I was driving about 3mph in traffic texting my wife and did 3500 dollars damage to my car. I'm glad I learned my lesson the easy way instead of killing someone.
Don't text and drive no matter what, it's easy to pull over if it's necessary!
A lot of cars today have body panels that have to be replaced instead of repaired. Add in any sort of special paint color and a single panel can run $1k to make like new. Side swipe something that runs across a few panels and it can quickly add up.
I backed out a parking spot and into some guy speeding through the lot. Me, a bit of rubber on the bumper that I wiped off with a magic eraser. Him, front quarter panel and both passenger doors had to be replaced. I was pissed off about the unfairness of it all. That him driving reckless and me being in the wrong place made me at fault for thousands of dollars in damage.
I'm not surprised to see a car accident with wildly different results on both vehicles.
Aren't you at fault though even per your own version?
You pulled into a driving lane that the other vehicle was already in. Your justification for why you shouldn't be at fault is that he was "speeding" but there's no set speed limit in a parking lot, and you're meant to verify it is clear before locomotion.
Plus if you witnessed them "speeding" you would have known you were pulling out in front of them, which makes you in the wrong anyway. If you didn't know they were oncoming you couldn't have known they were "speeding." It doesn't make basic logical sense that you could have both known they were speeding AND pulled out into them, because to know that you would have had eyes on their car.
Yes, I’m at fault simply for backing out into the lane as far as the insurer is concerned. I’m also at fault for not having eyes in superposition. I can’t simultaneously see out of my rear left and rear right.
All to say, you weren’t there and don’t know what happened. And I’ll leave it at that.
In many states, parking lots have a 5-15 mph speed limit. In California, the alleyway limit typically applies. There is also the basic speed law: drive no faster than is safe.
In addition, bumpers (front and rear) are designed to pop off quite easily, to deflect force away from the vehicle. the way they crinkle up and come off, full replacement often makes sense.
bumper, hood, radiator, connecting parts, paint matching on a 7 year old car, etc. Not a big deal, I just wanted to tell people my story so people realize even doing it in a parking lot or neighborhood can probably kill if it is possible for me to crash that hard in bumper to bumper traffic.
One time when I was walking on the sidewalk I saw a college age kid texting while driving with his windows open. I yelled something like "EYES ON THE ROAD!!!" He was startled and nearly crashed. Not recommended, but I think he learned his lesson too...
That's purely the personal preference of one curmudgeon from 1770. "The OED shows that less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great -- he used it that way in one of his own translations from Latin -- more than a thousand years ago (in about 888). So essentially less has been used of countables in English for just about as long as there has been a written English language."
Stop nitpicking this. There's nothing unclear or ambiguous about 'less'. It refers to a smaller quantity of something. There's no reason not to use it. This is just pointless grammar Nazism.
Not interested in weighing in on less/fewer, but not sure architects of genocide is the comparison we want for grammar sticklers, even if it's become a common turn of phrase. Cheapens the real thing, doesn't it?
Debating grammar is perhaps one of the best ways to actually learn grammar and otherwise sharpen language skills. I don't think it's a coincidence that grammar and language discourse has been a past time of the learned for millennia around the world.
I can't find it right now, but I recall there was a study that suggested the trends in total collisions followed total miles driven fairly well, and that distracted driving was not needed to explain the recent increase in collisions. (Or something like that.)
I have no idea if this study's conclusions are controversial or not. If someone could identify the study, I'd be appreciative.
Car fatalities are down because the passenger compartment has become safer. Pedestrian fatalities are up because idiots are still plowing into them [0]
This is "old man yells at cloud" area, but seriously - why can we not just leave our phones in our pocket until we get to our destination? What's that important?
Its tempting to glance at the text and see if they're expecting you/changed plans. It's urgent because you need to make an exit decision soon depending on the answer. Its pointless to pull over because that takes longer than making a mistake about the exit.
Its a drug, the potential to optimize your plans on the fly is so attractive that even folks that swear they'd never text and drive, do it the moment it has utility?
Even though my car doesn't support Android Auto, I still have it set to auto-launch on my phone. If you attempt to close Auto with the auto-launch set up, it simply re-launches.
> see if they're expecting you/changed plans
This is impossible with Android Auto, you can't read or send texts (without voice, which doesn't work properly in my car). It auto-responds telling people to phone me if it is time-sensitive (like changed plans).
If they don't call back I'll arrive late, big whoop, at least I'm not arriving in a body bag. If they have a problem with me being late, they changed plans last-minute. None of which has happened to me.
> Its tempting to glance at the text and see if they're expecting you/changed plans.
My desire to avoid the inconvenience of some extra driving (if I drive all the way to the destination only to leave because plans changed) is not more valuable than other people's lives.
There's no good reason to be on your phone while your car is in motion — absolutely none.
> You may miss the event entirely if delay is too large.
And yet... that's still a pretty minor inconvenience when weighed against the potential to cause people to die or otherwise be seriously injured. There's no valid justification for it.
This is not true for everyone, but many of us have trained ourselves to check the phone when we’re bored, and to reply to messages as soon as we see them. When driving for 15 minutes, our mind can drift and it can feel like a good time to check the phone, even though it’s unsafe.
Why not check your phone while at a stop sign? Why not check your phone while on a straightaway with no cars in sight? Why not check your phone to make sure you're on the right route?
I get what you're saying but these are the thousands of little thoughts in the back of your mind that encourage you to use your phone in the car. "Just leave the phone in your pocket" has to defend itself against every one of these little pervasive thoughts. Why do you think the mobile tech companies are worth tens of billions? They got a drug better than any other.
What I don’t get is what is so important that requires “checking” every 5 minutes? Are we all business executives now, executing million dollar deals? Or day trading stocks? What’s so urgent?
I run my phone in Do Not Disturb mode 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No notifications. No texts. No calls. No E-mails. I’ll check these things at night sometime when I’m not doing other things like driving a 2000 pound steel death machine on the interstate.
I've gotta say out of everybody I know even my 80+ year old grandpa - your phone notifies you of the least. Idk if you're in a contest here but that's just now how most people's lives go. Most peoples lives are engrained with their phones and I think most of us are healthy enough to make it be a net positive. (Not implying anything you're doing is wrong!)
I'm not defending or justifying doing it - im simply explaining why it's such a common phenomenon. People are often in conversations all day long with others. Or engaged in online discussions like this. Life is filled with boring moments and phones alleviate us of that. That's why people do it.
Because it's dangerous!! Figure out where you're going before driving off! If you get lost PULL OVER!
It's really not that difficult and it shows that you actually care about people in the world other than yourself.
I have an issue with most of the defenses of using a phone while driving, but are you saying we should not be able to use a dashboard mounted phone as a GPS unit? Should all dashboard mounted GPS units be illegal, or just phone as a GPS? The advice was literally to keep the phone in your pocket.
No. But if you need to change your directions, or search for something in the GPS, your eyes won't be on the road and you should pull over. If anything you're doing in your car is taking your focus away from operating a multi ton killing machine, then be an adult and stop it.
Your wife's desire for timely updates comes second to the legal (and, hopefully, moral) requirement of not recklessly and needlessly endangering those around you while operating a motor vehicle.
I totally agree with you and don't think that you are an old man yelling at clouds. Then again maybe we both are.
I am a zealot about driving mindfully, actively and defensively. When I am driving, I am driving. I go the second the light turns green, I scan ahead constantly to change lanes a hundred yards before a slow car or obstacle. A lot of other folks do this, it is not unique or special. But... I think the vast majority of people do not drive this way and it drives me absolutely nuts.
How often do you see someone accelerating towards a car that is decellerating (usually in the far right lane) and then, at the very last minute, they slam on their brakes realizing the situation they are in. Why didn't that person notice the situation before it happened, since it happens all the time, and move over before getting stuck?
How often do you miss a turn lane signal because people in your line were either not paying attention or taking their sweet time to react?
It's not just the fault of devices, though that is a significant factor. I think phones exacerbate the real issue which is that, lately, people are not mindful about what they are doing (driving, walking, etc...)
This. I think you and I (and I venture to say many people reading HN) are a specific type of person. Where mundane difficulties such as dealing with a predictable 'bad driver' actually gives us ammo for optimizing our habits and achieving better results over time.
The reality is most people go about their days doing their business, not analyzing what they've done that day or thinking on how it can be improved the next. This is a phenomenon (to me) since it's considered a positive cultural trait (改善 Kaizen) in other cultures.
改善 literally only means improvement and it’s not a cultural trait. It’s just a word, and to many, a buzzword.
Japanese drivers are always glued to their phones. Almost every car has a built in TV and drivers watch it while driving and messaging someone on their phone. Bicyclists often hold an umbrella in one hand while playing a game with the other. Police aren’t making any effort to crack down on it and nobody is willing to accept that their own driving is dangerous and in need of improvement. The western idea of “kaizen” is sorely lacking here.
I did a fun experiment recently. I was sitting in a doctor's office waiting room with several other people, all on their phones of course. I wanted to see how long I could sit there without pulling out my phone. I made it about 5 minutes. Just sitting there, no magazine, nothing. It was excruciating.
This is one reason why I love driving a 4wd pickup. Many of the roads around here don't have proper shoulders, but I can confidently pull over in spots where someone in a small car would hesitate.
I worked at T-Mobile and did some work on this very subject our studies showed that people are so addicted that unless there is a threat of jail time or drivers license suspension people will not put down their phones.
It would be interesting to see if painting lurid stripes on the car as a punishment would help. Or require the driver to have warning sign attached in prominent places. Make it as embarrassing as possible.
Can we do this for other driving offenses? Like drivers who don't signal lane changes or drive slowly in the passing lane? I'm all about publicly shaming drivers into doing better.
People drive with suspended licenses all the time. What I'd really like to see upon conviction for distracted driving or drunk driving (similarly dangerous) is criminal forfeiture of the offender's vehicle and a court order prohibiting the offender from owning or possessing an automobile.
The deterrence effect of punishment relies on two factors: severity of the punishment when caught and the probability of getting caught. You can only up the former so much before a single stupid mistake ruins your life. But we could increase deterrence a lot by increasing the second factor. Just think about it: You a $5 fine stop you from using your phone? Right now probably not. But if it cost you $5 EVERY TIME you used your phone in the car you'd stop rather quickly.
> Otherwise fight or flight would be kicking in every time you crossed the street.
That exact thing does happen to me. The drivers in my country are atrocious even if we do not consider the use of phones. Having to cross the street is quite stressful and do not dare to do so without running, even if I am in a another country with more sane drivers.
How does the joke go? You almost get hit by another car and you freak out and are amped up the rest of the trip. But doze off and drive on the shoulder, you just go back to sleep after a few minutes.
If I had to hazard a guess: because that option is so extremely negative, that cognitive dissonance protects our brains from seriously entertaining the thought that we could ever be involved in such an accident.
For many, many people in the US, a suspended license means loss of your job, which in turn will lead to loss of all other assets you may tentatively possess, possible dissolution of your family, etc. In terms of personal impact weighted by probability of occurrence, the penalty for loss of license may not be so far off from that of vehicular manslaughter.
Sure. But let’s say the chance of losing your license is a hundred times more likely than that of committing vehicular homicide, and the effective penalty for a homicide is 10 times worse than that for losing your license, you should be 10x more worried about losing your license.
In addition, I believe the effective penalty for vehicular manslaughter is probably ten thousand times worse because of the psychological cost of being responsible for someone's death.
Indeed. Somehow this doesn’t occur to people though when they get behind the wheel of a 3000lb death machine and decide to start looking at their phone. I personally find the prospect terrifying.
They're not convinced that it impairs their driving.
Consider that a plurality, if not a majority of the population is convinced that they're efficient at multi-tasking, and specifically that they can perform each task as well as in isolation. But we know that almost nobody multitasks well, period, and absolutely not with equivalent performance.
In this day and age of really great machine learning I find that most people refuse to use voice services unless they are forced to do so (usually because of injury). Trying to tap out a message at 80km/h on a 5" screen is pretty fucking futile. But most distracted drivers will attempt to do it anyway.
Here's a neat trick, just say, "Hey Siri* Send a message to $firstname $lastname's $phone. Tell them I'm [on my way, 5 minutes away, picking up milk, buying pizza]"
If your accent doesn't match the country you are in, change Siri's language to your native one. As a British person living in the USA, if I don't set Siri to British, she has a terrible time understanding me, but it works fine on British mode.
Trying to use voice input is more distracting to me than typing. And it's easier to take a break in the middle of typing. Not to mention that voice input almost never works, and i end up typing anyway, which means I'm distracted and angry. Native californian, I mumble, but otherwise no speech pathology; but maybe i try to enunciate too hard because the computer doesn't understand me.
The problem with your solution is that voice assistants excel at practical tasks which aren't at the root of phone and social media addiction. These are people addicted to the dopamine rush of validation and acceptance they get from social media like FB, IG, and Twitter, as wel las personal text messages. It's an addiction like nicotine, small effects repeatedly played out over time. But it gets to the point where they are dangers to all of us when they are driving on top of all the other social costs (worse performances at work and school, for example).
I wonder if there is not some technological solution that can be built into smartphones to prevent this from happening. I realize that they are doing double duty as GPS & music, but imagine if your phone could detect that you are in the driver's seat and the car is moving and disable any application but the GPS. I know this would be hard, but it doesn't seem like it would be "self-driving car" hard and would have immediate societal benefit.
Apple's CarPlay heavily restricts what you can do while moving - you can only browse through lists that are short, and you can't type anything. These functions are replaced with talking to Siri, which it is assumed you can do with your hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road.
I ride a bike in London traffic and you can tell which drivers are on phones from quite some distance. I think when police stop them they are mystified as to how they got caught - they genuinely don’t realise just how all-over-the-place they are.
I'm a cyclist. Over the past 5 years or so I've learned to check inside of people's cars to see if they have a phone in their hands. If they do, I try to keep as much distance between myself and them as possible.
Until we change the incentives, distracted driving is very likely to remain a problem. Right now there's a lot of talk but very little action. I live in Austin, and I've spoken with the police about distracted driving after nearly being hit by a driver who ran a red light because they were distracted by their phone. (I spoke with them afterward.) The police tell me that they periodically do distracted driving enforcement operations, but only in school zones so that they get double fines. I've never seen a single distracted driving enforcement operation in Austin, but I've gone through cyclist stop sign enforcement twice. It would be interesting to see the statistics here. How many people are ticketed for distracted driving every year?
It's trivial to mandate a phone be designed so that it can't be used in a moving car or for a certain amount of time since it has experienced significant acceleration. In fact you could ban certain apps like txting and calling during these times. I guess you could even mandate tech to help the phone figure out where in the car the person is sitting and only disable their phone.
It would be hard to filter out the false positives. I'm almost always a passenger or riding a train. Locking out my phone during either of those situations would be a problem.
> It's trivial to mandate a phone be designed so that it can't be used in a moving car or for a certain amount of time since it has experienced significant acceleration
No, no it is not. Because a phone is a computer. And a computer should be ultimately under its owners control, running software they choose.
The reason why we have a "war on general purpose computing" is because there are many things that would seemingly be fixed if all computers could simply be made to enforce policy, yet actually mandating they be setup to do so requires going down the path of digital totalitarianism.
I was going to write a rebuttal to this, but mindslight is right. It is the government's job to restrict the usage of technologies that can be very dangerous. But in all the cases we have, the restriction is done via the law enforcers, not via the technology.
It's mandated that you can't drive a car without a license. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the car.
It's mandated that you can't own a gun unless you meet certain criteria. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the gun.
And so on...
It can be mandated that you can't use a phone while driving. But the enforcement must be done by the cops, not by the phone. If the cops don't do it correctly, then the right course of action is to fix that, not to restrict the phone.
Because once we do start restricting ubiquitous personal devices in order to enforce the government's rules, it will never stop. Democracy can never work if freedom is granted by the government - the people must be able to do whatever they want, with the government potentially revoking a person's freedom after the violation if it finds one.
There are actually plenty of examples of devices themselves having legally mandated restrictions that undermine their own possible uses. There are even purpose-built computing devices (eg a car's ECU) which I am leaving out of this argument.
The problem is that with software on a general purpose computer, the issue must be taken to its logical extreme. Presumably someone advocating for digital restrictions doesn't envision settling for merely having the default install exhibit a behavior that can be changed with two minutes of following online instructions. Simply creating a restriction is not enough - for it to be effective, it must be fortified.
And that's the trouble, for the only way for that to happen is the platform to be fully locked down, removing the user's ability to modify. Phones are already perilously close to this regime, but manufacturers seem to not be seriously addressing rooting for right now. We can look to other areas (eg wifi routers) to see manufacturers only getting the idea because of half-baked government policy, and its needless chilling effects on software freedom.
(of course I haven't said anything about texting and driving itself, so you should just assume I think it's a bad idea like any reasonable person. I'm just pointing out that arguing for outlawing Free phones to prevent it is of the same non-starter category as arguing for outlawing cars)
Interesting. That article is dated after I spoke to the police, so perhaps they've changed their strategy. Though I still have not personally seen any evidence of actual enforcement.
I see the new Subaru's have this feature where they seem to track your eyes and alert you if you're looking down at your lap. I think that could be a possible solution, it needs to be in the vehicle since the vehicle is the thing causing the damage, not the mobile device.
I don't like Apple's method: When it senses you moving (which gets triggered for false positives as mentioned), it locks your phone unless you press the big button that says "I'm not driving.". Let's be real, if you're going after the people who actively text and whatever while driving, a single button press is not a real barrier to entry.
A phone is a tool. It is good for tools to discourage hazardous usage, but that doesn't absolve the user of the responsibility to use the tool correctly.
Making tools liable for their stupid users is not a good idea.
The "tool" has created, of itself, a class of lethal risks to uninvolved and nonbeneficiary third parties, through deliberate psychological engineering on the part of the manufacturer, which removing or disabling the "tool" would cure.
The Apple device considers you "in a moving car" when you're connected to the car's bluetooth or CarPlay. Doesn't trigger in a moving vehicle based on location deltas.
>I'm a cyclist. Over the past 5 years or so I've learned to check inside of people's cars to see if they have a phone in their hands. If they do, I try to keep as much distance between myself and them as possible.
I guess this is something a self driving car should also keep in mind. Next we have to click on tiles with people using phones before login.
It seems to me that many drivers and cyclists have unique strategies that could be useful for self-driving cars.
My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light.
I also tend to look around buildings now, which is something self-driving cars probably already do but many drivers don't.
>My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light.
Back in high school, I convinced one of my friends that I had a 6th sense for cars approaching on a long drive back home at night. My trick was that the light from a cars headlights slightly reflects off the semi-gloss black rubber of powerlines and we lived in an area where everything was still on poles. I never noticed this effect on tree leaves but the power/telephone line trick worked really well because a ~6 foot section would be slightly lit, presenting a very large (but thin) target for your eye to see.
Thanks, I was hoping someone would have another good object to check. Where my father mentioned this, there weren't any visible power lines as far as I can recall.
Was just thinking today that 90% of drivers on the road have no concept of blindspots. Maybe understand a blind spot on their own vehicle but the idea of a blind curve (or other blind situation due to any vision obstruction) is completely foreign.
They are constantly looking for people looking at their phone while driving. Quite regularly in certain areas, like along Cesar Chavez downtown. I know because I've been ticketed!
Glad to hear there's enforcement. I don't go downtown, so I wouldn't really know about that location. I'd prefer if they moved farther north. I've seen a lot of distracted driving on Manor, probably more than anywhere else.
> but I've gone through cyclist stop sign enforcement twice.
That's because as a cyclist on the road, you are inconveniencing the operators of highly-lethal, 4,000 lb machines. If you haven't crossed your i's, and dotted your t's, you need to be removed from the road, for their convenience.
As a cyclist, I try to keep as much space from a car as I can. A particularly worrying time for me is when I am traveling around the same speed as a car. So many times I have almost been hit, and a few time shit by someone just turning. This is not a problem when you are passing cars or they pass you, because they see you.
But yes, fuck people using their phones while driving. It happens every single day, every third car sometimes.
I used commute on I294 in Chicago. The drive home was awful. In bumper to bumper traffic, speed oscillating between 0 and 45. Id look around me and typically I'd see 5 or 6 people in my immediate vicinity would be on their phones. Id see people watching videos, texting, talking. It was appalling.
I was hit 3 times last year. Pretty sure at 2 of the times it was due to distracted driving and the 3rd due to the asshole being an impatient and rude prick trying to skip the line and jump in. When I was read ended, the woman that hit me rolled into me at a red light. We had been sitting there for a minute or so, stopped and just as the light was about to turn green, just rolls into me. I get out and check my bumper, and there's a crack in the paint and about a dime size dent. Not a lot, right? I was expecting a around a $500-600 repair, and that was the initial estimate range. When they got in there and removed the bumper, found a lot more damage. Ended up with a new bumper, impact absorption materials and backup sensors. Ended up being around a $4k repair. All because she was distracted at a stop light. Mind I didnt have to pay that, but it was still an inconvenience having my car in the body shop for a few weeks.
The kicker is, she got out to look at the damage and tried to claim there was no damage. I called the police to get a report. She started freaking out and getting hysterical, yelling at me and pulling at my arm I'm holding my phone with, while I'm on the phone with the police. I got back in my car and locked the doors and stayed in there until the police arrived. Crazy woman kept pounding on my window until the officer showed up.
Not sure if she was cited, but I got the police report with her listed at fault, which is what I wanted to make dealing with insurance easier.
Seriously, I know that I may be downvoted but the main reason is because we are moving too slow.
Cyclist should not be in the same lane, road than a car for a speed reason and place, but maybe in Austin there's plenty of space but I doubt that is so safe to ride that bike.
I live in Austin as well and unfortunately I can't see myself cycling anywhere in town. Not only would I have to cycle on the roads due to a lack of biking paths and sidewalks around my area, but having to deal with reckless drivers threatening my life is too much.
It's only going to get worse as more companies move to Austin while the city lags behind on infrastructure.
Cyclists do the same thing. I’m primarily a pedestrian, and lately I’ve seen too many cyclists texting while cycling and blowing through red lights and zebra (pedestrian) crossings as well as riding on the pavement/sidewalks. This is in London.
And for that matter, pedestrians also check their phones while walking and put themselves in danger or just obstruct the pedestrian flow around them. Luckily that is less likely to harm somebody than a car or cyclist.
But let’s not restrict this issue to just drivers. There’s a universal obsession with phones, and people who are unable to stop themselves (whether driving, cycling, walking) if they do need to send a text or email.
I am seeing users on their mobiles very frequently when I see through the back mirror while driving in the city where I live. I assume this is mostly WhatsApp use.
Phone and software makers have an unique opportunity to save lives on the road by taking measures to prevent this terrible behaviour. They'll be rewarded by getting some of the public trust back, and seeing they are optimizing around public good as opposed to eyeballs.
A good example is Android Auto, which prevents the driver from typing on the car's screen while driving.
I was thinking the same thing, but for example, you could put black boxes recording phone usage for the police to access in case of an accident or random pull-over.
I think there's a legitimate difference between a quick glance at a mobile and actually trying to //compose// something on it. Even speech to text can be poor enough that if it isn't dead simple it should wait until stopped.
Edit: If you disagree maybe you would like to reply with how and thus form an actual discussion? I'm suggesting the split second shift of focus equivalent to changing a radio-station or disc track is equally as distracting as a quick glance at something and indicating that I /agree/ anything past that should be a zero-motion dependent event.
No, there isn't. Have your phone read messages aloud when in the car, but just reading something is not really that much better than trying to answer. Any time your eyes leave the road/mirrors you have a chance to miss something crucial. And yes, interacting with the entertainment system is just as bad, that's why there are steering wheels with controls to change the track, to enable the driver to do so without taking their eyes off the road.
Around here you get a fine and a slowly-decaying record of doing something dangerous for any usage of a phone while in a car with the engine running. That might seem too harsh, but I really think it isn't. If you've endangered someone or damaged something while doing so it's also an immediate ban from driving for a month. The only sad thing is that police has to catch you doing this and that's rare.
If the police are able to catch someone, then by definition they were distracted. If a driver can see law enforcement (which should be clearly marked as such, not some stealth car) then the distraction is only in the minds of others, as enough attention is being put on the road to avoid accidents and other issues.
Having the self driving features on a car such as Tesla auto pilot has really made this problem worse. People rely on their cars to stop in time, although this is not always the case
It's possible to go from composition to focused in the span of time it takes to move the hand (and eyes) from the phone back to driving mode.
It isn't possible to become 'not drunk' that quickly.
I rank drunk driving as worse than dealing with screaming kids as worse than writing something at a red-light as worse than just reading a preview on the screen for a measured quantity of time when in a situation that is safe enough to mentally relax and not be at 100% focus is at-hand.
That isn't relevant to the context I'm talking about. Any kind of actual composition of text should only happen while stopped; E.G. at a red light (and ideally NOT while first in line).
During the T9 days, was texting while driving statistically safer, or merely not a problem due to general low adoption/addiction? It feels like touchscreens in general are horrible input devices, which we compensate for by devoting an awful lot of attention to using them.
I'm not asking because I'm personally interested in "safe" ways to text and drive or whatever, just really to contextualize. It also seems highly relevant to the crop of cars being released with touchscreens and soft controls for what have traditionally been tactile interfaces.
> During the T9 days, was texting while driving statistically safer
I have fond memories of being in high school and texting one-handed in class on my Blackberry without looking. Not quite as ideal as T9 for one-handed use, but I was essentially stupid for the few moments I spent doing that. My brain was elsewhere. The problem with distracted driving isn't purely vision (although that's a factor). The mental context-switch is a huge problem.
This is extremely bad. In Portugal I don't cross the road if the person is using a phone, unless they fully stop of course. Yet this is a problem so big that even people walking cross roads with their faces glued to their phones.
It happened to me more than once almost getting into an accident, both while walking or driving because the other party is distracted by a smartphone instead of paying attention to driving or walking. People cross road like complete maniacs while using smartphones, luckily I have quick response time to brake the car, but there are other people that might not have such luck. I am afraid that in the future when my response time increases this might become a problem, even if I lower the velocity.
I never use my phone while driving, not even in stop signs or red lights. Yet it is so socially acceptable to do it these days it's disgusting. I hate this so much I make an simple website to try to raise awareness[1]. I haven't dedicated much time promoting it because it was just a small side project to experiment with TailwindCSS, but I might as this problem affects even my family...
> this is a problem so big that even people walking cross roads with their faces glued to their phones.
I see this comparison a lot, and I just want to clarify: when you are distracted as a pedestrian, you're risking your life. When you are distracted as a driver, you're risking other people's lives.
Getting behind a wheel drunk is considerably more dangerous to society than going home on foot. Phone use equivalently so.
I have far more patience with people risking their own lives, rather than those of others.
> I see this comparison a lot, and I just want to clarify: when you are distracted as a pedestrian, you're risking your life. When you are distracted as a driver, you're risking other people's lives.
You are letting distracted pedestrians off too lightly. They are not just risking their own lives; they are risking the lives of motorists, cyclists, and other pedestrians by potentially forcing motorists and cyclists into erratic evasive maneuvers to avoid them. Ditto for drunk pedestrians. We should not be giving them a pass just because drunk/distracted drivers are more dangerous.
True. It's not good. But I'd argue we should also not include them in the same category, because they dilute the severity of the matter.
Sorry to be cruel, but I'm passionate about drunk and distracted driving. Less so about drunk pedestrians. I'd really like to focus our efforts and not get distracted.
Let's start a separate conversation about texting pedestrians. I'll join. But please let's keep this one about just this one thing: people putting others' lives at a significant risk on a daily basis. It's a different ballgame.
If one effort is to get people to think how their actions impact themselves and everyone else, and there are consequences (life threatening or some form of punishment). Then why limit that to just driving.
Also, if the issue is an attitude of "no fucks given", then they seem just as severe to me because then they might take their "no fucks" on to the road.
I literally see this happen almost every time I'm at a stop light. Someone in the queue is looking at their phone and by the time they react only a handful of cars have gotten through a light that's normally timed to move them all. Multiply this by hundreds of intersections and the effect leads to rising travel times and frustration across the board. I've also noticed a large uptick in people running stale yellow lights/newly red lights, I believe this behavior is precipitated by the red light texting crowd.
What should possibly need your attention when stopped at a red light?
If it's something frivolous then it can wait. If it's important then are you really able to compartmentalize it? Will you be able to put the conversation out of your mind, or ghost your chat partner as soon as traffic starts moving?
Interestingly, chatting with a physical passenger in the car is an entirely different level of distraction, from trying to chat with someone you can't see on the other end of the phone. For some reason (invoking visual synthesis to imagine how they are responding?) the phone case takes quite a bit more mental effort.
Try putting 'blinders' on when talking to a passenger and driving normally. E.g. put a hand up so you can't see them, even out of the corner of your eye. This A/B test (for me anyway) ups the mental effort 2X or more.
Here's my test for phone addiction (for men): If you are pissing into a urinal and need to look at your phone during those 15 seconds, you have a problem. And I see this a lot.
A scary game: when in stop and go traffic, have a look at the person behind you. Are their eyes on the road, or their lap? In my experience, 7 out of 10 are looking at their lap, with a quick glance up every 5 seconds or so.
I spend plenty of time on my phone, but geez, have some phone free moments every now and then.
I don't think your test is all that good. If I'm out with friends, I try to consciously avoid using my phone when we're together so that I'm present and so that they know I value their presence. Those 15 seconds at the urinal are often the best time to check notifications before getting back to phone-free socializing.
Because that’s part of the whole “notification” process. I don’t think it is enforced by the OS, but if a notification didn’t need to be checked, maybe it didn’t need to be a notification?
Or perhaps I have misunderstood you, and instead you’re one of those types that thinks people need to answer to you for the things they do. In that case, I have no help for you.
Hmm, I've never heard anyone hold this viewpoint in person and I've certainly used my phone at the urinal (and seen countless others do the same) enough times that I think it'd have come up.
I don't mean to say it's not a valid concern, I just think that it can be done in a way which makes it clear that one is not doing anything weird.
I'm one of those people but for the opposite reason. If I'm with someone I don't look at my phone at all. When I step away to use the restroom it's my chance to check for any missed notifications.
A couple of years ago I was in stop-and-go traffic, and while at a stop, I watched in my rear view as the woman in a minivan behind me slowly rolled into my bumper while looking at her lap. We pulled over to see if there was damage, and she had the nerve to claim that someone had rear-ended her, pushing her van into my bumper, then they sped off. Even if I hadn't witnessed what really happened, the freeway was at a stand still, nobody was speeding off anywhere.
I was hit on the highway by a phone user who almost killed me and my parents. Speed differential was 55mph. That is, we were completely stopped on the highway and she drove for something like a quarter mile and hit us, leaving me with nerve damage and severe lower back pain. Luckily rehab went stellar and although I have some residual burning/stinging nerve damage, I can walk, run, play sports, go to the gym - you wouldn't even have known that I spent some time in a neck brace, cast, and back pain so back I could hardly leave my bed (but it also hurt just as bad to lay in bed) after almost being killed by the distracted driver.
Oh yeah, the concussion too. That was pretty rough as well.
How did you know she was distracted by her phone? I'm asking not because I don't believe you, but because my wife got rear ended about a week ago, and when the person got out of his car, he had his cell phone in his hand, but that's what you'd expect after a collision (calling family/insurance/police/etc).
Did you have to go through a discovery process or?
To add to it - the driver was ALSO drunk (well, above the legal limit) and also, get this, a nurse.
I was told by my lawyer that the police investigation concluded that she was guilty of DUI but that due her statements the cell phone was implicated as the reason. She was above .08 barely, but she was presumably not drunk enough to drive for a quarter mile or more without looking up at the road.
I had just started actually reading TFA because this topic interests me, I was skimming past some infographic of "phone addicts spend x% not looking at the road" when - pop! - a little distraction popped up in the bottom right corner offering "hey <domainname> wanna chat". A distraction, a creepy "personalized" one no less, on an article about distractions. Too meta for me, I ctrl-w'd outta there.
tl;dr: I was hit by a driver using his phone, I was found guilty.
Last week I was changing lane in a very slow traffic traffic jam, I turn the left sign, the driver completely stops. I assume this as he giving me space to enter, I slowly enter. He then starts driving forward slowly, he starts approaching, I'm puzzled. I realize he is driving with his phone on his face. Completely unaware that I'm in his lane. He hits. We talk, he starts saying I jumped in front of him, I just tell him he did not see me because he was on the phone. He agrees and he apologizes. We exchange information and go back home. It was only some scratches in our cars.
Later I do the insurance claim (we both had the same insurance company), and I discover that in his report he omits about the phone. I now I have to prove that he was one the phone and I have not jumped with my car in front of him. I could not prove that. I do have a front dashcam but only a very good and specifically placed dashcam would capture such proof. The insurance found me guilty.
I don't know what was the lesson here, maybe always get a police report. Contacting the police at the moment had not crossed my head because it was was not a big deal, the driver sounded reasonable (apart from the fact he was using the phone while driving), and there was something going on that was causing the traffic jam and required the police in the first place.
Sorry to hear about this. I ride a bike with a helmet cam and I started narrating observations unlikely to be caught by camera. I'll often say something like "distracted driver" when a distracted driver is nearby. It's not perfect, but it might help in situations like this.
I have found from experience that reading off people's license plate numbers tends to make them nervous, but that hasn't stopped me from doing it.
My neighbor was killed walking on sidewalk in a parking lot. Driver was staring at phone in his lap and missed turn, plowed directly into him. Put your goddamn phone away... and trying to "hide it" in your lap is worse than just holding it up in windshield.
292 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 280 ms ] threadDon't text and drive no matter what, it's easy to pull over if it's necessary!
What damage on your vehicle caused the high cost of repairs? Just surprisingly high for a 3~ MpH impact.
I'm not surprised to see a car accident with wildly different results on both vehicles.
You pulled into a driving lane that the other vehicle was already in. Your justification for why you shouldn't be at fault is that he was "speeding" but there's no set speed limit in a parking lot, and you're meant to verify it is clear before locomotion.
Plus if you witnessed them "speeding" you would have known you were pulling out in front of them, which makes you in the wrong anyway. If you didn't know they were oncoming you couldn't have known they were "speeding." It doesn't make basic logical sense that you could have both known they were speeding AND pulled out into them, because to know that you would have had eyes on their car.
All to say, you weren’t there and don’t know what happened. And I’ll leave it at that.
https://www.mycaliforniapermit.com/california-teen-driver-ed...
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-California-bother-having-a-5-...
In fact, our roads have continued to become safer in the 10 or so years since the release of the iPhone.
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.h...
I have no idea if this study's conclusions are controversial or not. If someone could identify the study, I'd be appreciative.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2017/03/30/522085503/2016-saw-a-record-i...
Edit: corrected to 2014, not 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
Note that fatalities per 100M population has not just been trending up, but it is doing so after trending down for many previous years.
Its a drug, the potential to optimize your plans on the fly is so attractive that even folks that swear they'd never text and drive, do it the moment it has utility?
Where is this culture where it's acceptable to change plans on a guest that is driving to your house while they are driving?
Going to 'somebody's house' has all but disappeared from modern culture, for most of the population. Maybe at Christmas.
> see if they're expecting you/changed plans
This is impossible with Android Auto, you can't read or send texts (without voice, which doesn't work properly in my car). It auto-responds telling people to phone me if it is time-sensitive (like changed plans).
If they don't call back I'll arrive late, big whoop, at least I'm not arriving in a body bag. If they have a problem with me being late, they changed plans last-minute. None of which has happened to me.
> do it the moment it has utility?
It never has utility.
My desire to avoid the inconvenience of some extra driving (if I drive all the way to the destination only to leave because plans changed) is not more valuable than other people's lives.
There's no good reason to be on your phone while your car is in motion — absolutely none.
And yet... that's still a pretty minor inconvenience when weighed against the potential to cause people to die or otherwise be seriously injured. There's no valid justification for it.
I get what you're saying but these are the thousands of little thoughts in the back of your mind that encourage you to use your phone in the car. "Just leave the phone in your pocket" has to defend itself against every one of these little pervasive thoughts. Why do you think the mobile tech companies are worth tens of billions? They got a drug better than any other.
I run my phone in Do Not Disturb mode 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No notifications. No texts. No calls. No E-mails. I’ll check these things at night sometime when I’m not doing other things like driving a 2000 pound steel death machine on the interstate.
I'm not defending or justifying doing it - im simply explaining why it's such a common phenomenon. People are often in conversations all day long with others. Or engaged in online discussions like this. Life is filled with boring moments and phones alleviate us of that. That's why people do it.
I attempted to answer that question recently.
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/ruminations-on-stoplights-and...
I am a zealot about driving mindfully, actively and defensively. When I am driving, I am driving. I go the second the light turns green, I scan ahead constantly to change lanes a hundred yards before a slow car or obstacle. A lot of other folks do this, it is not unique or special. But... I think the vast majority of people do not drive this way and it drives me absolutely nuts.
How often do you see someone accelerating towards a car that is decellerating (usually in the far right lane) and then, at the very last minute, they slam on their brakes realizing the situation they are in. Why didn't that person notice the situation before it happened, since it happens all the time, and move over before getting stuck?
How often do you miss a turn lane signal because people in your line were either not paying attention or taking their sweet time to react?
It's not just the fault of devices, though that is a significant factor. I think phones exacerbate the real issue which is that, lately, people are not mindful about what they are doing (driving, walking, etc...)
The reality is most people go about their days doing their business, not analyzing what they've done that day or thinking on how it can be improved the next. This is a phenomenon (to me) since it's considered a positive cultural trait (改善 Kaizen) in other cultures.
Japanese drivers are always glued to their phones. Almost every car has a built in TV and drivers watch it while driving and messaging someone on their phone. Bicyclists often hold an umbrella in one hand while playing a game with the other. Police aren’t making any effort to crack down on it and nobody is willing to accept that their own driving is dangerous and in need of improvement. The western idea of “kaizen” is sorely lacking here.
Why is this a thing?
But for some bizarre reason, most drivers find it unthinkable to simply pull over for 2 minutes to handle their business.
If I need to fiddle with a map or respond to a text, I pull over. It's really super ridiculously easy to do and takes almost no time at all.
Make a phone-themed one!
</sarcasm>
Yeah, in practice it seems the only thing that will really work is license suspension.
That exact thing does happen to me. The drivers in my country are atrocious even if we do not consider the use of phones. Having to cross the street is quite stressful and do not dare to do so without running, even if I am in a another country with more sane drivers.
One is a few months of decreased mobility. The other is an entire life.
In addition, I believe the effective penalty for vehicular manslaughter is probably ten thousand times worse because of the psychological cost of being responsible for someone's death.
Consider that a plurality, if not a majority of the population is convinced that they're efficient at multi-tasking, and specifically that they can perform each task as well as in isolation. But we know that almost nobody multitasks well, period, and absolutely not with equivalent performance.
distracted driving.
instagram killing natural spaces from lack of crowd control.
decreased mental wellbeing and increased suicide rates.
facebook privacy concerns.
somebody needs to tackle these social crises, since the incentive is not there for the companies to address it themselves.
Here's a neat trick, just say, "Hey Siri* Send a message to $firstname $lastname's $phone. Tell them I'm [on my way, 5 minutes away, picking up milk, buying pizza]"
* Or whatever platform you use. I'm an iOS user.
Until we change the incentives, distracted driving is very likely to remain a problem. Right now there's a lot of talk but very little action. I live in Austin, and I've spoken with the police about distracted driving after nearly being hit by a driver who ran a red light because they were distracted by their phone. (I spoke with them afterward.) The police tell me that they periodically do distracted driving enforcement operations, but only in school zones so that they get double fines. I've never seen a single distracted driving enforcement operation in Austin, but I've gone through cyclist stop sign enforcement twice. It would be interesting to see the statistics here. How many people are ticketed for distracted driving every year?
No, no it is not. Because a phone is a computer. And a computer should be ultimately under its owners control, running software they choose.
The reason why we have a "war on general purpose computing" is because there are many things that would seemingly be fixed if all computers could simply be made to enforce policy, yet actually mandating they be setup to do so requires going down the path of digital totalitarianism.
It's mandated that you can't drive a car without a license. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the car.
It's mandated that you can't own a gun unless you meet certain criteria. But the enforcement is done by the cops, not by the gun.
And so on...
It can be mandated that you can't use a phone while driving. But the enforcement must be done by the cops, not by the phone. If the cops don't do it correctly, then the right course of action is to fix that, not to restrict the phone.
Because once we do start restricting ubiquitous personal devices in order to enforce the government's rules, it will never stop. Democracy can never work if freedom is granted by the government - the people must be able to do whatever they want, with the government potentially revoking a person's freedom after the violation if it finds one.
The problem is that with software on a general purpose computer, the issue must be taken to its logical extreme. Presumably someone advocating for digital restrictions doesn't envision settling for merely having the default install exhibit a behavior that can be changed with two minutes of following online instructions. Simply creating a restriction is not enough - for it to be effective, it must be fortified.
And that's the trouble, for the only way for that to happen is the platform to be fully locked down, removing the user's ability to modify. Phones are already perilously close to this regime, but manufacturers seem to not be seriously addressing rooting for right now. We can look to other areas (eg wifi routers) to see manufacturers only getting the idea because of half-baked government policy, and its needless chilling effects on software freedom.
(of course I haven't said anything about texting and driving itself, so you should just assume I think it's a bad idea like any reasonable person. I'm just pointing out that arguing for outlawing Free phones to prevent it is of the same non-starter category as arguing for outlawing cars)
https://www.kut.org/post/battle-texting-and-driving-austin-p...
I don't like Apple's method: When it senses you moving (which gets triggered for false positives as mentioned), it locks your phone unless you press the big button that says "I'm not driving.". Let's be real, if you're going after the people who actively text and whatever while driving, a single button press is not a real barrier to entry.
If the phone cannot distinguish driver from passenger, shut it off.
Making tools liable for their stupid users is not a good idea.
Is there no means to distinguish cases?
I guess this is something a self driving car should also keep in mind. Next we have to click on tiles with people using phones before login.
My father has a good one for going around blind corners and going up blind hills at night: Check trees and other objects in the direct path of oncoming traffic for light.
I also tend to look around buildings now, which is something self-driving cars probably already do but many drivers don't.
Back in high school, I convinced one of my friends that I had a 6th sense for cars approaching on a long drive back home at night. My trick was that the light from a cars headlights slightly reflects off the semi-gloss black rubber of powerlines and we lived in an area where everything was still on poles. I never noticed this effect on tree leaves but the power/telephone line trick worked really well because a ~6 foot section would be slightly lit, presenting a very large (but thin) target for your eye to see.
That's because as a cyclist on the road, you are inconveniencing the operators of highly-lethal, 4,000 lb machines. If you haven't crossed your i's, and dotted your t's, you need to be removed from the road, for their convenience.
But yes, fuck people using their phones while driving. It happens every single day, every third car sometimes.
I was hit 3 times last year. Pretty sure at 2 of the times it was due to distracted driving and the 3rd due to the asshole being an impatient and rude prick trying to skip the line and jump in. When I was read ended, the woman that hit me rolled into me at a red light. We had been sitting there for a minute or so, stopped and just as the light was about to turn green, just rolls into me. I get out and check my bumper, and there's a crack in the paint and about a dime size dent. Not a lot, right? I was expecting a around a $500-600 repair, and that was the initial estimate range. When they got in there and removed the bumper, found a lot more damage. Ended up with a new bumper, impact absorption materials and backup sensors. Ended up being around a $4k repair. All because she was distracted at a stop light. Mind I didnt have to pay that, but it was still an inconvenience having my car in the body shop for a few weeks.
The kicker is, she got out to look at the damage and tried to claim there was no damage. I called the police to get a report. She started freaking out and getting hysterical, yelling at me and pulling at my arm I'm holding my phone with, while I'm on the phone with the police. I got back in my car and locked the doors and stayed in there until the police arrived. Crazy woman kept pounding on my window until the officer showed up.
Not sure if she was cited, but I got the police report with her listed at fault, which is what I wanted to make dealing with insurance easier.
/rant
Cyclist should not be in the same lane, road than a car for a speed reason and place, but maybe in Austin there's plenty of space but I doubt that is so safe to ride that bike.
It's only going to get worse as more companies move to Austin while the city lags behind on infrastructure.
And for that matter, pedestrians also check their phones while walking and put themselves in danger or just obstruct the pedestrian flow around them. Luckily that is less likely to harm somebody than a car or cyclist.
But let’s not restrict this issue to just drivers. There’s a universal obsession with phones, and people who are unable to stop themselves (whether driving, cycling, walking) if they do need to send a text or email.
Phone and software makers have an unique opportunity to save lives on the road by taking measures to prevent this terrible behaviour. They'll be rewarded by getting some of the public trust back, and seeing they are optimizing around public good as opposed to eyeballs.
A good example is Android Auto, which prevents the driver from typing on the car's screen while driving.
Edit: If you disagree maybe you would like to reply with how and thus form an actual discussion? I'm suggesting the split second shift of focus equivalent to changing a radio-station or disc track is equally as distracting as a quick glance at something and indicating that I /agree/ anything past that should be a zero-motion dependent event.
Around here you get a fine and a slowly-decaying record of doing something dangerous for any usage of a phone while in a car with the engine running. That might seem too harsh, but I really think it isn't. If you've endangered someone or damaged something while doing so it's also an immediate ban from driving for a month. The only sad thing is that police has to catch you doing this and that's rare.
It isn't possible to become 'not drunk' that quickly.
I rank drunk driving as worse than dealing with screaming kids as worse than writing something at a red-light as worse than just reading a preview on the screen for a measured quantity of time when in a situation that is safe enough to mentally relax and not be at 100% focus is at-hand.
And yet it takes even less time to irreversibly ruin somebody else's life because you weren't paying attention when it mattered.
Whatever is happening on your phone is not more important than other people's lives. Don't use your phone while your car is in motion — period.
> The researchers specifically found that cell phone users are:
> - 9 percent slower to deploy the brakes
> - 19 percent slower to return to normal speed after braking
I'm not asking because I'm personally interested in "safe" ways to text and drive or whatever, just really to contextualize. It also seems highly relevant to the crop of cars being released with touchscreens and soft controls for what have traditionally been tactile interfaces.
I have fond memories of being in high school and texting one-handed in class on my Blackberry without looking. Not quite as ideal as T9 for one-handed use, but I was essentially stupid for the few moments I spent doing that. My brain was elsewhere. The problem with distracted driving isn't purely vision (although that's a factor). The mental context-switch is a huge problem.
It happened to me more than once almost getting into an accident, both while walking or driving because the other party is distracted by a smartphone instead of paying attention to driving or walking. People cross road like complete maniacs while using smartphones, luckily I have quick response time to brake the car, but there are other people that might not have such luck. I am afraid that in the future when my response time increases this might become a problem, even if I lower the velocity.
I never use my phone while driving, not even in stop signs or red lights. Yet it is so socially acceptable to do it these days it's disgusting. I hate this so much I make an simple website to try to raise awareness[1]. I haven't dedicated much time promoting it because it was just a small side project to experiment with TailwindCSS, but I might as this problem affects even my family...
[1] https://github.com/mig4ng/2min.pink
I see this comparison a lot, and I just want to clarify: when you are distracted as a pedestrian, you're risking your life. When you are distracted as a driver, you're risking other people's lives.
Getting behind a wheel drunk is considerably more dangerous to society than going home on foot. Phone use equivalently so.
I have far more patience with people risking their own lives, rather than those of others.
You are letting distracted pedestrians off too lightly. They are not just risking their own lives; they are risking the lives of motorists, cyclists, and other pedestrians by potentially forcing motorists and cyclists into erratic evasive maneuvers to avoid them. Ditto for drunk pedestrians. We should not be giving them a pass just because drunk/distracted drivers are more dangerous.
Sorry to be cruel, but I'm passionate about drunk and distracted driving. Less so about drunk pedestrians. I'd really like to focus our efforts and not get distracted.
Let's start a separate conversation about texting pedestrians. I'll join. But please let's keep this one about just this one thing: people putting others' lives at a significant risk on a daily basis. It's a different ballgame.
Also, if the issue is an attitude of "no fucks given", then they seem just as severe to me because then they might take their "no fucks" on to the road.
If it's something frivolous then it can wait. If it's important then are you really able to compartmentalize it? Will you be able to put the conversation out of your mind, or ghost your chat partner as soon as traffic starts moving?
Try putting 'blinders' on when talking to a passenger and driving normally. E.g. put a hand up so you can't see them, even out of the corner of your eye. This A/B test (for me anyway) ups the mental effort 2X or more.
A scary game: when in stop and go traffic, have a look at the person behind you. Are their eyes on the road, or their lap? In my experience, 7 out of 10 are looking at their lap, with a quick glance up every 5 seconds or so.
I spend plenty of time on my phone, but geez, have some phone free moments every now and then.
Turns out, one of them is dangerous.
Agree with your other points though.
Or perhaps I have misunderstood you, and instead you’re one of those types that thinks people need to answer to you for the things they do. In that case, I have no help for you.
I don't whip out my phone at the urinal, but I'd check it on my way to or from the bathroom rather than while spending time with friends.
I don't mean to say it's not a valid concern, I just think that it can be done in a way which makes it clear that one is not doing anything weird.
Oh yeah, the concussion too. That was pretty rough as well.
Did you have to go through a discovery process or?
What happened to the distracted driver?
I was told by my lawyer that the police investigation concluded that she was guilty of DUI but that due her statements the cell phone was implicated as the reason. She was above .08 barely, but she was presumably not drunk enough to drive for a quarter mile or more without looking up at the road.
Last week I was changing lane in a very slow traffic traffic jam, I turn the left sign, the driver completely stops. I assume this as he giving me space to enter, I slowly enter. He then starts driving forward slowly, he starts approaching, I'm puzzled. I realize he is driving with his phone on his face. Completely unaware that I'm in his lane. He hits. We talk, he starts saying I jumped in front of him, I just tell him he did not see me because he was on the phone. He agrees and he apologizes. We exchange information and go back home. It was only some scratches in our cars.
Later I do the insurance claim (we both had the same insurance company), and I discover that in his report he omits about the phone. I now I have to prove that he was one the phone and I have not jumped with my car in front of him. I could not prove that. I do have a front dashcam but only a very good and specifically placed dashcam would capture such proof. The insurance found me guilty.
I don't know what was the lesson here, maybe always get a police report. Contacting the police at the moment had not crossed my head because it was was not a big deal, the driver sounded reasonable (apart from the fact he was using the phone while driving), and there was something going on that was causing the traffic jam and required the police in the first place.
I have found from experience that reading off people's license plate numbers tends to make them nervous, but that hasn't stopped me from doing it.