- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
A new Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study compared smartphone telematics with police reports for almost 17,000 crashes in Connecticut, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. After excluding passive screen activity such as an untouched navigation display, the data still show a huge gap: phones detected active use before crashes far more often than police documented it.
You must log in or register to comment.
There Are Some Big Caveats
Phone use before a crash does not automatically make the phone user responsible for the crash.
The researchers didn’t have fault determinations. Someone could be sitting at a red light on a hands-free call and get rammed by a pickup from behind. Activity 29 seconds before impact also tells us a lot less than somebody actively tapping the screen one second before impact.
CMT additionally uses machine learning to estimate whether its user was driving or riding as a passenger. That classification has reportedly exceeded 96 percent accuracy, which is impressive, but leaves some room for error.
So I would not take these numbers and proclaim that 751 crashes were “caused by phones.” The study doesn’t support that. What the study does support, very strongly, is that active phone use immediately before crashes happens a hell of a lot more often than police reports manage to capture.
What a creepy Orwellian system we’ve built, to have this kind of information down to seconds. In the next study they’ll be including what direction the driver’s eyes were pointed in at the time of the crash.
I drove someone’s new car the other day. Glancing to my right for maybe a second triggered a “keep your eyes on the road” notification and alarm. You know, I used to not understand older people’s fear of new technology. I get it now.
Yup. I don’t think you can approve of this kind of research without also giving tacit approval to the police state being built around us.
It’s voluntary (for now). Not hard for a phone app to see you’re using the device just before the accelerometer detects a crash.
It wasn’t voluntary for any of the people who had their rights violated by GM, OnStar and LexisNexis. And we know they aren’t the only ones doing this shit, they’re just the ones that got caught.
If we lived in a sane society, the people responsible for this shit would be occupying prison cells.
If I, as an individual, took it upon myself to install surveillance devices in peoples’ vehicles and collect behavioral data on them, without their knowledge and explicit consent, I would be (rightly) held criminally liable for that. But because this creepy stalking is being done by corporations, apparently that’s OK.
All cars built after September 2027 in the US must have surveillance technology on board to detect impaired drivers and restrict the operation of the vehicle if impairment is detected. This includes drowsiness. Which means they can track your eyes. Not a big step at all to not only detect if a phone is in use but to record that data.
It always makes me curious how they even obtained this data
I could’ve sworn there was a study that showed phones are less of a problem than gigantic cars, but that may have been damage/death toll instead of crash rate.
I drive deliveries for a living, my phone gets popped on a dashboard clip and tells me where to drive all day, I can’t really use it for anything else. The amount of people I see just driving around texting or looking at their phones down near their knee because they don’t want a cop to see is easily over 50%. It’s pure insanity. This epidemic includes cops, except they don’t even try to hide their phone use. We’re cooked.
From the study
The data — which come from safe-driving apps that drivers voluntarily enroll in — show that cellphone use prior to crashes is undercounted in police reports by a factor of at least 7.
Since police reports do not always record crash times and locations with perfect precision, crashes that occurred within the same 15-minute window and within the same one-mile radius were determined to be a match.
This whole study is worthless. There’s also a whole ton of assertions with zero source.
