Driver Distraction Causes Accidents
Sam Adams
While I care deeply about creating a cost-effective, environmentally-friendly transportation system that supports a healthy and dynnamic economy and healthy, livable neighborhoods, safety is my number one priority. I believe that one fatality on the road is one too many. That is why I held Portland's first Transportation Safety Summit to get people focused on ways that we can make Portland's streets safer for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike.
One of the most interesting things I took from the summit was the data on safety (or lack thereof) of cell phone usage and other driver distractions. After speed, this is the most deadly problem on the road. The state legislation in Oregon currently prevents Portland from regulating the use of cell phones while people are operating vehicles. I intend to lobby to change that law. I know that it will be an uphill battle - and not especially popular in many circles - but I believe it is in the interest of ALL Portlanders that we regulate the use of hand-held cell phones while people are driving. I would like to see the day where hand-held cell phone use is not allowed when you are behind the wheel in Portland. Everyone in Portland - drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists - would be safer because of it.
CNN just reported on a new study that outlines just how dangerous driver distraction can be. Read it below and feel free to share your comments below.
- Sam
 | |
It's official: Distracted drivers are dangerous | |
Friday, April 21, 2006; Posted: 10:37 a.m. EDT (14:37 GMT)
A study says activities like dialing a cell phone while driving triple the risk of a crash.
(CNN) -- A new study lends scientific credence to what many already suspect: Drivers dabbing on makeup, chatting on cell phones or eating breakfast are three times as likely to be involved in a crash as more attentive motorists.
The study tracked drivers with video cameras and sensors and offered evidence that inattentive driving causes accidents, and young drivers are much more likely to have such crashes.
Almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes happen within three seconds of some form of driver distraction, according to the report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. (Watch cameras catch drivers driven to distraction -- 2:28)
The two research groups monitored the behavior of 241 drivers in 100 vehicles for more than a year. During the 2 million miles of the study, the drivers were involved in 82 crashes and 761 near-crashes.
Reaching for a moving object multiplied the risk of a crash or near-crash by nine times, according to the study. Reading, applying makeup, or dialing a handheld device tripled the risk.
"All of these activities are much more dangerous than we thought before," Dr. Charlie Klauer, a senior research associate at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, was quoted as saying by The Associated Press.
"But also we're very concerned about the fact that not only are we drinking our coffee and we're disciplining our children and we're eating sandwiches in the car, but the proliferation of technologies in the vehicle have just exacerbated the amount of time that drivers are distracted," she said.
Using cell phones was the most common distraction for drivers, the study found.
And while talking on a cell phone was less risky than dialing, it was a factor in almost as many crashes because it was done far more often, the researchers said. (Top causes of crashes)
Drowsiness is also a problem, the researchers found. They said drowsy drivers are four times as likely to have a crash or near-crash.
Overall, drowsiness contributed to more than 22 percent of the crashes and near-misses recorded -- far higher than existing estimates that tiredness is a factor in 1 out of 10 accidents, the analysts said.
"This important research illustrates the potentially dire consequences that can occur while driving distracted or drowsy," said Jacqueline Glassman, acting administrator of NHTSA. "It's crucial that drivers always be alert when on the road."
The study found that drivers between 18 and 20 were four times as likely to have inattention-related crashes and near-crashes as drivers over 35.
Poor judgment, such as driving aggressively or trying to do something in a higher risk situation, was far more prevalent among the youngest, the evidence showed.
The study said any look away from the road ahead -- even a glance in a rearview mirror -- could be deemed a distraction.
But long glances at inopportune moments, such as "rubbernecking" near a crash, doubled a driver's chances of having an accident himself.
Copyright 2006 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/driving.study/index.html
Posted by Sam Adams on April 21, 2006
(21) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Front Page, News, Office of Transportation, Public Safety, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
When you wrote that "Curb, Crosswalk, and Sidewalk designs can force drivers into oncoming traffic. . ." and used the word force to describe an unwise decision made by a driver - are you saying that drivers should not to held responsible if an accident happens because they were "forced" to behave irresponsibly? -Please clarify.
Posted by: Ross | Apr 22, 2006 3:34:20 AM
"according to the report by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute."
Obviously, this is a very biased study, as it was conducted by a SAFETY ADMINISTRATION. Of course they are going to inflate numbers to make it to push their 'safety' numbers!
I would instead like a non-biased study conducted in partnership with GM, Ford, Sony, Nokia, McDonald's and Starbucks.
"Drowsiness is also a problem, the researchers found. They said drowsy drivers are four times as likely to have a crash or near-crash."
This would be an excellent reason to support methamphetamine useage - to keep people awake while they drive. In fact, perhaps we could have steering wheels which inject drug substances directly through your skin into your blood stream to keep you 'juiced up' and focused while driving?
Posted by: Justin | Apr 23, 2006 2:58:06 PM
"and used the word force to describe an unwise decision made by a driver - are you saying that drivers should not to held responsible if an accident happens because they were "forced" to behave irresponsibly?"
Specific Case: corner of SW 36th and Capitol Hwy
the new curb extensions are forcing
the Tri-Met Bus or any large vehicle
to swing into opposing lanes of traffic
to make the right turn. The driver
has virtually no choice about the turning radius, but the drivers responsible choice is to wait, but the design forces the choice, which shouldn't have to be made and creates the potential for unsafe situations.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | Apr 24, 2006 7:36:36 AM
Though obviously not as scientific as the study cited above, the cable program "Myth Busters" did a segment comparing the effects of drinking and driving with cell phone use . . . pretty fascinating to watch. It was quite clear that the cell phone often hampered the test drivers as much as the booze.
Episode 33 . . . for those interested.
Posted by: Ethan | Apr 24, 2006 8:30:42 AM
I agree with Brian in that curb extensions way to often become safety hazards. I have been opposing the proliferation of curb extensions for several years now. Last summer I observed a truck car crash where the curb extension played a role. To clear the curb extension for a right turn, a large semi tractor trailer rig had to make the turn from a center left turn lane. The truck stopped at the intersection as if it was going to turn left, then turned on his right turning indicator and proceeded to turn right. By the time the truck turned on his signal and started to make the maneuver, a small car was legally moving towards the intersection on the trucks right. Basically the truck cut the car off and the car was smashed under the trucks trailer. I was behind the car that got smashed and saw the whole thing take place as if it was in a movie. In my way of thinking, the truck was at fault because the driver did not signal early enough to warn the driver of the car he was going to turn right. However, the City too should be at fault since the driver could have straddled the left turn lane and the through lane to the right if the curb extension was not there. The driver of the small car would have been unable to use the lane on the truck’s right. The City however absolves itself from all responsibility.
In addition to the unsafe road conditions curb extensions pose, they have a negative effect on the environment. When busses stop for passengers at curb extensions, they block other traffic, which then creates unnecessary congestion and that requires motorists to use more fuel. The increased congestion and the added fuel consumption has a negative impact on the environment. The City fails to take any of this into consideration when planning how to constrict traffic movements on the streets. Metro’s report on congestion suggests that widening some streets is part of the solution to reducing congestion. The City is doing just the opposite and unwilling to revise its policies or even enter into responsible discussions regarding curb extensions.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 24, 2006 11:13:13 AM
Rather than "move off topic" from Distracted Drivers, I would like to ask out City Commissioner for Transport to open a discussion on Traffic Engineering
and the impact on the style and functioning of the City.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | Apr 24, 2006 12:18:18 PM
I just took the #44 bus through the 36th and Capital intersection, and I believe this was a poor example of curb extensions causing problems. Firstly, I didn't see any curb extensions there. And second, the nature of that intersection is such that the bus would have to swing out into traffic REGARDLESS of curb extensions.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 25, 2006 12:03:54 AM
How ironic that this post comes immediately after the arguments regarding funding for bicycle infrastructure. Obviously the vast amount of money spent on the 'legitimate' auto infrastructure is money well spent because it allows drivers to use the roads while talking on cellphones, eating, applying makeup, or fiddling with the radio. While bicycle infrastructure merely wastes money on kids and recreationalists. Do bicycles or pedestrians cause multi-car crashes, knock over street signs, etc?
Posted by: Aaron | Apr 26, 2006 10:52:34 PM
How ironic that this post shows immediately after the post on funding bicycle infrastructure. Obviously spending public money on the 'legitimate' auto infrastructure is a better investment because it allows people to travel on the road while chatting on the phone, eating, applying makeup, or fiddling with the radio. Meanwhile bicycle infrastructure is 'just a waste' because it's spent merely for our children. We need to reassess our priorities.
Posted by: Aaron | Apr 26, 2006 11:08:16 PM
Just another example (to me) of a 'nanny' government. Let's face it, there are tons of distractions on the road. A woman in skimpy clothes (for hetrosexual folks). A fellow with a tight rear end (for non-hetrosexual folks and women). Heck, I even witnessed an accident where a rather old woman (in her seventies) was making all sorts of waving motions (attracting a bus) and it was so distracting that I almost got into a rear end collision and the guy in the lane next to me DID. So what do we do? One by one we start 'legislating' these distractions off the road? We start with cell phones, then comes the radio/CD players, then comes ... people walking the streets? No, we can legislate that everyone walking the street has to wear a burka like the women wear in Muslim countries, I don't think we'd find that too distracting.
Bottom line, again, the government is moving towards something that it really shouldn't be involved in. We are ADULTS, we need to take responsibility for our actions. Driving is a privledge, when we sign up for and get our license we have certain responsibilities that we agree to (oooh that nasty word responsibilities again). If we do not abide by and fulfill our agreement, then we lose our license - or at least we should. We DON'T need government to continue to regulate, regulate, regulate - we are adults and we need to live up to the agreements that we make in life, not expect government to limit our choices.
Gad, I hate 'nanny' governments!
Posted by: mmmarvel | Apr 27, 2006 3:01:09 PM
I agree, I was involved in a minor accident and I know good and well it was because I was talking on the cell phone. Since then I will not use my cell phone while driving in city streets.
I'm in favor of the ban.
Posted by: mark | Apr 28, 2006 4:36:51 PM
Let's see Mark - YOU had a minor collision because YOU believe you weren't paying attention to the road but instead you were paying too much attention to the cell phone. YOU learned from this lesson. YOU no longer use your cell phone while driving.
TERRIFIC - that is called taking responsibility for your actions. You not only learned but devised a plan to keep the consequences from happening to yourself again - GREAT JOB.
So my question to you is WHY should I be punished (forced into a certain behavior mode) because YOU had something bad happen to you based on your behavior that you've now corrected. If I can't handle a cell phone while driving, I too will suffer the unfortunate consequences but does that give YOU, or the government or ANYONE else the right to regulate MY behavior based on what happened to YOU?
Posted by: mmmarvel | Apr 29, 2006 3:06:26 PM
I must say. mmmarvel has an extremely good point.
We're already condemned to drive slower, waste more gas with less efficient vehicles because many on the road can't drive properly or maintain speed well enough to stay safe. Just in my life alone, with the amount of highway miles I've driven, because of our slow interstate system, I can say honestly that I've spent needlessly an additional 20-50% of my travel time in the car.
This is unnacceptable. This statistic however provides another very important fact that should be more obvious to those that really understand statistics and arent' just manipulated by them.
Speed traps, tickets associated with such, do NOT cause decreases in accident rates. Over 99% of all decreases can be directly associated to better vehicles and their respective safety and control abilities.
With that in mind why doesn't the population get to voting out these stupid and arbritrary interstate/highway system speed limits. Instead there should be stricter guidelines for driving so that those of us that ARE capable of driving and maintaining control of our vehicle are allowed to be as productive as a car travelling individual SHOULD and COULD be.
I'm sorry but Ms. & Mr. incapable dont' even need to be driving. If they fear the highway they shouldn't be on it. If they aren't sure how to maintain their vehicle on the road they shouldn't be on it.
We as a society should not be attaching blame to arbritrary objects. What we should be doing is attacking the root problem. The fact that anyone and everyone is allowed to drive with no quality check. America is horrible at this.
If someone (Let's say Sam Adams <- hint hint) wanted to make a real difference they'd push for stricter tests to get people skilled and more understanding of the roadways & the fact they're driving something that is technically more dangerous than walking around with a gun pointed at people.
America - obviously - needs to take a good look in the coming years at it's overfocus of automobile oriented transportation. I'm definately not saying get rid of it, because it provide America with a large part of it's great productivity, but Americans do need to work together to get many of it's people off the road. At some point in the near future it will be detremental in large degrees to have "everyone" enabled to drive regardless of ability or need.
Posted by: adron | Apr 30, 2006 10:46:07 AM
Sam,
I believe the emphasis on hand-held cell phones is misplaced.
Hands-free may be somewhat less dangerous if coupled with voice dialing but once you are talking on the phone every study I've seen cited indicates that the two are equally dangerous. It's the mental distraction of the phone call that's the big problem, not having a hand off the wheel holding the phone.
A ban on all cell phone use while driving may make sense but a ban only on the use of hand-held cell phones certainly does not.
Posted by: doretta | May 2, 2006 12:22:02 AM
The key to safety is slowing motor vehicles down. But its not enough to post business districts at 20MPH, the street must be redesigned to make drivers want to slow down...narrow streets, no center lines, curb extensions (which are great for pedestrians), etc. I was amazed to see that up on Mississippi Street at the Rebuilding Center the speed is posted 30MPH with a double yellow center lane. Sam, can you get this fixed! Thank God for the people who double park there and do us the service of slowing things down.
Posted by: Lenny Anderson | May 2, 2006 9:45:54 AM
It seems in the politics of social engineering thinking, “we the people” must be controlled through legislation. Much of this legislation involves increasing taxes, and/or dolling out subsidies to a desired target group so those who believe in controlling the actions of others can propagate their powers. Little by little our freedoms are being chipped away by this type of socialism.
I agree that cell phones are a driver distraction. However, it is a distraction a responsible driver can exercise control over. The dilemma here is that delivery truck drivers, taxicabs, and many other types of businesses have two way communication devices in their vehicles. There is really no difference between a cab driver or a delivery person receiving instructions for a pick up or delivery, or a sales person on a cell phone in their own car setting up the next appointment. The other part of the dilemma is that it is far more dangerous to use these communication devices in heavy traffic than on the open highway. Any legislation that that moves forward must take all this into consideration and treat all communication devices equally. Safety and equity must be given the same amount of weight in any proposal.
As for slowing traffic down as Lenny suggests, from his various comments and posts, he obviously agrees with the concept “we the people“ must be controlled through social engineering, and thanks God for those who break the law when it fits with his agenda. 20 mph is just too slow and just a preface to suggesting that vehicles go no faster than walking speed. 25 mph makes far more and reasonable sense. I wonder how Lenny would defend freight movements at a suggestion to lower the top speed of semi-trucks on Oregon highways to no faster than 50 mph, or maybe even 45 mph, all in the name of safety. Removing the center line from a busy street is anything but safe. Furthermore, Lenny’s suggestion of narrow streets and curb extensions is counter productive to protecting the environment. Such suggestions create unnecessary congestion, require motorists to use more fuel and only have a negative effect on air quality adding to global warming. Such suggestions also demonstrate how far socialist thinkers will go, harm to the environment only to advance their agenda.
Posted by: Terry Parker | May 3, 2006 11:40:05 AM
At least on SW Corbett, most Tri-Met buses are swinging into the onbound lane of traffic to negotiate past the curb extensions without slowing down.
Any road design that prompts a bus driver to cross the double yellow line is a BAD IDEA.
It's bad enough that they can't make a 90 degree turn without infringing upon another traffic lane: don't make them do it when they're driving in a straight line.
Posted by: Alice | May 4, 2006 11:59:33 AM
"Any road design that prompts a bus driver to cross the double yellow line is a BAD IDEA." Alice 5/4/06
Let me expand on that; any Tri-Met bus route that prompts a bus driver to cross the double yellow line is a BAD IDEA.
Especially when there are two bus stops at opposite ends of the same block and an alternate (i.e. icey road) route available and used by Tri-Met.
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | May 8, 2006 8:35:11 AM
Captain Marvel:
So my question to you is WHY should I be punished (forced into a certain behavior mode) because YOU had something bad happen to you based on your behavior that you've now corrected. If I can't handle a cell phone while driving, I too will suffer the unfortunate consequences but does that give YOU, or the government or ANYONE else the right to regulate MY behavior based on what happened to YOU?
I guess I should clarify. I support the use of hands free devices. I would support a ban on handheld phones. Sorry if this infringes on your "rights". Generally when the governement notices a trend in something causing harm to citizens it will consider legislation. Live with it.
If you want some data:
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20041019_WP106.pdf#search='cell%20phone%20use%20and%20accidents'
Posted by: mark | May 17, 2006 7:05:05 PM
Mark -
Actually, it's just mmmarvel, but thanks for the promotion in rank.
In my job, I run a laptop which is running my GPS, my cell phone, a pager and the radio/CD and I haven't had an accident in over 20 years.
Our laws, our society is set up to give us freedoms, within limits. Everytime another "thing" is legislated, it's taking away from our freedoms. We presently regulate via "You screw up, your insurance costs go up and/or you eventually lose your license." The system actually works very well AND we're NOT required to give up a freedom to live within it.
Think about it. I'm for less (a lot less) government, rather than more government.
Posted by: mmmarvel | May 19, 2006 3:39:09 PM
Post your comment
Please note: your email address, although required to post, will not be visible. We remove inappropriate or offensive content, and content deemed improper by State and City election and ethics law. The comments posted do not necessarily reflect the views of the office or the City of Portland.
The design of the road/right-of-way can affect public safety as much or more that driver distraction.
Curb, Crosswalk, and Sidewalk designs can force drivers into oncoming traffic, which if only slightly distracted can be deadly.
Bus routes, stops, and shelter locations can force or encourage drivers into unsafe actions.
Distractions that the City can easily eliminate/change should be considered in the summit, such as:
- intense glare from exterior lighting, not just commercial signs, but residental floodlights, especially the omni-present cheap mercury vapor lamps.
- blockage of drivers view by easily changed items like signs, trash cans, newspaper dispensers, etc.
- vegetation, intelligently trimmed, not wholesale bulldozed.
Bryan H. Ackler
Multnomah Village
Posted by: Bryan H. Ackler | Apr 21, 2006 3:50:31 PM