Nearly 1 In 4 Adults Surf the Web While Driving 365
cartechboy writes "A new survey out this week says that the number of motorists who surf the Web has nearly doubled over the past four years. In 2009, 13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the Internet while driving. In 2013, that figure had jumped to 24 percent. Smartphones are the primary culprit, making the unsafe task even easier. Other distracted driving behavior is on the rise, too, and younger drivers are the biggest issue — 76 percent of motorists 18 to 29 said that they talked on a hand-held cell phone while driving. 70 percent said they were texting. Keep in mind we have states legislating smartphone use task by task, which clearly doesn't help."
Survival of the smartest (Score:2)
Google Cars (Score:5, Insightful)
surcharges aren't a profit center for auto ins.... (Score:2)
I work in the insurance industry, and you seriously misread their motivation. Surcharges for violations are not a profit source for the industry, far from it. They exist to try and equalize the risk associated with bad drivers and if you crunch the numbers on premiums vs. claims you'll find that they barely manage to break even on some of these drivers even with the surcharges. Additionally, it takes at least two small violations or one really big one (speeding >25mph, reckless driving, DWI, fleeing a
Re: (Score:2)
I work in the insurance industry, and you seriously misread their motivation. Surcharges for violations are not a profit source for the industry, far from it. They exist to try and equalize the risk associated with bad drivers and if you crunch the numbers on premiums vs. claims you'll find that they barely manage to break even on some of these drivers even with the surcharges.
That's not the problem.
They might have to fire an awful lot of people if we replace the idiots behind the wheel with machines.
Re: (Score:2)
The first minor violation is a mulligan in every jurisdiction I've ever worked, with every carrier I've ever represented.
Every insurance company I've used has given a 10% or so "safe driver discount" for no tickets, which is just a marketing-approved way to jack up your rates 10% when you get a ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
If your police force needs cash from tickets then they are under funded or over spending or both.
This might be the wisest statement that I've ever read on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I swear, I'd LOVE to be able to sneak up
Re: (Score:3)
However, not all departments fall to abuse [dallasnews.com], and the quotas (when they exist) are never made public intentionally, so this issue usually flies under the radar.
I wonder who the first person was? (Score:2)
Probably somebody back in the Mid 90's?
As many as 1 in 4 adults (Score:5, Insightful)
As many as 1 in 4 adults should never have made it to adulthood, with the clearly disabled mental faculties. To bad driving is a case where the dumb shit you do is as likely to kill an innocent person on the road as yourself. It's like vaccines really, there aren't enough consequences on the people doing the harm.
Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults (Score:4)
It's more a matter of a situation where the penalty doesn't always occur but when it does it can be deadly.
Suppose you make a trip in your car while surfing the web with your phone and don't have a problem. In your brain, it seems as if surfing the web while driving has no consequences so you keep doing it. Fifty trips later and still nothing happens and your brain has cemented this as a "truth." Unfortunately, on that fifty-first trip, you run over a pedestrian crossing the street because you were too busy loading Cute-Kitten-Photos.com to notice that your light was red or you smash into the car in front of you because you didn't notice that they braked since your eyes were on a news article loading on your screen.
Mix this in with young people's* view of "I'm indestructible! Nothing bad can ever happen to me!!!" and you have a dangerous concoction.
* Typing that out made me feel old.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's another effect giving people a false sense of security: looking down at a phone is far more dangerous than merely "zoning out", or even talking on the phone. Evolution has left us highly adapted to snap attention to something in our field of vision as long as we're not actively looking elsewhere. As bad as chatting on the phone while driving can be, you at least have a chance if your eyes are on the road. As soon as you look at something interesting, you have no chance at all.
Re: (Score:2)
If I take the vaccine I will not get the disease. However, most vaccines that a rare occurrence of really nasty side effects. However, on average, I am better off taking the vaccine.
But there is an alternative – the herd effect. If part of the population is vaccinated the disease has a hard time jumping from host to host because the chain of transfer is broken too often. Sometimes a vaccination rate as low as 1/3 of the population will do the trick.
So we have an issue of the Free Rider Effect. As long
Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults (Score:5, Insightful)
The world moves ever more quickly, so people need to scramble to keep up, and staying offline for an entire car drive can be problematic.
I submit that this is just an excuse for a lack of self-control and/or a feeling of self-importance/self-indulgence. It is entirely possible to hold a position of high responsibility, do an hour commute each way to a tech job and NEVER turn on your phone. It is even possible to go to the theater, the philharmonic, out to dinner, have drinks with friends, or even read a book with your phone off. Really.
If you seriously subscribe to this notion then I think you have sold your life too cheaply.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:As many as 1 in 4 adults (Score:4, Interesting)
The world moves ever more quickly
http://xkcd.com/1227/
re: areas to pull over to the side (Score:2)
Not defending the "net surfing while driving" thing in any way, shape or form .... but the "just pull over to the side" thing is almost too impractical to consider in most real-world situations.
For starters, no, there's really NOT always a shoulder to pull off to the side. The rural community I live in, for example, has only a couple of 2 lane roads as the primary paths in or out of the town. On one of them, it's really more like 1 1/2 lanes and there's absolutely NO extra room to pull over. On the other,
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm given to understand that even some of that 75% have different political opinions from me. How is that redeemable?! HOW?!
Netflix baby (Score:3)
Assuming makes an ass out of u... (Score:4, Insightful)
You shouldn't be texting at stop lights.... (Score:3, Insightful)
.... the fact that the light is red does not negate your responsibility to pay attention to your surroundings. From a legal and moral point of view you're operating a motor vehicle on a public roadway regardless of the color of the light, and you have an obligation to give that task your full attention.
The same goes for touching up your cosmetics, reading your snail mail, drinking your coffee, or any of the other items on the huge list of things people do when they're supposed to be devoting their full at
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fucking GPS? Yep, accessing the internet once again to get all that sweet, sweet map data.
Or, in my case, accessing sigalert [sigalert.com] to see why traffic is suddenly so backed up.
Agreed. I've been known to "access the Internet" while driving slowly--I have a link on my home screen for sigalert which comes up with my commute route. But that's a bit different than "surfing the web."
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between setting up your smartphone's GPS before you start driving - listening to the directions given but not interacting with the screen - and trying to type in your destination as you go 60mph on a highway or trying to check your e-mail as you cruise down Main Street because you don't think your e-mails can wait 10 minutes.
Yes, the former is "accessing the Internet" but it isn't the driver actively interacting with the device. It's even better if you set the device (again, ahead of t
first post from the road! (Score:5, Funny)
First post while driving down Interstate 49#`%dAq{%&dkj19Z{`%.NO CARRIER
Re:first post from the road! (Score:5, Funny)
I realize that you're dead, but you browsed the Internet while driving... on dialup? That's pretty hardcore.
Actually did this once ... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, I wasn't driving at the same time.
We had outfitted our chase van for the 1995 SunRayce, and had gotten Bell Atlantic (might've been Bell Atlantic-NYNEX at that point) to donate a car phone plus some coverage ... and we got a phone that had an RJ11 plug on it.
So ... we did some tests in the DC area before heading out to the race. The only place we could hold a decent connection (9600 baud ... that was pretty good for the days of 33.6k modems, considering we were on an analog cell phone) was along the BW Parkway ... near the NSA.
Which is retrospect seems kinda strange, now that they don't want any portable electronic devices going into secured places. (unless of course it was a rogue cell tower trying to specifically get people from the NSA to route through them)
You also get lots of strange looks from people when driving through Georgetown in a large white van w/ tinted windows and a half dozen antennas on the roof. (GPS, cell phone, 2 xUHF,2 x CB, radio modem (to talk to the solar car), etc.)
ps. by 'browsed the internet' I mean 'FTPed some files'. We might've used gopher, too.
Re: (Score:2)
> on dialup
My cell carrier gives me limited data but unlimited voice. So yeah, fuck'em, I'm using a modem. For spite. :D
Re: (Score:3)
Next the police will use cameras on passing cars where the driver is holding a cellphone in his hands and just mail you the citation. That is so easy today and government in general has shown a delight in catching people, so I don't think it is that far off.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some really nice extension cord there
The world is full of bad drivers (Score:5, Funny)
24 percent? More like 50 percent. Both of the guys I just passed were staring at their little gadget in zombie-like trance.
Posted from my iPhone.
Deceptive verb form (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I'm surprised the number is so low since they include checking email.
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't even the worst one. I was most annoyed at the fact that they mixed up the Web for the Internet. Saying that someone "accessed the Internet" while driving is quite different from saying they were surfing the Web, since it could include more benign activities like checking a map or audio streaming, in addition to surfing the Web.
It sounds like you read the article and know what they actually intended, but the summary did a lousy job of conveying it.
Perfect Timing! (Score:3)
Selfish (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Pick a random left turn light in the Bay Area, and look at the driver waiting third or fourth in line. Some of them are very slow to move off when the light goes green, because they are reading or even typing on their smartphone. Then they play catch-up after a cursory look at the road ahead. They rate their entertainment above the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers. It's unbelievably selfish.
American arrogance plus Californian sense of entitlement leads to some of the worst drivers I've ever seen out here in the Bay Area. They simply do not even recognize that there are other people in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
What, nobody makes an app that tells you when the traffic in front of you starts to move again? I think the camera is pointed the right way...
Misleading Statistics (Score:5, Informative)
the number of motorists who access the internet (e.g. check email, surf websites, etc.) has nearly doubled over the past four years
This statement implies these people access the internet regularly. However, that's not the question they asked.
13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the internet while driving
This statement says motorists have accessed the internet at all, meaning at least one time ever in your life, not on a regular basis.
This is a very important distinction that the article glosses over. If I accessed the internet on my phone once 5 years ago, then this survey would call me "one who accesses the internet while driving," which is very misleading. I don't access the internet while driving. The survey should ask something like "have you accessed the internet while driving in the last month." Then the data would be reasonable and give a much better representation of what people do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also glosses over what accessing the internet means. If I use a google maps with voice directions, I've accessed the internet.
Yeah, by that definition I'm "accessing the internet" for 95% of the time I drive because I get pandora streaming on my phone before I pull out of my driveway on my way to work and occasionally hit the skip button while on the freeway.
Re: (Score:3)
This! It's like the new commercial running in California that claims 1 in 5 people are killed by tobacco. It's a nonsense statistic that some dip shit got paid to make up, but has no basis in reality.
I'm curious as to why people think these bogus statistics are helpful. Anyone with a 10th grade education can understand that these statistics are wrong, so they end up ignoring the messages completely. Which may have the adverse effect and cause people to use the internet and driving, perhaps to research th
What about map apps? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are typing in the address as you drive, I'd count it.
If you typed in the address beforehand and are just looking at the screen (hopefully mounted somewhere) to see the directions, this is less of an issue.
If you typed in the address beforehand and the app is reading you the directions out loud so you don't need to even look at the device, that's even better.
25% ADMIT to doing it (Score:2)
I'd say the actual number is somewhere like 75% do it, while maybe 50% do it while in motion.
Or you could be like me, I'm playing games arcade games on my ipad while driving.
Good argument for taking transit (Score:3)
I ride the train into town, more often than not. If we get cut off by a texting driver, it's not a big deal - other than it making us late while the cops do the fatality investigation.
If that happens while I'm on a Metro Transit bus, the bump might make me spill my coffee though.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with "public transit" can be found in the first of the two words I put in quotes.
I guess you're speaking for the USA. The country that thinks it's 'more advanced' than all those others.
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't react to his simplistic, sweeping stereotypes with your own.
I live in the US, but I don't share his attitude about the people you run into on public transit.
Obligatory motorcycle video (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE3XsZaL-zo [youtube.com]
People are Stupid! Proof! (Score:2)
At last we have concrete proof that a substantial proportion of the adult population are stupid.
I feel so much better for my own prospects, just as long as I and my family can avoid being killed or injured by these ignorant, selfish imbeciles.
Mind you, if this is in America, I suppose it's OK. The roads there are thousands of miles long, as wide as a football pitch, have no corners and are virtually empty. I believe their cars have suspension and steering systems optimised for traveling in straight lines al
Oh wait there's more! (Score:2)
Steeper punishments are worth trying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why distinguishing between digital distractions and other distractions shouldn't really be an issue. You're distracted or you're not. The most dangerous/distracting thing in my car is the head unit - whether used with an iPod or the embedded GPS mapping software it requires way too much attention to properly operate. I've switched to using my phone and the voice controls.
Not sure I trust their numbers. (Score:2)
I don't completely trust their numbers. 70+ percent of motorists 18-39 admit that they talk or text while driving, but I suspect that older drivers do it just about as much -- they just don't admit to it. Just driving around I notice a LOT of drivers, who are obviously older than 39, talking on, or otherwise looking down at, their phones. In fact, I would say that middle-aged women are possibly the most prolific texters while driving. I'm just not sure that younger drivers are the biggest issue.
Me too (Score:2)
Yeah, I've used the internet while driving. Got messages, sent messages, performed searches.
Pretty much all of them at the touch of a single button, while the voice-interactive function did all the leg work. All of it about as distracting as my GPS mapping/traffic program, and hella safer than trying to interact with the head unit in the car. There are still some things which can't be done well (email, for one, is nearly impossible), and none of it is suitable for even moderate traffic conditions, but for
people lied on this survey. (Score:3)
Period.
Try riding a motorcycle through a city, or along a highway. That's when you tend to not be on a phone. (I've definitely used hands free, and texted from stop lights or pulled over on the bike) That's the ONLY people that are on our roads that I'd put better than 50% on not being on their phone. Either blatantly, both hands texting away, or talking on it, or just holding it for easy access.
There is NO WAY that only 1 in 4 people are using their phones on a daily commute. I'd say 3 out of 4 or even 4 out of 5 use their phone daily during their commute.
Equivalent blood alcohol content (Score:2)
When I see a car that's all over the road then it pretty much looks like drunk driving to me. So then I pass it and see the driver busy texting. So here's the proposal: how much does one have to drink to drive like that? Well use that number to calculate the fine.
why worry? (Score:2)
Come on, there are only 11M car accidents a year, and less than 40k people die from them. We've got 315M people living in the US. Plenty of spares!
Re: (Score:2)
Most people care about their own spares.
Amazingly selfish, i know.
Not an adult. (Score:2)
"accessing the internet"? (Score:2)
The only definition in this incredibly short article defining what that means is the following:
(e.g. check email, surf websites, etc.)
However, it doesn't say if they prefaced that when asking the question. If they simply asked me, for instance "Do you access the internet while you drive?", my answer would be "Yes, yes I do!"
Using google navigator, maps, etc? That access the internet. Even if it's
Not more laws (Score:2)
Um, the problem doesn't involve passing more laws and punishing those of us who just use GPS navigation on the things. It involves, you know, actual police work. Here's a novel idea: instead of setting up speed traps outside of rush hour because it's easy revenue, how about enforcing actual safety-related laws including yield signs and other rights of way, traffic lights, speeding IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES (r
Who has time?!? (Score:3)
I am WAY too busy to surf the web while driving. Between sending email, sending txts, reading Facebook, checking the latest scores and everything else, I don't have time to open a web browser and just "surf".
Oh, and downloading podcasts. Who could forget that..
Re:I do this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a trooper happens to pull near me, I can quickly flip it to Google Maps or something....
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, a few text metrics read the same with this post and the AC GGP(at least more similar than several other posts sampled in this thread). I think you blew it.
Re:I do this (Score:4, Funny)
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while masturbating furiously while brandishing a shoulder-fired grenade launcher than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws that preemptively punish innocent people for harm they might potentially cause to someone in the future?
Did I do a good job pointing out what a terrible, terrible idea that is? Or do I need to go with something more ridiculous?
Statistically, you're playing Russian Roulette when you do that. Not just with your own life, but the lives of every single other person sharing the road with you.
So no, you don't get an exemption. For reasons obvious to those of us who aren't completely self-focused.
Re: (Score:3)
I have the solution to this kind of misconceptions about driving.
Put them in a car and create a controlled accident at 20mph with a fucking wall. That should make them think of what it would have been like without a 5 point harness, helmet, and padding.
Then explain to them how much worse it would be at 45-55mph, which seems to be the average speed on roads today.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
set it to a collision that's double the actual speed they were driving while caught texting. (In other words, head-on collision with another vehicle doing the same speed
Actually, that is false. A head on collision with a vehicle of the same mass would be no different than the indestructible brick wall. Yes, when you add a second vehicle to the mix, you are doubling the amount of moving mass, but the absolute speed remains constant. In the end, the delta V is the same in both scenarios: X to 0. Now that we know that the delta V is the same, we just have to account for the deceleration rate, which is basically the same as the duration of the impact (crumple zones and all
How about a deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road
I wish more people would actually try that. The reality check would probably shock some of them out of this kind of reckless behaviour, making us all safer.
How about a deal? You take that test, and if you really are safer while texting than most people when they're fully concentrating, you get to keep doing it, completely legally. However, if it turns out that you're actually more dangerous, and we also then know that you're deluded about your own abilities and therefore unable to properly judge how to drive safely within those abilities, you have to give up your licence and never drive again. Fair?
Re:I do this (Score:5, Insightful)
If I can prove by experiment that can drive more safely while texting than most people with their attention fully focused on the road will I be exempt from these kinds of laws
Major math fail. Accidents are driven by statistics. What you do and what other people do is not related. If you are more dangerous today than yesterday, the average also rises.
Note that if you are such an excellent driver, you still may need that last bit of skill if an idiot decides to something idiotic in your path. You will not get that last bit of skill if you are distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're car is not moving, then technically you're not driving. Granted, the DUI laws disagree, but common sense does not.
Re:I do this (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're on a road, you're driving. If you're in a parking lot or in your driveway, sure. But if you're sitting at an intersection and believe you're not driving, you've lost the plot.
Show of hands, how many of us have had to honk at the motorist in front of us when the light changes because they're still fiddling with their phone? I have to at least 2-3 times a week, and I don't drive more than 5-6 times in an average week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I do this (Score:5, Informative)
Just wait till you get there. Seriously. You never need to send a text while driving, you just have such amazingly low willpower that you recklessly endanger others, and don't even get anything out of it.
It is simply not acceptable, and you should stop doing this immediately, and feel shame that you ever did.
Re:I do this (Score:5, Insightful)
This should be put into categories apparently.
One is navigation. Looking at your built in navigation and hitting a few buttons or zooming on the map is not all that bad at an intersection. I find that I am at an intersection for at least 15-30 seconds, if not a lot more during traffic. Taking 5 seconds to review the map should not lead to a distraction where you create a delay in traffic. You really have to not be paying attention to stop picking things up in your peripheral vision while stopped.
Two is communications. This is just evidence of how bad the addiction is to information technology today. I see plenty of people who cannot go more than 5 minutes without checking FaceFuck or Twatter. That near constant need for connection and feedback is based on the same psychological principles that keep people at slot machines for hours on end.
What makes it worse is that these people are creating the STANDARD for communication in the future. When I tell people that I did not respond to them since I was driving and on my way back to the office I actually get the response back, "That's no excuse. You could have just sent a text message. You need to work on your communication skills".
I think these people would literally go insane if you transported them back to say around 1719. "What the fuck do you mean I have to wait 5 months to get a letter back!", and "You mean I have to walk all the way across town, knock on a door, be welcomed into the house, BEFORE I can talk to my friend?"
Not sure that I can call where we are headed progress. It seems that attention span is at a historically low level for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
not my state..... :( (Score:2)
Looked that up a few minutes ago and found that New York State specifically exempted texting while the vehicle is not in motion, which is rather disappointing to say the least. I guess we're too busy worrying about law-abiding gun owners and large capacity soda cups to worry that much about distracted driving.
* 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion; provided, however, that no person shall operate a commercial motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device on a public highway including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Provided further, however, that a person shall not be deemed to be operating a commercial motor vehicle while using a portable electronic device on a public highway when such vehicle is stopped at the side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or any lawful order or direction of a police officer.
Curious that they prohibit commercial drivers from texting at the red light but allow it for personal automobiles. I shall have to ask my Assemblywoman about this the next time I see her.
Re: (Score:3)
One is missing out on information about traffic and pedestrians by doing this, though. Sometimes a pedestrian or cyclist or motorist is where they shouldn't be, and one might not notice them without having observed the intersection for a few seconds *before* the light changed.
Re: (Score:3)
>Sorry I try to keep both my hands on the wheel at all times
How do you get out of the car?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So if you're responsibly sleeping off your buzz before heading home, DO NOT turn on the radio or you'll get a DUI.
Re: (Score:2)
In Virginia, you're "driving" if the keys are in the ignition, even if the engine is off.
So if you're responsibly sleeping off your buzz before heading home, DO NOT turn on the radio or you'll get a DUI.
If you want to listen to the radio while falling asleep or passing out, sleep it off in the passenger seat.
Re: (Score:3)
It's really at the discretion of the officer and the judge involved (which is good and bad). My friend got a DUI for sleeping in the back (bench) of his pickup truck, because the engine was running. What would the rule be for a car with a "keyless" ignition? Safest bet is to stay the fsck away from a car without a designated, 0.0 BAC driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the law. I once lived in a jurisdiction where "emotional distress" was legally sufficient for a DUI.
Re: (Score:2)
This was exactly my thought... there is nothing here to indicate this is an actual problem and not just yet another imaginary issue. We already have seen that the same people who get in accidents while using phones, get in accidents without them at similar rates. So the phone use isn't the cause.
We also know those same people, a subset of the population, manage risk badly, and choose to use their phone in more dangerous situations than most other people. So likely... the majority of the "I do this" people,
Re: (Score:2)
No you didn't, you changed it to a statement which, based on my interpretation of the evidence at hand, is false.
Re: (Score:2)
More time to surf the internets if you don't have to steer at all.
Re: (Score:3)
And fiddle with the radio. And eat a burger. Etc.
More laws aren't going to keep us from doing this. It'll just mean more distraction checking for cops before calling/texting/web/etc. Same with speed limits. When it goes from 65 to 55, nobody slows down. Now 50% of our attention goes to watching for radar traps.
How about increasing the penalties for causing a crash? I'm sick of hearing about someone who kills another
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hand your licence back and fucking walk you irresponsible dickhead
Re: (Score:2)
You're not really a data driven sort of person are you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Stop and go traffic and traffic lights are a good time to check Slashdot.
Just don't make me miss the green light because you are not paying attention. I'll never understand how some folks almost seem surprised that the light turns green, and sit there confused for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
No accidents so far
That's like playing Russian Roulette and claiming it's safe since you've never shot yourself yet.
Re: (Score:2)
No accidents so far
That's like playing Russian Roulette and claiming it's safe since you've never shot yourself yet.
If' I'd been playing Russian Roulette for a few years and had never shot myself, I'd conclude there are no bullets in the gun and feel safe to continue.
Re:I do this (Score:5, Insightful)
end yourself
He probably will, sooner or later - hopefully without taking someone else with him.
Perfectly Safe (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nearly 1 In 4 Adults Surf the Web While Driving"
But then below it is says:
"In 2009, 13 percent of motorists admitted that they'd accessed the Internet while driving. In 2013, that figure had jumped to 24 percent."
Finally, note that "surfing the web" and "accessing the Internet" are not the same thing. Surfing the web means viewing websites. But accessing the internet while driving can occur automatically by your car, when your phone is in your pocket, by listening to Internet-streamed music or by using GPS. All of these are perfectly reasonable to use in your car.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we use the internet in our car. But, we're not freaking browsing the web.
Exactly! Some of us are doing Archie searches.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to put down your copy of CoD: Ghosts for a few minutes here and there, Mac.