RCMP Distracted Driving Campaign

[Donald G]

Prestige Mike ... I agree that every one of your suggested "accident causing conditions" has merit. I don't know how you could determine which of those listed was more or less dangerous than talking on a hand held phone though.

Now if you eliminate those activities listed that you personally think should be made illegal you will probably end up with the laws that presently exist ... keeping in mind that making any of them "newly illegal' will cost you votes and you know that you only won by 2% of the votes during the last election.

People screaming in the back seat sometimes means that you are about to have an accident... because you were talking on the phone.

[Prestige Mike]

Prestige Mike ... I agree that every one of your suggested "accident causing conditions" has merit. I don't know how you could determine which of those listed was more or less dangerous than talking on a hand held phone though.

The key phrase in my post was "I think". I have no evidence to back up what "I think". Many people "think" that driving while talking on a cell phone is dangerous, but are there studies backing that up?

Of course texting while driving is dangerous, as you are taking your eyes off the road, but is holding a cell phone to your ear really that dangerous?

[Donald G]

To Prestige Mike ... Every time there is a motor vehicle accident in B.C. the police forward a report to the Supt of Motor Vehicles that includes identifying the MAIN CAUSE and CONTRIBUTING FACTORS that resulted in the accident. It is what you might call a study that has been going on continuously for at least since 1964. I would call that a reasonably accurate resource for the SMV to identify the cause of accidents and indicate the road changes, regulatory laws needed to try to reduce the carnage from any given "accident".

Calling such carnage the result of accidents is a misnomer since most such carnage is CAUSED by drivers doing something to CAUSE the carnage.

[Prestige Mike]

To Prestige Mike ... Every time there is a motor vehicle accident in B.C. the police forward a report to the Supt of Motor Vehicles that includes identifying the MAIN CAUSE and CONTRIBUTING FACTORS that resulted in the accident. It is what you might call a study that has been going on continuously for at least since 1964. I would call that a reasonably accurate resource for the SMV to identify the cause of accidents and indicate the road changes, regulatory laws needed to try to reduce the carnage from any given "accident".

Calling such carnage the result of accidents is a misnomer since most such carnage is CAUSED by drivers doing something to CAUSE the carnage.

What does this study say about talking on the cell phone while driving? Is this study available to the public?

[Tori_K]

I found a report on fatality statistics: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddo ... 8-2012.pdf

I would hope that a request (FOI or otherwise) would make the raw data available as well, or at least the dates and causes.

[Prestige Mike]

I found a report on fatality statistics: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddo ... 8-2012.pdf

I would hope that a request (FOI or otherwise) would make the raw data available as well, or at least the dates and causes.

Thanks for the link.

It groups fatalities by "distraction" together. I'm guessing it would be extremely hard to find data of distractions involving someone talking on a cell phone.

[Tori_K]

That summary PDF does. It wouldn't surprise me if the real underlying data is more specific.

[Prestige Mike]

That summary PDF does. It wouldn't surprise me if the real underlying data is more specific.

I would love to see the specifics, but I imagine it would be hard to know if a person talking on the phone was the cause of the accident. I assume the investigators could find out if the phone was in use at the time of the accident, but is that something that is checked after every accident?

[Tori_K]

Pure speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if those details started appearing in the last few years of reporting. I wouldn't expect much specific information on phone use in the data prior to device usage while driving being made illegal. It would make an interesting research project for a post secondary student.

[Prestige Mike]

Pure speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me if those details started appearing in the last few years of reporting. I wouldn't expect much specific information on phone use in the data prior to device usage while driving being made illegal. It would make an interesting research project for a post secondary student.

Agreed.

[Donald G]

When it comes to distracted driving EVERY cause has to begin with the solid understanding that the human brain has a SINGLE processor. No matter how much information is CONTINUOUSLY coming in from our eyes, ears, nose, taste sensors, touch sensors, body balance sensors etc and no matter how many brain messages must be sent out in order to correct or adjust to such ever changing information OUR BRAIN CAN ONLY PROCESS ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION AT A TIME. There is a mental competition for attention with only one "winner" at a time.

The brain can not tell the body what to do until EACH APPLICABLE PIECE OF COMPETING INFORMATION has been processed and analyzed. Driving is a risk at the best of times because it is above and beyond a normal human speed and thus requires accelerated responses that evolution has not yet adjusted to. EVERY ACTION YOU DO OR ARE REQUIRED TO DO WHILE DRIVING INCREASES THE DEMANDS ON YOUR MESSAGE SORTER AND BRAIN PROCESSOR.

Holding a phone while following a conversation and and making driving direction, speed and distance calculations not only turns you into a one handed driver (for which a vehicle is not equipped) but imposes one additional level of demands on your single processor.

At this point in our evolution the human brain and body are unable to react otherwise. Thus the distracted driving laws are necessary.

[MAPearce]

When it comes to distracted driving EVERY cause has to begin with the solid understanding that the human brain has a SINGLE processor. No matter how much information is CONTINUOUSLY coming in from our eyes, ears, nose, taste sensors, touch sensors, body balance sensors etc and no matter how many brain messages must be sent out in order to correct or adjust to such ever changing information OUR BRAIN CAN ONLY PROCESS ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION AT A TIME. There is a mental competition for attention with only one "winner" at a time.

I know a couple of BCAS dispatchers that would baulk at that statement...

I wonder what police dispatchers think ?

[goatboy]

I know a couple of BCAS dispatchers that would baulk at that statement...

I wonder what police dispatchers think ?

Would depend on whether they are male or female................ my wife swears I can only process one thing at a time, her or the hockey game.

[MAPearce]

Would depend on whether they are male or female................ my wife swears I can only process one thing at a time, her or the hockey game.

I got you beat... My wife turns into my best buddy , a bowl of popcorn and a 6 pak o beer when hockeys on...

Now to stay on topic , people can learn , or be trained to "multi task"..

[goatboy]

I got you beat... My wife turns into my best buddy , a bowl of popcorn and a 6 pak o beer when hockeys on...

Now to stay on topic , people can learn , or be trained to "multi task"..

Wanna swap?

Unfortunately, only some people can be trained to multi task, so the law must be written to the lowest common denominator.

Besides, regardless of whether distracted driving does or doesn't cause accidents, are our lives so fast paced that we can't wait until we've finished driving before picking up our cell phones in the car?