QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon "Me First!" is the California state motto.......... I didn't realize how bad it was until I went to South Carolina for a conference.........I started to swear at a dumb driver for poking along, unitl I realized he was motioning for me to pull out ahead of him. .....I wasn't quite sure how to react to courtesy! I would attribute the Me First mentality to 80% of CA's traffic problems. The "I've got to get one more car ahead", the "I'm not going to allow anyone to get in front of me, so I'll follow too close..", the "I'll drive whatever speed I want in whatever lane I'm in (both too fast and too slow)", and the "I have the the more expensive car, therefore right of way" approach, really help smooth the traffic flow, not to mention reduce the overall safety of all.....
Originally posted by dharmon Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Friday, April 8, 2005 6:14 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon "Me First!" is the California state motto.......... I would attribute the Me First mentality to 80% of CA's traffic problems. The "I've got to get one more car ahead", the "I'm not going to allow anyone to get in front of me, so I'll follow too close..", the "I'll drive whatever speed I want in whatever lane I'm in (both too fast and too slow)", and the "I have the the more expensive car, therefore right of way" approach, really help smooth the traffic flow, not to mention reduce the overall safety of all..... Lincoln must have a lot of California Drivers! Take 'em back! She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,029 posts Posted by daveklepper on Friday, April 8, 2005 3:41 AM I'll try to be as considerate as the examples posted myself. Thanks for the tips! Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, April 7, 2005 6:51 PM I am from Texas....... Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Thursday, April 7, 2005 3:30 PM YOu ought to go to south Texas - I wasn't ready for them to drive on the shoulder to let you by. And over in Mississippi , I was working out in the sticks and every one passing you going the other way waved. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, April 7, 2005 3:09 PM "Me First!" is the California state motto.......... I didn't realize how bad it was until I went to South Carolina for a conference.........I started to swear at a dumb driver for poking along, unitl I realized he was motioning for me to pull out ahead of him. .....I wasn't quite sure how to react to courtesy! I would attribute the Me First mentality to 80% of CA's traffic problems. The "I've got to get one more car ahead", the "I'm not going to allow anyone to get in front of me, so I'll follow too close..", the "I'll drive whatever speed I want in whatever lane I'm in (both too fast and too slow)", and the "I have the the more expensive car, therefore right of way" approach, really help smooth the traffic flow, not to mention reduce the overall safety of all..... Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:30 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by Kurn As a trucker I see it every day.It's not just the cell phones or other distractions,it's mostly the arrogant,"me first" attitude most drivers have today.Speeding,cutting people off,going around the gates,and a host of other idiot moves.People actually think a train or a truck will stop just for THEM.But rarely will you see a news account blaming the moron driver,usually it's just "truck crash",or "train wreck". Amen, brother Kurn. See also my remarks under the 'Retards' thread... Jamie Reply jchnhtfd Member sinceJanuary 2001 From: US 1,537 posts Posted by jchnhtfd on Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:28 PM Risk perception is a fascinating field, and the perception of risk by most folks has almost nothing to do with the actual risk level. Their are a number of things which appear to influence risk perception, but the most common are familiarity (oh yeah, another accident on the highway -- so what?) and control. People will accept astonishingly high levels of risk when the risk is familiar and commonplace, or when they feel in control. On the other hand, if the risk is unfamiliar (such as a serious rail accident, or an airplane crash) or they don't feel themselves to be in control (which applies to rail accidents and airplane crashes, but also to such risks as hazardous chemicals in the environment and the like) people will usually first estimate that the risk is much higher than it actually is and, second, not accept the risk. We also see this in the case of war casualties or even more emphatically the casualties resulting from terrorist acts. This is just human nature -- it's always been that way. Just to get some life here (grin), a good example is the overall risk to the population of various forms of power generation (considered from the beginning to the end of the process -- from initial construction and initial extraction of the energy source to the end -- final disposal of any and all wastes created). Taken that way, and properly assessed, nuclear power is several orders of magnitude LESS risky than coal fired power -- and yet the general public assessess nuclear power as far more risky than coal fired. The more common example has been pointed out above -- the relative risk in getting from point x to point y by car is far greater than in flying or taking the train, but... Jamie Reply Kurn Member sinceJanuary 2005 From: Akron,OH 229 posts Posted by Kurn on Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:03 PM As a trucker I see it every day.It's not just the cell phones or other distractions,it's mostly the arrogant,"me first" attitude most drivers have today.Speeding,cutting people off,going around the gates,and a host of other idiot moves.People actually think a train or a truck will stop just for THEM.But rarely will you see a news account blaming the moron driver,usually it's just "truck crash",or "train wreck". If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go. Reply dharmon Member sinceAugust 2003 From: Bottom Left Corner, USA 3,420 posts Posted by dharmon on Thursday, April 7, 2005 10:05 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by dwRavenstar Few years back an Air Force pilot flew into the side of a mountain. The Air Force brass, in response to the "was it pilot error" question said "the pilot suffered a temporary, yet fatal loss of situational awareness"....... pilot error, maybe? Cell phone or not, when behind the wheel Keep yer HOYA!!! [^] Dave (dwRavenstar) LOSI ..loss of situational awareness is a leading killer in aircraft accidents, particularly single piloted aircraft.....from day one, the aviate, navigate, communicate in that order idea is drummed into our heads...but alas it still happens. I find it odd that after a couple of years of dedicated flight training, crew coordination training and safety lectures, the military sees fit to make sure I have a hands free device (headset/helmet with boom mike) to communicate to ease my task saturation levels. But any joker (who may or may not be a licensed driver...in CA ..there are quite a number of "immigrants" without them) can hop behind the wheel, where the opportunities and chances of colliding with something are astronomically higher, with one hand locked firmly to the side of his/her head while blabbing on a phone....... ...I use a hands free for my phone, but then again, I'm kinda used to "driving" and talking. 99.9 percent of the rest of the population is not. Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Thursday, April 7, 2005 9:04 AM I am the Safety & Environmental Manager for an Utility. We operate 3 plants, co-owners of a coal fired plant and assist a few of our citites with issues with their plants and systems. At times it drives me nuts over some of the things people pull. Linemen wearing short sleeves, wearing cloths with polyester, failure to wear hard hats and safety glasses when common sense says they should. And they get bend when we mention it to them and then are forced to write them up after multiple violations. I don't like doing it, but we must. I have worked all my life in businesses where ther really are not minor injuries. Coal mines, offshore drilling rigs and now power plants. I have seen some of the stupidest things done. I have lost freinds from plain ols stupidity. In fact, every fatal incident I have been involved with, none here at the power plants, it can be laid directly at the person who died feet. They forgot simple things and it cost them their life. I have also seen the most safety conscious people do exactly what they would never do at work do at home. Heat stress is the one thing that people forget whent hey get home. I have had 2 guys who have had heat stress injuries at home that they would never done at work. A study was done on back injuries - contrary to popular belief, more occured at home than at work. Why? Because people do not think at home like they would at work. The study was for the back braces you see people wearing and this was a side result of the study. BTW, the study also demonstrated that back braces are not effect for preventing back injuries. It seems when people put them on they think they can lift anything. Proper lifting technics are more effective in preventing injuries. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply spbed Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Austin TX 4,941 posts Posted by spbed on Thursday, April 7, 2005 6:35 AM "They" say most accident occur around your home. As a example people living in the snow belt slipping on the ice & breaking bones. Or a car skidding on ice/snow? There are so many possibilities that to try to list them all would take like a very long time. Safety is something everyone should practice but in another thread a guy ran around the gates with the train coming while he made it what if did not & his car was splatter & hit cars waiting for the gates to go up? One guys silliness could affect other who supposely choose the "safe' method.[:o)][:I] Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dwRavenstar Member sinceJanuary 2005 379 posts Posted by dwRavenstar on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:43 AM Only my opinion and observation: When you're talking with a passenger in the car you're accepting responsibility for that person's safety and your observation of street situations should be heightened. You have no responsibility for the person on the phone. I work in an extremely potentially dangerous environment and safety is stressed at every opportunity with good results as we'd gone 18 months without a lost work day accident up till last week when a guy pulled a muscle in his back. The back of my hardhat reads "keep yer HOYA" with HOYA (Head outta yer .....um....armpit?) in larger red letters. I told the Supervisors it's the new Alcoa safety message. Keeps the message in the back of my mind and in front of everyone else. Few years back an Air Force pilot flew into the side of a mountain. The Air Force brass, in response to the "was it pilot error" question said "the pilot suffered a temporary, yet fatal loss of situational awareness"....... pilot error, maybe? Cell phone or not, when behind the wheel Keep yer HOYA!!! [^] Dave (dwRavenstar) If hard work could hurt us they'd put warning lables on tool boxes Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:33 AM I agree that any time a person is distracted for any reason they are at risk of an accident. Proper driving requires focus, periphiral vision and anticipation, which are not at the forefront when someone is on their cell, or munching a donut. A co workers daughter was injured when driving down a busy four lane at speed, and another driver stuck the nose of her car too far out of a strip mall parking lot. Both were talking on cell phones at the same time. Jimmy Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,029 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:37 AM Talkling to another person in a car while driving takes far less concentration than talking on a phone. That is my experience, and I rarely used a cell phone while I drove, and then on those very rare occasions only when the rental car had been equipped with one, not a personal cell phone. Having a companion in the car and keeping up a conversation on a long trip can actually be a contribution to safety by preventing drowsiness . Good radio programs can do the same. I never found either a distraciton from attention to the road ahead. Here is some terrible news. Around 1997 or 1998 GM actually hired MIT to develop a program to: Get people to send more time in cars. MIT came up with this answer: Make the car equal to the home as the communications and entertainment center. This is the honest truth. I've been trying to get MIT to do the right thing for some nine or ten years with regard to both energy and transportation but President Charles Vest would not even answer my letters. All I would get would be letters from the Alumni Association asking for money. And a very good alumni magazine, Technology Review. I am making a new attempt with the new President, a woman who has degrees in Medical Physics among other things and seems aware that the highways are the major USA health problem. I did get one polite response from her, so there is hope. Instead of working on this fuel cell nonsense and the entertainment and communications in cars, MIT should concentrate all its efforts on highway safety, using the very latest and best communications and computer technology. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 10:19 PM Transportation Fatalities by Freight Transportation Mode http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/04factsfigures/table5_1.htm http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipping/statistics/safety.htm http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855866.html The 3 links above are the "raw" numbers not rates. They are all based on the same sources but there are some different catagory splits. Transportation Fatality Rates: Note disclaimer quoated below. http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/html/chapter_02/transportation_fatality_rates.html "Fatality Data Each transportation mode tends to define fatality differently and may generate its fatality data using different methods. Therefore, comparisons across modes should be viewed very carefully. For further information on modal fatality definitions, see the glossary section of this report." The following rates are from the above web site: Fatalities Per 100,000 U.S. residents (rate and number) Air rate; 0.21 number: 609 Railroad rate: 0.33 number: 951 Transit rate: 0.10 numner: 285 Waterborne recreational boating rate: 0.29 number: 826 Pipeline rate: 0.004 number: 11 Highway rate: 14.87 number: 42,815 Total rate: 15.80 number: 45,497 NOTES: Air fatalities include air carrier service, commuter service, air taxi service, and general aviation. Highway fatalities include all types of highway motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Railroad fatalities include railroad and highway-rail grade-crossing incidents. Transit fatalities include motor bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, demand responsive, trolley bus, aerial tramway, automated guideway transit, cablecar, ferry boat, inclined plane, monorail, and vanpool. Waterborne fatalities include those due to vessel-related incidents or nonvessel- related incidents on commercial and recreational vessels. Pipeline fatalities include hazardous liquid pipelines and gas pipelines. These fatality rates have not been adjusted to account for double counting across modes because the detailed fatality data needed to do so were not available at the time this report was prepared. Double counting is of particular concern across rail and highway modes due to highway-rail grade-crossings fatalities and across highway and transit due to transit bus fatalities. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that the double counting inflates the total fatality rate by about 0.1 fatality per 100,000 residents. Air and waterborne data are preliminary. SOURCES: Except as noted-U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002, table 2-1 revised, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2004. Transit-USDOT, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, Safety and Security Newsletter (Washington, DC: Spring 2003) available at http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Data/NTDNewsletters/Default.asp as of January 2004. Waterborne recreational boating-U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Boating Safety, Boating Statistics (Washington, DC: December 2003) available at http://www.uscgboating.org as of January 2004. Population-U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Population Estimates for the United States, available at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/NA-EST2003-01.php as of January 2004. BTS • Research and Innovative Technology Administration • U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW • Room 3103 • Washington, DC 20590 • 800-853-1351 • answers@bts.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question Is this a fair comparison? For instance out of 100,000 US residents: 99,000 might reguarly use highways. The number using railroads might be less than 1000. I don't have any idea what the real numbers would be. There are a lot more deths on the highways than the railroads, but there are a lot more highway users than rail users. This also applies to comparisions of trucker fatalities to railroad worker fatalities. There are a lot more truckers. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:11 PM I have to admit, the ease of getting a license doesn't affect me that much. My experience as a former prosecutor tells me that those who can't get a license drive anyway. Gabe Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas When it comes to highway safety the biggest problem in my opinion is its just too d*** easy to get a drivers license. Chad, The Wall Street Journal had an article on this very topic a couple years ago, where various US driving tests were compared with those in various countries in Europe. Hands down, the US ones were simpler. Part of it was attributed to our consumerism culture in the US...GM, Ford, etc (and their cousins ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, etc. ) make a living off us continuing to buy or lease autos and drive them. In order to encourage that, we need easy license application processes, good roads, etc. In the years past there was a phrase something like "What's good for GM is good for America". E-Z Licensing is good for GM... MP Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 24,888 posts Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:33 PM Many people have said that eating and/or drinking (we'll assume non-alcoholic beverages here) while driving is just as distracting as talking on a cell phone. Aside from dumping your Double Whopper with Cheese down the front of you, I generally disagree. Same goes for talking to someone in the car. Unless you are SO engrossed in eating or talking that your attention is truly diverted from driving, your attention is still with your vehicle. As several have mentioned, the focus of your attention while talking on a cell phone is generally someplace besides the car. Don't believe it? Try talking to someone on your landline while sitting in front of the TV. Discuss something like a golf game or the renovations your friend is doing on a room. Then go back and describe, in detail, the television show you had on. You'll note I didn't say you were watching, because you can believe that you weren't. Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it... Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:23 PM How many times have you been behind another car and see the person laughing and not paying attention? Aside about cell phones - That is all we have at our house, no land line anymore. Another thing - I was standing in line at a store the other day waiting to check out and the girl behind me was on her cell. After a few minutes of hearing her life story - most of the people in the front of the store heard it, she was a bit LOUD, I finally told her that while her life history was interesting, esp. about the fellow she spent the weekend with (in graphic detail) I really didn't give a %$^% about it and my son really didn't need to hear the details. Guess what - she got PO'ed at me. Go figure. But I did get a round of applause from teh other people. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Ifish and Mookie, The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . . You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer. I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . . Gabe Well, you take the cases that are assigned..... And re: cell phone vs person - think peripheral vision. She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:57 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Ifish and Mookie, The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . . You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer. I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . . Gabe Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:52 PM lfish - I agree. When on a phone I really have to concentrate on the conversation. When in the company of a person, I don't concentrate as hard. Seems like I am less distracted when I drive and talk to a passenger. She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:39 PM Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:33 PM I refuse to buy a cell phone (for iconoclastic reasons) so, it doesn't really affect me. And, I am certainly have noticed a lot of people with bad driving habits while using a hand-held cell phone. I am all for making that illegal. I am just saying that most people who drive with a passenger talk with the passenger, and I don't see a lot of difference between that and a cordless cell. When I talk to my passenger, should I pull over and stop? Gabe Reply miniwyo Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Rock Springs Wy. 1,967 posts Posted by miniwyo on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:33 PM Erik - This is the FRA stats for any accident you want to find. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.asp The difference between trucks and trains are: if a truck wercks, there are far more people at risk of injury or fatalitiy than if a train were to crash. RJ "Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling http://sweetwater-photography.com/ Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:31 PM Since this ties into a protion of this thread, which relates to road safety, it is "National Work Zone Awareness Week," April 3rd - April 9th. For more information follow this link: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=13208 Reply Edit Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:23 PM I am dead set against any form of cell phone in John/Jane Q Public's vehicle, unless it is used by a 2nd person - or unless they pull over, park and talk their heart out! What can't wait until you can stop and do it safely? Moo She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub
QUOTE: Originally posted by dharmon "Me First!" is the California state motto.......... I would attribute the Me First mentality to 80% of CA's traffic problems. The "I've got to get one more car ahead", the "I'm not going to allow anyone to get in front of me, so I'll follow too close..", the "I'll drive whatever speed I want in whatever lane I'm in (both too fast and too slow)", and the "I have the the more expensive car, therefore right of way" approach, really help smooth the traffic flow, not to mention reduce the overall safety of all.....
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
QUOTE: Originally posted by Kurn As a trucker I see it every day.It's not just the cell phones or other distractions,it's mostly the arrogant,"me first" attitude most drivers have today.Speeding,cutting people off,going around the gates,and a host of other idiot moves.People actually think a train or a truck will stop just for THEM.But rarely will you see a news account blaming the moron driver,usually it's just "truck crash",or "train wreck".
If there are no dogs in heaven,then I want to go where they go.
QUOTE: Originally posted by dwRavenstar Few years back an Air Force pilot flew into the side of a mountain. The Air Force brass, in response to the "was it pilot error" question said "the pilot suffered a temporary, yet fatal loss of situational awareness"....... pilot error, maybe? Cell phone or not, when behind the wheel Keep yer HOYA!!! [^] Dave (dwRavenstar)
Originally posted by gabe Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR Austin TX Sub Reply dwRavenstar Member sinceJanuary 2005 379 posts Posted by dwRavenstar on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:43 AM Only my opinion and observation: When you're talking with a passenger in the car you're accepting responsibility for that person's safety and your observation of street situations should be heightened. You have no responsibility for the person on the phone. I work in an extremely potentially dangerous environment and safety is stressed at every opportunity with good results as we'd gone 18 months without a lost work day accident up till last week when a guy pulled a muscle in his back. The back of my hardhat reads "keep yer HOYA" with HOYA (Head outta yer .....um....armpit?) in larger red letters. I told the Supervisors it's the new Alcoa safety message. Keeps the message in the back of my mind and in front of everyone else. Few years back an Air Force pilot flew into the side of a mountain. The Air Force brass, in response to the "was it pilot error" question said "the pilot suffered a temporary, yet fatal loss of situational awareness"....... pilot error, maybe? Cell phone or not, when behind the wheel Keep yer HOYA!!! [^] Dave (dwRavenstar) If hard work could hurt us they'd put warning lables on tool boxes Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, April 7, 2005 4:33 AM I agree that any time a person is distracted for any reason they are at risk of an accident. Proper driving requires focus, periphiral vision and anticipation, which are not at the forefront when someone is on their cell, or munching a donut. A co workers daughter was injured when driving down a busy four lane at speed, and another driver stuck the nose of her car too far out of a strip mall parking lot. Both were talking on cell phones at the same time. Jimmy Reply Edit daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,029 posts Posted by daveklepper on Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:37 AM Talkling to another person in a car while driving takes far less concentration than talking on a phone. That is my experience, and I rarely used a cell phone while I drove, and then on those very rare occasions only when the rental car had been equipped with one, not a personal cell phone. Having a companion in the car and keeping up a conversation on a long trip can actually be a contribution to safety by preventing drowsiness . Good radio programs can do the same. I never found either a distraciton from attention to the road ahead. Here is some terrible news. Around 1997 or 1998 GM actually hired MIT to develop a program to: Get people to send more time in cars. MIT came up with this answer: Make the car equal to the home as the communications and entertainment center. This is the honest truth. I've been trying to get MIT to do the right thing for some nine or ten years with regard to both energy and transportation but President Charles Vest would not even answer my letters. All I would get would be letters from the Alumni Association asking for money. And a very good alumni magazine, Technology Review. I am making a new attempt with the new President, a woman who has degrees in Medical Physics among other things and seems aware that the highways are the major USA health problem. I did get one polite response from her, so there is hope. Instead of working on this fuel cell nonsense and the entertainment and communications in cars, MIT should concentrate all its efforts on highway safety, using the very latest and best communications and computer technology. Reply DSchmitt Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018 4,422 posts Posted by DSchmitt on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 10:19 PM Transportation Fatalities by Freight Transportation Mode http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/04factsfigures/table5_1.htm http://www.coltoncompany.com/shipping/statistics/safety.htm http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855866.html The 3 links above are the "raw" numbers not rates. They are all based on the same sources but there are some different catagory splits. Transportation Fatality Rates: Note disclaimer quoated below. http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/html/chapter_02/transportation_fatality_rates.html "Fatality Data Each transportation mode tends to define fatality differently and may generate its fatality data using different methods. Therefore, comparisons across modes should be viewed very carefully. For further information on modal fatality definitions, see the glossary section of this report." The following rates are from the above web site: Fatalities Per 100,000 U.S. residents (rate and number) Air rate; 0.21 number: 609 Railroad rate: 0.33 number: 951 Transit rate: 0.10 numner: 285 Waterborne recreational boating rate: 0.29 number: 826 Pipeline rate: 0.004 number: 11 Highway rate: 14.87 number: 42,815 Total rate: 15.80 number: 45,497 NOTES: Air fatalities include air carrier service, commuter service, air taxi service, and general aviation. Highway fatalities include all types of highway motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Railroad fatalities include railroad and highway-rail grade-crossing incidents. Transit fatalities include motor bus, heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, demand responsive, trolley bus, aerial tramway, automated guideway transit, cablecar, ferry boat, inclined plane, monorail, and vanpool. Waterborne fatalities include those due to vessel-related incidents or nonvessel- related incidents on commercial and recreational vessels. Pipeline fatalities include hazardous liquid pipelines and gas pipelines. These fatality rates have not been adjusted to account for double counting across modes because the detailed fatality data needed to do so were not available at the time this report was prepared. Double counting is of particular concern across rail and highway modes due to highway-rail grade-crossings fatalities and across highway and transit due to transit bus fatalities. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics estimates that the double counting inflates the total fatality rate by about 0.1 fatality per 100,000 residents. Air and waterborne data are preliminary. SOURCES: Except as noted-U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics 2002, table 2-1 revised, available at http://www.bts.gov/, as of January 2004. Transit-USDOT, Federal Transit Administration, National Transit Database, Safety and Security Newsletter (Washington, DC: Spring 2003) available at http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/Data/NTDNewsletters/Default.asp as of January 2004. Waterborne recreational boating-U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Boating Safety, Boating Statistics (Washington, DC: December 2003) available at http://www.uscgboating.org as of January 2004. Population-U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Monthly Population Estimates for the United States, available at http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/national/tables/NA-EST2003-01.php as of January 2004. BTS • Research and Innovative Technology Administration • U.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW • Room 3103 • Washington, DC 20590 • 800-853-1351 • answers@bts.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Question Is this a fair comparison? For instance out of 100,000 US residents: 99,000 might reguarly use highways. The number using railroads might be less than 1000. I don't have any idea what the real numbers would be. There are a lot more deths on the highways than the railroads, but there are a lot more highway users than rail users. This also applies to comparisions of trucker fatalities to railroad worker fatalities. There are a lot more truckers. I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it. I don't have a leg to stand on. Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:11 PM I have to admit, the ease of getting a license doesn't affect me that much. My experience as a former prosecutor tells me that those who can't get a license drive anyway. Gabe Reply MP57313 Member sinceJune 2001 From: L A County, CA, US 1,009 posts Posted by MP57313 on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 3:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas When it comes to highway safety the biggest problem in my opinion is its just too d*** easy to get a drivers license. Chad, The Wall Street Journal had an article on this very topic a couple years ago, where various US driving tests were compared with those in various countries in Europe. Hands down, the US ones were simpler. Part of it was attributed to our consumerism culture in the US...GM, Ford, etc (and their cousins ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, etc. ) make a living off us continuing to buy or lease autos and drive them. In order to encourage that, we need easy license application processes, good roads, etc. In the years past there was a phrase something like "What's good for GM is good for America". E-Z Licensing is good for GM... MP Reply tree68 Member sinceDecember 2001 From: Northern New York 24,888 posts Posted by tree68 on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:33 PM Many people have said that eating and/or drinking (we'll assume non-alcoholic beverages here) while driving is just as distracting as talking on a cell phone. Aside from dumping your Double Whopper with Cheese down the front of you, I generally disagree. Same goes for talking to someone in the car. Unless you are SO engrossed in eating or talking that your attention is truly diverted from driving, your attention is still with your vehicle. As several have mentioned, the focus of your attention while talking on a cell phone is generally someplace besides the car. Don't believe it? Try talking to someone on your landline while sitting in front of the TV. Discuss something like a golf game or the renovations your friend is doing on a room. Then go back and describe, in detail, the television show you had on. You'll note I didn't say you were watching, because you can believe that you weren't. Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it... Reply kevarc Member sinceJanuary 2002 From: Richland WA 361 posts Posted by kevarc on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:23 PM How many times have you been behind another car and see the person laughing and not paying attention? Aside about cell phones - That is all we have at our house, no land line anymore. Another thing - I was standing in line at a store the other day waiting to check out and the girl behind me was on her cell. After a few minutes of hearing her life story - most of the people in the front of the store heard it, she was a bit LOUD, I finally told her that while her life history was interesting, esp. about the fellow she spent the weekend with (in graphic detail) I really didn't give a %$^% about it and my son really didn't need to hear the details. Guess what - she got PO'ed at me. Go figure. But I did get a round of applause from teh other people. Kevin Arceneaux Mining Engineer, Penn State 1979 Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 1:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Ifish and Mookie, The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . . You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer. I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . . Gabe Well, you take the cases that are assigned..... And re: cell phone vs person - think peripheral vision. She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:57 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Ifish and Mookie, The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . . You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer. I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . . Gabe Reply Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:52 PM lfish - I agree. When on a phone I really have to concentrate on the conversation. When in the company of a person, I don't concentrate as hard. Seems like I am less distracted when I drive and talk to a passenger. She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:39 PM Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Reply Edit gabe Member sinceMarch 2004 From: Indianapolis, Indiana 2,434 posts Posted by gabe on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:33 PM I refuse to buy a cell phone (for iconoclastic reasons) so, it doesn't really affect me. And, I am certainly have noticed a lot of people with bad driving habits while using a hand-held cell phone. I am all for making that illegal. I am just saying that most people who drive with a passenger talk with the passenger, and I don't see a lot of difference between that and a cordless cell. When I talk to my passenger, should I pull over and stop? Gabe Reply miniwyo Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Rock Springs Wy. 1,967 posts Posted by miniwyo on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:33 PM Erik - This is the FRA stats for any accident you want to find. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.asp The difference between trucks and trains are: if a truck wercks, there are far more people at risk of injury or fatalitiy than if a train were to crash. RJ "Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling http://sweetwater-photography.com/ Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:31 PM Since this ties into a protion of this thread, which relates to road safety, it is "National Work Zone Awareness Week," April 3rd - April 9th. For more information follow this link: http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=13208 Reply Edit Mookie Member sinceJune 2001 From: US 13,488 posts Posted by Mookie on Wednesday, April 6, 2005 12:23 PM I am dead set against any form of cell phone in John/Jane Q Public's vehicle, unless it is used by a 2nd person - or unless they pull over, park and talk their heart out! What can't wait until you can stop and do it safely? Moo She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw Reply 12 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by chad thomas When it comes to highway safety the biggest problem in my opinion is its just too d*** easy to get a drivers license.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen. Ifish and Mookie, The two of you may very well be right—as I refuse to succumb to the societal pressure to get a cell phone, I don't have too much experience with what you are referring to. But, because I didn't chose my occupation for my ability to concede a point without arguing about it . . . You cite the virtues of "face-to-face" conversation. That is why I think a hands-off cell phone is no different than a passenger. When I am driving, I am looking at the road, not my passenger. So, I don't have the benefit of some of the face-to-face clues to which you refer. I can't believe I am defending any form of cell phone usage . . . Gabe
QUOTE: Originally posted by lfish Gabe, it's not entirely logical, but I am convinced it is a matter of where your attention is. On a phone, I think, you are more "with" the absent person. You don't have all the little visual clues we all use when we are conversing face-to-face, so you gesture mroe or concentrate on your speech more. Drivers are just less "there" when they are talking to someone unseen.
RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.