Texting and Driving… Again!

The Maidenhead Advertiser reports that Keisha Bianca Wall crushed a 63 year old woman against a wall shortly after receiving a text message last February. She denies causing death by dangerous driving. The BBC also has the same story.

Texting + DrivingWall, who was 18 at the time, was driving a black Suzuki Jimny she’d been given as a Christmas present. She had passed her test eight months earlier. Her mother – a driving instructor – was in the car with her. The trial is ongoing.

Over in the States (and Canada) at the moment, the issue of texting whilst driving is big news.

NY1 reports on the current campaign to fight what they call “distracted driving”. The report says that 30% of under-30s admit to texting whilst driving, and over 60% admit to using the phone. In 2009, around 5,500 people were killed as a result of distracted driving in America. There is a government website – distraction.gov – which is worth a look.

The same story is covered by 13 News in Florida, and refers to a 17 year old who was killed on her way to school in 2009 – she was texting behind the wheel.

The California Highway Patrol is also actively trying to deal with the problem in a more aggressive way.

KRMG in Oklahoma reports on a bill that hopes to make texting behind the wheel illegal. The Toronto Star reports that “Webbing while driving” is a growing problem. And CBS reports on beauty queen, Miss South Dakota, who is taking on distracted driving.

Back in the UK, Essex police are taking on the problem in a blitz on mobile-using drivers. Of course, the problem they have over here is the Law.

Going back to the original story, it doesn’t matter if Keisha Wall was looking at her phone or not. If it can’t be proved, she’ll be let off.

EDIT 10/3/2011: The American side of this topic is being picked up by numerous Stateside (and North America generally) news sources:

My newsfeeder is going crazy – there are so many stories coming out of America on this now that there are too many to list.

To Whom It May Concern…

Just a quick note to the rotund asshole driving the pale blue Vauxhall Meriva (reg. no. BG54 SUK ) in Long Eaton this morning… my pupil was having a bad enough day as it was.

You undertaking dangerously on the inside lane of a merge – when you had no right to do so whatsoever – didn’t help him.

I’m sure that makes you feel a lot better.

Driverless Cars

Google Self Driving CarI’m sorry, but this is sci-fi nonsense. No one in their right mind is going to go for this as a means of personal transport.

CBS News asks “Would You Buy a Self-driving Car? ” The vehicle it refers to is a Google experimental car, which is completely independent and uses radar and AI to determine where it is, where other things are, and what to do with respect to that perception of what is around it. It also relies on “the cloud” – in other words, it has to be connected reliably to the internet. There is some Google video footage of the car here. There’s no denying it’s clever – but how clever would it need to be?

As an aside, my TomTom satnav (and the Google Maps GPS app on my smartphone) are very good at navigating across fields and open spaces when the road layout is new and doesn’t quite correspond to the older data Google carries. And don’t even get me started on what happens when connection to “the cloud” is lost or can’t be established!

But back on topic. The latest issue of Despatch – see article immediately below – has a piece on driverless cars. The system here is the EU-funded SARTRE project, and it is nothing like the Google one. It depends on a lead-car with a driver (or maybe it could be one of the Google cars) and all the cars in the so-called “platoon” follow it automatically (as the acronym SAfe Road TRains for the Environment suggests).

At best, people with too much money and too much time on their hands will be able to commute around London – just like with electric cars – whilst pretending they are saving the environment.

It’s scary to think that the SARTRE convoy will no doubt involve electric cars in order to hype up its green credentials. I wonder what would happen if one in the middle goes flat because the owner forgot to charge it properly (or the batteries are knackered and it can’t hold a charge)?

It’ll also be a bit of a pointless exercise if you want to nip down Tescos at 1am for some bread.

Despatch: March 2011

March 2011: Despatch DownloadThe March issue of Despatch is now available. Click the logo to download a copy.

In this issue there is information about the consultation on amendments to the eyesight requirements and issues relating to epilepsy and diabetes. There was a DSA Alert on this in February.

There’s also a story regarding a group of theory test fraudsters. Four jail sentences were handed out.

Another story covers driverless cars – I’m posting an article on this subject shortly. And some general snippets about no longer being able to use Maestro cards for test bookings, ASA complaints about advertising, and posters in test centres.

USA: Bill to End Test on Older Drivers

This one reads like a Monty Python sketch. The Union Leader online newspaper reports that there is a bill in New Hampshire, USA to end tests of suitability on older drivers.

But perceptions that older drivers have more accidents are not supported by some statistical studies.

Note the word “some”. This means that “some” studies show categorically that older drivers ARE a greater risk to themselves and others.

Rep. Bob Williams, D-Concord, doesn’t like the law.

“This is pure age discrimination,” said Williams, 84. “There are no other classes of drivers we make do this. There is no evidence that older drivers are less safe than other drivers. In fact, if you look at the statistics, drivers over age 75 in New Hampshire are safer drivers than the younger age groups.”

Read that again. Bob Williams doesn’t like the law which says those over 75 must re-take their suitability tests. He is 84. His wish is that there would be no re-testing at all on the over 75s.

Just imagine these two scenarios:

  1. Those between the ages of 30-50 can drive without the need for any sort of retesting
  2. Those between the ages of 75-105 can drive without the need for any sort of retesting.

Doesn’t one of them sound ludicrous? Yet that is what the bill is effectively proposing.

Everyone knows that as people get beyond a certain age an increasing number of them become slower and more prone to confusion. Also with age comes the increasing risk of dementia and other age-related conditions.

And people like Williams want these significant dangers and risks to be ignored.

Hey, while we’re at it, why not remove the early age bar to driving? Why not grant licences to people on the day they are born? But people like Williams would probably consider this as being unfair, too, and lobby for the effective date to be the point of conception instead!

EDIT 10/3/2011: Oregon is now getting in on the act after an 87 year old man and 74 year old woman drove into stationary buildings in separate incidents. A bill is being considered that would require over-75s to renew their licences every 2 years and be required to pass a driving test each renewal.

Baby on Board Signs

Baby on Board SignI have my own views on these. They were originally intended to warn other drivers that there was a child in the car. In itself, that has value from a safety perspective.

The problem is that the instant you had more than one car with the same sign in the window, they started to have less impact.

That impact was reduced still further by “little princess” and “cheeky monkey” signs – and the myriad other variations.

You still see the occasional “baby an bord” sign – which has to be one of the most pointless ones, even though I think it may have been the original (the concept came over here from Europe).

These days, just about everyone who has kids has the damned things. And all you have to do is go anywhere near a school in the morning or afternoon to see the value these signs have as far as the people displaying them are concerned. Some of the most dangerous driving imaginable comes from people picking up or dropping off their kids from/to school.

So, based on my own personal experience, they are meaningless nowadays.

The Wirral Globe has an entertaining series of exchanges via letters to the editor. I won’t reproduce all of them – just the links. But here is the letter that sparked it all off:

IT IS no good. I feel an irresistible rant coming on and must write.

I’m a former driving instructor and know I speak for many motorists in expressing my irritation with those pathetic idiots who feel the need to inform us that they have a ‘baby on board.’

For Heaven’s sake, don’t they realise that no one on the planet has the smallest interest in their reproductive status?

Recently I have seen one car advertising not only ‘baby on board’ but also ‘child on board’ and even – wait for it – “little star on board”. Pass the sick-bag!

Another proud driver felt it necessary even to inform us of the names of his three little treasures (‘Aimee on board’ etc.) Yuck!

On a serious level there are several problems with this stupid, self-important and indeed potentially dangerous practice. For example:- 1. Annoying other road users unnecessarily is an infringement of the Highway Code.

2. Sticking a notice – or worse, two or three of them – on the rear window is an excellent way of obstructing the driver’s rear view.

3. In the unfortunate event of a motorway smash, it is surely unacceptable for emergency services to have to waste time, at possible risk to themselves, searching for a non-existent passenger – for, as we’ve all noticed, there very rarely even is a baby, child or (retch!) “little star” in the vehicle at all.

Is it not high time this practice was banned by law?

What do other readers think?

He really lit the blue touch paper with that! Here are the links to the subsequent replies – and remember that at the time of writing, the responses are still coming in:

As an aside, if you ever watch Dragon’s Den, just about every episode has someone on who got pregnant, had a kid, contracted some sort of brain-melting disorder equivalent to stepping a few million years down the evolutionary ladder, and then decided that no one else had ever opened a shop selling baby stuff, designed a range of baby clothes, invented a new flavour of baby food, thought of a new way of washing nappies (or disposing of nappies), or any number of other baby-related things.

And don’t think it’s just the mothers. When I was in the rat race, you’d go to someone’s cubicle or office and wonder what the hell visitors thought when they saw all the crap on display. Painted egg boxes, coloured stones, crumpled sheets of paper with random splodges of gaudy watercolour paint all over it, photographs… People pretended to be interested – let’s face it, the only ones who could sincerely admire it would be the ones with the same degenerative brain conditions – but it was a mess. So much of a mess, in fact, that if the visitor was high-ranking and internal (i.e. likely to be able to advance the career of the person in question) all the crap would be hidden away.

But I digress. The author of that letter has a point. Those signs are not put there for the original purpose of safety. They can’t be, given how those displaying them often drive. They ARE put there to say “we’ve got a baby”!

Sticking a “baby on board” sign in the car when you have a baby – and converting it to a “little princess” or “cheeky monkey” sign when they’re old enough – is a basic routine in parenthood. It means nothing.

Texting and Surfing Whilst Driving

The Boston Globe reports that 19 percent of drivers admit to carrying out internet-related activities whilst driving.

…including:

  • Finding/reading driving directions
  • Reading e-mail
  • Composing/sending e-mail (texting)
  • Reading/scanning sites such as Facebook and Twitter
  • Looking up specific information

Many said they engage in these activities when stopped in traffic or at red lights as well as when driving alone or on long trips on interstates.

The article says that 40 percent of Americans own a smartphone – so that means they must have around 25 million people surfing as they drive!

Don’t think it is only an American problem. It is already acknowledged that people use Facebook and Twitter whilst driving here in the UK. I’ve reported on more than one occasion previously about seeing people texting whilst driving. I’ve pointed out at least three times to pupils this week alone – it really is a growing menace.

Tests on Canada’s Older Drivers “Wrong”

An interesting story in The Vancouver Sun claims that tests used to assess older drivers’ fitness to keep their licences are flawed. The same story is covered in News 1130.

Psychology Professor Allison Sekuler of McMaster University says:

…the doctor’s office is a setting with no need to make instant decisions, to see through “clutter,” or to concentrate on one thing and still notice a pedestrian stepping off the curb.

But she then goes on to claim that old people can be taught to multi-task as well as teenagers, thus cancelling out part of what she initially said.

Some of them might, but not all of them. And far fewer overall than in the teenage group.

And if it were that easy, older drivers wouldn’t be getting in an age-related tangle in the first place.

A Little Knowledge…

How about this letter to the Wirral Globe?

HOW do some people get their driving licence?

I live near Birkenhead town centre, and the amount of times I am about to cross at a pelican crossing when the traffic lights go to flashing amber and drivers think they have the right to drive straight at you.

And try waiting at a zebra crossing – you could wait there all day and no-one would have the courtesy to stop for you.

What do others think?

Maybe he should read the Highway Code – and be a little clearer on what he is actually doing (I don’t see how you can be “about to cross” and have people driving “straight at you” unless they’re going on the pavement!).

From the driver’s point of view, the HC says:

196

Signal-controlled crossings

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.


[Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 23 & 26 & RTRA sect 25(5)]

Note the parts I’ve underlined. Now look at what the HC says from the pedestrian’s point of view:

22

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings operated by pedestrians. Push the control button to activate the traffic signals. When the red figure shows, do not cross. When a steady green figure shows, check the traffic has stopped then cross with care. When the green figure begins to flash you should not start to cross. If you have already started you should have time to finish crossing safely .
 

Again, note the part I’ve underlined.

The flashing green man (for the pedestrian) comes on slightly before the flashing amber (for the road user). In an ideal world, everyone would know the rules and follow them rigidly.

Since we don’t live in a perfect world, a motorist who starts to move when the flashing amber comes on frequently has to deal with pedestrians who think that the mere presence of a crossing means they can cross whenever they feel like it.

Perhaps the guy who wrote this letter illustrates clearly why there are so many pedestrians around who behave like that?

Elderly Woman Totals Car in Milwaukee

This story in the Daily Mail makes interesting reading.

The Milwaukee woman is believed by police to have pressed the gas pedal instead of the brake, and the car shot across 6 lanes of busy traffic and rammed into the window of a house opposite. Three quarters of the car ended up inside the house, which was fortunately unoccupied at the time.

There’s an interesting comment by a British ex-pat, living in the USA. He says:

The plague of the elderly driver is very common here in the USA. Its strange because at home in England you don’t see many crumblies behind the wheel. Here they are everywhere and can always be counted on to drive the largest cars available.

I’m not sure what planet he’s on, but one can only assume that when he says you don’t see many old people behind the wheel over here he is simply talking in comparitive terms.

The case is ongoing and no final conclusions about the actual cause have yet been drawn by police.

The issue of older drivers and road safety seems to be a big topic in the US at the moment. Several stories have cropped up recently.