Distracted Driving Summit: 'Create a National Culture of Safety'
By Bill Visnic September 21, 2010
Although a panel that included a technology researcher and several policymakers said at today's National Distracted Driving Summit that technology can, in effect, be an answer to America's growing distracted-driving dilemma, perhaps the most sustainable solution was offered by a senior executive for a large trucking corporation: the nation needs to approach paying attention while driving as a moral obligation, establishing what a new "national culture of safety."
The nation's second annual distracted-driving summit had an afternoon filled with suggestions on how to "combat" the increase of distracted driving - and the proliferation of electronic devices and onboard features and content that seem to encourage it - but in the end, the message came down to this: it's our own behavior that has to be modified. The technology of connectivity is not going to go away, so the temptation to use it while driving is what has to be addressed.
Don Osterberg, senior vice president for nationwide trucking corporation Schneider National provided compelling examples of how his company has for years worked to constructively manage the potential for distraction for its over-the-road truck drivers, much of it through policies and practices designed from the onset to mitigate the need to interrupt or even contact personnel while driving. Schneider's overriding corporate policy is to mitigate driving distractions and it it was Osterberg who said that the nation must adopt a similar "culture of safety."
He added that completely blocking cellphone signals in the cabins of moving vehicles is possible, but his company has determined it may not be the most desirable way to deal with distracted driving. He said there are times when the driver's ability to communicate with the outside world can be useful and advantageous.
Tech To Counter Tech
Linda Angell, a research scientist at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, said technology itself can be used to decrease the potential for distracted-driving accidents, citing innovations such as the plethora of automaker-supplied hands-free and voice-activated control systems as a laudable first step. She said technology should focus on four aspects of improving the in-vehicle environment:
- Decluttering - removing or backgrounding extraneous information. She cited Saab Cars' "black panel" instrumentation as an example of a method to send unnecessary information to the background, with automatic systems ensuring any pertinent alerts pop out when necessary.
- Embedded training and safety coaches - systems that help the driver modify behavior by suggesting which information should be accessed at a given time in a given driving environment.
- Lockouts - designing in-vehicle systems to either disable certain features while the vehicle is moving or to provide "soft" lockouts that drivers can configure according to their own preferences and comfort levels or are automatically disabled in some driving situations.
- Workload and dialog managers - systems that selectively assist the driver in filtering the inflow of outside information. An example is a hands-free phone connection that will not alert the driver to an incoming call if the vehicle is operating under certain parameters.
Meanwhile, Barbara Harsha, executive director of the influential Governors Highway Safety Association, advocated for a menu of regulatory and legislative actions and incentives to lead what may be reluctant stakeholders.
Harsha said, for example, that 30 states already have banned text messaging while driving and her organization expects all states to do so within the next two years. And pending fiscal-year 2011 legislation has earmarked $50 million in added state highway funds to states as an incentive to ban texting and/or phoning with a handheld device. She said 34 states also are using a standardized format in accident reports to list possible distracted-driving aspects. Harsha said the results of this new reporting will be published in 2012.
LEAVE A COMMENT
As you may know, Virginia is the only state that bans the use and sale of radar detectors. There is no evidence that the radar detector ban increases highway safety. Our nation’s fatality rates have fallen consistently for almost two decades. Virginia’s fatality rate has also fallen, but not any more dramatically than it has nationwide. Research has even shown that radar detector owners have a lower accident rate than motorists who do not own a detector.
Maintaining the ban is not in the best interest of Virginians or visitors to the state. I know and know of people that will not drive in Virginia due to this ban. Unjust enforcement practices are not unheard of, and radar detectors can keep safe motorists from being exploited by abusive speed traps. Likewise, the ban has a negative impact on Virginia’s business community. Electronic distributors lose business to neighboring states and Virginia misses out on valuable sales tax revenue.
Radar detector bans do not work. Research and experience show that radar detector bans do not result in lower accident rates, improved speed-limit compliance or reduce auto insurance expenditures.
• The Virginia radar detector ban is difficult and expensive to enforce. The Virginia ban diverts precious law enforcement resources from more important duties and this ban may be ILLEGAL.
• Radar detectors are legal in the rest of the nation, in all 49 other states. In fact, the first state to test a radar detector ban, Connecticut, repealed the law – it ruled the law was ineffective and unfair. It is time for our Virginia to join the rest of the nation.
• It has never been shown that radar detectors cause accidents or even encourage motorists to drive faster than they would otherwise. The Yankelovich – Clancy – Shulman Radar Detector Study conducted in 1987, showed that radar detector users drove an average of 34% further between accidents (233,933 miles versus 174,554 miles) than non radar detector users. The study also showed that they have much higher seat belt use compliance. If drivers with radar detectors have fewer accidents, it follows that they have reduced insurance costs – it is counterproductive to ban radar detectors.
• In a similar study performed in Great Britain by MORI in 2001 the summary reports that "Users (of radar detectors) appear to travel 50% further between accidents than non-users. In this survey the users interviewed traveling on average 217,353 miles between accidents compared to 143,401 miles between accidents of those non-users randomly drawn from the general public." The MORI study also reported "Three quarters agree, perhaps unsurprisingly, that since purchasing a radar detector they have become more conscious about keeping to the speed limit..." and "Three in five detector users claim to have become a safer driver since purchasing a detector."
• Modern radar detectors play a significant role in preventing accidents and laying the technology foundation for the Safety Warning System® (SWS). Radar detectors with SWS alert motorists to oncoming emergency vehicles, potential road hazards, and unusual traffic conditions. There are more than 10 million radar detectors with SWS in use nationwide. The federal government has earmarked $2.1 million for further study of the SWS over a three-year period of time. The U.S. Department of Transportation is administering grants to state and local governments to purchase the SWS system and study its effectiveness (for example, in the form of SWS transmitters for school buses and emergency vehicles). The drivers of Virginia deserve the right to the important safety benefits that SWS delivers.
Please sign this petition and help to repeal this ban and give drivers in Virginia the freedom to know if they are under surveillance and to use their property legally:
www.stoptheban.org
www.thepetitionsite.com/1/repeal-the-virginia-radar-detector-ban
ADD A COMMENT