Are Phone-Addicted Drivers More Dangerous Than Drunk Drivers? (axios.com) 170
After crunching data on 4.5 billion miles of driving, road-safety analytics company Zendrive concludes there's a new threat which just last year claimed the lives of 6,227 pedestrians: drivers "under the influence of a smartphone."
The study points out that drunk driving fatalities peak after midnight, while distracted driving happens all day, conluding that distracted driving is now a bigger threat than drunk driving. schwit1 shares this report from Axios: "Phone addicts are the new drunk drivers," Zendrive concludes bluntly in its annual distracted driving study. The big picture: The continued increase in unsafe driving comes despite stricter laws in many states, as well as years of massive ad campaigns from groups ranging from cell phone carriers to orthopedic surgeons. "They hide in plain sight, blatantly staring at their phones while driving down the road," Zendrive says in the study.
And it's a growing problem. Over just the past year, Zendrive, which analyzes driver behavior for fleets and insurers, said the number of hardcore phone addicts doubled, now accounting for one in 12 drivers. If the current trend continues, that number will be one in five by 2022.
The report concludes drivers are 10 percent more distracted this year than last -- and that phone addicts have their eyes off the road for 28% of their drive. Yet when asked to describe their driving, 93% of phone addicts said they believed they were "safe" -- or "extremely safe" -- drivers.
One even insisted that they never texted while driving, "but I like to FaceTime my friends while driving since it makes time go by faster."
The study points out that drunk driving fatalities peak after midnight, while distracted driving happens all day, conluding that distracted driving is now a bigger threat than drunk driving. schwit1 shares this report from Axios: "Phone addicts are the new drunk drivers," Zendrive concludes bluntly in its annual distracted driving study. The big picture: The continued increase in unsafe driving comes despite stricter laws in many states, as well as years of massive ad campaigns from groups ranging from cell phone carriers to orthopedic surgeons. "They hide in plain sight, blatantly staring at their phones while driving down the road," Zendrive says in the study.
And it's a growing problem. Over just the past year, Zendrive, which analyzes driver behavior for fleets and insurers, said the number of hardcore phone addicts doubled, now accounting for one in 12 drivers. If the current trend continues, that number will be one in five by 2022.
The report concludes drivers are 10 percent more distracted this year than last -- and that phone addicts have their eyes off the road for 28% of their drive. Yet when asked to describe their driving, 93% of phone addicts said they believed they were "safe" -- or "extremely safe" -- drivers.
One even insisted that they never texted while driving, "but I like to FaceTime my friends while driving since it makes time go by faster."
Re: (Score:1)
I only look at my texts while stopped at a stoplight, with my phone is a mount not in my hands, and even then I make sure I'm ready to go when the light turns green. Too many people can't even handle that, I've sat through extra lights because of idiots on their phones too many times.
Re: Yes. (Score:1)
In Ontario you'll get ticketed or worse for your behaviour.
And I'm thankful for that.
Re: Yes. (Score:1)
So you are the problem. Thanks for outing yourself. Just because you are stopped does not mean you can ignore the need for situational awareness.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly how is briefly looking at my phone, in a mount, while fully stopped, putting people at risk?
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is there to gain by "briefly looking" that just can't wait until later? What's the likelihood of reading a text that requires immediate action on your part? And if it does, then the 'look' isn't so brief anymore. Isn't it better to just remain alert and observant at intersections even if it's extremely boring; what's the harm in that?
Re: (Score:2)
...What's the likelihood of reading a text that requires immediate action on your part? And if it does, then the 'look' isn't so brief anymore....
So, you can't answer the question? I can remain alert enough to be safe an briefly look at my phone while at a complete stop at an intersection. ...
That's the crux of people's problem with your statement. We have no proof beyond your [AC] word that your admitted distractedness at a stop light would NEVER spill over into distractedness while the car is moving - that an important message you choose to look at when safely stopped would NEVER make you continue reading or respond while the car is unsafely moving. We have no reason to trust your self-diagnosis of your safety, because individuals are terrible at self-diagnosing their own bad habits, as shown
Re: Yes. (Score:1)
If you phone pivots away or blanks as soon as the car is in motion, it sounds safe enough.
Re: (Score:3)
There's still the problem of misinterpreting light changes and such. Common thing I see here is left turn light turns green, traffic in left turn lane starts to move, idiot in next lane also moves straight ahead as he thought the light had turned green. Luckily traffic is usually slow enough that no accident results, just a traffic jam.
Too often traffic doesn't move on a green as well, due to people not paying attention. Once again more of an irritant which leads to traffic jams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are failing to keep attention on whether someone is slow to get through the crosswalk, for instance. If all you see out of the corner of your eye is the light turning green and you instantly hit the gas you are going to hit the old lady with the walker right in front of you.
Drive when you're driving. Keep your eyes on the road, NOTHING on your phone is important enough to take your attention while you are controlling a car. If it is, PULL OVER.
Re: Yes. (Score:1)
On the contrary, these people are useful.
Need a new bumper? Wait at an intersection, where they are supposed to yield. Drive in front of the phone idiot, get free bodywork on their insurance...
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes Stand at a busy corner and watch (Score:3)
Re:Yes Stand at a busy corner and watch (Score:5, Informative)
I won't even cross when there are cars in the right-hand lane at a corner unless the driver has fully stopped at the corner and looked right at me (so I know they know I am there). This even applies to when I have the signal light to cross (as opposed to no traffic lights), because I could be stepping out into the street and still have someone speed up to the corner, slow a little, then turn and pass right in front of me.
Plenty of people slow down as they reach the corner, while looking at the phone by their lap, glance up to the left to ensure there's no oncoming traffic, then look back down and make their right-turn without looking for pedestrians. Since I don't drive, I get in a lot of walking, and see this all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Even when paying attention, I've almost hit pedestrians a couple of times. It's easy to miss something while trying to look everywhere, especially if there are blind spots, caused by passengers head or another vehicle.
Pedestrians who blindly walk into traffic are asking for a Darwin award, even if they are in the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would help if they stuck to the crosswalks and even then the city has added flashing lights to the ones in the middle of the block to help with the lack of visibility caused by parked cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never mentioned crosswalk or turning, more like pedestrian stepping out from behind parked vehicle into traffic. Intersections are usually easy as you're moving slow though a pedestrian going against the light can still be an unexpected nightmare.
And yes, on top of hitting someone, there's the legal shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still not good and probably need a lawyer and possibly witnesses to avoid the worst of the legal stuff.
Texting while driving is not dangerous (Score:5, Funny)
Texting while driving is only part of it (Score:3, Informative)
According to the National Safety Council [nsc.org], texting while driving is by far the most dangerous way to use a phone while driving - but even talking on the phone distracts drivers so badly that they can miss up to half of hazards as important as red lights and pedestrians crossing the road in front of them.
Note, too, that their tests have established that texting only while stopped at red lights still leaves drivers distracted for nearly half a minute after they put their phones down and resume driving.
That's w
Re:Distracted driving is a red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
You are part of the problem
Re: (Score:3)
Myself, I never write texts or respond to emails while driving, I only read them
You are part of the problem
Or better stated:
"Most of the time you are somebody else's problem"
Re: Distracted driving is a red herring (Score:1)
Reading emails just as bad as writing them..
And apparently in my country having earbuds in connected to a dead phone counts as distracted driving.
If you can't focus on driving and feel the need to read emails and texts while ferrying your family around, maybe your s.o. should be the one driving
Re: (Score:2)
That's how I use my phone when driving, tell the passenger to take care of it. Do need a passenger though.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, there's no such thing as an "accident." There's generally a number of factors that contribute to a crash and if any of them were properly addressed you wouldn't have a crash.
This is why it's so important to not just keep the car properly maintained, but to be a defensive driver that's using good road strategy to see what could happen in the future down the road. And take steps ahead of time to reduce the risks.
This is something they taught some of when I got my drivers license decades back and it's some
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. (Score:2)
What about ... (Score:3)
Re:What about ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedestrians with their eyes and mind in their phones are mostly a danger to themselves.
Drivers with their eyes and minds in their phones are a danger to also everyone around them: passengers, other drivers and pedestrians alike.
Re: (Score:3)
Pedestrians with their eyes and mind in their phones are mostly a danger to themselves.
I understand your sentiment, but in spite of the laws of physics, in most of USA drivers are crucified (sometimes literally) for hitting a pedestrian.
As a driver, I can be sent to prison for hitting a pedestrian, therefore pedestrians have a lot of power over me. I fear them, their unpredictability, and disobedience of pedestrian laws.
It's one of the major factors in why I (finally) got a dashcam.
Re:What about ... (Score:5, Funny)
in most of USA drivers are crucified (sometimes literally) for hitting a pedestrian.
Can you show a single instance where a driver was literally crucified for hitting a pedestrian?
Re: (Score:2)
in most of USA drivers are crucified (sometimes literally) for hitting a pedestrian.
Can you show a single instance where a driver was literally crucified for hitting a pedestrian?
No. I meant it symbolically- a horrible death by an angry mob, no trial. It was a literary enigma. English was always my weakest subject.
Re: (Score:2)
PS: online people will find ANYTHING they can to pick you apart, including pedantry, even when you're trying to make a really good thought-provoking philosophical point. Please stop the nit-picking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> in most of USA drivers are crucified (sometimes literally) for hitting a pedestrian.
uhhhh... what? A motorist kills a pedestrian & the assumption is that it's an accident.
A huge problem with Internet conversations relates to grandiose thinking, grandiose writing, and grandiose perception. I never said that ALL cases were X or Y. Many ACs read into things, then attack based on their misconceptions.
Not sure where you live, or what info. you get, but it doesn't sound like you read / watch US news.
Police frequently charge drivers with vehicular homicide.
Watch youtube videos of a driver hitting a pedestrian in a city neighborhood, and people coming out in droves to drag the dri
Re: (Score:2)
The point being that someone driving a car can send a pedestrian pretty much straight into a coffin. Therefore cars have a lot of power over pedestrians.
Pretty obvious to everyone, right? All the more reason I take more care when pedestrian.
In spite of the laws of physics?
Maybe you want to do the math again for F = m * a and compare the results with the mass and acceleration of a car and that of a human. (spoiler: F_car >> F_human)
Specious. Time is the factor. A pedestrian can stop forward motion in less than a second, and/or accelerate out of the car's path MUCH faster than the car can slow down. Try to remember, brakes do not STOP a car- they slow it. It takes time to eventually stop, and it may be too long of a time and the pedestrian gets hit.
I'm both driver and pedestrian. I do not EVER put my safety in the hands, feet, and attention (o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me if you're being serious or sarcastic. Sometimes sarcasm is obvious, and I can be as sarcastic / sardonic as anyone, but sometimes it's not obvious, so hopefully you'll clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
Serious? No. I don't seriously expect really safe speed limits to be set up by any democracy that has so many motorists in it. But I do think that's what we ought to do. As a civilisation, we are killing our own children at an appalling rate, just so that motorists can catch up to the back of the next long line of stationary traffic a few seconds faster. In town, slow down.
Look at the scenario you described. A car doing the speed limit towards a marked crosswalk... it's such a familiar scenario that we forg
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you- great reply. Despite years of trying to accumulate wisdom, I'm torn. You're absolutely correct- it's a complex situation and there are no clear answers.
I may be one of very few people who notice long-term trends, but I've noticed over the past 30+ years that people are driving faster and faster. 55 MPH 6-lane highway near me is minimum 70 MPH and usually 80+. I'm not saying it's okay; I'm just saying it's fact.
As I think I wrote above, when I'm pedestrian I prefer being in charge of my safety
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians with their eyes and mind in their phones are mostly a danger to themselves.
I think this is part of the reason motorcycle insurance is so much cheaper than that for a car....the rider is more of a risk to himself than someone in a standard vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Motorcycle insurance is way more expensive than car insurance here. Driving a motorcycle is very dangerous, and often ends in expensive injury and disability claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians with their eyes and mind in their phones are mostly a danger to themselves.
As are drivers who refuse to wear seat belts. And yet we make it an offense not to wear one.
Re: (Score:2)
Darwinian forces will take care of that.
Especially beware of phone-addicted drivers... (Score:2)
... who are also drunk!
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering how often during my MERE 10 minute commute from home to work and back again, and I see people screwing with their phones at nearly every light.
It's a major problem. Enforcement of laws needs to take it up a notch and the fines need to be severe. People are not learning a goddamn thing.
Maybe a truly devastating fine of some ferocious amount will get people to think twice. They're not right not.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering how often during my MERE 10 minute commute from home to work and back again, and I see people screwing with their phones at nearly every light.
I fail to see the problem with this. The car isn't moving. It's the perfect time to read a message. Assuming of course you put the damned phone away when you start moving again.
How is it any different from reading a magazine, or turning around to talk to people in the back seat?
That said, if you get caught texting while the car is moving you should lose your license for a few months. Fark you inconsiderate assholes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that "inconsiderate assholes" fucking with their phones while stopped at a light typically fail to notice when said light changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a truly devastating fine of some ferocious amount will get people to think twice.
You really don't need to make randomly devastating fines. You need consistent reasonable fines. If most intersections had cameras that could catch people with a phone in their hand, and send them a $50-$100 fine, things would change rather quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Few pedestrian fatalities happen with the car at a complete stop.
I've been known to text "ten mins" to someone I'm about to meet while stopped at a red light (where I arrived early) with my foot firmly planted on the brake pedal.
I would resent anyone making the presumption that I'm "screwing around" because I glanced down for 5 s. It takes more total atte
Re: (Score:2)
How many collisions would be avoided if the driver was alert and checking nearby traffic (including foot traffic) instead of reading or composing a message?
Makes you wonder about GPS (Score:5, Informative)
Since 1995, if you factor out the 2008-09 recession, there's been a continued slow decline in fatality rate. The dip during the 2008-09 recession also seems disproportionately large compared to past recession-linked dips. The 1973-75 recession happened at nearly 2x the fatality rate, so you would expect its dip to be 2x as large. But the 2008-09 dip is nearly the same absolute size. (The post-recession rebound after 1973-75 is nearly 2x as large.)
NHTSA has been claiming credit for this decrease, citing improved crash safety testing and standards. But I wonder if it's more the effect of GPS becoming commonplace to where it's now ubiquitous in all new cars, and people whose cars don't have GPS navigation just use their phones. In the days before GPS, it was common to drive with a folded map on your steering wheel, trying to figure out where you were and how to get to your destination. Way more dangerous than texting while driving IMHO.
No way (Score:2)
I don't know a lot of people who stared at paper maps while driving. You'd look at it, figure out where to go, and then drive.
I do see people staring at their GPS while driving every single day.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, with a map, you figured out where you were going, could see the big picture at once, and maybe referenced it here and there while driving. One would actually look at the road signs for where to go. Now people have no idea where they are going and pay more attention to their little phone or navigation unit than the signs on the road. That alone causes them to do all sorts of stupid and dangerous stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, but you cannot accurately measure this problem with mere fatalities.
Seat belts. Air bags. 5-star safety ratings on smaller cars because of doors being more metal than glass. We've come a long way with car safety, which is exactly why fatalities should not be the lone metric to determine if we've managed to get better with our overall safety.
The "paper map" problem was restricted to the fraction of people on the road who were using one. Most drivers knew where they were going most of the time.
Prediction: We're in the 1960s again on this (Score:4, Insightful)
Except instead of willful ignorance on drunk driving ("Get off our backs - everybody does it, and it's not that dangerous,"), it's the selfish "phone drunks".
Like drunk drivers, they're really easy to spot. They subconsciously drive a little slower while (in any lane). They fade in and out of their lanes - especially on freeway curves. They do it with extra good posture (perhaps they think that helps them navigate safely?) The worst ones are the ones holding their phones up in front of their faces and talking at them, trying to watch the road with peripheral vision - with no shame.
After a few more high profile deaths and political pressure, and a few of those "after school special" movies about cell phone driving killing children, we'll see an overly strict set of punitive laws that nail cellphone users while they drive (by the 2030s).
Maybe driverless technology will finally be the real solution for those who have to be able to "to FaceTime my friends while driving since it makes time go by faster." (Oh man... And least she was honest. And yeah, $100 says it was a she (under 25). Most dudes would never admit to that, and only someone that young would be that vain and foolish about life...)
No.... because phones can be used hands-free (Score:3)
Re:No.... because phones can be used hands-free (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a car with a built in hands-free phone. I learned this quickly, the person on the other end can't see you and doesn't know when to shut up, at the very least, or why you might suddenly need to pay full attention. I quit using it other than to order pizza from a custom place I'd be passing on my way home.
Re: (Score:1)
Often a person in the back seat has a negligible view of what is in front of the vehicle.
And of course, it is particularly unlikely that children are going to be paying much attention to the road either.
Or do you think that a parent shouldn't ever talk to their children while they are driving?
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you think that a parent shouldn't ever talk to their children while they are driving?
I know I have used the words "keep quiet for a minute, I need to concentrate" to my kids in the back seat. You can't say that as easily when you're talking to your boss on the phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yes you can... or else your boss is a dick. Maybe not using those exact words, but something just as communicative can still be effective. Presumably, you have a boss that wants you to continue to be alive, so I'm not sure why telling your boss you need to concentrate on driving due to some presumably atypical road or traffic conditions should be a problem. Something like "hold on a sec, I need to concentrate" isn't disrespectful at all. If you let the person on the other end know at the beg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you've ever dialed in to a meeting where most of the other people are together in a conference room, you'd realize that there is in fact a HUGE difference between physical presence and a phone link.
To compensate for the disadvantage of getting only few percent of the bandwidth and visual cues that the others have, you have to use a large amount of mental energy to construct and maintain a model of what's going on. (Even so, you usually end up being the low man on the totem pole in the meeting.)
The same
Re: (Score:2)
Not Just Dangerous (Score:4, Funny)
Fed up one day, I held the horn at one before she finally looked up at me (ignoring horns, really?). I pretended to text in midair so she could see me - she flipped me off... At least I know she can use more than her thumbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, similar experiences and observation for me. They get very zoned-in to the phone. I'm too focused on driving and always have been, so I don't even understand how someone can focus _more_ on something else.
Besides wasting time (and essentially confining a person in traffic), the green-light sitters are adding to atmospheric carbon (although many cars and hybrids are shutting the engine off at stops, and electric cars obviously cause minimal carbon sitting still.)
What I observe is very slow reactions wh
Re: (Score:2)
> basically wasting everyone's time due to their selfish habit.
Yep, it can be especially harrowing if you're waiting for them to get out of the way so you can take a shot at that M4A2E8 that's just sitting in the open.
Oh, wait, that's World of Tanks. Sorry.
That extra second or two at a light (even multiplied by 5 or 8) doesn't seem that critical most times. Often, I'll wait that extra second or two myself, just to be sure no bozo on a cell phone is going to run the recently-changed light.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a short light at our industrial park - a few seconds is about half of the green arrow time, and that is more than a few cars that can get through or not get through the 2-minute light. (And this is how we get more road rage too.)
No (Score:1)
I'm reading this on my phone as I'm driving right now, pretty easy to multi-task actually
No! (Score:2)
First reason is that Betteridge's law of headlines says so
Second reason, you can't reason with drunks, they are either tired or aggressive and can't follow directions.
Also, phone-junkies can follow a conversation an don't go ballistic if you tell them that they just Instagrammed one too much. If all else fails, you can send him a message on his phone, that will get his attention.
Mythbusters already tackled this (Score:2)
The Mythbusters did an episode [youtube.com] on this several years ago. The short answer is yes, futzing around on your phone is just as dangerous (or close to it) as driving drunk. So don't do it, moron.
And also, on a related note, to my old roommate: No, weed doesn't make you a better driver. That's why we always hid your keys, idiot.
Comparing polonium with cyanide... (Score:2)
...well I was going to say apples with oranges but it doesn't suit this site. They both negatively affect you, some people have a higher threshold for alcohol, some people have spare cycles to spare while doing multiple complex things. At the end of the day if you see someone weaving and jerking on the road then they are obviously over their limit and ability to drive safely and should be pulled up and straightened out.
Dumb Question (Score:2)
They are both equally bad and dangerous. This is like asking, "Which is deadlier, death by hanging or death by boonga-boonga?"
Phone Drivers are Way Worse! (Score:2)
There are more Phone Drivers on the road! And, the Phone Drivers are at all hours -- morning, lunch time, afternoon, evening, early morning. Drunk Drive are few and far between for me and are generally limited to late night and early mornings in my locale.
The most horrifying sight is to look in my rear view mirror and see the driver or the driver and passenger texting away on their phones while their car is creeping toward my
Not surprising. (Score:1)
Weird (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's not what objectively means.
1/3 of deaths being alcohol related is terrifying. It means that if we could get people to stop drinking and driving the numbers of fatalities would more or less instantly drop by a third. Considering how many different things there are that cause fatal car crashes, having something make up a third of it is a pretty big deal.
Other common causes are inattention, mechanical failure, animals, weather conditions, exhaustion, other drug impairment and I'm sure there's others.So,
Re: (Score:1)
That's not what related means. You need to understand the difference between "alcohol related" and "caused by alcohol." They are not at all the same thing. Suppose I have a glass of wine with dinner (and am still under the legal limit.) While driving home, I stop at a red light. As I'm sitting there waiting for the light to turn green, someone who has not been drinking plows into my rear end and knocks me into the stream of passing traffic. My car is struck by one of those vehicles and I am killed. They
Re: (Score:2)
Found the drunkie!
The reason that they decided the accident was alcohol-related was that you were over the legal limit, and you're lying about that part of your story.
Probably what happened is that your lawyer argued the test was unreliable, and you've been method-acting that story ever since. But no, you were not under the legal limit. That is why you got in trouble.
You're probably even drunk right now!
Re: Only 1/3 of traffic deaths are Alcohol related (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1/3 of deaths being alcohol related is terrifying.
This factoid, in isolation, means nothing.
How many people drive after drinking? If it is 1/3, then alcohol is having no effect on accidents. "Alcohol related" doesn't mean "drunk", just some amount of alcohol.
There are about 30k traffic fatalities in America. If 10k are "alcohol related", that is about 1 for every 30,000 people. You are a hundred times more likely to die from heart disease. So exercise and a better diet will have way more effect than driving sober.
Re: (Score:2)
By that, I'm assuming you meant to say that if a third of drivers on the road have recently consumed alcohol, then it is having no effect. It seems unlikely that the percentage of drivers who have recently consumed alcohol is anywhere near that high, so it is pretty likely that alcohol caused some percentage of those accidents, though determi
It's quantity (Score:3)
Generally speaking most people are not drunk all day long. But texting happens all day long
Re: (Score:3)
As for phone use while driving, statistics do show that hey have caused a massive increase in accidents, but the actual accidents in this ca
Re: (Score:3)
Well, except for my previous vehicle...t-boned by a teenage texter cruising through a red light at ~60mph. Rolled me right over on the roof, totaled truck.
And it wasn't a 'last second red thing. Rather, she had a full 10 seconds of red light, with no one looking out the window.
Luckily, neit
Re: Only 1/3 of traffic deaths are Alcohol related (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are ignoring pedestrian accidents that are mentioned prominently in this article. Yes rear enders have increased but so have car person and car bike accidents. Those are obviously much more dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Even rear-enders can cause injury. Shit, I barely got bumped once unexpectedly, my neck was achy for a couple of days. Others I know off suffered much more after being rear-ended.
Re: (Score:3)
Your abuse and/or ignorance of statistical analysis is staggering.
Due to the nature of driving, many accidents are simply not preventable. Everyone is doing everything correctly, nothing in the cars fails, but accidents still happen. This is why people designing self-driving cars have to deal with the moral quandary of what the car should do when an accident is unavoidable.
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable. It doesn't matter that they comprise a minority of overall accidents. Also, your
Re: (Score:3)
With a bit of arithmetic, you can easily deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd.
Not quite. It is common that an accident has multiple "related" issues (alcohol related, speed related, driving related, weather related, seat belt related, poor car maintenance related, etc.). As such, you can not deduce it must be at least 1st or 2nd. In fact, you can absolutely assume it isn't 1st, because 1st would be "driving related". 100% of all driving accidents are driving related, and 100% preventable by not driving.
Re: (Score:2)
We do not know the context in which the OP stated the 33%, so I took it at face value. You bring up a good point about multiple causes not being mutually exclusive.
In fact, you can absolutely assume it isn't 1st, because 1st would be "driving related". 100% of all driving accidents are driving related, and 100% preventable by not driving.
I disagree. We're already talking about car accidents, so that comes as a prior, and the goal of the analysis is specifically to discriminate that prior from other causes. Basically what you're saying is that car accidents are car accidents. True, but meaningless and uninformative.
Re: (Score:2)
Accidents caused by drunk drivers are 100% preventable.
All accidents are preventable. But if I drive to the store, buy pretzels and beer, then forget to take the beer out. My sister drives the car tomorrow, and an old person falls asleep and runs the red, killing both. The beers will likely rupture in such a violent crash, so the "cause" on paper will be recorded as "alcohol involved" even with both drivers testing at 0.0% BAC. Open container and smells of alcohol are sufficient.
Re: (Score:1)