507 cellphone crashes out of 3.8 million vehicles

Forums › Off topic › 507 cellphone crashes out of 3.8 million vehicles

batmann

29 posts

Geek

# 39427 13-Aug-2009 17:19

Well i don't like this government that much now that using a handheld cellphone whilst driving will be banned from november 1:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10590559

507 crashes that were caused by cellphones when according to transit there were 3.8 million registered vehicles in 2005:

http://www.transit.govt.nz/about/faqs.jsp#5

I hope there aren't another 507 crashes next year caused by people talking to passengers in their vehicle otherwise the government would probably ban it.

Lets say out of the 507 cellphone related vehicle crashes that 4 vehicles were involved in each crash. 507 multiplied four times is 2028. So the government thinks 2028 vehicles crashing out of 3.8 million vehicles because of cellphone use is a huge problem and thats why they're banning it.

I can't wait till the next election because i have a feeling there will be a new prime minister.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

BDFL - Memuneh
63883 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 14346

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 246153 13-Aug-2009 17:26

I think this is a great move. I've seen people completely disregard traffic regulations while on the phone - they can't change gears correctly, indicate, stop on the lights, etc.

Sharesies investment funds | Geekzone broadband switch | Amazon (Geekzone aff) | MightyApe (Geekzone aff) | Honeyminer (1000 Satoshi signup bonus)

My technology disclosure | Digital Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Data Insights, Business Intelligence and Advanced Analytics

marmel

1556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 47

Trusted

# 246155 13-Aug-2009 17:29

I agree, this is a good move. You can always tell if someone is texting whilst driving, they normally weave around in the lane, very dangerous.

And the stats said that 25 fatal crashes and 482 injury crashes over the 5 year period. That is millions and millions of dollars in ACC, emergency services costs, court costs etc etc.

Not to mention the families of the deceased and others injured and the effect is has on them.

It's not like there is a total ban anyway, you just need to get a car kit which are available fairly cheaply these days.

openmedia

2095 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 187

Trusted

# 246156 13-Aug-2009 17:33

I also think this is a good move.

507 cases too many, and these are just the ones that have been attributed to cellphones, I'm sure numerous others were cellphone related.

Generally known online as OpenMedia, now working for Red Hat APAC a Technology Evangelist and Product Manager. Still playing with MythTV and digital media on the side.

cokemaster

Nate wants an iphone
3906 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 33

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 246169 13-Aug-2009 17:42

Excellent move. If your cellphone is so important, have your passenger answer it, or pull over...

webhosting |New Zealand connections | geekzone IRC chat
Loose lips may sink ships - Be smart - Don't post internal/commercially sensitive or confidential information!

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571

# 246171 13-Aug-2009 17:48

there have been several studies that have show talking on a cellphone is equally as dangerous (if not mopre dangerous) than being drunk whilst driving. Texting whilst driving is even more so.

IMO this ban is perfectly sensible, and your attempt at statistics proves nothing Mr Batmann.

If banning calling & driving reduces the number of fatalities on the road next year by even a few (and god knows we have enouygh fatalities on the road right now), then it was worth slightly inconveniencing a few people by not letting them talk.

corksta

2166 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 244

Trusted

Subscriber

# 246175 13-Aug-2009 17:50

batmann, get over yourself. Your statistics and analogies are flawed and ridiculous. Put yourself in the shoes of any family who has lost someone in a crash involving the use of a mobile phone - your flippant comments would want to make them knock your lights out.

It sounds like this law is targeted at people like you. In a single instance your life can be changed forever just because you absolutely had to send that text or answer that call.

Yatey

284 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 11

# 246182 13-Aug-2009 17:58

I Nearly Got Hit by a Car on the way to School this morning,
because a Lady didn't indicate to turn while she was talking on her Mobile Phone!!
Thanks John

Jordan, Auckland University.
“Design is so simple, that’s why it is so complicated.” - Paul Rand

Batman

Mad Scientist
20461 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2790

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

# 246202 13-Aug-2009 18:24

the article is an example of completely inaccurate and crap science.
the numerator is cellphone related vehicle crashes.
the denominator should be time of cellphone usage while driving.
the figure should be no of vehicle crashes per hour of cellphone use while driving.

that will be incredibly high - people are texting for a minute or on calls for 5 minutes. multiply it by 60 (minutes to get hour).

what the newspaper say is inaccurate.

Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.

old3eyes

8078 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 856

Subscriber

# 246228 13-Aug-2009 19:32

507 crashes?? Where did they pick this figure out off?? The Lotto draw machine. Wonder what the tax collectors will cry in 2011 when the accident rate is still the same?? Oh of course radar detectors, then ipods, people eating and when that fails maybe just maybe "Bad Driving"

Regards,

Old3eyes

DataCraft

164 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

# 246243 13-Aug-2009 19:53

I have almost crash using a cell phone - they are way more distracting than other devices because when some is ringing you - you have 15 seconds to get the call - so people tend to give the cell phone thr urgent attention and that's the problem.

8d52797c436

264 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

# 246261 13-Aug-2009 20:29

Anything that could potentially reduce the number of deaths in the world is a good thing in my mind. Like was said earlier, if your cellphone is that important to you then pull over to answer the call.

marmel

1556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 47

Trusted

# 246269 13-Aug-2009 20:43

old3eyes: 507 crashes?? Where did they pick this figure out off?? The Lotto draw machine. Wonder what the tax collectors will cry in 2011 when the accident rate is still the same?? Oh of course radar detectors, then ipods, people eating and when that fails maybe just maybe "Bad Driving"

Any crash which is reported or attended by the police results in a 5 page crash report being completed. A copy of this report is sent to Land Transport New Zealand. The report details who was involved, what happened and the cause of the crash.

This is where the information comes from, not the lotto machine.

drajk

188 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 15

Trusted

# 246279 13-Aug-2009 21:04

DataCraft: I have almost crash using a cell phone - they are way more distracting than other devices because when some is ringing you - you have 15 seconds to get the call - so people tend to give the cell phone thr urgent attention and that's the problem.

and what about people drinking coffee from the petrol station, children fighting in the back seat, babies crying or vomiting/being incontinent, people arguing with their spouse, people trying to find radio stations when they are on the highway and the radio tuner is autotuning past a station because the signal is weak, people driving with their ipod on and not being able to hear sirens/car horns etc... etc.... .

And that doesn't even consider the number of people who drive after using drugs other than alcohol, the many people who drive with medical conditions/medications which theoretically should preclude them from doing so etc...

As a doctor I frequently have to advise people that they can't drive either for a fixed period or ever again - if you download the LTSA guide for medical practitioners you would probably be surprised at how many people who do drive should actually be advised that they cannot - yet it never ceases to amaze me how someone whom I am seeing with several unexplained collapses with loss of consciousness or recurrent unstable angina will argue with me when I tell them that they must not drive.

Essentially what I am saying is that we cannot regulate for all situations, people need to use common sense, and good drivers should take responsibility for their actions and ensure safety - there is already an offence of dangerous driving and another of reckless driving so why do we need a specific offence relating to cellphone use - what we need is better driver education about good / sensible / safe driving.

... and no I don't think people should txt and drive but I also thought we had moved away from the nanny state.

DataCraft

164 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 5

# 246287 13-Aug-2009 21:20

Sorry drajk - I disagree with you here - you maybe a good driver, I might be a good driver - but its the other idiots on the road we have to worry about - at least now they won't have a cell phone in one hand to distract them.

marmel

1556 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 47

Trusted

# 246317 13-Aug-2009 22:12

drajk:
Essentially what I am saying is that we cannot regulate for all situations, people need to use common sense, and good drivers should take responsibility for their actions and ensure safety - there is already an offence of dangerous driving and another of reckless driving so why do we need a specific offence relating to cellphone use - what we need is better driver education about good / sensible / safe driving.

... and no I don't think people should txt and drive but I also thought we had moved away from the nanny state.

We do have those offences already in law but why would you want to send someone to court for a minor offence? The court system is already bogged down as it is. Using this rationale we could charge speeding drivers with dangerous as well but it just isn't practical.

The law certainly isn't perfect but it's about getting a balance that lets people go about their daily business without them exposing others to undue risk.

Also both of the offences you mentioned carry mandatory periods of disqualification (6 months) which would be a bit excessive.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6