Cell phone ban while driving

what do you think??....Should the federal government be making traffic laws?...or is this a states rights issue....there is no FEDERAL law against drink and driving or speeding....Is this the federal goverment overstepping?

I voted for #2. Keep in mind that the NTSB is only recommending that all states adopt this, they aren't forcing them to.

The feds do not need to "make" laws.

They can very easily hold highway money as ransom until the state makes the law they are looking for.

Just this week my daughters friend had her brand new Chevy
totaled by a girl who was reading a text on her phone and not
looking where she was going. I wonder, in the billions of texts
that have been sent, has there ever been even one that couldn't
wait till your car was stopped?

The only reason drinking age is 21 is bc the fed pays billions every year to state to keep it that high.

Hey they should just ban driving. maybee then there is a chance the trains will be profitable!!!

Im confused, is it currently legal to use your phone whilst driving?

What I could never understand is how come there is no law against reading a book while driving, or against watchign tv while driving or against playing battleship while driving, and it does not bother anyone, yet everybody is so hung up on the cell phone thing.

There already is a law in every state prohibiting distracted driving. That is enough.

I voted for #2 because of the way this topic is titled. In general, I think, that traffic laws should be in the federal government domain. I am so tired off standing at an intersection not sure if I can turn right on red in this particular state or not ... This is one nuance I know that varies from state to state, I can only imagine how many more actually exist, that I never even heard about. I think, it is crazy to expect me to learn and remember 50 different sets of traffic laws. There is really no reason for them to be different to begin with. If all 50 states can agree on (il)legality of pot, surely there must be some common ground that can be found regarding how many feet before intersection one must stop at a stop sign.

Quote: JB

I voted for #2. Keep in mind that the NTSB is only recommending that all states adopt this, they aren't forcing them to.

Yes and how long will it be like with max speed laws, raising the drinking age etc that they say they won't give federal highway money to non-compliant States

Quote: ncfatcat

Yes and how long will it be like with max speed laws, raising the drinking age etc that they say they won't give federal highway money to non-compliant States

I don't know. Are interstate highway funds controlled by the NTSB? If so, and if the law allows them to withhold money over any little thing, then time will tell.

The talk on the news today was banning cell phone use ENTIRELY, and some are even calling for a ban on handsfree devices. This is getting a bit out of hand. As a coworker pointed out, how would a policeman know if somebody is just talking to themselves or on the phone.

I use my cell phone as a GPS device, so technically, laws would prohibit that as well. Impose fines on people texting, that's fine. But completely BANNING cell phone use... that's just a slippery slope.

Can you still play video games?

I think maybe the earliest ban on this type stuff was ban on tvs in the front seat area. That might go back to the late 1960s.

It's all for the same reason though.

(edit, late in the 60s decade)

Quote: WizardofEngland

Im confused, is it currently legal to use your phone whilst driving?

In most (all?) states, you can't use them unless you're using a headset or speakerphone.

As I understand it, the new motive is to ban phones from the driver seat entirely.

For what it's worth, I support such a move.

The problem with phones is not that you might have one hand occupied. It's that you have a major part of your brain occupied on the conversation in the phone.


About 10 years ago, I needed to make an important business call, while driving in a slow moving funeral procession. I discovered then that it was impossible to keep my mind focused on both tasks at one time. Fortunately, I made it without a scratch, but it was close.

Quote: Tiltpoul

As a coworker pointed out, how would a policeman know if somebody is just talking to themselves or on the phone.

I agree that it seems unenforceable. That's irrelevant. It's designed to change public perception, and reduce the number of people engaging in the activity.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

In most (all?) states, you can't use them unless you're using a headset or speakerphone.

Definitely not "all". Probably, not even "most".

Quote:

For what it's worth, I support such a move.

The problem with phones is not that you might have one hand occupied. It's that you have a major part of your brain occupied on the conversation in the phone.

Phone is not the only possibility to have a conversation. Using your logic, passengers should be banned from cars too.

Quote:

About 10 years ago, I needed to make an important business call, while driving in a slow moving funeral procession. I discovered then that it was impossible to keep my mind focused on both tasks at one time. Fortunately, I made it without a scratch, but it was close.

About the same time, I was driving in traffic and drinking hot coffee ... Do I need to continue? :)

Quote:

I agree that it seems unenforceable.

There is nothing unenforceable about it. That's not the problem. The problem is that it is stupid. If a person's judgement cannot be trusted enough to let him have a conversation while driving, he should not be allowed to drive at all.

Studies have shown there is a different level of distraction from talking to someone in the car to talking to someone on the phone.

This seems counter-intuitive, but there's the research last I heard.

I do agree though, driving without due care and attention (the crime in the UK that covers this sort of thing) adequately covered the situation. But adding a specific law makes it much easy to prove and convict on.

Quote: weaselman

If a person's judgement cannot be trusted enough to let him have a conversation while driving, he should not be allowed to drive at all.

I think the problem is, sometimes one's attention exceeds the level for which you can successfully multitask. Probably the average conversation about dull events doesn't cause too many problems. But everyone can pass temporarly into that realm where the conversation engages your attention much more fully. I think this is possible for anyone, not just people with limited capability.

Quote: thecesspit

Studies have shown there is a different level of distraction from talking to someone in the car to talking to someone on the phone.

This seems counter-intuitive, but there's the research last I heard.

The reasons are simple:

Passengers do not forget that they are talking to someone who is driving.

Passengers are observant to the conditions around them and curtail the conversation momentarily when they see the driver needs to concentrate on a road situation.

Cell phone technology still isn't as good as home phones. It takes extra effort just to listen to someone when on a cell phone.

If my wife is in the car with me, I can follow her conversation
fine, and respond, without it effecting my driving. On the phone
in the car, talking to her is impossible. You have to pay so much
more attention on the phone, its amazing. You're only hearing
with one ear, the voice is far away and tinny, its easy to miss
parts of what she's saying, so I have to crank my attention way
up. I refuse to use the phone in the car, its not even turned on.

How would such a law impact the radios used by truck drivers?

Quote: thecesspit

Studies have shown there is a different level of distraction from talking to someone in the car to talking to someone on the phone.

This may be so, but it varies among individuals. I know people who can talk on the phone and drive at the same time with no problems, and some who can't walk safely across a room while talking on the phone.

I can handle a short conversation driving int he city, but only becasue I make a conscious effort to focus more on driving. if I find the phone too distracting, I hang up. On the other hand I cannot read a map while driving (actually I've trouble reading maps at all; I have to keep turning them so the street I'm on faces up). If I need to read the map, I stop first.

Quote: MathExtremist

How would such a law impact the radios used by truck drivers?

I don't know if there are laws, but there was a movement back during the CB craze of the 70's for similar restrictions.

The movement was to force people to use voice activated microphones.

Quote: Nareed

This may be so, but it varies among individuals. I know people who can talk on the phone and drive at the same time with no problems, and some who can't walk safely across a room while talking on the phone.

Well quite. Most studies on human behaviour show a general trend rather than a specific law. Thing is, how would you know if someone is distracted or not when driving until... well they are distracted enough to cause a problem. You can't, so the laws tend to be based around a reasonable assumption of normal behaviour.

Quote: weaselman

Phone is not the only possibility to have a conversation. Using your logic, passengers should be banned from cars too.

Passengers who can't stop talking when in a potentially dangerous situations are banned from my car.

I shut up myself when driving requires my attention, and expect a passenger to do the same, unless he's helping with the road situation or reading the map. When I'm a passenger, I shut up even sooner, because I know everyone's ability to ignore voices is different and act as if it's low. It's not because I can't drive while talking, or distracted, or drunk, but because I'd rather not to.

Quote: Nareed

This may be so, but it varies among individuals. I know people who can talk on the phone and drive at the same time with no problems, and some who can't walk safely across a room while talking on the phone.

It affects people to different extent, but it still affects everyone.
If you think you can drive while talking with no problems, do this small test. Find a few short pieces of road you can use as a circuit, with no or minimal traffic. Drive around it as fast as you possibly can without crashing, something like 20 times, mark your last few timesd. Call someone you know to be chatty and drive a few more laps while actively talking. Then a couple more without talking.

If your times didn't increase while talking, and you can remember all your conversation, congratulations - you can drive while talking with no problems indeed. If not, you may not be as bad a driver-talker as they come, but you still aren't as good as you are when not distracted. And if the statistics of road accidents is any indication, even an above-average driver in comparative terms is still a terrible driver in absolute terms.

Quote: Nareed

(actually I've trouble reading maps at all; I have to keep turning them so the street I'm on faces up).

This is actually the "right" way to read maps.

So, I assume, those people, who advocate banning cell phones, are in favor of banning GPS units as well? Especially, those that are built into a cell phone, right? I mean, if you find mere talking on the phone too distracting to drive (and not only for you, but for all of us, poor souls, who are unable to decide for themselves, and need babysitting), then even more is to be said about those evil gizmos, that actually require that you take your eyes off the road to use.

Quote: P90

Passengers who can't stop talking when in a potentially dangerous situations are banned from my car.

Right. And so are the drivers who can't stop talking on the phone in a potentially dangerous situation. Not because they are talking on the phone, but because they are morons.
That is exactly my point. A person whose judgment cannot be trusted to make decisions like when it is or is not safe to have a conversation, should not be allowed to drive at all, with or without a cell phone.

Quote:

If you think you can drive while talking with no problems, do this small test. Find a few short pieces of road you can use as a circuit, with no or minimal traffic. Drive around it as fast as you possibly can without crashing, something like 20 times, mark your last few timesd. Call someone you know to be chatty and drive a few more laps while actively talking. Then a couple more without talking.

And what do you think this test shows? Morons who drive too fast should not use cell phones?
Nope. Morons who drive too fast should not drive.

Quote: weaselman

So, I assume, those people, who advocate banning cell phones, are in favor of banning GPS units as well?

I'm not really in favor of banning cell phones while driving.
While at that, I'm also not in favor of an absolute ban on alcohol while driving, and would prefer it only applied to risk-prone situations and severe intoxication.

It is, however, in the same league: people who are driving while drinking or talking are certainly not going to crash all the time, but they are more prone to accidents, and the above-average driver is quite accident-prone as it is, if statistics are to be believed.

If given the choice of what laws to relax, however, I would by far prefer lifting the national highway speed limit, even if other safety regulations had to be followed or tightened, over permitting beer and distracting activities behind the wheel.

Quote: weaselman

And what do you think this test shows? Morons who drive too fast should not use cell phones?
Nope. Morons who drive too fast should not drive.

This test shows you can't drive as well while busy with a conversation as you can while focused on the road.
The same distractions or impairment that prevent you from getting as good a time also increase your risk of accident for any given situation.

Being (as far as I know), the only member who is a professional driver on the board, I had constructed some well thought out comments. However, since this is such a touchy topic, I will choose not to post them.

I will state that in 1.2 million, accident and ticket free miles, over half of which I am on my phone, I have yet to be in a situation where I was "too distracted". That being said, this is merely the NTSB having another knee-jerk reaction.

And yes, this post was made going 68 miles an hour on the freeway, and nobody was close to being killed!

And there are no DOT regs regarding the use of a CB radio that I am aware of while driving. As a matter of fact, most weigh stations ask the we have them on for instructions from the officers.

Quote: P90

I'm not really in favor of banning cell phones while driving.
While at that, I'm also not in favor of an absolute ban on alcohol while driving, and would prefer it only applied to risk-prone situations and severe intoxication.

There is no absolute ban on alcohol. You can safely have a couple of beers (or more, if you are a heavy man, and have a good meal at the same time), and be well under the legal limit. Beyond that, it is what you call "sever intoxication".

Quote:

It is, however, in the same league: people who are driving while drinking or talking are certainly not going to crash all the time, but they are more prone to accidents, and the above-average driver is quite accident-prone as it is, if statistics are to be believed.

And so are people, who are using GPS, playing checkers, smoking, drinking coffee, thinking about work etc... while driving. There is no difference. It is easy to do a study about how distracting it is to solve linear equations while driving, except, we all already now the answer. Of course, concentrating while doing two things at a time is harder than when doing just one. The point is there is nothing special about cell phones in particular in this respect.

Quote:

If given the choice of what laws to relax, however, I would by far prefer lifting the national highway speed limit, even if other safety regulations had to be followed or tightened, over permitting beer and distracting activities behind the wheel.

But we are not talking about which laws to relax. We are talking about which laws to not enact. It is different.

Quote:

This test shows you can't drive as well while busy with a conversation as you can while focused on the road.

I can't race as well. Sure. That's what the test shows. And it would never occur to me to use a cel phone while racing.
I sure as hell can drive as well as usual while using a cell phone. Your test does not disprove that.

Quote:

The same distractions or impairment that prevent you from getting as good a time also increase your risk of accident for any given situation.

By that logic, we should also ban cell phones while walking ... what's the difference in your view?

Quote: thecesspit

Thing is, how would you know if someone is distracted or not when driving until... well they are distracted enough to cause a problem.

You can't. What you can do, easily, is see whether you are too distracted using the phone while driving. The next part is really hard to grasp these days, so pay attention. Hang up your cel, stop texting, shut down the chat software, minimize all other windows and turn off the music. Ok? Here goes: Once you know you can't drive safely and use the phone at the same time, assume some personal responsibility for your actions and stop trying to talk while driving.

Quote: weaselman

This is actually the "right" way to read maps.

Really? I see people all the time read a map perfectly without turning it. I can't do that, unless I can visualize the map turning so the right side up. And I can do that only in a good day and only with a map I'm very familiar with. The other day when Paco posted the old picture of Rio piedad, I had to turn the picture and the map of the area as it is today before they even began to make sense; and as it is I'm sure I got it all worng.

Maybe I should get a look at the newfangled GPS things people keep talking about....

Quote: Nareed

Really? I see people all the time read a map perfectly without turning it.

Well, it is possible, just like you can read a book or a newspaper upside down, but the "right way" is to turn it so that it is aligned with your forward direction.
You are right, people often do not do that, because they are either lazy (like you would sometimes catch a newspaper headline without bothering to turn it properly) or because they simply don't know the right way.

Quote: Nareed

Ok? Here goes: Once you know you can't drive safely and use the phone at the same time, assume some personal responsibility for your actions and stop trying to talk while driving.

Once you know you can't drive safely and use the phone ... You have to admin you can't also drive safely and use ... GPS, coffee mug, radio, cd player ... etc.
Simply put, you just can't drive safely, period.

Quote: weaselman

Well, it is possible, just like you can read a book or a newspaper upside down,

Ah, that's different. I can read anything in any position. Upside down, vertically, diagonally, etc. With some effort I can even read a mirror image :)

Quote:

You are right, people often do not do that, because they are either lazy (like you would sometimes catch a newspaper headline without bothering to turn it properly) or because they simply don't know the right way.

The impression I get is they can change their perspective and/or keep track of relative direction easily. I did lousy at geometry, too.

Quote: weaselman

There is no absolute ban on alcohol. You can safely have a couple of beers (or more, if you are a heavy man, and have a good meal at the same time), and be well under the legal limit. Beyond that, it is what you call "sever intoxication".

I can have three or four martinis (proper homemade, not watered-down swill) and anyone I interact with will be none the wiser. So you can't call that severe intoxication. But I wouldn't dare touch the wheel, or handle a gun, or work with other potentially dangerous devices in that condition.

Quote: weaselman

And so are people, who are using GPS, playing checkers, smoking, drinking coffee, thinking about work etc... while driving. There is no difference.

Actually, there is a difference.
Using GPS is part of driving, you need it to get where you're going if you don't know the way. So, 1) your mind is still on driving, 2) this distraction is necessary.

I don't endorse smoking while driving, but it's generally practiced by heavy smokers. There's no mental effort involved, and as such it's not a significant distraction. That said, it is illegal in some countries, including UK.
Eating or drinking [coffee] while driving is distracting, not always permitted, and people have been fined for it. Outside US, it doesn't generally occur to people that driving is a great time to have your meal, a lot of Euro cars don't even have cupholders. Eating everywhere like there's no tomorrow is strictly an American habit.

Thinking about work or anything else is not as distracting. It doesn't engage as many parts of your brain as thinking and acting. It can be interrupted at any time with no consequences, and we naturally interrupt it on external stimuli. Not the same with feeding or social activities.

Quote: weaselman

By that logic, we should also ban cell phones while walking ... what's the difference in your view?

Walking is not a high-risk activity. Unless you're crossing the road - and how would you call someone talking on their phone while doing that?

Quote: weaselman

I can't race as well. Sure. That's what the test shows. And it would never occur to me to use a cel phone while racing. I sure as hell can drive as well as usual while using a cell phone. Your test does not disprove that.

Actually it does. You don't crash while driving alone on a freeway through the middle of a desert. You crash in extreme situations, when a vehicle interferes unexpectedly, when you are on a tricky road, when something unusual happens. In these situations having your full attention on the road is often the line separating a stressful maneuver from an accident.

Racing is just one continuous high-risk event that requires peak performance, and it reflects how you can handle dangerous situations. When your normal orderly road suddenly has a vehicle slide out, a moose show up, a pedestrian run across in front of you, you are put into the same situation as you are in a race. And it is when accidents happen.


There are, of course, situations when you can't possibly crash. You're standing in a jam, or you're driving alone through the desert, or you're crawling at a few mph, a number of other scenarios. In these scenarios, of course you shouldn't worry about talking on the phone. Or having a five-course dinner. Or sending down a few dry martinis. Or screwing a hooker. Or blowing a nice fat line.

For this reason I don't like absolute laws, but I can still agree with the intent - lonesome desert road scenarios aren't all there is to driving, and I'm yet to meet a person with a license who rates himself as anything less than a great driver who can certainly handle all these at once and his car too.

Quote: P90

Outside US, it doesn't generally occur to people that driving is a great time to have your meal, a lot of Euro cars don't even have cupholders.

I rarely drink coffee while driving. but I keep a bottle fo diet coke or coke zero with me on long trips, especially early in the mroning. Let me tell you, whatever distraction comes from drinking it, it's more than made up by the kick from the caffeine.

Quote:

Eating everywhere like there's no tomorrow is strictly an American habit.

You should ride the subway in Mex City. I'd say about 1/4 of all riders are eating something at any given time. Or just walk any downtown street and count the people eating at street stands. It's uncanny.

Quote: Nareed

Let me tell you, whatever distraction comes from drinking it, it's more than made up by the kick from the caffeine.

That too, particularly if you're one of the people significantly affected by caffeine (not everyone is).

Quote: Nareed

You should ride the subway in Mex City. I'd say about 1/4 of all riders are eating something at any given time.

Ah, yes, Mexico. Though it's still in America, strictly speaking.

There are plenty of distractions while driving. However, I think that texting and talking on the cell phone are the most dangerous. A cop here in Ontario won't pull you over for eating a doughnut, yelling at your kids, conversing with passengers, or reaching for a box of kleenex in the back seat, or turning the channel on the radio. This is because it is assumed that a driver has enough intelligence to not do these activities while in heavy traffic or in a dangerous situation. Certainly I won't.

Because the phone call or text seems to necessitate a response in our head that demands more attention, it is seen as dangerous enough to cause a statistical blip that attributes these activities to more accidents, or so we're told.

My experience is that a hands free conversation (over the speakers in my car) still seems to demand much more attention than talking to the person next to me. And the reason I believe is that you are devoting more of a sense to listening because the voice is so much more hard to hear than someone sitting next to you. Your brain is filtering out distractions when talking on the phone (even on speakerphone) and those distractions happen to be the road, the noises from your car, your speed, etc. I find that when I can hear the voice clearly on the other end, my level of distraction is much more decreased. And obviously, texting is the same. When you have a device that you can easily text on, it's less distracting than a device that's difficult to text on.

So perhaps the law should be that you must have a device capable of using your car speaker to have a conversation, and allow using hands to dial numbers, to answer the phone, etc.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I agree that it seems unenforceable. That's irrelevant. It's designed to change public perception, and reduce the number of people engaging in the activity.

I have to disagree here.

It is possible to receive a DUI by having the keys to a car and getting into the back seat to "sleep it off". Prosecutors can argue that you could drive the car in this situation, and thus could drive drunk, and so they can charge you with DUI.

I see the same thing happening with cell phones. If you get into you car with a cell phone then you could be driving while texting and thus, they can give you a ticket.

Simple solution: cars will be designed with phone depositories on the outside of the car. Similar to a breathalyzer ignition interlock, your cell phone will need to be placed in the depository before you will be able to enter the car and drive it. Side bonus: the phone will be charging while in the specialized dock, which is great for those of us with these smart phones that drain easily.

Quote: P90

Actually, there is a difference.
Using GPS is part of driving, you need it to get where you're going if you don't know the way.

Oh yeah? What if I don't have a GPS in the car, and need to call somebody to give me directions? Would that make my using the cell phone ok, because it is now "part of driving"?

Quote:

So, 1) your mind is still on driving, 2) this distraction is necessary.

1. No, it isn't. Figuring out where to turn is not driving.
2. No it isn't. 20 years ago there were no gps in the cars, yet people were still able to drive.

Quote:

I don't endorse smoking while driving

How about eating? Drinking (coffee)? Picking nose?

Quote:

There's no mental effort involved, and as such it's not a significant distraction.

Sure it is. There is actually no mental effort involved in driving for a driver with any experience. Thus, it is not the mental effort per se that distracts you from it, it's mere having to perform another activity in parallel.

If you insist on mental effort, how about thinking about ways to implement a real time missile control system component? Should that be illegal while driving?

Quote:

Eating or drinking [coffee] while driving is distracting, not always permitted, and people have been fined for it.

That's beyond the point.
Is it illegal to eat while driving? Should it be?

Quote:

Thinking about work or anything else is not as distracting.

Did not you just say that mental effort is what distracts you? Are you trying to have it both ways?

Quote:

It doesn't engage as many parts of your brain as thinking and acting.

Oh, come on.
Thinking about missile control systems does not engage as many parts of the brain as telling my wife that I'll stop to buy some eggs on my way? You are kidding, right?
Or are you talking about motor reactions now (like actually opening your mouth and making sounds)? Is that what you consider distracting? Ok, then how about thinking about missile control systems out loud?

Quote:

It can be interrupted at any time with no consequences, and we naturally interrupt it on external stimuli. Not the same with feeding or social activities.

What do you mean? Surely, you are capable of interrupting a "social activity" when you are about to crash into a tree, are you not?

Quote:

Walking is not a high-risk activity. Unless you're crossing the road - and how would you call someone talking on their phone while doing that?

Exactly. Walking is not a high risk activity compared to driving, driving is not a high risk activity compared to racing. That's what was wrong with your thought experiment.

Quote:

Racing is just one continuous high-risk event that requires peak performance, and it reflects how you can handle dangerous situations.

It does not. Continuous concentration and a one-off instinctive reaction are two completely different cognitive patterns. A good racer may not be a safe driver, most safe drivers are not good racers.

The problem with your example is exactly that racing does require peak performance, and driving does not (not from most people anyway).

Quote: Nareed

Ah, that's different. I can read anything in any position. Upside down, vertically, diagonally, etc. With some effort I can even read a mirror image :)

Yes, I understand. I am just pointing out that your statement "I cannot read maps because I have to always rotate them to align with my direction" is akin to someone saying he can't read books unless they are oriented right side up, and are not a mirror image :)

Quote: weaselman

Oh yeah? What if I don't have a GPS in the car, and need to call somebody to give me directions? Would that make my using the cell phone ok, because it is now "part of driving"?

I don't mean to turn this into a flamewar.
There are actions that are required for driving, and you can't avoid them. Other actions are not required, and when they are distractions, they should be avoided, except in the lowest-risk situations.

Quote: weaselman

2. No it isn't. 20 years ago there were no gps in the cars, yet people were still able to drive.

There were maps 20 years ago.

Quote: weaselman

Sure it is. There is actually no mental effort involved in driving for a driver with any experience.

That may explain the high incidence of car crashes.

Quote: weaselman

Is it illegal to eat while driving? Should it be?

In some countries. (The law may speak about not being in full control, etc).
No less and no more than other driving ability impairing activities.
I maintain a libertarian stance that extends to driving laws among others, but I still can weigh the relative merit of different regulations.

Quote: weaselman

Or are you talking about motor reactions now (like actually opening your mouth and making sounds)? Is that what you consider distracting? Ok, then how about thinking about missile control systems out loud?

Better still, how about not thinking at all?
Thinking can't be regulated, and as such is outside the scope of this discussion, as is everything else that can not be regulated or is counterproductive to restrict.

Quote: weaselman

What do you mean? Surely, you are capable of interrupting a "social activity" when you are about to crash into a tree, are you not?

Of course - if nothing else, crashing into the tree is going to interrupt it.

You don't know when exactly a vehicle/moose/pedestrian/whatever is going to appear in front of you, or when your overtaking maneuver is going to take a turn for the worse. If you are preoccupied with something else, you'll only interrupt your activity when you perceive significant danger, leaving you less time to react.

Quote: weaselman

Exactly. Walking is not a high risk activity compared to driving, driving is not a high risk activity compared to racing. That's what was wrong with your thought experiment.

Yes, driving is a high-risk activity. It's the highest-risk activity the average person engages in on a regular basis.

It is the leading cause of death for persons ranging in age from 1 year to 42 years - essentially the leading cause of deaths other than aging.

Quote: weaselman

It does not. Continuous concentration and a one-off instinctive reaction are two completely different cognitive patterns. A good racer may not be a safe driver, most safe drivers are not good racers.

Any good racer is going to be a much safer driver than the common person, if he isn't drinking, distracted, or intentionally driving unsafely (as in speeding). Your instincts are useless behind the wheel, it's higher-order conditioning, quick thinking and correct decisions that save your ass.

Quote: weaselman

The problem with your example is exactly that racing does require peak performance, and driving does not (not from most people anyway).

You are right - it doesn't require the peak performance of a commoner. Safe driving throughout the range of real-world situations requires much higher levels of awareness, reaction speed and precision than the peak performance of an average person.

That the benefits of horseless carriage outweigh the harm done even by its improper and unskilled operation, for which reason the state allows it to be operated by anyone who can tell his left foot from his right, doesn't make such operation any more appropriate.

Quote: P90

I don't mean to turn this into a flamewar.
There are actions that are required for driving, and you can't avoid them.

Yes, but using a GPS system definitely isn't one of them.

Quote:

There were still maps 20 years ago.

Yes. I remember :)
You would consult a map, figure out where you need to go, then drive. If you got lost, you would stop, retrieve a map, figure out where to go next, then drive. It is certainly not "required for driving" to interact with a gps receiver while driving. It is nice and convenient to be able to do so, but it definitely is not any more required than using a cell phone to ask for directions.

Quote:

That may explain the high incidence of car crashes.

To the contrary. It is putting to much mental effort into it that explains it.
The fact of the matter is mental effort is slow. By the time you realize mentally you need to hit the brakes in an emergency situation, your car is already stopped if your driving skills are anywhere beyond a high school kid.

Quote:

In some countries.

Which for example?

Quote:

(The law may speak about not being in full control, etc).

No, that's a different law. There are similar laws in all of the states (or at least in all I know of) already, they cover eating and cell phones equally, and I do not have any problem with them.
As long as we are talking about a possible law disallowing cell phone use specifically, a valid analogy would be a specific law disallowing eating while driving, not a general "not in full control" kind of restriction.

Quote:

I maintain a libertarian stance that extends to driving laws, but that doesn't mean I can't weigh the relative merit of different regulations.

Ok. So do you believe that a relative merit of outlawing drinking coffee or using a gps system while driving is lower or higher than that of banning cell phones? And why?

Quote:

Better still, how about not thinking at all?
Thinking can't be regulated, and as such is outside the scope of this discussion, as is everything else that can not be regulated or is counterproductive to restrict.

Sure, it can be regulated. If instead of highly distracting intensive thinking about my missile control system, I receive a call from my wife, and spend half an hour discussing the dinner at the in-law's yesterday, that will be less of a distraction, and therefore should to be encouraged, not forbidden, shouldn't it?

Quote:

You don't know when exactly a vehicle/moose/pedestrian/whatever is going to appear in front of you, or when your overtaking maneuver is going to take a turn for the worse. If you are preoccupied with something else, you'll only interrupt your activity when you perceive significant danger, leaving you less time to react.

No, whether I am preoccupied or not, I will only react when I "perceive ... etc.", not earlier, so there will be exactly the same amount of time for that.

Quote:

Yes, driving is a high-risk activity. It's the highest-risk activity the average person engages in on a regular basis.

Do not be evasive. I said driving is not a high risk activity compared to racing.
Compared to walking, yes it is. But then walking is high risk, compared to sitting on the beach.
(BTW, the "motor vehicle accidents category" on your graph includes pedestrians getting killed by car while walking ;))

Quote:

Any good racer is going to be a much safer driver than the common person,

No, he isn't.

Quote:

You're right, it doesn't require the peak performance of a commoner. Safe driving throughout the range of real-world situations requires much higher performance than the average person is capable of at their peak.

No, it doesn't :)

Quote: weaselman

Yes, but using a GPS system definitely isn't one of them.

GPS systems are useful. Cramming burgers or chatting on the phone, unless it can't be delayed, is not. That's really it.

Quote: weaselman

To the contrary. It is putting to much mental effort into it that explains it.
The fact of the matter is mental effort is slow. By the time you realize mentally you need to hit the brakes in an emergency situation, your car is already stopped if your driving skills are anywhere beyond a high school kid.

No. Usually I respond with longer answers like "no, unless" or "not exactly", but this time, it's just no.

You don't drive, or you don't drive well, by knee-jerk reactions to events after they fly in your face. You drive by scanning the route ahead, anticipating the possible situations, and preparing the response to each of them in advance. When something happens, you act out the prepared response that you've been constantly correcting to best apply to the current situation. You don't think when an emergency happens, but only because you did all your thinking before it. If you don't think at all, your responses will be limited to flooring the brakes, often by far not the optimal action, thank your deity of preference they at least put ABS in all modern cars so your knee-jerk doesn't lock your wheels.

You don't floor the brakes the moment you see taillights or a turn in front of you, either. You look at the turn ahead, check the instruments and the mirrors, and estimate the braking point based on turn geometry, your speed, the strength of your brakes and the vehicle behind you. Only then, when you are at the correct braking point, do you lift the throttle, apply your brakes, shift down, lift the brakes at the predetermined point and enter the turn. Then immediately begin preparing your exit, so that when you are actually exiting, you can start analyzing the road ahead, not the turn.

Quote: weaselman

Ok. So do you believe that a relative merit of outlawing drinking coffee or using a gps system while driving is lower or higher than that of banning cell phones? And why?

Drinking coffee: Lower. It's an intermittent activity that you do in short bursts with arbitrary timing. It has significant positive effects on driving ability in some cases.
Using a gps system: Lower. GPS systems retain your focus on driving and are useful for the purpose of getting there.

And a few more, to put it in context.
Having a meal: Higher. It is a distraction, and it has no positive effects in the way that coffee or GPS have.
Drinking alcohol: Higher. Same reasons plus increased impairment.
Lowering the national speed limit: Lower. Reducing the speed limit significantly reduces the utility of driving, and it also means more cars on the road at once for more congestion; vehicles' safe operating speeds are also steadily improving over the years.

Talking on a cell while driving falls into the middle of the spectrum, removing your focus from driving and distracting you more than coffee or navigation, but not providing significant utility except in rare cases. In many of these cases, such as emergency calls, handheld device legislation actually exempts you.

Quote: weaselman

Sure, it can be regulated. If instead of highly distracting intensive thinking about my missile control system, I receive a call from my wife, and spend half an hour discussing the dinner at the in-law's yesterday, that will be less of a distraction, and therefore should to be encouraged, not forbidden, shouldn't it?

And if instead of thinking about your missile control system, or receiving a call from your wife, you take a can of pepper spray and discharge it into your eyes, it will be a lot more of a distraction, yet there isn't any specific law against it that I know of.
We're talking about what is most likely and general tendencies, not cherry-picked scenarios.

Quote: weaselman

No, whether I am preoccupied or not, I will only react when I "perceive significant danger", not earlier, so there will be exactly the same amount of time for that.

[q.restored]
If that is indeed so (I hope it isn't), you are a highly dangerous driver. Because I, for one, react much sooner than I perceive significant danger. I react as soon as I see a situation that could result in creating danger. First I assess the way it can unfold, then begin preparing a response to it, then adjust my speed or position, if my current speed and position don't allow for an adequate response to possible events. I don't wait for danger to become obvious to respond to it. Unless it's a piano falling from the sky (or, actually, even if it is, in historical context where it could), you can anticipate most situations before they kick you in the head.

Quote: weaselman

I said driving is not a high risk activity compared to racing.

But driving is a high-risk activity, as evidenced by its lethality.
Comparing it with racing or anything else, up to and including Russian Roulette, doesn't change that.

Quote: weaselman

No, he isn't.

You've just shown why he is, a few statements above - the mentality that you don't need to use your head while driving is alone enough to ensure a crash in most situations you could easily get out of by thinking in advance and acting correctly.

As for the adequacy of such mentality, I've already addressed it - if a typical commoner's performance was adequate for safe driving, road accidents wouldn't be the leading cause of death for men and women in the first 40 years of their life.

Quote: P90

And if instead of thinking about your missile control system,...

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Personally, I think I've settled on a joystick controlled, bed mounted mini-gun as opposed to missles. There's no reason to drive 20mph just because snow is falling, ya know? I mean...err, wait, what were we talking about?

Quote: P90

Unless it's a piano falling from the sky (or, actually, even if it is, in historical context where it could),...

Morris Marina car show? ;)

Anyways, back on topic. I tend to abhor cell phone use, but I realize it's because I personally cannot do it. Some of it is what others mentioned with having to strain to hear, but whatever it is about it, I just can't manage. It's like I float away into my own head and stop paying attention to the road. But I can totally understand people like avargov having no problem with it. Communication devices have been a mainstay in his driving for years, he has developed the skill to do it. So for that reason, while in general I'd prefer a ban, I'd be somewhat against a full crackdown on it all.

I heard on the radio the other day about them disabling them entirely. Something about flooding the cockpit with infrared signals over all frequencies of phones, which would render them useless. That's way too Big Brother for my tastes.

Quote: P90

GPS systems are useful. Cramming burgers or chatting on the phone, unless it can't be delayed, is not. That's really it.

Says who? To me, chatting on the phone is pretty useful too. When it stops being useful, I usually end the conversation and hang up. If the law we are discussing was to only ban using cell phones when it is not useful, I would not be opposed to it, but it is not the case.

Quote:

No. Usually I respond with longer answers like "no, unless" or "not exactly", but this time, it's just no.

Well ... That's it then.
I think, I'll just stop reading here, because it is no longer useful.

I'll just respond to one more point before I bow out, because ... well ... because I want to, and because it was at the bottom of your message, and I happened to inadvertently read it:

Quote:

As for the adequacy of such mentality, I've already addressed it - if a typical commoner's performance was adequate for safe driving, road accidents wouldn't be the leading cause of death for men and women in the first 40 years of their life.

According to some sources, prescription drugs kill more people in US every year than traffic accidents. I suppose, using your logic, one would just have to conclude that a typical American doctor must be incompetent, right?

Quote: weaselman

Says who? To me, chatting on the phone is pretty useful too.

It isn't in general as useful for the purpose of transportation, which cars are intended for, as navigation systems.

Snorting a few lines to help pass an overly boring road trip can be useful to some people too, doesn't mean it should be done.

Quote: weaselman

Well ... That's it then.

If you prefer.

I just hope you don't actually practice what you preach, and either intentionally use an overly narrow definition of mental effort or just stand your ground. On the other hand, you probably are in the minority if you don't.

Quote: weaselman

According to some sources, prescription drugs kill more people in US every year than traffic accidents. I suppose, using your logic, one would just have to conclude that a typical American doctor must be incompetent, right?

Yes, taking this at face value, one would have to conclude that a typical American doctor is not sufficiently competent to perform the task without errors. Following that, one would then suggest methods for improving doctor competence and/or other factors that affect prescription accuracy.

One would certainly not make the conclusion that prescription accuracy is so good that we should relax the rules and have prescriptions issued by doctors and med students over the phone while making dinner or driving to work.

Quote: P90

It isn't in general as useful for the purpose of transportation, which cars are intended for, as navigation systems.

Snorting a few lines to help pass an overly boring road trip can be useful to some people too, doesn't mean it should be done.

Same applies to your argument about gps being "useful", doesn't it?

Quote:

I just hope you don't actually practice what you preach, and either intentionally use an overly narrow definition of mental effort or just stand your ground. On the other hand, you probably are in the minority if you don't.

And I in turn hope the same about you :)

Quote:

Yes, taking this at face value, one would have to conclude that a typical American doctor is not sufficiently competent to perform the task without errors.

Nobody is sufficiently competent to perform the task without errors. The only way to avoid errors for certain is to do nothing at all.

Also, an adverse drug reaction is generally not attributable to a doctor's error at all. Most of the time, these problems happen in circumstances that could not have been foreseen.

Quote:

One would certainly not make the conclusion that prescription accuracy is so good that we should relax the rules and have prescriptions issued by doctors and med students over the phone while making dinner or driving to work.

Huh? Who was offering to make such a conclusion? Are you attempting to change topic?

You made an attempt at an argument that since the number of traffic accidents is relatively high, that somehow proves that most drivers are incompetent. If this logic was valid, then the fact that there are even more deaths attributable to prescription drugs than those to traffic accidents, that must mean that doctors prescribing drugs are even less competent than the drivers.
This is, of course, not true. I am only using it to demonstrate the deficiency of your argument.

The reason more people are killed by prescription drugs than by traffic accidents is not that the doctors are incompetent, it is that the drivers actually are competent - the latter number is simply very low, making it pretty hard to beat.

Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death not because drivers are incompetent, and not because it is such a high-risk activity, but simply because it is somewhat risky, and hugely popular at the same time, and because other popular activities are even less risky than this, that's all. It is next to impossible to get fatally injured lying on a couch in front of a TV.

BTW, the leading cause of accidental death for Americans between 35 and 44, according to CDC is ... "Unintentional Poisoning". Think about it next time you are invited somewhere for dinner. By your logic, that is riskier than driving! (assuming, you are in that age group) ...

Quote: weaselman

And I in turn hope the same about you :)

That would be a death wish, unfortunately. If I didn't think behind the wheel, I'd long be dead, a few hundred times over if that was possible.

Quote: weaselman

Nobody is sufficiently competent to perform the task without errors.

No, but some people are sufficiently competent to perform their task with a small error rate or low cost of errors. In this case, they can afford to relax and do their job in whatever casual way they prefer. The cost of error for floor sweeping, for instance, is very small, so you can do it while drunk, stoned, and doing a dozen other things at the same time.
Other people have a job that involves either high error rate or high cost of errors. Some jobs are objectively more difficult to do, and very few people are sufficiently competent. In these jobs, you can't afford to relax.

Driving involves both a high error rate and high cost of errors, and to even attempt estimating the driving skill of most people would make the mistake of assuming its existence.


At most a few percent of the drivers have even the most basic vehicle handling skills. For the vast majority all they can do is straight line, brake to a crawl, turn, straight line - they don't even have an idea of how their vehicle will behave in a slide, in a high-speed avoidance maneuver, in any extreme situation, or, really, how it behaves at all. They have never practiced any partial-control situations, received any training in handling it, or even tried it out in a low-risk environment. At best they are merely unable to recover control of their vehicle, other than by chance; more often, they aren't even able to realize when they aren't in control anymore. If they ever really were.

So what happens when you have to turn not because it's your highway exit, but because a similarly useless driver just flew out of a tunnel onto wet tarmac, and is headed into your lane across the median, completely baffled that his car won't respond to the wheel?
Right - you've already provided the answer - you floor the brake. Doesn't matter if it's only going to make him hit your door rather than your trunk, if it's the only thing you know to do, it is the thing you'll do. What happens when you're hydroplaning off the road in a sharp turn? You floor the brake and hope the hillside is easy enough that you won't roll.
That is, unless you have the required skills for handling these scenarios, keep your brain on while driving, anticipate for possible situations, and stay ready to react not just quickly, but also correctly, should any of them occur.

In all, about 95% of road accidents are caused by driver error, and are, with proper skill and behavior, preventable. If the average driver were any less pathetic, or at least didn't believe himself to be one fine piece of driving godhood, a lot of accidents would have been prevented. But being as bad as he is even at peak performance, and that's not going to improve, the last thing he needs is more distractions.

Quote: P90

That would be a death wish, unfortunately. If I didn't think behind the wheel, I'd long be dead, a few hundred times over if that was possible.

Still hope, you are not being truthful ... or at least, you are not driving on the same roads I am :)

Quote:

No, but some people are sufficiently competent to perform their task with a small error rate or low cost of errors.

That depends on the nature of the task more than the competency of people performing it.
If a programmer, writing a program to power an online casino makes a few mistakes, and costs the casino a few thousand bucks over some years, that's a pretty low cost. A doctor, on the other hand, making the same number of mistakes and killing a few thousand people would be a monster.

Again, the number of mistakes, made by doctors in the US, even including adverse drug reactions, which are not really doctor's fault, is actually very low. The reason it is killing more people than everything else is not that the doctors are bad, it is just that everything else we commonly do is so damn safe.

Quote:

At most a few percent of the drivers have even the most basic vehicle handling skills.

This is just a blanket, unqualified, unsubstantiated, and untrue statement, that does not deserve a response. Not the first time it happens in this discussion btw.

But. If this was true, it would not be any justification for a cell phone ban (which is still a topic of the discussion). If the problem is that the drivers on the road are not competent, the laws should be passed to fix that problem (by raising standard for obtaining driver's license, perhaps), not to mask it by introducing stupid, inefficient restrictions.

Quote:

Right - you've already provided the answer - you floor the brake.

I have not said anything like that. But, know yourself out. Whatever floats your boat.

Quote:

In all, about 95% of road accidents are caused by driver error, and are, with proper skill and behavior, preventable. If the average driver were any less pathetic, or at least didn't believe himself to be one fine piece of driving godhood, a lot of accidents would have been prevented.

Here you go with unfounded statement, followed by an undue generalisation and improper conclusion again.
Even if 100% of accidents were really caused by a driver error, it would in no way indicate that the drivers are incompetent. Einstein had made several very bad errors in his theoretical work, but is still one of the greatest (and most competent) physicists of all times.

Every year, about 40,000 people die as a result of car accident (compare to 106,000 deaths from adverse drug reactions BTW, 225,000 total deaths as a direct result of a treatment by doctor). Is it a lot? Americans travel by car about 5 trillion passenger-miles per year. That is one death per 125 million safely driven miles.

If you still think this is a lot, consider that on average there are 40 deaths per billion journeys in passenger cars. Compare this to the "safest mode of transportation" - commercial airline planes, operated by highly trained, qualified professionals, not hopeless imbeciles, that you seem to believe most car drivers are. There are 117 deaths per billion flights - almost 3 times as many.

And, to an earlier point, there are also 40 deaths per billion journeys on foot. Sounds like walking is as risky as driving after all :)

Quote: weaselman

Still hope, you are not being truthful ... or at least, you are not driving on the same roads I am :)

Sometimes not. I also sometimes drive on non-public roads dedicated to purposes other than getting somewhere. That's where you are dead in one day if you don't think.
On a regular road, you just have more time between situations where you are at high risk of crashing. But the situations themselves are not dissimilar, you only have less of them. When you have them, every bit of skill and attention counts just as much.

Quote: weaselman

This is just a blanket, unqualified, unsubstantiated, and untrue statement, that does not deserve a response.

Then could you tell me - no offense meant - what basic vehicle handling skills do you have, personally, presuming that you don't consider yourself among the small fraction of drivers more skilled than the general populace.
I mean specifically. What factors do you understand and can evaluate in your vehicle's handling. What specific actions are you skilled enough to perform in high-risk situations. And where have you practiced these skills and these actions. If you haven't, then how do you know you have these skills.

Quote: weaselman

If the problem is that the drivers on the road are not competent, the laws should be passed to fix that problem (by raising standard for obtaining driver's license, perhaps)

They should. But since driving has come to be viewed as a birthright rather than a skill, there doesn't seem to be any support for any raising of the standards that would result in noticeably less than 100% applicants that aren't blind or basket cases passing as qualified to drive.

Quote: weaselman

Every year, about 40,000 people die as a result of car accident (compare to 106,000 deaths from adverse drug reactions BTW, 225,000 total deaths as a direct result of a treatment by doctor).

Medical deaths are in a somewhat different league. For one, you aren't likely to die from a medical error if you aren't sick in the first place. Even if medicine killed 1 person for every 4 it saved, it would still be ahead by the numbers. Due to these deaths being linked to having a sickness in the first place, they are heavily weighted towards the older populace.

Driving deaths, on the other hand, are significantly weighted towards the younger populace. Another piece of evidence that their cause is incompetence and overconfidence, BTW. This results in a heavier toll in terms of life-years, which is the important metric, and clearly separates it from natural causes.

And there being so "few" deaths (it's still 2% of all deaths, and most deaths from childhood to midlife) is not a merit of the drivers, but rather automotive engineers. It's not easy to kill yourself in a modern car. There may be "only" 40,000 deaths a year, but there are 6.3 million collisions with 3,600,000 injuries. The financial cost of crashes has been estimated at $360 million (for 1988), about 5% of that year's GDP.
All of that still doesn't matter?

Quote: weaselman

Compare this to the "safest mode of transportation" - commercial airline planes, operated by highly trained, qualified professionals, not hopeless imbeciles, that you seem to believe most car drivers are. There are 117 deaths per billion flights - almost 3 times as many.

Indeed - who could have guessed, let's say in the beginning of the 20th century, that by its end, flying ~1,000 miles at the speed of sound would only be as dangerous as driving 15 miles firmly on the ground?

I could say this is the difference that being a professional makes versus being a typical incompetent and overconfident driver, but of course there are other factors at play as well.

Quote: weaselman

I have not said anything like that. But, know yourself out. Whatever floats your boat.

Actually you did say something like that:

Quote: weaselman

By the time you realize mentally you need to hit the brakes in an emergency situation, your car is already stopped if your driving skills are anywhere beyond a high school kid.

The issue is, while not denying the importance of reacting quickly is, if you limit yourself to knee-jerk reflexes, flooring the brakes is going to be your only available response to any emergency. More complex actions, like only partially releasing the throttle, turning the wheel opposite to the desired direction change, or accelerating when your natural impulse is to brake, require understanding of the situation and a specific conscious response. A response you have to know in advance and be mentally prepared to enact.

Quote: P90

Then could you tell me - no offense meant - what basic vehicle handling skills do you have, personally, presuming that you don't consider yourself among the small fraction of drivers more skilled than the general populace.
I mean specifically. What factors do you understand and can evaluate in your vehicle's handling. What specific actions are you skilled enough to perform in high-risk situations. And where have you practiced these skills and these actions. If you haven't, then how do you know you have these skills.

I won't enumerate the "skills", its starting to feel too much like a pissing contest.
I will explain to you how I know I have them. I have been driving for more than two decades, much of that time, in Eastern Europe, where driving is nowhere close to the leisurely experience we are used to in US. I spent seven years driving heavy military trucks for a living. During that time I have handled more emergency situations than I care to remember. I have had one major accident when I was forced to drop the trailer on its side to avoid hitting a child, that fell on the road in front of me. That was twenty three years ago. No accidents since then.
In fact, I do consider myself among a few of the more skilled drivers because of my experience and training. I also believe, that this is not very much to be proud of at all. Driving a passenger car in US is a piece of cake.

Quote:

Medical deaths are in a somewhat different league. For one, you aren't likely to die from a medical error if you aren't sick in the first place.

First, don't be so quick. I know a kid who almost died from a flu vaccination. It is far not as uncommon as you might think.
Second, I am not seeing the difference. You can't die in a car accident if you aren't on the road. So what?

Quote:

And there being so "few" deaths (it's still 2% of all deaths, and most deaths from childhood to midlife) is not a merit of the drivers, but rather automotive engineers. It's not easy to kill yourself in a modern car.

Yes! Exactly the point!
Driving the car is not anywhere near as hard or as risky as you are trying to paint. It is a piece of cake!

Quote:

The financial cost of crashes has been estimated at $360 million (for 1988), about 5% of that year's GDP. Is all that still insignificant?

I don't know. It is just a number, hard to say if it is significant or not without something to compare to. What do you think is the corresponding number for airliner accidents?

Quote:

Indeed - who could have guessed, let's say in the beginning of the 20th century, that by its end, flying ~1,000 miles at the speed of sound would only be as dangerous as driving 15 miles firmly on the ground?

Yes, there has been a lot of progress made. But what does it have to do with anything?

Quote:

I could say this is the difference that being a professional makes versus being a typical incompetent and overconfident driver, but of course there are other factors at play as well.

What difference are you referring to? Crashing three times as often?
No, I don't think, it is "being a professional", that's the problem. Driving is just easy, despite what you like to think, it does not require a lot of skill, discipline or concentration. It does require some of those, but not a lot by any measure. Flying a plane on the other hand is a much, much more complex task. There is a lot more room for error, and each error is a lot more likely to be fatal. That is why even a trained professional cannot come close to a casual driver in safety.
It is akin to the adverse drug reaction line - those too happen not because the doctors are incompetent, but because, again, their task complexity is incomparable to that of driving a car.

Quote:

The issue is, while not denying the importance of reacting quickly is, if you limit yourself to knee-jerk reflexes, flooring the brakes is going to be your only available response to any emergency.

Really? If you really think so, I have to admit, you have no choice but to actually think while driving ... Or better yet not drive at all.
Let me just assure you that most people have reflexes that are a lot more diverse than a single universal response to any situation.