it discourages turn-signal use, and encourages wild-west, aggressive driving

Feel free to post your list. This isn't really to spark debate; I'm just interested in seeing how the different annoyances rank with people.

explorerx4 · May 2005

is i usually don't drive at night, but after last night, there are plenty of aggrievating drivers in all sorts of vehicles.

euphonium · May 2005

If it is true that what aggravates you, controls you - it follows to never let the aggravator know you are irritated by not retaliating. "Turning the other cheek" reduces road rage & raises your level of maturity.

andre1969 · May 2005

are going to vary from person to person. Some people might not be at all distracted while talking on a cell phone, while others might lose concentration. Just like anything else. There are people who can multitask just fine, while there are others who can't take two steps without falling down, and don't even ask them to try to walk and chew gum at the same time! :P

I have a feeling though, that as younger generations who have grown up yakking on the cell phone, and are accustomed to it, become drivers, they'll be better adapted to it than some of us older drivers. Just kinda like how kids today are raised on computers and video games almost from the womb, where in my case, I wasn't even exposed to a home video game until I was around 11. And maybe a year or two later for a home computer. And those crude devices of the 70's where a whole different world from what we have these days. I see these little kids doing things on a PS2 or X-box that I couldn't have imagined doing back when I was a kid. My generation just wasn't exposed to it yet. Of course, there are going to be exceptions to any group of people, but as a whole, I think they'll just "evolve" to the point that the cellphone doesn't become as much of a distraction as they are with older generations.

However, other habits, often bad, seem to be evolving that might counteract the ability to drive more safely with a cellphone. For instance, people today tend to be too "Me First" When they come up to what could be a potentially dangerous situation, like a blind hill, a car backing out of a driveway, or a pedestrian crossing the street, instead of getting ready to slow and take emergency action if necessary, they tend to focus too much on inconvenience first. As in "HOW DARE you get in my way?!" And then by the time it registers with them that they NEED to slow down, it's already too late. And to quote a famous tv chef...BAM!!

imidazol97 · May 2005

Younger drivers may feel over confident because of youth and lack of experience about their ability to drive while distracted by the cellphone useage. Older drivers may be more aware of the distraction.

I think of the young lady on the way to Burger King (had shirt on) tailgating me around a cloverleaf when I lived east of Cincinnati. Really tailgating in her Duster. Oh she was putting on lipstick at the same time!!! I hinted with brake lights; no reaction. I braked and the last I saw she was swerving off to the right. I suspect she smeared her lipstick and learned a great lesson: don't tailgate someone going over the speed limit around a cloverleaf. She was within 8 feet of my rear bumper at 40 mph. Today she's probably driving her minivan to soccer practices and talking on the cellphone with her kids and grandkids in the car.

kdshapiro · May 2005

Younger drivers may feel over confident because of youth and lack of experience about their ability to drive while distracted by the cellphone useage. Older drivers may be more aware of the distraction.

Exactly...very perceptive.

imidazol97 · May 2005

> over confident

I used to be one. Lucky I didn't kill myself some of the things I did in a car!!!

snakeweasel · May 2005

Yes I saw it just today going inbound on I-55 near Chicago during rush hour, someone driving while reading a book. This clown had a book open resting on his steering wheel in the slow moving stop and go traffic that I - 55 becomes during the morning commute.

fintail · May 2005

"Older drivers may be more aware of the distraction. "

Or they may have such deterioriated skills and perception that they aren't even aware of their distraction.

Today I was a couple cars behind some inbred who hit his brakes apparently because he was trying to light a cigarette. Smoking while driving is at least as distracting as anyone else, and when they puff out the window or toss out their butts, it is also as inconsiderate.

alfox · May 2005

in fairly heavy traffic last week. The road was 3-lanes in that area, and all three were in use, traffic moving at about 75-80, speed limit 65. We come over a hill and there is a trooper sitting in the median. No RADAR, just sleeping, or writing a report, or reading a novel or whatever they do when the sit in the median looking down. A shortbrain in the center lane jams on his brakes and slows down to about 55. Suddenly brakes are on everywhere, and traffic is bobbing and weaving around like bumper cars.

What kinda maroon slams on his brakes in the middle of dense traffic at that speed? Cheesh!

xwesx · May 2005

Maybe its ego was so inflated that it felt like it was important enough to be singled out from all the other drivers going nearly the exact same speed..... :surprise:

That cracks me up, but then again I didn't have to experience it.

gee35coupe · May 2005

Speed governors on cars. Geez.
http://www.crashprevention.org/news/news.php?iss=3

alfox · May 2005

I suppose it's to be expected, since traffic safety is equated to lower speeds and elimination of all alcohol by police and the media. After 40+ years of driving I know there is more to it than that, but somehow all traffic safety activism goes to those two specific elements.

ruking1 · May 2005

If 55 mph is good, how about rush hour traffic being better!?

snakeweasel · May 2005

But traffic safety is equated to lower speed, just set every ones cars so that they can't do over 0.5 MPH and no one will be killed or hurt.

OK sarcasm off. You are right there is far more to traffic safety than reducing speed and not drinking. I think everyone would benefit from defensive driving courses as well as some basic instruction of how a car really works not just putting it in gear and hitting the gas.

Did you read further down when it talked about aggressive drivers? One of the things it said was that aggressive drivers "who generally consider themselves to be safe drivers and the 'slow driver blocking the fast lane' to be the problem." From reading the multitude of posts on the "topic that was done to death" I would say that these people think we are the problem on the roads.

grbeck · May 2005

That site is so clueless it's almost amusing. Some portions descend into (unintentional) parody.

As for teenagers getting into trouble because of "speeding" - it's not because they are exceeding speed limits on limited access highways. You can be get into trouble by driving 55 mph on a two-lane back road (which is where most accidents involving teenagers happen).

Maybe the "partnership" should advocate setting the governors for teenage drivers at 35 mph.

The real solution is more training for young drivers. When Pennsylvania toughened the requirements for teenage drivers, accidents and fatalities fell dramatically for 16- and 17-year-old drivers within a year.

capitano · May 2005

That all cars have them is news to me.

I have driven government-owned vehicles with them and it can be quite jarring when they kick in. In my case the vehicle was an Aerostar on the A6 autobahn. As I recall the governor would kick in around 90 mph. When it did it felt like the transmission had dropped out.

black_tulip · May 2005

But traffic safety is equated to lower speed, just set every ones cars so that they can't do over 0.5 MPH and no one will be killed or hurt.

Things do not have to swing between negative infinity to positive infinity. What we need is a trade off between higher speeds and injuries. Why is it so scary to have a governor set at a high end, say 85 mph or so?

snakeweasel · May 2005

As for teenagers getting into trouble because of "speeding" - it's not because they are exceeding speed limits on limited access highways.

While speeding may be a contributing factor in many of these accidents the main issue is that these drivers are inexperienced. You are in control of 2,000 plus pounds of metal and glass that reacts differently under different driving conditions and speeds. It takes more than just a couple of months drivers ed in school to truly operate a vehicle properly. We do need better and tougher training for new drivers, when that happens injuries and deaths will fall. reducing the speed won't do a thing.

snakeweasel · May 2005

I was being sarcastic when I said that
sarcasm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.

alfox · May 2005

It's scary to me when the government focuses so hard on a peripheral element that they ignore the real problems. Setting a governor universally at 85 would do little to resolve the rediculous traffic injury and death rate. Since it does little to address the problem, it's not a good solution.

black_tulip · May 2005

a mode of satirical wit depending for its ...

Unfortunately your message had no wit, so it does not qualify.

black_tulip · May 2005

OK, that is a good explanation. So what would you focus on? I am guessing "inattentive driving".

tazereli · May 2005

The people on that site rank right up there with the nuts on the Parents Television Council. Last time I checked I was 32 and in control of my faculties. We don't need yet another watchdog group camping in the halls of the Capitol Building trying to get legislation passed.

I suggest you visit the PTC site as well. Just as entertaining of a read. Sorry for off topic, now to on topic.

Now that last time I activated the governor on a car of mine was 1998 when we got our new Honda Civic. WooHoo!!! A whole 110mph!

Now if I go to my dealership and show them that I have higher speed rated tires than required, will they raise the gov. accordingly? Its simple according to the crash prevention site.

Protecting kids is a noble effort but not with my car or my TV or my radio or my bedroom.

Getting off soapbox now.

Regards,
Kyle

ruking1 · May 2005

I have an average mph calculator on one of my cars. I was very surprised to find out that no matter how hard I tried the AVERAGE MPH was less than 55 mph. Also with a lower speed limit in higher traffic areas there is no way that you can avoid using MORE gasoline! So defacto, the average speed limit is already 55 mph and UNDER.

andre1969 · May 2005

at, say, 85 mph, is that it's going to do precious little to save any lives. Sure, maybe it might save the lives of a few idiots who got their cars up well into the 100 mph range and then lost it, but let's face it, for the most part, most fatal injuries simply are not caused by super high speeds. They're caused by the idiot who took a curve in the rain at 45 when he should've taken it at 25, slid into the oncoming lane and hit a school bus head on. Or the buffoon who punched it the moment the light turned green and got t-boned by the other buffoon who ran the red. Or the spoiled princess in the SUV speeding down the residential zone yakking on the cell and not paying attention, when a little kid toddles out in front of her.

Besides, there are times when doing 85, 95, or even 100 mph plus simply IS NOT DANGEROUS. I'm not saying to do it through a school zone. Or through a tight S-curve, rush hour traffic, a road full of potholes, a narrow residential street, in the rain, during a blizzard, while yakking on the cell, eating green eggs and ham, etc. But out on the wide open road, where often you have a straight shot for miles and could see any potential hazard well in advance, what's the harm?

imidazol97 · May 2005

The Ohio State Patrol is starting a special program to target the "Extreme Speeders" in the Century club in metropolitan areas, i.e., city expressways. They want to stop those going over 100 especially during higher traffic times, 7-10 am, 3-5 pm.

Didn't realize there were that many people going 100 and over with metro expressways, but I have witnessed a few fliers from time-to-time.

alfox · May 2005

I would focus less on finite causes (e.g. cell phones) and more on poor driving. I would determine the metrics of poor driving through science, rather than through focus groups and special interest groups made up of people who have lost loved ones. Once emotion enters into law enforcement we end up salving hurt emotions more than solving any problems.

Based on my limited empirical experience I suspect that Big Macs and children in car seats are at least as distracting as cell phones. I don't know that for certain because it was easier to outlaw hand-held phones in some states than outlawing distractsd driving.

I want to see some form of feedback to drivers who exhibit bad decision-making for whatever reason. I jokingly suggested firing paint balls at obnoxious drivers' cars, and when a trooper spots a car with more than say a dozen splotches it gets pulled over. A joke to be sure, but the underlying idea is sound, though I can't think of a way to implement such a thing. I know that we all make occasional mistakes that should be forgiven, but if the habitually poor drivers were somehow weeded out before they hit things, fewer things would be hit.

Sorry if my answer is more abstract than concrete - I just don't have a glib answer to such a complex problem. We have enough glib answers already.

andre1969 · May 2005

told me a story about how when he and his brothers were kids, riding in the back seat of the car. When one of them would act up, their mother would actually TURN AROUND WHILE DRIVING!! She'd try to smack the kids while driving, and if they put up too much of a fuss would holler "Get back over here so I can smack you" and "DON'T YOU MAKE ME WRECK THIS CAR"!! Well, smart alek that my buddy is, once he said to his mother "yeah Mom, right! So if you wreck the car, you want me to say to the cop "PLEASE give me the ticket, it was MY fault! I wouldn't get in my mom's reach so she could smack me while driving and that's what made her wreck the car!"

I think he got whooped real good for that one!

john500 · May 2005

I agree that going over 85 mph on a desolate highway is not a safety hazard. My point is that you can't legally go over 75 mph anywhere in the US. If you want to repeal the speed limit, great. I'd like to drive my SI to it's limit and not a speed limit everyday. If I were governed at the top end, my mind would be more at ease from worrying about some nuisance cops and I know I wouldn't have to worry about a person coming up on me at 115 mph when I am driving the speed limit. It's a suckers game. The automakers make money on you when you buy a car with greater top speed capability. The state makes money when you actually use it.

Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles