Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: GarMan on April 16, 2012, 01:10:53 AM
-
Study Shows Women More Likely To Stomp The Wrong Pedal Than Men
Score one for the fellas in the age old male-female debate over who's a better/safer driver. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report released last month shows that although men tend to drive faster and more recklessly, women are far more likely to cause an accident by stomping on the wrong pedal.
Of course, when NHTSA factored age into the study, drivers under 20 and older than 76 were much more likely than everyone else to do the same thing, but across all age groups, women were the ones yelling "oops" most often when it came time to choose between the stop and go pedals.
Almost two thirds of pedal misapplication crashes were found to be caused by women, with the figure being significant enough for whoever wrote the report to suggest either incredulity or genuine I-told-you-so excitement by italicizing the words two thirds in an other wise drily written federal study.
But NHTSA seems to have done its homework, having relied upon a variety of sources for its study — everything from technical material published between 1980 and 2009 to the 2,411 wrong pedal wrecks recorded in the North Carolina State crash database between 2004 and 2008 (apparently, Tarheels are really good crash reporters).
The study found that most of the pedal misapplication crashes — 77 percent by the news analysis standard (which was thought perhaps to have been skewed by the "newsworthiness" of reported stories) and 57 percent in North Carolina — occurred off the roadway, in parking lots, driveways and the like. Inattention was also an issue, with 44 percent of the accidents involving distracted drivers, as were health, mental issues and age.
The most infamous wrong pedal crash occurred in 2003, when an 86-year-old motorist crashed into a busy farmers market in Santa Monica, Calif., killing nine and critically injuring 14.
But the bottom line is that most of the wrong pedal crashes over the past 20 years or so were caused by women. Does that mean that men are better drivers? Maybe in parking lots.
http://jalopnik.com/5901777/study-shows-women-more-likely-to-stomp-the-wrong-pedal-than-men (http://jalopnik.com/5901777/study-shows-women-more-likely-to-stomp-the-wrong-pedal-than-men)
-
Well, there you go again posting your misogynistic, hate-speech.
By the way, I could not help but notice the obvious (to a real Tarheel) gaff by the writer stating that "apparently, Tarheels are really good crash reporters" in conjunction with citing a database from North Carolina State.
In other North Carolina related news:
Chapel Hill bans cell phone use by drivers
March 29, 2012 | Posted in: News | 1 Response
By Susan Dickson, Staff Writer
CHAPEL HILL – After more than two years of debate, the Chapel Hill Town Council on Monday voted 5-4 to approve an ordinance that will ban cell phone use while driving in town.
The ban, which applies to the use of both handheld and hands-free phones, is the first of its kind nationwide, according to Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, who drafted the ordinance.
Council members Donna Bell, Ed Harrison Penny Rich, Lee Storrow and Jim Ward voted for the ordinance, while Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and council members Matt Czajkowski, Laurin Easthom and Gene Pease voted against it.
The ordinance, which will go into effect June 1, prohibits the use of cell phones or any additional technology, like cameras or music players, while operating a car. The ordinance proposes a $25 fine for violation.
...
Source:
http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/03/29/chapel-hill-bans-cell-phone-use-by-drivers/ (http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2012/03/29/chapel-hill-bans-cell-phone-use-by-drivers/)
-
I will say that the NC law you just mentioned is far more enforceable than a lot of municipalities' "texting laws". Ive always thought those had a good premise in theory but were not enforceable at all. How do you know someone was texting? There are a million things you can do on a phone that aren't texting and its impossible to prove that you knew they were texting.
Saying "use of cell phone" period? Much easier to enforce.
-
I will say that the NC law you just mentioned is far more enforceable than a lot of municipalities' "texting laws". Ive always thought those had a good premise in theory but were not enforceable at all. How do you know someone was texting? There are a million things you can do on a phone that aren't texting and its impossible to prove that you knew they were texting.
Saying "use of cell phone" period? Much easier to enforce.
Although these laws are commonly referred to as "texting bans," most of the laws as written ban the use of any wireless communication device (including computers and other devices) for anything other than voice communications. So even if you're checking a website on your phone, it's a violation of the "texting ban."
Some cities may not do this, but most of the ordinances that I've read so far have been worded in this manner.
-
Although these laws are commonly referred to as "texting bans," most of the laws as written ban the use of any wireless communication device (including computers and other devices) for anything other than voice communications. So even if you're checking a website on your phone, it's a violation of the "texting ban."
Some cities may not do this, but most of the ordinances that I've read so far have been worded in this manner.
And that's good. If they were all written that way, then that would be much better.
I know of a few cities that literally have a "text ban" while driving, and nothing else. Talking is ok. So unenforceable. At least the one in NC bans the device altogether, even hands free. I say all or none.
-
Although these laws are commonly referred to as "texting bans," most of the laws as written ban the use of any wireless communication device (including computers and other devices) for anything other than voice communications. So even if you're checking a website on your phone, it's a violation of the "texting ban."
That is very true officer, fortunately I was simply typing in a phone number.
-
That is very true officer, fortunately I was simply typing in a phone number.
meow.
-
And that's good. If they were all written that way, then that would be much better.
I know of a few cities that literally have a "text ban" while driving, and nothing else. Talking is ok. So unenforceable. At least the one in NC bans the device altogether, even hands free. I say all or none.
Talking on the phone while driving is legal in many cities with texting bans. I think that most cities seem to be concerned with the fact that texting takes your visual attention away from the road, and some people also choose to use both hands to text which takes control off of the steering wheel.
Huntsville, Madison, and Prattville, for example, all have texting laws which only ban the use of any wireless communication device for sending, reading, or composing electronic messages. None of those three cities ban the use of a wireless communication device for voice communications.
Some cities do have hands free laws, but not as many as those with "texting bans." I think it's relatively enforceable even if it doesn't also ban telephone calls. It's pretty obvious when someone is fiddling with a device in their hands and is not using it for a phone call.
-
That is very true officer, fortunately I was simply typing in a phone number.
This would be an issue if the officer saw you with a phone and immediately pulled you over before attempting to make an accurate determination as to what you were doing.
If he notices you with a device in your hand and you continue to periodically fidget with it for a mile or two without ever bringing the device up to your ear or otherwise appear as if you are using it for a voice communication, then you clearly weren't dialing a number.
Many of the texting bans (not all, but many) are enforceable as they are. Maybe not perfect, but enforceable.
-
This would be an issue if the officer saw you with a phone and immediately pulled you over before attempting to make an accurate determination as to what you were doing.
If he notices you with a device in your hand and you continue to periodically fidget with it for a mile or two without ever bringing the device up to your ear or otherwise appear as if you are using it for a voice communication, then you clearly weren't dialing a number.
Many of the texting bans (not all, but many) are enforceable as they are. Maybe not perfect, but enforceable.
I was making many phone calls and using my phones speaker.
-
I was making many phone calls and using my phones speaker.
And apparently making stalkerish phone calls in which you say nothing at all. Unless you talk to yourself while texting.
-
And apparently making stalkerish phone calls in which you say nothing at all. Unless you talk to yourself while texting.
No unfortunately everyone I called I just got their voice mail I decided I didn't want to leave a message.
Bottom line it is difficult to prove.
besides the officer would have to have been keeping pace looking in my window and I would have to be a complete idiot, not to notice him.
-
Does taking pics of your own junk while driving count as texting?
I'm asking for a friend.
-
Does taking pics of your own junk while driving count as texting?
I'm asking for a friend.
VV likes teh junk in his trunk.
-
And that's good. If they were all written that way, then that would be much better.
I know of a few cities that literally have a "text ban" while driving, and nothing else. Talking is ok. So unenforceable. At least the one in NC bans the device altogether, even hands free. I say all or none.
As much as I hate to see yet another motor vehicle law I think this might be a good trend; I drive 100 miles a day just to and from work in metro Atlanta so I see a lot of drivers. And with few exceptions there's no one more oblivious to the road around them than someone on the phone simply trying to talk and drive (and, yes, I've done it too so I'm not being a hypocrite in this comment).
-
VV likes teh junk in his trunk.
Whatchu gone do wit all at breast inside dat shirt?
-
This would be an issue if the officer saw you with a phone and immediately pulled you over before attempting to make an accurate determination as to what you were doing.
If he notices you with a device in your hand and you continue to periodically fidget with it for a mile or two without ever bringing the device up to your ear or otherwise appear as if you are using it for a voice communication, then you clearly weren't dialing a number.
Many of the texting bans (not all, but many) are enforceable as they are. Maybe not perfect, but enforceable.
I could not help but notice that you seem to use the phrase 'device in your hands' quite often...
-
prohibits the use of cell phones or any additional technology, like cameras or music players, while operating a car.
Would that also prohibit changing the radio station on your FM Dial? One could argue that it's just as distracting as scrolling through a play list on your phone.
-
Bottom line it is difficult to prove.
besides the officer would have to have been keeping pace looking in my window and I would have to be a complete idiot, not to notice him.
Not as difficult as one would think.
First, you have to keep in mind that these citations carry fines that are typically less than $50. Few people are going to take such a citation to trial, so there is normally not going to be a need to prove anything. Most people will plea guilty, and the municipality will get what it wants: increased revenue.
Second, most municipal prosecutors aren't willing to dismiss these types of charges, unless you've also been charged with something more serious (such as a DUI, reckless driving, etc.). Then they are more willing to drop the lesser charges if you are willing to plea to the more serious charges.
Third, even if you were to challenge your municipal ordinance violation by taking it to trial, you don't get a jury trial in municipal courts in Alabama; you'd have a bench trial in which the judge is the fact finder. Most municipal judges would be inclined to side with the testimony of the officer, so your attempt at showing that it can't be proven by taking it to trial would be in vain. This is, afterall, how many people get convicted of a DUI at the municipal level when no breathalyzer test was administered.
-
Would that also prohibit changing the radio station on your FM Dial? One could argue that it's just as distracting as scrolling through a play list on your phone.
The way that most of the laws are written, any device that is permanently affixed inside the vehicle does not count as a device that is banned from use while driving.
-
As much as I hate to see yet another motor vehicle law I think this might be a good trend; I drive 100 miles a day just to and from work in metro Atlanta so I see a lot of drivers. And with few exceptions there's no one more oblivious to the road around them than someone on the phone simply trying to talk and drive (and, yes, I've done it too so I'm not being a hypocrite in this comment).
Whether it be a cup of coffee, your cell phone, a screaming fuck trophy, your car stereo, the a/c or heating controls or sumpin' else, many people are easily distracted while driving. Making these special laws to address only one of the many potential distractions doesn't really make much sense. Just sayin'...
Personally, I have a helluva time cleaning my gun while driving.
-
Whether it be a cup of coffee, your cell phone, a screaming fuck trophy, your car stereo, the a/c or heating controls or sumpin' else, many people are easily distracted while driving. Making these special laws to address only one of the many potential distractions doesn't really make much sense. Just sayin'...
Personally, I have a helluva time cleaning my gun while driving.
Like all other such laws, these are passed due to political pressure generated quite often by grassroots campaigns lead by people emotionally charged, often the parents of a child that lost their life in a car crash while texting. Others are generated by insurance lobbies.
Some research indicates, these laws were passed without any real data to support them, and that it's a pointless law in effect.
http://www.shopautoweek.com/articles/2011/10/researchers-number-of-car-accidents-falls-despite-increase-in-cell-phone-use.html (http://www.shopautoweek.com/articles/2011/10/researchers-number-of-car-accidents-falls-despite-increase-in-cell-phone-use.html)
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html (http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html)
Data regarding car accidents involving cell phone use and/or texting while driving has been limited in the past, but it’s slowly becoming available to the public.
The information on this page reflects the most current statistics regarding cell phone usage and text messaging during car accidents.
While the popularity of mobile phones has grown enormously in the past two decades, it’s still unclear how greatly cell phone calls and texting contribute to car crashes. What is clear is that talking on the phone and texting behind the wheel both lead to distraction, and driver inattention is the leading cause of car accidents.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/study-finds-that-reduced-phone-use-does-not-cut-crashes/ (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/study-finds-that-reduced-phone-use-does-not-cut-crashes/)
Laws banning cellphone use while driving apparently haven’t reduced crashes, according to a study released on Friday that compared the number of total crashes before the ban with the number after. The study found virtually no difference in the numbers, a finding that had the researchers scratching their heads.
-
These laws always remind me of this MythBusters episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc#)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM#)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8#)
People read studies and see these "tests" and freak out, which leads to the banning of certain activities.
-
These laws always remind me of this MythBusters episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc#)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGN1pLI4ZaM#)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8LuM92Twm8#)
People read studies and see these "tests" and freak out, which leads to the banning of certain activities.
Zero scientific validity.
-
A) Teh kwotes function defeated you, and
2) That's why I said they were "tests" that people freaked out about.
-
Chew on some ass because an idiot is all over the road fucking with his/her phone? Yep.
Write a ticket to some 17 year old kid that will cause their parent's insurance to skyrocket? Not a chance.
-
A) Teh kwotes function defeated you, and
2) That's why I said they were "tests" that people freaked out about.
A: I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
(1) I know.
-
Chew on some ass because an idiot is all over the road fucking with his/her phone? Yep.
Write a ticket to some 17 year old kid that will cause their parent's insurance to skyrocket? Not a chance.
But what if the driver is a swarthy Asian?
-
But what if the driver is a swarthy Asian?
With the new immigration bill? I only stop caucasians.
-
With the new immigration bill? I only stop caucasians.
:thumsup:
-
With the new immigration bill? I only stop caucasians.
Yeah... But, watch out for those white Hispanics.
-
Yeah... But, watch out for those white Hispanics.
Better hope he doesn't want your skittles.
-
But what if the driver is a swarthy Asian?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DczUg3mHl8c# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DczUg3mHl8c#)
Fuck me just clink on the link.