A couple of follow up questions.. interesting article.
So you have 4.5M drivers using the app for 2-3 months which translates to about 6K-9.5K miles per year if annualized. Seems a bit low. How many of your drivers are power users? Do you potentially capture drivers that are in the passenger seat?
These changes seem extremely large for a only one year. How many drivers were in the previous sample? If the number of drivers are twice as high now, could the percent change really be driven by the mix of customers and not actually significantly more distracted driving?
Thanks,
“This study aggregated and analyzed data from 3.1-million anonymized drivers, who took 570-million trips, covering 5.6-billion miles nationwide between December 2016 and February 2017.”
The study keeps referencing drivers so I’m presuming it doesn’t capture passenger cell phone use. This is one of my biggest issues with any app that limits the use of cell interaction while operating a car – how does the app know if I gave my phone to my wife to text a reply while she was in the passenger seat?
More should be caught and ticketed heavily and repeat offenders get loss of license. Brain dead cell addicts are a menace to society. They must sleep with it clutched in their hand and wake up several times in the night to check their Facebook or texts.
If you add a million new drivers to the road every year, the vast majority are young and are married to the cell and have no clue they are doing a very dangerous thing by texting or talking on the phone. That is why the problem is growing and they certainly don’t pay attention to the laws that have been passed banning the use.
How do you define cell phone use and does that necessarily count as texting?
Would checking a route on Waze with the push of a finger be considered texting?
Thanks,
One of the assumptions they made was “Phone use behind the wheel is distracting, no matter what you’re doing” so I presume ANY action taken on a cell phone (even checking maps) would be counted as “use” in their study. As I mentioned above, there’s only so much data they made available on their site
If that’s the case, the study is extremely skewed and the information not very valuable. That would take into account the use of all hands-free able cars using phones via bluetooth, Ubers and other services or people using their phones as GPS, ect. And, could possibly include people using their phones to play music or podcasts through the car.
I agree. It’s too bad there’s only so much data they made available on their site so we can’t really dig into how the study was conducted and what was actually measured.
Distracted driving is distracted driving. All it takes is second and if an accident happens as a result of distracted behavior, you are on the hook for the damages.
Perfect example of a false equivalency argument. I mean, should we not have speed limits on roads, age limits on alcohol consumption, or have any drugs be deemed illegal just because some people will break the law anyway?
MARCH 14, 2018 AT 6:22 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
While trying to teach a fish to do math is pointless . . .
Gun control legislation is what politicians can do. It is not a cultural problem, it is quite specific, and therefore can be addressed by politicians (except Obama, I mean).
I know this is getting pretty heady for you, but give thinking a try . . .
I read that 9 high school kids per day die from car accidents due to texting.
Can you imagine if 3,285. high school kids died in mass shootings every year?
(Alert CNN: time to pimp out some high school kids to march on Washington and
demand the do-nothing Congress take away cell phones. At least the Assault Cell Phones.)
You have to love the Down Voters. 18 high school kids killed per year in mass shootings, on average, according to the FBI. “Take away guns!” scream the self-proclaimed Compassionate Crowd. “The NRA is evil!”
Over 3,000 kids killed in texting accidents. “Tsk. Tsk.” says the Compassionate Crowd.
“Just the cost of personal freedom . . .”
This is only interesting because it is a problem where people get hurt and die. Just like guns, except the entire country gets worked up over gun deaths and then explain-away driving deaths due to cell phone use.
Same “equivalency”. Dead people.
April 10, 2018 at 8:39 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Nope, Rosenblatt, the down votes are by hypocrites who often stray off-topic to push their agenda. Why can’t Craig draw a parallel argument that points out the hypocritical posturing by those who want to argue for ‘cell phone freedoms while driving’ that are much more dangerous and deadly than gun rights?
April 11, 2018 at 8:08 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
He can post whatever he wants, buddy – I was simply trying to explain one reason why I thought he may have been getting down-voted.
April 11, 2018 at 8:59 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
Yogi,
Who on this post, or anywhere for that matter, is suggesting people should be allowed to drive distracted? I literally have not talked to one person who thinks that’s a good idea. In fact, most including me, believe laws need to become more strict.
April 11, 2018 at 9:00 am
sal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
I can truthfully say that I have absolutely NO agenda on this board, unless it’s to learn a little bit more and maybe get a chuckle now and then.
April 11, 2018 at 8:54 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 AT 10:29 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
behave like an adult and accept fair criticism. We who read and comment here want adult level conversations on the TOPIC of the related article. If you can’t follow those simple guidelines, post elsewhere, where you can spout your vile hatred for those whose opinions don’t match yours.
Can you please take a few moments to explain WHY you posted this link, how it applies to the topic(s) being discussed, and what you’re suggesting we take away from it?
unless one of the laws requires gun owners to properly store their firearms (or use a firearm locking device) and be held negligent if they fail to secure their weapon and someone takes it and hurt someone. that would likely solve these 12 year old kids from PA walking around with an AR-15, or the 8 year old from shooting his 5 year old baby sister
Confused – you do realize the minute someone steals your car the liability protection afforded to you by your auto policy is now excluded? So let’s extend the same liability to you if someone steals your car and runs over 10 people intentionally ?
Ya know kinda like muslims are doing in the UK because they cant find guns. ?
You see you keep relating the violence to the gun, it’s the person. Just like in the UK, people will use knives.
if my child takes my keys, takes my car, and runs over people, I will be held negligible unless I actually press charges against my own kid
same thing applies regardless of who stole the car – if someone steals my car and i don’t report it, i will be held liable unless i actually report the vehicle was stolen to the police
April 12, 2018 at 1:20 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
confused – so if someone steals your car while you are asleep and runs over people you are liable because it had not been reported to the police. WRONG
You are confused.
April 12, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
You do see the difference I hope?
April 12, 2018 at 1:27 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
You do see the fact the loss can occur before the theft is realized and you are not held liable?
April 12, 2018 at 1:33 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
So calling a gun owner liable for injury caused by someone stealing the gun doesn’t make anymore sense than if my car is used to run over 10 people and then trying to hold me liable.
April 12, 2018 at 2:11 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused- so maybe you should say, the car actually has to be stolen for liability to be excluded, which is what I said originally. Steals=stolen
April 12, 2018 at 2:53 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Jack – I never said the vehicle had to be reported stolen PRIOR to the loss, just that it had to be reported stolen.
If the car was stolen at 8AM on Jan 1, the thief ran someone over and killed them at 10AM on Jan 2, but the owner didn’t realize the car was stolen so they didn’t tell the police until 4PM on Jan 3, you’re right — the owner isn’t liable. Theft exclusion applies.
BUT………..MY POINT……..
In the same scenario, if the owner’s 15 year old kid took the car, the same time frames apply, but the owner decides they don’t want to press charges against their child, the owner’s insurance policy pays. Theft exclusion WOULD NOT apply if the owner’s don’t file a report and don’t want to press charges.
You do see the difference I hope?
You do see that the owner’s policy will pay if the owner refuses to report the car was stolen, right?
Again – I didn’t say they have to report it BEFORE the loss, just that it needs to be reported for the carrier to apply the theft exclusion.
“so maybe you should say, the car actually has to be stolen for liability to be excluded”
No. I said exactly what I meant: theft exclusion doesn’t apply if the owner doesn’t report it stolen and refuses to press charges against the known thief.
April 12, 2018 at 2:56 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“So calling a gun owner liable for injury caused by someone stealing the gun doesn’t make anymore sense…”
If the parents are negligent and secure the gun and their kid takes it and kills someone, and the parent refuses to report the gun stolen (even after the incident) and the parents refuse to press charges against their child for stealing, the parent should definitely hold some negligence and liability.
April 12, 2018 at 2:56 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
*don’t secure the gun
April 12, 2018 at 3:11 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Confused- So if someone kicks your door in, shoots you in the head, killing you, steals your car and runs over 10 people, your home and auto carrier should/will pay out liability because you didn’t file the police report?
Are you still confused?
April 12, 2018 at 4:19 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
what an odd question to ask on an insurance site. if you really work in this industry, you should know this. but hey, that’s fine, i’ll play along.
Q: is there an additional named insured on the policy or is there an executor of the estate?
if no, the carrier would deny coverage since dead people can’t file reports or press charges against someone else.
if yes, the additional named insured/executor would have to file a police report covering the breaking-and-entering of the home and one for the theft of the car and (if the thief is known), they’d have to press charges too.
if the 2nd insured or executor refuses to file a police report and refuses to press charges, coverage would apply to the people the thief ran over.
April 13, 2018 at 10:23 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You should read a policy every now and then. See definitions of “insured” particularly. There is also an area called ” Exclusions”. I would read the section pertaining to “We do not provide liability coverage for: 1. Any insured – (I don’t believe the thief meets the definition, but you do) who intentionally causes bodily injury……
Of course policy wording varies state to state. Let me know what state you are in and I’ll read it for you.
April 13, 2018 at 10:34 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused- You really should read a policy every now and then. Start at the definition of “insured”. Finish with exclusions under liability coverage.
1st- the thief does not meet the definition of insured
April 13, 2018 at 10:36 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
2. Any insured who intentionally causes bodily injury is excluded under liability coverage. I think the above met the intentional act.
April 13, 2018 at 10:38 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
The estate of a dead person can file a claim…wrong again on that point as well.
April 13, 2018 at 10:56 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
i can tell from your reply that you are not understanding what i’m typing. I shall respond to your 3 points and hope you stop misconstruing my words.
1 – I know thief doesn’t meet the definition of an insured. my point was if the kid takes their parent’s car with out permission and gets in an accident, the child IS considered an insured under the liability portion of the policy IF the parent doesn’t file a police report saying the kid stole the car.
2 – we were debating AUTO coverage and nothing you or I said indicated the “running people over” was an intentional act. obviously intentional acts are excluded regardless of who is driving the car.
3 – you said “The estate of a dead person can file a claim” yeah, no doy. that’s why I wrote “the additional named insured/executor would have to file a police report….” to have the loss denied based on the theft exclusion.
in summary:
if an entity knows who stole the car and nobody affiliated with the entity files a police report nor presses charges against the person who took the car, the auto theft exclusion would NOT apply.
can’t say it any simpler than that. i hope you understand this time.
April 13, 2018 at 11:43 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Driving laws are written to prevent accidents. Your GUN laws wont stop the intentional shootings.
“Confused – you do realize the minute someone steals your car the liability protection afforded to you by your auto policy is now excluded? So let’s extend the same liability to you if someone steals your car and runs over 10 people intentionally ?
My 1st 2 comments- but that’s none of my business.
April 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Confused – you do realize the minute someone steals your car the liability protection afforded to you by your auto policy is now excluded?”
But it’s NOT a blanket exclusion as the insured must first meet conditions – namely filing a police report and, if the thief is known, be willing to press charges.
I don’t understand why you don’t get this.
April 13, 2018 at 12:58 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Confused- What carrier and in what state does it have that “condition” written in the policy language?
April 13, 2018 at 1:25 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
You want me to quote policy language to prove my argument? Fine.
ISO’s Standard Auto Policy, Part E – Duties After An Accident Or Loss
D: A person seeking coverage….must also: (1) Promptly notify the police if “your covered auto” or any “non-owned auto” is stolen.
April 13, 2018 at 1:27 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
now what say you???
April 13, 2018 at 1:40 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
But it’s NOT a blanket exclusion as the insured must first meet conditions – namely filing a police report and, if the thief is known, be willing to press charges.
Still waiting on that last part there sherlock.
April 13, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
confused says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 3Thumb down 1
uh …. …. …. no
if my child takes my keys, takes my car, and runs over people, I will be held negligible unless I actually press charges against my own kid
April 13, 2018 at 1:43 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Pretty sure you said it, not me.
I’ll be waiting.
April 13, 2018 at 1:55 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Still confused- I’ve handled thousands of claims, hundreds of lawsuits in 10 years as a claims adjuster. Written a lot of auto policies in another 10 years as an indep agent. I’ll continue to play along next week, but right now I have to go home early and enjoy my house on the water in a rich white neighborhood where my privilege is appreciated by my wife and three daughters. There may be some weekend shooting involved, target, maybe even some dead animals (wild turkey) season here in SC. I’ll check back on Monday for the rest of the ISO policy wording. By the way, what do you do for a living?
April 18, 2018 at 1:03 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Jack, how did an article about Texting abuse devolve into a gun issue? Somebody has strayed far from the subject.
Attention all Posters: This is about the brain dead texters disregarding laws passed on this dangerous activity. Has nothing to do with gun control.
April 19, 2018 at 4:39 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Captain- I think my original topic was about gun bans not working, just like texting bans don’t. If they don’t work as IJ indicated, can the same logic not apply? Now I do realize that each state has it’s own particular texting laws, just like gun laws vary. And I think most liberals point to surrounding states lack of “gun control” when Chicago violence is mentioned so can we apply the same logic to the US and Mexico?
April 19, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Agent- see above
April 19, 2018 at 4:51 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Still confused- I’m still waiting
April 12, 2018 at 3:11 pm
Jax Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
More government heavy handedness. Another law that most will not follow and that will not be enforced.
Besides, if your 4 yr old accidentally shoots your 8 yr old child, is some other form of punishment even necessary ? What else can you do to a mother or father once one of their children has been killed ?? Not much.
Hey all you cell-phone whataboutists,
I need a thumbprint or a 6 digit passcode to open my phone. Some people use face-recognition to open theirs. Cell phones are seriously more secured than many guns improperly stored. #sad
every firearm should be required to have a firearm locking device – if it did not, the owner should share in the liability of whatever happened because they didn’t properly secure their device.
Confused -The locking device is your front door or car door. You do lock those, right ? It’s also called a safety and your finger, keep your safety on and your finger off the trigger until on target and ready to shoot.
(start sarcasm). right. because locking your doors and keeping the safety on your weapon is equally as effective as using a firearm locking device. perfect analogy. (end sarcasm)
Confused- Just like locking your car, taking the keys in the house and locking it, is as effective for someone stealing your car.
My gun is on my nightstand beside my car keys, both locked in the same manner. Both readily available to the only person that should have them.
April 12, 2018 at 4:20 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
do you have kids??????
April 13, 2018 at 10:28 am
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
3 girls- all been to the range, shot pistols, AR15’s,etc.
The all 3 have also been told the top of the stove is hot so don’t put your hand on it. Funny how they listen to things like that.
April 12, 2018 at 3:03 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Jack writes, “How about we put a locking device on the border?”
A comment of the likes to which Yogi would reply, had it been shared by a “libitteral”:
DECEMBER 14, 2017 AT 1:04 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Try very hard to stick to the subject in your initial replies instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
Captain- I think my original topic was about gun bans not working, just like texting bans don’t. If they don’t work as IJ indicated, can the same logic not apply? Now I do realize that each state has it’s own particular texting laws, just like gun laws vary. And I think most liberals point to surrounding states lack of “gun control” when Chicago violence is mentioned so can we apply the same logic to the US and Mexico?
Time to lock the border.
April 12, 2018 at 11:01 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
As Craig would say,
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
5
3
Sheep don’t have large brains.
April 12, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Captain- go to settings- touch id & passcode. #freedomofchoice
And yet, over 3,000 kids killed each year in car accidents due to texting!
Apparently, your security “solution” doesn’t work. Grow some Compassion, man.
Demand that Congress implement background checks for cell phones at least!
Wrong again, Craig. I simply followed the thread. I am not the one who introduced “whataboutism”. Independent-minded people like myself don’t go there. We leave that to The Right. You do it well!
Craig,
If cell phones were manufactured with intent to potentially cause injury or death to another animal or person, I would agree with you, cell phones should have background checks. But, that isn’t the purpose of a cell phone. So, we’ll just make strict laws against texting and driving, educate and enlighten society with ad campaigns highlighting the dangers of such action, and create technological solutions such as automatic text messages alerting the other party the person is currently driving and will call/text back when the vehicle is parked, instead.
We already have all that. Over 3,000 kids killed every year. And it doesn’t work.
Have you no compassion?
Could we stop most of the deaths? Yep. Easy. Make people carry their cell phones in the trunk, like alcohol. Or a dozen other solutions.
Instead, we focus on mass shootings of white kids. Now do what your liberal media masters tell you: talk about guns all day. Because that is what the DNC wants you to do. (Those 3,000 kids killed each year because of cell phones? Whatever. Not part of the DNC platform. Good doggie.)
Your whataboutism isn’t going to play here, Craig.
Which liberal media masters would those be? I have no problem with people owning guns. I never have. I’ve shot guns. I don’t believe people need to own weapons of war. And, I believe tighter controls are in order given that inherent risk as well as the results we have seen from it.
APRIL 6, 2018 AT 11:19 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
5
Your comment above is the equivalent of calling me a Poopy Head.
If you want to stay with third grade insults, you are on your own.
April 16, 2018 at 12:08 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Craig, the great golfer Jordan Spieth has made some commercials about not texting while driving. He is active with Social Media, but that cell stays in his glove compartment when he is driving. Too bad more people don’t follow his example.
April 11, 2018 at 4:26 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
I’m sure my comment above will be censored by IJ like facebook does. Which is why I took a snapshot of it. My attorney will be in touch.
Trying to help out helpingout — I believe he was asking if you were joking that you’d have your attorney contact IJ if your post got removed. I’m 99.99999999% sure helpingout knows comments get removed here all the time.
Thanks for helping out. You were correct about it being directed toward the attorney part.
April 13, 2018 at 8:01 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Figured as much since you ended with “…that last sentence.” Wasn’t too hard to parse and comprehend :)
April 19, 2018 at 4:34 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Rosen- why joke about a legal matter ?
April 20, 2018 at 11:49 am
helpingout says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hello Jack,
I was the one who asked if you were joking because the idea you would bring a lawyer into this if your comment is deleted is completely ridiculous. You have no legal means to get your lawyer involved in this instance. I see it as silly and assumed it was a joke.
April 13, 2018 at 9:02 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
For all those hung up on gun and vehicle comparisons, I would like to remind everyone that “with rights, comes responsibility.” Americans have the right to own guns, but also must be responsible and ensure the weapons are stored safely. Americans have the unalienable right to free speech, but with it comes the responsibility not to shout “fire” in a crowded theater and the responsibility not to slander or liable someone else.
Not arguing with that statement at all but it does seem to imply that Americans aren’t doing that already. Many do store them safely. I do and many people I know do. We don’t want them in a criminal’s hands. I taught my children about firearm safety and I taught them about driving safety, cell phone usage in their vehicles, and many other things I feel they should know or that we worry about. I have to hope they take those lessons and use them to make good decisions. There is no reason we cannot all have reasonable discussions and put our heads together to come to up with solutions to problems whether that is cell phones, drug use, guns, safety of our country. I would sure like to see the political based arguments on both sides set aside to just talk about the issues at hand and find common ground to solve problems. Just my 2 cents.
And I agree with you, Wayne2. While I agree “many do store them safely” there’s clear examples where that’s not the case. To wit: Jack said he keeps his gun on his nightstand near his bed with children in the house. To me, that’s not stored safely (even if he keeps the safety on).
I too hope to see politics put aside so we can have honest discussions about where we can find common ground to solve some of our country’s problems today: gun violence, immigration, drug scheduling & enforcement, deficit, etc.
Sounds like you’re doing all you can to contribute towards that end and I commend you for that. We need more open-minded folks willing to discuss the tough issues rather than resorting to bullying, “what aboutism’s” or “false equivalency” or “straw man arguments” or any other (quote)debate(unquote) tactics. Please note this last comment is referencing all those who use those (quote)debate(unquote) styles in every medium/forum, and not just referencing the few who do that on this site.
I wasn’t sure if I knew if Jack kept his firearm in a locked case on his nightstand or not. It seemed like not since his door is locked thoughts. I do understand his thought that his home is locked and in a perfect world that might be sufficient. If he feels comfortable with this I cannot argue with it even if I don’t agree with it. As I said my kids know firearms. They know the potential consequences if not handled properly. Since I can only guarantee how I handle them and cannot guarantee who my young adult children may bring to the house when I am not there I lock them up. I know my dad did not lock his up but he taught us at a young age not to play around with them also. I believe less and less young people are taught firearm safety so I lock them up. They learn about them from TV or friends or games and there is no real thought to handling them with the utmost care. I realize that doesn’t apply to all young people but again I lock them up to avoid anything going wrong. We all, for the most part, recognize things can be done to make this a better place to live. We differ sometimes on how to get there. I enjoy the conversations and reading people’s ideas and thoughts on here. I don’t always agree but it gives me someone else’s perspective to consider. If everyone believed the same this world would be a boring place to live. Thanks for the reply.
Wayne2- “Since I can only guarantee how I handle them and cannot guarantee who my young adult children may bring to the house when I am not there I lock them up.”
Good for you. When I’m not there, neither is my XDM. I have a concealed weapons permit. It’s on my hip when I leave every morning. It goes every where I go, and every where it’s legally able to go with me.
My wife keeps her’s somewhere else as she does not have a CWP.
April 16, 2018 at 5:31 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
APRIL 2, 2018 AT 7:46 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Scare tactics didn’t work…try to convince everyone like a mature, sensible adult, instead of a fear monger.
DECEMBER 14, 2017 AT 1:04 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Try very hard to stick to the subject instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
We need to be careful about sharing stats like this. In our efforts to highlight the problem we’re actually normalizing it somewhat. If people see everyone else is doing it they’re very likely to keep doing it. That’s the psychological principle of consensus (social proof) in action.
A couple of follow up questions.. interesting article.
So you have 4.5M drivers using the app for 2-3 months which translates to about 6K-9.5K miles per year if annualized. Seems a bit low. How many of your drivers are power users? Do you potentially capture drivers that are in the passenger seat?
These changes seem extremely large for a only one year. How many drivers were in the previous sample? If the number of drivers are twice as high now, could the percent change really be driven by the mix of customers and not actually significantly more distracted driving?
Thanks,
There’s only so much data available from http://blog.zendrive.com/distracted-driving/ about this study, but here’s what I’ve got for you:
“This study aggregated and analyzed data from 3.1-million anonymized drivers, who took 570-million trips, covering 5.6-billion miles nationwide between December 2016 and February 2017.”
The study keeps referencing drivers so I’m presuming it doesn’t capture passenger cell phone use. This is one of my biggest issues with any app that limits the use of cell interaction while operating a car – how does the app know if I gave my phone to my wife to text a reply while she was in the passenger seat?
Does ‘drivers’ include humans only, or humans and AI?
You can’t be serious. That’s a joke question, right???
Polar,
That’s got to be one of your funniest comments ever!
More should be caught and ticketed heavily and repeat offenders get loss of license. Brain dead cell addicts are a menace to society. They must sleep with it clutched in their hand and wake up several times in the night to check their Facebook or texts.
If you add a million new drivers to the road every year, the vast majority are young and are married to the cell and have no clue they are doing a very dangerous thing by texting or talking on the phone. That is why the problem is growing and they certainly don’t pay attention to the laws that have been passed banning the use.
How do you define cell phone use and does that necessarily count as texting?
Would checking a route on Waze with the push of a finger be considered texting?
Thanks,
One of the assumptions they made was “Phone use behind the wheel is distracting, no matter what you’re doing” so I presume ANY action taken on a cell phone (even checking maps) would be counted as “use” in their study. As I mentioned above, there’s only so much data they made available on their site
If that’s the case, the study is extremely skewed and the information not very valuable. That would take into account the use of all hands-free able cars using phones via bluetooth, Ubers and other services or people using their phones as GPS, ect. And, could possibly include people using their phones to play music or podcasts through the car.
I agree. It’s too bad there’s only so much data they made available on their site so we can’t really dig into how the study was conducted and what was actually measured.
Too bad there isn’t more common sense in our society these days. Why do you need data to know what everyone should already know?
Ivan’s question had to do with the study’s parameters. It was a pretty good question. There was no need to insult him for not knowing the answer.
The Uber driver that ran over the woman was certainly distracted. Didn’t look up until it was way too late.
Distracted driving is distracted driving. All it takes is second and if an accident happens as a result of distracted behavior, you are on the hook for the damages.
Kinda kicks guns bans in the mouth if you think about it.
Perfect example of a false equivalency argument. I mean, should we not have speed limits on roads, age limits on alcohol consumption, or have any drugs be deemed illegal just because some people will break the law anyway?
A perfect argument for gun rights. We have plenty of laws against shooting people.
MARCH 14, 2018 AT 6:22 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
While trying to teach a fish to do math is pointless . . .
Gun control legislation is what politicians can do. It is not a cultural problem, it is quite specific, and therefore can be addressed by politicians (except Obama, I mean).
I know this is getting pretty heady for you, but give thinking a try . . .
We also have laws on what kind of vehicles can be used on the road.
Rosenblatt- have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Have you ever driven over the speed and not got caught?
Drop mic
I read that 9 high school kids per day die from car accidents due to texting.
Can you imagine if 3,285. high school kids died in mass shootings every year?
(Alert CNN: time to pimp out some high school kids to march on Washington and
demand the do-nothing Congress take away cell phones. At least the Assault Cell Phones.)
Craig- Ban all black assault phones. I hear a dog whistle.
You have to love the Down Voters. 18 high school kids killed per year in mass shootings, on average, according to the FBI. “Take away guns!” scream the self-proclaimed Compassionate Crowd. “The NRA is evil!”
Over 3,000 kids killed in texting accidents. “Tsk. Tsk.” says the Compassionate Crowd.
“Just the cost of personal freedom . . .”
Maybe the down-votes are because this is an article about distracted driving and you two are talking about guns???
Then again, I posted direct answers to two questions above and linked to the study that came to these results, yet got down-voted anyway.
This is only interesting because it is a problem where people get hurt and die. Just like guns, except the entire country gets worked up over gun deaths and then explain-away driving deaths due to cell phone use.
Same “equivalency”. Dead people.
Nope, Rosenblatt, the down votes are by hypocrites who often stray off-topic to push their agenda. Why can’t Craig draw a parallel argument that points out the hypocritical posturing by those who want to argue for ‘cell phone freedoms while driving’ that are much more dangerous and deadly than gun rights?
He can post whatever he wants, buddy – I was simply trying to explain one reason why I thought he may have been getting down-voted.
Yogi,
Who on this post, or anywhere for that matter, is suggesting people should be allowed to drive distracted? I literally have not talked to one person who thinks that’s a good idea. In fact, most including me, believe laws need to become more strict.
I can truthfully say that I have absolutely NO agenda on this board, unless it’s to learn a little bit more and maybe get a chuckle now and then.
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 AT 10:29 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
behave like an adult and accept fair criticism. We who read and comment here want adult level conversations on the TOPIC of the related article. If you can’t follow those simple guidelines, post elsewhere, where you can spout your vile hatred for those whose opinions don’t match yours.
Can you please take a few moments to explain WHY you posted this link, how it applies to the topic(s) being discussed, and what you’re suggesting we take away from it?
ATTN LIBERALS-
Driving laws are written to prevent accidents. Your GUN laws wont stop the intentional shootings.
unless one of the laws requires gun owners to properly store their firearms (or use a firearm locking device) and be held negligent if they fail to secure their weapon and someone takes it and hurt someone. that would likely solve these 12 year old kids from PA walking around with an AR-15, or the 8 year old from shooting his 5 year old baby sister
*sorry. the last example was an unintentional shooting and you specifically referenced intentional acts. my sentiments remain
Confused – you do realize the minute someone steals your car the liability protection afforded to you by your auto policy is now excluded? So let’s extend the same liability to you if someone steals your car and runs over 10 people intentionally ?
Ya know kinda like muslims are doing in the UK because they cant find guns. ?
You see you keep relating the violence to the gun, it’s the person. Just like in the UK, people will use knives.
uh …. …. …. no
if my child takes my keys, takes my car, and runs over people, I will be held negligible unless I actually press charges against my own kid
same thing applies regardless of who stole the car – if someone steals my car and i don’t report it, i will be held liable unless i actually report the vehicle was stolen to the police
confused – so if someone steals your car while you are asleep and runs over people you are liable because it had not been reported to the police. WRONG
You are confused.
You do see the difference I hope?
You do see the fact the loss can occur before the theft is realized and you are not held liable?
So calling a gun owner liable for injury caused by someone stealing the gun doesn’t make anymore sense than if my car is used to run over 10 people and then trying to hold me liable.
Confused- so maybe you should say, the car actually has to be stolen for liability to be excluded, which is what I said originally. Steals=stolen
Jack – I never said the vehicle had to be reported stolen PRIOR to the loss, just that it had to be reported stolen.
If the car was stolen at 8AM on Jan 1, the thief ran someone over and killed them at 10AM on Jan 2, but the owner didn’t realize the car was stolen so they didn’t tell the police until 4PM on Jan 3, you’re right — the owner isn’t liable. Theft exclusion applies.
BUT………..MY POINT……..
In the same scenario, if the owner’s 15 year old kid took the car, the same time frames apply, but the owner decides they don’t want to press charges against their child, the owner’s insurance policy pays. Theft exclusion WOULD NOT apply if the owner’s don’t file a report and don’t want to press charges.
You do see the difference I hope?
You do see that the owner’s policy will pay if the owner refuses to report the car was stolen, right?
Again – I didn’t say they have to report it BEFORE the loss, just that it needs to be reported for the carrier to apply the theft exclusion.
“so maybe you should say, the car actually has to be stolen for liability to be excluded”
No. I said exactly what I meant: theft exclusion doesn’t apply if the owner doesn’t report it stolen and refuses to press charges against the known thief.
“So calling a gun owner liable for injury caused by someone stealing the gun doesn’t make anymore sense…”
If the parents are negligent and secure the gun and their kid takes it and kills someone, and the parent refuses to report the gun stolen (even after the incident) and the parents refuse to press charges against their child for stealing, the parent should definitely hold some negligence and liability.
*don’t secure the gun
Confused- So if someone kicks your door in, shoots you in the head, killing you, steals your car and runs over 10 people, your home and auto carrier should/will pay out liability because you didn’t file the police report?
Are you still confused?
what an odd question to ask on an insurance site. if you really work in this industry, you should know this. but hey, that’s fine, i’ll play along.
Q: is there an additional named insured on the policy or is there an executor of the estate?
if no, the carrier would deny coverage since dead people can’t file reports or press charges against someone else.
if yes, the additional named insured/executor would have to file a police report covering the breaking-and-entering of the home and one for the theft of the car and (if the thief is known), they’d have to press charges too.
if the 2nd insured or executor refuses to file a police report and refuses to press charges, coverage would apply to the people the thief ran over.
You should read a policy every now and then. See definitions of “insured” particularly. There is also an area called ” Exclusions”. I would read the section pertaining to “We do not provide liability coverage for: 1. Any insured – (I don’t believe the thief meets the definition, but you do) who intentionally causes bodily injury……
Of course policy wording varies state to state. Let me know what state you are in and I’ll read it for you.
Confused- You really should read a policy every now and then. Start at the definition of “insured”. Finish with exclusions under liability coverage.
1st- the thief does not meet the definition of insured
2. Any insured who intentionally causes bodily injury is excluded under liability coverage. I think the above met the intentional act.
The estate of a dead person can file a claim…wrong again on that point as well.
i can tell from your reply that you are not understanding what i’m typing. I shall respond to your 3 points and hope you stop misconstruing my words.
1 – I know thief doesn’t meet the definition of an insured. my point was if the kid takes their parent’s car with out permission and gets in an accident, the child IS considered an insured under the liability portion of the policy IF the parent doesn’t file a police report saying the kid stole the car.
2 – we were debating AUTO coverage and nothing you or I said indicated the “running people over” was an intentional act. obviously intentional acts are excluded regardless of who is driving the car.
3 – you said “The estate of a dead person can file a claim” yeah, no doy. that’s why I wrote “the additional named insured/executor would have to file a police report….” to have the loss denied based on the theft exclusion.
in summary:
if an entity knows who stole the car and nobody affiliated with the entity files a police report nor presses charges against the person who took the car, the auto theft exclusion would NOT apply.
can’t say it any simpler than that. i hope you understand this time.
Driving laws are written to prevent accidents. Your GUN laws wont stop the intentional shootings.
“Confused – you do realize the minute someone steals your car the liability protection afforded to you by your auto policy is now excluded? So let’s extend the same liability to you if someone steals your car and runs over 10 people intentionally ?
My 1st 2 comments- but that’s none of my business.
“Confused – you do realize the minute someone steals your car the liability protection afforded to you by your auto policy is now excluded?”
But it’s NOT a blanket exclusion as the insured must first meet conditions – namely filing a police report and, if the thief is known, be willing to press charges.
I don’t understand why you don’t get this.
Confused- What carrier and in what state does it have that “condition” written in the policy language?
You want me to quote policy language to prove my argument? Fine.
ISO’s Standard Auto Policy, Part E – Duties After An Accident Or Loss
D: A person seeking coverage….must also: (1) Promptly notify the police if “your covered auto” or any “non-owned auto” is stolen.
now what say you???
But it’s NOT a blanket exclusion as the insured must first meet conditions – namely filing a police report and, if the thief is known, be willing to press charges.
Still waiting on that last part there sherlock.
confused says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 3Thumb down 1
uh …. …. …. no
if my child takes my keys, takes my car, and runs over people, I will be held negligible unless I actually press charges against my own kid
Pretty sure you said it, not me.
I’ll be waiting.
Still confused- I’ve handled thousands of claims, hundreds of lawsuits in 10 years as a claims adjuster. Written a lot of auto policies in another 10 years as an indep agent. I’ll continue to play along next week, but right now I have to go home early and enjoy my house on the water in a rich white neighborhood where my privilege is appreciated by my wife and three daughters. There may be some weekend shooting involved, target, maybe even some dead animals (wild turkey) season here in SC. I’ll check back on Monday for the rest of the ISO policy wording. By the way, what do you do for a living?
Jack, how did an article about Texting abuse devolve into a gun issue? Somebody has strayed far from the subject.
Attention all Posters: This is about the brain dead texters disregarding laws passed on this dangerous activity. Has nothing to do with gun control.
Jack says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Captain- I think my original topic was about gun bans not working, just like texting bans don’t. If they don’t work as IJ indicated, can the same logic not apply? Now I do realize that each state has it’s own particular texting laws, just like gun laws vary. And I think most liberals point to surrounding states lack of “gun control” when Chicago violence is mentioned so can we apply the same logic to the US and Mexico?
Agent- see above
Still confused- I’m still waiting
More government heavy handedness. Another law that most will not follow and that will not be enforced.
Besides, if your 4 yr old accidentally shoots your 8 yr old child, is some other form of punishment even necessary ? What else can you do to a mother or father once one of their children has been killed ?? Not much.
Hey all you cell-phone whataboutists,
I need a thumbprint or a 6 digit passcode to open my phone. Some people use face-recognition to open theirs. Cell phones are seriously more secured than many guns improperly stored. #sad
^^^^ THIS
every firearm should be required to have a firearm locking device – if it did not, the owner should share in the liability of whatever happened because they didn’t properly secure their device.
Confused -The locking device is your front door or car door. You do lock those, right ? It’s also called a safety and your finger, keep your safety on and your finger off the trigger until on target and ready to shoot.
How about we put a locking device on the border?
(start sarcasm). right. because locking your doors and keeping the safety on your weapon is equally as effective as using a firearm locking device. perfect analogy. (end sarcasm)
Confused- Just like locking your car, taking the keys in the house and locking it, is as effective for someone stealing your car.
My gun is on my nightstand beside my car keys, both locked in the same manner. Both readily available to the only person that should have them.
do you have kids??????
3 girls- all been to the range, shot pistols, AR15’s,etc.
The all 3 have also been told the top of the stove is hot so don’t put your hand on it. Funny how they listen to things like that.
Jack writes, “How about we put a locking device on the border?”
A comment of the likes to which Yogi would reply, had it been shared by a “libitteral”:
DECEMBER 14, 2017 AT 1:04 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Try very hard to stick to the subject in your initial replies instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
Captain- I think my original topic was about gun bans not working, just like texting bans don’t. If they don’t work as IJ indicated, can the same logic not apply? Now I do realize that each state has it’s own particular texting laws, just like gun laws vary. And I think most liberals point to surrounding states lack of “gun control” when Chicago violence is mentioned so can we apply the same logic to the US and Mexico?
Time to lock the border.
As Craig would say,
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 1:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
5
3
Sheep don’t have large brains.
Captain- go to settings- touch id & passcode. #freedomofchoice
And yet, over 3,000 kids killed each year in car accidents due to texting!
Apparently, your security “solution” doesn’t work. Grow some Compassion, man.
Demand that Congress implement background checks for cell phones at least!
You mentioned cell phone security in comparison to gun security.
Whatabout it? (Too easy. Proverbial battle of wits with an unarmed man.)
Wrong again, Craig. I simply followed the thread. I am not the one who introduced “whataboutism”. Independent-minded people like myself don’t go there. We leave that to The Right. You do it well!
Craig,
If cell phones were manufactured with intent to potentially cause injury or death to another animal or person, I would agree with you, cell phones should have background checks. But, that isn’t the purpose of a cell phone. So, we’ll just make strict laws against texting and driving, educate and enlighten society with ad campaigns highlighting the dangers of such action, and create technological solutions such as automatic text messages alerting the other party the person is currently driving and will call/text back when the vehicle is parked, instead.
We already have all that. Over 3,000 kids killed every year. And it doesn’t work.
Have you no compassion?
Could we stop most of the deaths? Yep. Easy. Make people carry their cell phones in the trunk, like alcohol. Or a dozen other solutions.
Instead, we focus on mass shootings of white kids. Now do what your liberal media masters tell you: talk about guns all day. Because that is what the DNC wants you to do. (Those 3,000 kids killed each year because of cell phones? Whatever. Not part of the DNC platform. Good doggie.)
Inherent risk = gun
Your whataboutism isn’t going to play here, Craig.
Which liberal media masters would those be? I have no problem with people owning guns. I never have. I’ve shot guns. I don’t believe people need to own weapons of war. And, I believe tighter controls are in order given that inherent risk as well as the results we have seen from it.
APRIL 6, 2018 AT 11:19 AM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
5
Your comment above is the equivalent of calling me a Poopy Head.
If you want to stay with third grade insults, you are on your own.
Craig, the great golfer Jordan Spieth has made some commercials about not texting while driving. He is active with Social Media, but that cell stays in his glove compartment when he is driving. Too bad more people don’t follow his example.
I’m sure my comment above will be censored by IJ like facebook does. Which is why I took a snapshot of it. My attorney will be in touch.
I really hope you are joking with that last sentence.
helpingout- it happens all the time. you must be new here.
Trying to help out helpingout — I believe he was asking if you were joking that you’d have your attorney contact IJ if your post got removed. I’m 99.99999999% sure helpingout knows comments get removed here all the time.
Thanks for helping out. You were correct about it being directed toward the attorney part.
Figured as much since you ended with “…that last sentence.” Wasn’t too hard to parse and comprehend :)
Rosen- why joke about a legal matter ?
Hello Jack,
I was the one who asked if you were joking because the idea you would bring a lawyer into this if your comment is deleted is completely ridiculous. You have no legal means to get your lawyer involved in this instance. I see it as silly and assumed it was a joke.
For all those hung up on gun and vehicle comparisons, I would like to remind everyone that “with rights, comes responsibility.” Americans have the right to own guns, but also must be responsible and ensure the weapons are stored safely. Americans have the unalienable right to free speech, but with it comes the responsibility not to shout “fire” in a crowded theater and the responsibility not to slander or liable someone else.
Not arguing with that statement at all but it does seem to imply that Americans aren’t doing that already. Many do store them safely. I do and many people I know do. We don’t want them in a criminal’s hands. I taught my children about firearm safety and I taught them about driving safety, cell phone usage in their vehicles, and many other things I feel they should know or that we worry about. I have to hope they take those lessons and use them to make good decisions. There is no reason we cannot all have reasonable discussions and put our heads together to come to up with solutions to problems whether that is cell phones, drug use, guns, safety of our country. I would sure like to see the political based arguments on both sides set aside to just talk about the issues at hand and find common ground to solve problems. Just my 2 cents.
And I agree with you, Wayne2. While I agree “many do store them safely” there’s clear examples where that’s not the case. To wit: Jack said he keeps his gun on his nightstand near his bed with children in the house. To me, that’s not stored safely (even if he keeps the safety on).
I too hope to see politics put aside so we can have honest discussions about where we can find common ground to solve some of our country’s problems today: gun violence, immigration, drug scheduling & enforcement, deficit, etc.
Sounds like you’re doing all you can to contribute towards that end and I commend you for that. We need more open-minded folks willing to discuss the tough issues rather than resorting to bullying, “what aboutism’s” or “false equivalency” or “straw man arguments” or any other (quote)debate(unquote) tactics. Please note this last comment is referencing all those who use those (quote)debate(unquote) styles in every medium/forum, and not just referencing the few who do that on this site.
I wasn’t sure if I knew if Jack kept his firearm in a locked case on his nightstand or not. It seemed like not since his door is locked thoughts. I do understand his thought that his home is locked and in a perfect world that might be sufficient. If he feels comfortable with this I cannot argue with it even if I don’t agree with it. As I said my kids know firearms. They know the potential consequences if not handled properly. Since I can only guarantee how I handle them and cannot guarantee who my young adult children may bring to the house when I am not there I lock them up. I know my dad did not lock his up but he taught us at a young age not to play around with them also. I believe less and less young people are taught firearm safety so I lock them up. They learn about them from TV or friends or games and there is no real thought to handling them with the utmost care. I realize that doesn’t apply to all young people but again I lock them up to avoid anything going wrong. We all, for the most part, recognize things can be done to make this a better place to live. We differ sometimes on how to get there. I enjoy the conversations and reading people’s ideas and thoughts on here. I don’t always agree but it gives me someone else’s perspective to consider. If everyone believed the same this world would be a boring place to live. Thanks for the reply.
Wayne2- “Since I can only guarantee how I handle them and cannot guarantee who my young adult children may bring to the house when I am not there I lock them up.”
Good for you. When I’m not there, neither is my XDM. I have a concealed weapons permit. It’s on my hip when I leave every morning. It goes every where I go, and every where it’s legally able to go with me.
My wife keeps her’s somewhere else as she does not have a CWP.
APRIL 2, 2018 AT 7:46 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Scare tactics didn’t work…try to convince everyone like a mature, sensible adult, instead of a fear monger.
Rosenblatt, we also need people to stick to the subject of the article and not word parse everything to death on a different subject.
DECEMBER 14, 2017 AT 1:04 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Try very hard to stick to the subject instead of veering hard off course to an off topic comment. I thank you, and IJ staff will allow you to continue to post if you follow those simple guidelines.
We need to be careful about sharing stats like this. In our efforts to highlight the problem we’re actually normalizing it somewhat. If people see everyone else is doing it they’re very likely to keep doing it. That’s the psychological principle of consensus (social proof) in action.