According to the article, your theory is simple yet wrong:

> Here is what the frustrated safety experts will tell you: Americans are driving more than ever, more than residents of any other country. More of them than ever are living in cities and out in urban sprawl; a growing number of pedestrian fatalities occur on the fringes of cities, where high-volume, high-speed roads exist in close proximity to the places where people live, work, and shop. Speed limits have increased across the country over the past 20 years, despite robust evidence that even slight increases in speed dramatically increase the likelihood of killing pedestrians (car passengers, too – but the increase is not as steep, thanks to improvements in the design of car frames, airbags and seatbelts). American road engineers tend to assume people will speed, and so design roads to accommodate speeding; this, in turn, facilitates more speeding, which soon enough makes higher speed limits feel reasonable. And more Americans than ever are zipping around in SUVs and pickup trucks, which, thanks to their height, weight and shape are between two and three times more likely to kill people they hit. [emphasis added]

From other statistics I've seen, the massive increase in SUV's is mentioned as the single largest factor.

Indeed, the article directly refutes your theory:

> Ask a room full of safety experts about smartphones and you will get a mix of resignation, bemusement and contempt. “I tend not to buy the smartphone distraction stuff,” says Garrick, echoing nearly identical comments from just about everyone I talked to. “To me, it reads as shoving aside actually dealing with the relevant issues.” What particularly bothers him, he says, is how poorly thought out the distraction discourse tends to be. In the UK, Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Austria and Iceland, for example, pedestrian deaths occur at a per capita rate roughly half of America’s, or lower. Are we really to believe that the citizens of these countries are 50% less susceptible than Americans to distraction, by their phones or anything else? ... “All this talk about pedestrian distraction, driver distraction? It’s such a distraction,” says Ben Welle of the World Resource Institute for Sustainable Cities. “It puts all the responsibility on individuals, and none on the environment they operate in.” [emphasis added]

> From other statistics I've seen, the massive increase in SUV's is mentioned as the single largest factor.

I've been saying for years that driving a large SUV or truck without a legitimate need for its capabilities is an antisocial act, for precisely this reason and also the fact that, all other things being equal, a vehicle (and its occupants) colliding with another vehicle will fare worse the larger that other vehicle is. Whether my own assumptions were right or wrong, I'm glad we're finally starting to talk about this. For a long time, it seemed to be a huge blind spot in existing analyses of injurious/fatal road accidents.

It makes me absolutely livid when I walk past a shiny new lifted pickup with an empty bed and my head is just about level with the front of the hood. How have we grown to accept these things driving around on public roads with no higher bar to entry than that required to drive a Geo Metro?

I think we need another license class for vehicles larger than your average 4-door sedan (or saloon, in the UK). An F-150, Highlander, or Suburban drive and handle appreciably different than the Civic or Accord-sized vehicle that most drivers-ed classes use. And it shows when you see how people park or drive these larger vehicles in crowded areas. We’ve essentially discounted the increase in vehicle size to whether you can get financing for it, with no regard to your ability to drive it.

There is another class called: CDL. Commercial Drivers License and it is required for vehicles over a certain tonnage or with air brakes.

Why not just reduce the tonnage to 4,000lbs for example? Easy. You want to drive a Humvee, go get a CDL first.

I was referring to another class above regular, but not a CDL. People who drive SUVs don’t need a commercial license.

As a biker, Geo Metros are unacceptable. It makes me c absolutely livid when I bike past a shiny new Geo Metro which is 1800 pounds of wasted metal and my knee caps are about level with the front. How have we grown to accept these things driving around on public roads with no higher bar to entry than that required to bike in my BMX?

I see this all the time where I live, and it drives me insane. Truck culture is a waste of resources. What causes someone to pay $$$$ to decrease the efficiency of their vehicle? And don’t even get me started on soft rubber mud tires that only see pavement...

Obligatory MMM article:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-wor...

My mother was insistent on driving SUVs because she said she could see the road better from higher up, which to me really just meant that when she would look at cars, she wouldn't consider the feature she actually needed: raisable seats.

However, in practice, she backed into a couple poles in her old SUV and said she didn't see them. Hm.

She now drives a car instead of an SUV and not once has complained about being unable to see, and I don't think it has raisable seats, so I think she may have simply convinced herself of something that was untrue.

This seems like a strange reaction. Why would it make a difference if the bed is empty?

Well, I don't want to say trucks shouldn't be allowed on public roads at all. That would exclude working vehicles that serve crucial roles in our society.

The condition of a truck's bed, i.e. is it dusty and marked up by loads carried, is it full of gear, etc., serves as a proxy for whether the operator of the vehicle has been or is currently making use of the capabilities it offers beyond e.g. a compact hatchback. If they are not, I see that as a signal that they belong to the category of truck owners who own them for vanity and/or personal expression reasons rather than because they need the carrying capacity. This sort of ownership is, I believe (as I said) an antisocial act.

This signal is not perfect, but as I keep it to myself in every case I don't feel that I'm harming anybody by making these judgments, and if someone could demonstrate to me that e.g. the majority of F-series truck (the most popular "car" in America, last I checked) owners need that capacity, as in they use it on a regular basis to the extent that a smaller vehicle would not suffice, I'd be happy to change my thinking.

There definitely are truck owners like that, but I think there are a lot of truck owners who don't use them for their job, but extensively for work on and around their home and for recreation (or for activities which are both productive and recreational, like fishing and hunting), and that many of these folks like to take care of their trucks and try to keep them looking clean.

For most people, it's far from a given that those activities require the sort of vehicle I'm talking about.

Regardless, all this fixation on my "empty bed" comment is totally missing the point. We should look at the data, at how many human lives are lost each year because of the proliferation of these vehicles, and on that basis we should decide whether further regulation and/or transit engineering is needed to protect the public. People are, evidently, dying because of said proliferation, and that's just totally unacceptable to me.

Maybe I just don't understand the mindset that I should be able to do whatever I want, for my own vanity/amusement/whatever, at any cost to my fellow humans up to and including the loss of their lives.

The empty bed idea is a terrible one. It'll only encourage people to leave their beds loaded.

The only wrecks (only fender benders) I've ever been in were when I had a heavily loaded bed or was pulling a trailer. Not only does stopping distance increase, but weight is sometimes taken off of the front tires, meaning ability to steer/swerve is also impaired.

This is one of those rules that not only would have the opposite of the desired, but also increase the severity of accidents that do occur.

> The empty bed idea

What's the "empty bed idea"?

> This is one of those rules

Which rule?

That an empty bed implies the "truck isn't being used" and therefore isn't needed and that person shouldn't be driving a truck. Extended to include the idea that only people who need trucks should drive trucks, and even then, should only drive them specifically when you need the bed or to pull a trailer.

This topic always devolves into someone suggesting "there ought to be a law..." And some variation suggesting tickets be given to people driving vehicles bigger than what's required for any particular trip, with an empty bed being evidence of guilt.

Well, just to be clear, it is not my opinion that we should be issuing tickets to the drivers of pickup trucks with empty beds.

Do I think the massive proliferation of obviously-underutilized pickup trucks in America is a symptom of a particularly destructive and vapid brand of consumerism? Yes, I do.

Big pickups are just another facet of the 'Harleyfication' of personal transport.

There's a subset of people that seem to like big, heavy, noisy soot belching vehicles, perhaps because they imagine it projects power to drive them.

I just don't understand why people let it bother themselves so much.

And remember that embedded energy is a thing. It's almost always more efficient to drive a single vehicle that meets all of your needs than to purchase a second one just for occasional use. For trucks specifically, rentals usually don't make sense.

It bothers me because these vehicles apparently kill people at a significantly higher rate than "normal cars". That's what this whole thread below the parent of my original comment is about. When innocent human lives are extinguished by completely avoidable causes, it absolutely bothers me. It bothers me on behalf of myself, my friends and family and loved ones, and every single person out there who deserves better than being snuffed out before their time by some moron who's decided to purchase an identity for themselves by way of an F-250 XLT 4x4 TEXAS RANCH KING EDITION CUMMINS POWER STROKE SIX-POINT-TWO LITER FLEX FUEL. Or whatever.

I've rented many trucks in my life, at times when my car at the time wasn't big enough. In each case it made perfect sense.

Except the claim is for SUVs, not trucks. And even then, the suv connection is grasping at straws, the same way cell phones have been blamed for a decade. Apply the same methods to the 90s, which had more "true" SUVs (on truck frames), and it looks like SUVs save lives with the declining pedestrian deaths. Most SUVs sold today come on car frames and aren't as tall or as those were.

They even make the point in the article- that the rise in fatalities corresponds more with pedestrian safety features than anything else, but we're not blaming them.

It indicates they’re not using it for work.

this probably isn't what GP cares about, but it is kind of silly to drive around a pickup truck with no weight in the bed. these vehicles are designed to handle a heavy load in the bed. the tradeoff is that a pickup doesn't actually have it's best handling when the bed is totally empty. it's not catastrophically dangerous, but a pickup with an empty bed is more susceptible to stuff like lift-off oversteer than something like an SUV, which isn't designed with the same assumptions.

Note from class A CDL driver:

The 1st company I worked for was hyper vigilant in preventing accidents, to a point that kept me from returning. Their data is quite solid, however. With both forward and inner facing cameras, they are able to analyze their drivers extensively, notably where accidents occur. It isn't only because of the mandatory $10,000 federal fine[1] for having a cellphone placed near a driver's ear, it's the observed tendency of the phone as a factor in many events. So strict was the company, that if the camera sensors detected a driver's hand near a cellphone, a safety meeting was held and the driver reprimanded, or terminated. Their means I find intolerable, but their motivation well founded.

1. FMCSA

Edit: I ought take the opportunity to mention the training that occurs in some of these companies, regardless of driver experience. There can be no refutation that such additional education makes a better driver, of any motor vehicle. The prevalent attitude and reception (even among trucker types) is open-minded, sincere and earnest. I view this as strong evidence that education can indeed improve what many appear to think of as incorrigible drivers. The required education for a standard driver's licenses is wholly inadequate considering the stakes. I stubbornly hold that up to a majority of accidents are highly and practically preventable. Our priorities are grotesque.

For non-'muricans... CDL = commercial driver license, class A = these cool large trucks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_driver%27s_licens...

Both the article and the parent poster point out about the behaviour of drivers, but neither really mention pedestrian behaviour. I know bashing on drivers is popular, so this might not go over well. But, as a pedestrian 90% of the time myself, I see a lot more terrible pedestrian behaviour in recent years than I've seen previously.

People just not paying attention to traffic lights and walking onto streets. Actually, from what I can tell, very few pedestrians actually pay attention to the car traffic lights.

I've watched people countless times walk onto the street while playing with their phones and not even looking up. I've seen people walking in the dark with headphones on crossing streets without paying the slightest bit of attention.

Personally, as a pedestrian I understand most people driving are fairly terrible at it and honestly when you're driving, most of the time you see pedestrians for about 20-30 seconds before you've passed them and their gone.

When I'm walking around traffic, I always stay concious of this, because I understand that if a ton of metal flying at 60km/h hits me, I'm gonna be seriously hurt or dead and there's not always time for a car to stop if I'm being unsafe as much as they should stop. I really think a lot of people don't understand or appreciate this enough.

One interesting fact that rarely gets brought up:

1 out of 3 pedestrian deaths involve drunk pedestrians.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/ind...

It's worth noting that non-US countries have lower fatalities, even with smartphone technology.

The major difference is that the consequence of being a bad pedestrian isn't death in most countries due to slower speeds and lower prevalence of SUVs.

I often see people arguing that US speed limits being high is fine, because the major killer is speed differential in a crash. The problem is, pedestrians walk at 3mph, so even a speed limit of 40mph on a road with pedestrians leads to a quite high speed differential between a car and a human.

I traveled extensively across most of Europe and also a bit of US. In the northern half of Europe pedestrians are crossing the streets in a very orderly manner, the entire summer I lived in Vienna I haven't seen a single pedestrian crossing a red light, not even on streets with almost no traffic. In the southern part things are different, but on average in Europe people pay more attention to crossing the streets than in US. That explains the lower fatalities.

Also in Europe people text less; I never understood the US preference for texting, in Europe we simply talk (many countries have affordable or unlimited voice plans). When I drive a car (10-20% of the time) I have a headset in my ear, when I ride the motorcycle I have a helmet headset turned on on auto-answer. I don't talk too often while driving, but it is less distracting than texting, I never have to touch the phone while driving (on the bike it is not even possible).

A somewhat cynical, hopefully wrong hypothesis: People in the US text more because we're further down the road of optimizing all human activity to maximize its monetary output, and the asynchronous and more impersonal nature of text messages allows us to transfer data to one another with less interruption to our productivity.

It's interesting to the extent that I always thought it was the opposite - that Europe was the one preferring texting, whereas the US didn't even have (or use much) the SMS service, using phones for just calls until mobile Internet came.

You can walk everywhere and live without a car in most big European cities. You cannot in US. That changes road design, urban planning, law interpretation, driving culture.

It's a catch 22. Nobody walks, so the social expectation is that the environment must accommodate driving, so the zoning and the laws reflect that, but the resulting environment is hostile to walking, so nobody walks.

There was an America before cars where walking was the norm, and then it was mostly systematically destroyed and is gone outside of a few metropolitan areas.

I agree with the point that pedestrians must watch the road (looking at traffic lights is not enough, you need to check wether cars are actually slowing down).

But to me it doesn't seem like people are more distracted than 10 years ago, so I'm not sure how that would increase pedestrian deaths.

Where is the actual evidence that high speed roads near where people live, work and shop are primarily responsible? Speed limit increases tend to be on highways where pedestrians are not allowed.

In the UK, Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Austria and Iceland, maybe distracted driving and cellphone use is better enforced. Many of the stats I see show that distracted driving is more common in the US vs. other countries: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/comment/texting-driving-tab...

Sorry but those choice of words, 'tend to not buy', does not sound like it's backed by evidence or facts. Similarly to the parent who used anecdata. I myself see an alarming number of people on phones in cars, it's more of a distraction than eating in the car. It is hard to argue that we've not become more and more distracted as we drive, that is the problem to fix. With commutes getting longer, not shorter it seems like an up hill battle.

How do you explain the data they proceed with, that these deaths are much less common in Europe where people also own smartphones? That's not an anecdote or someone simply refusing to acknowledge data.

I can only speculate, but I would say this data doesn't disprove the causality of the other cohorts. Just because the results are absent in another region it doesn't mean those same conditions will yield the same results, although it's idea of something to try.

Owning a smartphone and using it while driving aren't the same thing. I think work culture differences my contribute more than mere smartphone ownership.

Fair enough, I also found the other comment re: the prevalence of manual transmission in Europe compelling.

Yeah, I share that same feeling.

However, where this starts to break down is highway miles. Shifting into overdrive and having no lights for miles, coupled with the always connected to work ethic might have different results.

I do think it ultimately comes down to culture and conditions on the road.

Re: work culture I have been ordered to be on conference calls while driving to the airport on a weekly basis. Never would do so otherwise as I hate talking on the phone period let alone while driving in traffic. Feels bad man.

I can say, in France you need 100 hours of driving school before you can even sit in the drivers seat. Then you need 1 year of driving before you are allowed on the national highways, >45kph. It's even tougher in Germany.

Drivers in Europe tend to be better because they have more training, and plenty to lose. Simply holding a phone will get you fined and points.

This kind of comment doesn't really add to the discussion. It is just restating the (grand?)parent's argument and giving a weak response to the parent's counter-argument.

> Are we really to believe that the citizens of these countries are 50% less susceptible than Americans to distraction, by their phones or anything else?

Given the prevalence of manual cars there, yes I am actually.

Came here to say that. Here in the US I see people driving with their phone in their right hand, which is just not possible with a manual transmission car (and I never saw that in France). It might also explain a bit why so many people drive with a giant cup of coffee: they have a free hand.

This makes sense, give both feet and both hands a role in the driving process and we are forced to pay more attention. Perhaps we need to turn the shifters of automatics into Simon says games where if you lose the pattern you hit a soft rev limiter.

> In the UK, Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Austria and Iceland, for example, pedestrian deaths occur at a per capita rate roughly half of America’s, or lower. Are we really to believe that the citizens of these countries are 50% less susceptible than Americans to distraction

It's a hell of a lot harder to get a license in those countries than in the US. And if you hit a pedestrian in those countries it is assumed you are at fault. Unlike the US, where it is assumed the pedestrian must have done something irrational, like cross a street, and the driver is innocent as snow.

Collectively, Americans are terrible drivers, so the reasons compound. Whether it's fatigue, phones, makeup, food, drinking, or poor judgement we feel safe in our cars and fuck anyone else.

As a Brit, I'd say a lot of the difference is road engineering. We tend to have windy roads and roundabouts that slow things are less prone to fatalities.

Wikipedia says that in 2008 we were one of the best in the world for that but have been overtaken by Holland and Sweden. Also that we could drop deaths 30% more by fixing stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_in_the_United_Kingdom#Ro...

This! Things like minimum street and shoulder widths are totally different between the UK and US and they dramatically impact driver behavior. I'm an engineer in the US for the record.

> Are we really to believe that the citizens of these countries are 50% less susceptible than Americans to distraction, by their phones or anything else? .

From my experience, yes.

My perception is that texting while driving just wasn't a thing in Germany at the time it was commonly happening in the US. Maybe nobody was talking about it, but I suspect people just didn't consider it a thing you could do while driving.

I think this is a classic example of expert bias. If you ask a group of people that design roads for a living what the #1 factor in road safety is you are going to hear about road design.

Yes! Better to derive all knowledge from first principles, the true HN way. That way there’s no bias.

Needlessly obnoxious retort, as gp is exactly right. There is no a priori reason to zero in on road design as a major contributory factor given the huge range of possibilities. One can easily apply profound selection bias in a complex problem simply by choosing which experts to ask.

No, without additional evidence it’s a terrible argument that could apply to almost anything. Data and experience is better than an “a priori reason” every time.

Tfa addresses reasons cell phone use may not be as explanatory as we think. If you want to argue against that, great, but bring some evidence. Anything else is just hot air.

The article did more to argue that distracted driving isn’t the #1 contributor than it did to argue road design is.

The US is the only country where automatic transmissions are anywhere near as popular as they are. If I am not mistaken, in most other countries, the majority of drivers are driving manuals. That alone probably discourages people from texting while driving. Add in narrower roads and cities that were not designed with cars in mind, and I can see this being the case.

There is a solution to any problem - good design.

Look up "traffic calming measures". I doubt any driver who values their vehicle would text/use their phone while going through something like this: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1525&bih=760&tbm=isch&sa=1...:

Physically changing road design is the only thing that works. Handing out tickets and traffic cameras are an o.k. way for a government to make some money, but does nothing to stop accidents.

This is wrong. Speed cameras save lives. A lot of research confirms this, for example: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/86567/1/sercdp0221.pdf

The best way to save the lives of pedestrians and cyclists from the predation of motorists is to eliminate cars in urban areas. The second-best way is fast, sure, automated enforcement.

As someone who's done this type research, it's highly cherry picked and riddled with conflicted interests. It also encourages unpredictable driver behavior, which goes against the basic principles of right-of-way. You want drivers to be as predictable as possible for the benefit of drivers around them.

This is in addition to philosophical arguments against:

contest/court fees that are higher than the fine for pleading guilty,

The entire idea that criminal police enforcement can be contracted out,

Or, if civil enforcement, the idea that speeding in-and-of-itself is a justicable suit. Ie, the idea that the city suffered damages by someone speeding, and that an arbitrary fine is the appropriate remedy.

Get rid of companies collecting a rake, as well as the cities keeping the fines, and suddenly no one is fighting for the programs anymore.

>>to eliminate cars in urban areas

Hope to live to see this utopia. In the meantime, I'll take it if public money is invested in traffic calming - this might deter some driving at least, and definitely will make it safer. Also serves as an indicator that the place is not "car-first".

Cameras are effective but only if deployed widely enough that they aren’t a surprise or annoyance. We need red light cameras at every intersection and speed cameras on every road.

Lightly deployed cameras do end up being what you say they are because people just mark them on Waze and drive carefully only in a certain area.

Design is only 1/3, but is what people usually look to first.

Three E's: Engineering Enforcement Education

Look to Germany for an example of education: my favorite is get off the road while not moving, no matter what.

https://i.imgur.com/PkVYVfj.jpg

The opposite is in the US, where it's become almost universal to put on flashers in heavy rain while still driving, or waving people ahead of you into traffic. Both are illegal and dangerous, yet people think it's the smart/nice thing to do. Both have been socially reinforced to the point where I don't know they can be corrected.

Doesn't designing road features that require slower speeds and risk car damage penalise all drivers - even those who would never text when driving?

To look at it another way, it makes the road safer for everyone regardless of the attentiveness and skill of any particular driver. Surely, that's a reasonable trade off in areas with a lot of vulnerable pedestrians.

What do you mean by penalising?

If a road has a 40km/h speed limit, and then road features designed for 40km/h are added, what's the penalty? The point is to require the driver to focus, which a good driver does anyway.

I am not sure how this is a penalty. It's not like it's more physically difficult to drive slower (or faster).

This isn't really true. Road design is more complicated than people think. There's actually a table (I think in the green book) that gives you what are essentially coefficients for drivers "subconscious" speed, given certain design features. Meaning that reducing lane width, shoulder width, or even sign size will cause a driver to "naturally" drive slower. Setting the speed limit outside of this natural range happens all the time, usually in good faith, but results in speed traps.

So maybe not "physically" difficult, but it certainly takes a mental effort.

Don't speed limits on city streets do the same?

A practical answer is “no”. Speed limits were set when cars really couldn’t safely do any more. But, modern cars have better acceleration and braking and suspension. They remain “comfortably” within their handling capabilities even when 30% over the speed limit. (Estimates are my opinion)

One of the article's main points is that when cars drive faster, they are much more likely to kill pedestrians in an accident. So even if modern engineering may allow drivers to stay in control of their cars at higher speeds, cars still become more lethal to non-drivers.

Totally agree - I was more saying that the roads themselves do nothing to control speeds. Or, in a modern car it is easy to speed without realizing it.

>I'm convinced that no amount of campaigning, punishment, or scare tactics will suffice to stop it.

Really? I bet a $10,000 fine and/or 1 year license suspension would be enough. Making it so it shows up on your driving record (and therefore will increase insurance rates) would also help. It's not like drug addiction where you're physically dependent on it, or drinking and driving where you're "forced" into it because of a decision a few hours ago.

I am 100% behind this. I've previously proposed to HN that texting and driving should be classified as a potential felony because of the extremely fatal consequences of being that distracted.

Obviously, I was downvoted by the crowd that believe they are special snowflakes who can text and drive with some arbitrary degree of increased safety relative to all of their peers, and likely also the crowd that believes harsh penalties should never apply because of the historic abuses of these policies in terms of keeping our prisons full. In this case, I don't give a flying shit. If you text and drive and you think it's ok, you shouldn't be on the road. Period. If you can't come to terms with this, maybe you should have your license revoked. If this is still insufficient, perhaps we really do need to put your ass in jail for a while.

Are people so psychologically addicted to their electronics that they'd be willing to skirt jail time? Is anyone actually going to have a bad day because you couldn't send a WhatsApp message while you are hurtling down the freeway at 70mph with barely 5 meters margin between you and every other car?

Just put the damn phones away while you are driving. Like OP mentions, it's not even a physical addiction or a subsequent consequence. Takes 2 seconds to become compliant no matter your current circumstances or state of mind. Some emergency in your head and you absolutely need to use the device? There's this thing called "pulling over and parking" that I would highly recommend trying out. Believe it or not, you are actually allowed to arbitrarily exit and enter the freeway along its route as desired.

Consider that you were far more likely downvoted because you show no awareness that increasingly onerous penalties are ineffective deterrents when people don’t expect to get caught. If pickpockets can work the crowds at a pickpocket hanging, people will keep using their phones. Passing “tough on texting” legislation makes people feel like heroes but it is no panacea for the problem. And much of the danger in utilizing phones exists even when it is completely hands-free, which is unlikely to be banned even in the most restrictive case.

>Are people so psychologically addicted to their electronics that they'd be willing to skirt jail time?

No, it's sort of the opposite. If driving were more difficult, or at least more engaging, people wouldn't feel boredom and the need to multitask.

Since auto pilot type safety features are especially bad at pedestrian detection, expect this to only get worse as "safety features" improve and result in less engaged driving.

> Is anyone actually going to have a bad day because you couldn't send a WhatsApp message while you are hurtling down the freeway at 70mph with barely 5 meters margin between you and every other car?

Maybe the driver's phone should disable itself when driving?

I used regularly watch awful car accidents on /r/watchpeopledie. It made me become a much more defensive safe driver. Then reddit banned the sub and I have slowly become more aggressive. I think exposing people to the brutalities of reality makes them more rational.

I did as well. Made a much more cautious person, seeing how (my only) life is fragile. That and fights. Seeing people get killed by a single punch, or pounced upon by murderous madmen, cleared any temptation to be a tough guy. Now if there's ever a situation, in a bar or whatever, I just walk away. Not worth it to die or be maimed for whatever bullshit.

I think it's been shown to have the opposite effect. Initially you're shocked/dismayed, but after repeated viewings, it becomes normalized in your mind and loses the shock value.

Kind of strange to blame your aggressive driving, which is entirely under your control, on the banning of a subreddit.

There was no suggestion of 'blame', just an observation of a correlation; it was unfair of you to reframe introspection that way. Our behavior is not "entirely under our control" - indeed, there isn't even a well defined 'I' for behaviour to be under the control of.

Concepts like 'blame' and 'resposibility' are useful in the context of individual behavior, but misguided when trying to improve systems. That is why the NTSB avoids assigning blame - it would undermine the purpose of what they do.

You must be high in executive function. For people like me, free will is easily described with incentives and external causes -- "I'm cooking less because I'm busier at work". "I'm not working out as much because my gym closed down and I haven't established a habit of going to the pool". For people like me, we have to change the things that are under our control, like which media we view, to affect the ones that we have difficulty controlling.

Likewise, I see tons of pedestrians doing the same. Ive seen my share of people blindly walk into intersections without looking (and not having the right of way). Hell, I once had to grab the back of someones shirt amd forcibly pull them back so they didn't get creamed by a car because they were so ingrossed in their phone.

So, I dont think it's fair to solely put blame on drivers. I do think phones have driven up the rate of incidents, though.

I also did this once for someone who walked into the street. She had the right of way, and she wasn't staring at her cellphone. She started to cross because the crosswalk indicated she was allowed to, but a car was running the red light at the same time. Just wanted to say that not being glued to a phone isn't always enough.

Side note, maybe I am a dick, but I refuse to get out of the way of another pedestrian who is staring at their phone. Just a pet peeve of mine, but I really dislike when people move around without being aware of their surroundings, as if it's everyone else's responsibility to make way for them. (Children and people I could hurt just by bumping into them get a pass.)

> She started to cross because the crosswalk indicated she was allowed to, but a car was running the red light at the same time.

Hmm. I've found far too often drivers ignore right of way of pedestrians unless you start walking, that being said running a red light is worse.

> I refuse to get out of the way of another pedestrian who is staring at their phone

Agreed, and to avoid seeming aggressive I usually stop immediately in front of them, which usually triggers an 'oh! sorry' if they bump into or come close.

I did that too. I felt cool for saving someone’s life but then three blocks ahead they were doing it again so I figure I probably only gave them another few weeks on Earth.

It would be cool if we could live in cities where crossing the street carelessly didn't have to end in death.

I completely agree. I walk an hour a day on busy streets. The shit I've seen. Whew. I assume every driver will try to kill me. I've walked, by my estimate, 25,000 miles since 1995. I've jumped out of the way of cars maybe twice. Many times, I saw they weren't looking and just wouldn't step off the curb.

The other rule I have: if I need to use my phone, I move to the side of the sidewalk and stop. I won't walk and use it. 99% of the time, it's in my pocket.

I do try and refrain from texting and driving but will admit I am guilty of reading the occasional text while on the road. Call me crazy but I really think the no texting laws may have had some negative side effects. People still text. Just now they have to be even more distracted. They have to put the phone way down on their laps so a cop won't see it. Then constantly looking up and around if there is a cop watching. This was me 8 years ago when the no cell phone driving laws kicked in. Before I would hold my phone up high and texting seemed much easier as I wasn't distracted with hiding it. Of course I learned better, I grew up a little and had kids. Realised texting and driving is so dangerous but don't expect the rest of the population to get that. I don't think we will see a solution until cell phones are advanced enough that they intergrate with the cars a little more like a HUD or something on the windshield coupled with self driving technology.

I think a simple solution to this is to require everyone to have a minimum of a scooter/moped license first before being able to apply for a driver's license. Maybe we'll inject some more empathy into drivers if they realize how scary it is to be close to a texting driver and have no metal box of armor to protect them.

Similarly: I am certain that using bicycles as my main means of transportation for the past 3 years has made me a more cautious and methodical driver on the rare occasion that I use a car.

Came here to make sure this point was made. The increased death of bicyclists, pedestrians is a pretty easy thing to measure. There are other things that are overlooked or at least not mentioned due to smartphone users driving-

1) increased commute times because distracted drivers don’t follow the flow of traffic well 2) increased likelihood of collisions as traffic starts and stops on highways. I’m certain I see more rear end collisions on the freeway in the last 10 years than the prior 10. 3) Lost productivity at work.

I think many pedestrians (including boarders, bicyclists, etc.) don't help things at all by also (in some proportion) constantly looking at devices and in many cases also clogging their ears with turned up music and podcasts.

The guys studying this disagree with you. Your hypothesis is addressed in the article.

Yup texting isn't helping. I don't think that's the whole story. I would guess that the automation of cars, even automatic transmission is making drivers less engaged in driving and less alert because they don't have to be. The extreme version of this is Tesla drivers sleeping in there cars while it drives. One thing I noticed about 5 years ago also was pedestrians not defensively walking across the roads, it's probably nothing new but I noticed there's a lot of people that see the green walk light and then just start walking.

Changes probably need to be made the to whole traffic system.

I think the only solution is self driving cars.

And while walking.

I think it's pretty legitimate to be distracted while walking around. Being distracted while operating heavy machinery, on the other hand, is kinda bad.

Being distracted while waking around heavy machinery is bad as well, but the risk of hurt is less. Being distracted while walking has more risk to self and lesser others. Being distracted while driving has more risk to self and to others.

Even if it’s legitimate it could still impact your ability to see a car heading towards you and react to it.

Well, yes - but a preponderance of distracted walkers isn't a argument against smartphones. It's an argument against cars. If somebody uses a dangerous device in a public area, they are responsible if they hurt someone. If a certain category of dangerous devices is implicated in the injury of a lot of people who were in public places, then it should be banned.

I know cars hold a special place in the mythos, but I think they are a bit like alcohol. They have basically no upsides, and if they were invented today, they would be illegal, except for professional or industrial purposes.

I don't own a car, and rely mostly on public transit, but "they have basically no upsides" is just bullshit, sorry.

They can transport a group of people, plus significant amounts of load, together, quickly, in relative comfort, at any time, directly from/to a specific place.

It's not practical to have acceptable public transit everywhere and to use it for every purpose.

> a lot of people

~4k out of a population of 320M is not a lot. That's less than what smoking kills in a week. Or, if you look at it differently: assuming a life expectancy of 80 years, if you inconvenience 320M people by two minutes a day, you have taken away a total of ~5.5k human lifetimes from the population.

Well, everything has upsides if you don't compare it to the competition. Even if cars were incapable of transporting people, you could say the upside is, they're a good source of scrap.

But, compared to the competition (buses, light rail, bicycles), it's hard to see where cars come out ahead. They are more expensive than every other option, they produce poisonous fumes, they take up enormous amounts of space, they only work for able-bodied people, they are loud, dangerous, and absurdly wasteful.

I don't think they are worse than smoking as a public health risk. But when you consider the amount of pollution they produce, it's likely comparable. And smokers are taxed - while car drivers are massively subsidized.

I take the train to work most days but taking a car is cheaper for me and faster.

If there is a car driving on a sidewalk hitting (distracted) pedestrians, then that driver needs to have their license and car taken away.

Feels like this has got a lot worse in my experience in the past 2 years, while walking to work in the city it feels like almost half of all people are holding their phone right up to their face.

Don't get why it's gotten more common though, phones haven't changed beyond camera updates in years.

The software has changed as well as society's coupling to that software.

Distracted walking is bad, but I'm guessing some people might think you are victim-blaming since this article is about cars driving into humans.

Exactly and thats why Face ID is terrible compared to Touch ID! Added steps/fidgeting with your phone to just get to the point of unlocking it; a unsafe UX step backwards!

Robot cars are the answer, yet many innocent non-robot car drivers will perish at the sake of AI car progress. Progress in this instance will be murder!

If you're behind the wheel there is no reason to be on the phone whatsoever. If it's that important you can pull off to the side and face/touch/swipe away.

Ummmm tell that to the millions of people who continue and will continue to do so! There's a huge problem and just telling all the millions to stop isn't doing jack! Thus, as technologists we need to come up with solutions until we have 100% bullet proof robot cars owning our roads.

Face ID is a step backwards and im sure causing those iPhone owners with Face ID to get into more accidents. Their face/attention shouldn't be diverted from the road to unlock their phone.

Every time I bring this up here the solution ppl say here is they shouldn't be texting in the first place.. but newsflash as you can see from this article you can tell them all day long and yet they'll continue to do so.

I'm not telling everyone. I'm telling you to stop doing it.

BTW, your phone is locked because it has detected you're going faster than 20mph. And rather than take that as the big clue to pay attention you continue to bypass the big ass warnings it's throwing at you. Put the fucking phone down!

What how do you know I am one of the millions. That's a rich assumption!

I am technologist ...looking to solve this problem because no matter how you phrase it they will keep doing it!

> Exactly and thats why Face ID is terrible compared to Touch ID!

How would TouchID help in this case?

Concerning AI drivers, a lot of innocent non-robot people are dying because of driving right now. I am unconvinced that more people would die. Of course the road ahead is still long.

When I grab my iPhone 8 in any instance the phone opens instantly. Now if Im a dumb driver texting which is millions and now have Face ID .. i have to grab my phone...look at it and swipe up vs. the one step mentioned; grab it while not looking at it and it's opened.

One step without a distraction from the road vs. three steps that make you focus your face/attention more on your phone then the road!

iPhone has "driving in the car" detection, afaik it only stops you from receiving texts but maybe they should go further and don't even let you unlock it (you can always dismiss it by saying that you are a passenger).

Anyways this is hardly a hardware issue, I think that punishment for texting while driving should be way more severe. Why not do it the high-school way and confiscate the cell phone? You can grab it later at a police station or pay for shipping if you are not a local.

Hinting at a massive design miss in modern cars: not embracing the smartphone.

If the phone was an essential component to the car, say to be plugged into the center console as the display, the driver could not futz around with it.

CarPlay/Android are just workarounds, even Tesla is wrong I think. The car should act as an attachment to the driver’s phone.

Some people will just buy a second phone just for their car.

I'm waiting for the app to come out that lets you drive your car using your phone. Then people could play with their phones as much as they want while they drive, and do it safely.

The smartphone is the true center of modern life. All other interfaces are just artisanal horse and buggy bullshit.