WHICH IS MOST DANGEROUSEST - texting while driving, driving drunk, or drunk texting?

driving drunk, mostly because this is most likely to get one killed, or kill someone else, or result in arrest and major major fines. talking $3000 and six months of utter bureaucratic hell.

^^^

I'd say in the most immediate sense texting while driving is most likely to get you into an accident as your attention is completely divorced from the road during the process vs. perception impaired but arguably somewhat focused while driving drunk? Plus there are degrees of inebriation which would affect my vote here (how drunk are we talking about?) as to which is most obv dangerous

what about drinking text?

xp, otm.. voted texting while driving because i would probably feel more safe being driven by someone who is a little buzzed rather than someone who is NOT LOOKING AT THE FUCKING ROAD

certainly texting while driving

Poll Closing Date: Sunday, 1 November 2009 00:00 (in 1 month)

How the hell is it November in A MONTH???!?

Would never get in a car with a drunk driver, but how d'you know if someone's gonna pick up their phone and start texting? Def the scarier propostion tbh.

OK, I'm not gonna downplay the dangers of driving drunk at all. But with texting, well, you can Google up countless stories of people who injured themselves and others while simply walking and texting, including the girl in Long Island walked into an open manhole, a girl in Huron, OH walked into a lake, and at least two people who apparently got killed walking straight into traffic while texting.

Think about all the people you see walking around texting while paying absolutely no attention to where they're going, what else is going on around them, etc. Now put them all behind the wheels of cars.

It's more likely that, at any given time of day, you're going to be surrounded by a lot more texting drivers than you are drunk drivers.

i'm gonna say texting while driving because even messing around with my iPod for a few seconds distracts me to a risky degree behind the wheel. of course, drunk and driving 90 mph is the most reckless, but i think that happens a lot less than the text thing

i have exactly one friend who doesn't terrify me when she drive-texts, she doesn't even look at the phone unless at stoplights, she types one-handed and watches the road the whole time, about the same amount of focus-shifting as eating a sandwich while driving. her texts are usually gibberish though.

i have 5 friends who drive-text whose car i will never willingly ride in again tbf

driving while texting needs to be illegal to the point where people are srsly scared to do it. I would always rather be in the car w/ a drunk person who is *LOOKING AT THE ROAD* than a sober person who isn't.

doh i voted wrong, i took the last option to be drunken texting + driving at the same time

it's drunk driving, this poll and you all are gross.

living in l.a. i see all of this and i have to go with texting while driving, because those people are doing it in rush hour traffic and they swerve into other lanes and most of the time even when you honk at them they just keep on doing it. also should be an option: women putting on makeup while driving (and they're always driving fast as fuck...)

oh and people surfing the net on their iphones while driving.

there is something wrong with you people, challops in the water or something.

kevin k otm.

Is it really that challopy to suggest that someone driving after a couple beers is less dangerous than someone NOT LOOKING AT OR THINKING ABOUT THE ROAD while driving?

If you drink drive you are an irresponsible fucknut, but you're drunk so your capacity for reason has diminished. If you were sober, as t'were, you would not drink drive. If you text while driving you are an irresponsible fuckwad who doesn't have the excuse of being drunk.

there's this clip on youtube where a guy is reading a fucking book while driving! WTF!

I mean I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating drunk driving!!

"I can't read the road signs through my beer goggles but fuck it at least I'm not texting"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EWGpZwwoM8

I picked drunk driving but should have probably gone for texting. I misunderstood, thought it was talking on the phone. I have yet to witness someone texting while driving but then our city is hellish to drive in (though everyone seems to be talking on the phone).

I am taking my exam next month (will fail of course) and am still not even comfortable listening to music while driving as it distracts me

you're drunk so your capacity for reason has diminished

being drunk is not an excuse for doing anything, particularly driving.

Is it really that challopy to suggest that someone driving after a couple beers is less dangerous than someone NOT LOOKING AT OR THINKING ABOUT THE ROAD while driving?

you need to look at your phone while texting? hmm. regardless, yes, yes it is that challopy. pretty sure some basic stats on what kills people will back that up, no matter what the current 'dangerous modern phenomenon of the month' is on the internet.

uh reading while driving is obviously crazy insane

i took the last option to be drunken texting + driving at the same time

So did I at first.

It's arguably a tie between the first two innit? I mean, either remove your focus from the task at hand, to the point of risking your life and the lives of others.

Accidentally sending "I hate that cow I'm dating, hot stuff" to your mother/girlfriend/wtfever ... you'll get over it, twatface.

And I'll say I am also quite irritated by people who text while walking, as well. To the point I'm tempted to purposely bump into them as they're not looking where they are going anyway.

being drunk is not an excuse for doing anything, particularly driving.

not sure how you read what I wrote as excusing drink driving. My point was that doing something recklessly moronic when sober is marginally worse than doing doing something recklessly moronic when drunk. Which is pretty much what I said the first time.

yeah, i know that's what you said. i just disagree, short of a definition of 'marginally' that would give escher a headache to think about.

regardless, yes, yes it is that challopy. pretty sure some basic stats on what kills people will back that up, no matter what the current 'dangerous modern phenomenon of the month' is on the internet.

Texting while driving increases the risk of having an accident by 23 times PROVEN BY SCIENCE. What's the similar statistic for drinking?

'proven' by what takes the driver's eyes off the road, and nothing more. a drunk guy can be looking right at either of the roads he's driving on and still hit you.

Yes, but again, out of every 100 cars you encounter every day, probably 80% or more are taking their eyes off of the road in some manner, and some large percentage of those are texting or talking on the phone. How many out of those 100 cars have a driver who is drunk?

Again, I'm not going to downplay the seriousness of drunk driving. I've seen lives ruined and ended by it. But, taken as a whole, distracted driving accounts for a LOT more accidents than drunk driving. According to the CDC, as of 2006, 32% of traffic fatalities resulted from a drunk driver. That means, for those doing the math, that 68% resulted from sober drivers. I don't have any means of ascertaining how many of those 68% were texting or otherwise using the phone, but when it comes to getting killed, I like a 32% chance better than a 68% chance. (And, of course, of that 32%, 64% of those were the drivers and 18% were their passengers, leaving you and me only an 18% chance of being killed by a drunk driver.)

Yes, but again, out of every 100 cars you encounter every day, probably 80% or more are taking their eyes off of the road in some manner, and some large percentage of those are texting or talking on the phone. How many out of those 100 cars have a driver who is drunk?

That's not really the question, though, unless I'm reading it wrongly.

I don't have any means of ascertaining how many of those 68% were texting or otherwise using the phone, but when it comes to getting killed, I like a 32% chance better than a 68% chance

! You're stretching here to equate the other 68% with texting at the wheel.

Regardless of whether you're right (which you're probably not), it's a pretty reductive way to discuss a topic and indefensibly repugnant action with very real and obvious dangers which thus carries a certain emotional connotation for many people. The joke poll option was a nice touch as well

xpost good lord, try taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of motorists are sober

Next in the series: WHAT IS THE WORSTEST KIND OF RAPE?

! You're stretching here to equate the other 68% with texting at the wheel.

I'm explicitly not, actually.

Look, if you or someone you know, or a loved one, is killed by a driver, and you find out that that driver was texting at the moment of collision, are you really going to think, "Well, at least he wasn't DRUNK?"

yes, yes that's exactly what i'd think at that moment.

And this: it's a pretty reductive way to discuss a topic and indefensibly repugnant action with very real and obvious dangers which thus carries a certain emotional connotation for many people.

You appear to be letting the emotional connotation cloud the question of which activity is actually, statistically, more dangerous.

ok, so out of the % of times someone texts behind the wheel vs the % of time someone drives drunk, you're arguing the texts will cause more accidents?

or are you just saying the texting occurs more often? because, again, i don't think that's the question.

ok, so out of the % of times someone texts behind the wheel vs the % of time someone drives drunk, you're arguing the texts will cause more accidents?

Yes. And, given the time and inclination, I could probably prove it.

As a starting point, drunk driving generally occurs when there are a lot fewer cars on the road, versus texting which takes place all the time, including and especially during the most congested times of day.

you seem to be picking and choosing what goes into the mix statistically.

...yet, according to you, drunk driving accounts for a third of fatalities, even though we agree that it occurs far less often and with fewer people typically involved. You're really on some next-level dangerously stupid shit here

I'd even suggest making sure that statistic is accurate - it seems scarily high!

it doesn't seem high to me. i'm irish btw.

From UK 2007 stats:

Fatal accidents where driver impaired by alcohol: 212 (8%)
Fatal accidents where driver using mobile phone: 25 (1%)

From here, page 40
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf

...yet, according to you, drunk driving accounts for a third of fatalities, even though we agree that it occurs far less often and with fewer people typically involved.

Yes, but 64% of those fatalities are the drivers themselves, and another 18% are their passengers.

You're really on some next-level dangerously stupid shit here

I don't much care, on an abstract level, about the danger a drunk or texting driver poses to him- or herself. I care about the threat they pose to other people.

xxp If you do it every day with many hundreds of other people, it's a lot easier to space out. You know, like driving.

i do it every day with many hundreds of people.

xp Yeah, people in the car do you no harm, and may help. They're probably mostly looking at the road, too, and since it's their ass on the line, they're not going to hesitate to yell before you hit something. But it's more than that -- they will also react to traffic in subtler ways, just body language, vibe, etc.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2277/2452500747_ae028e0e74.jpg

xposts what if your passengers are drunk?

or texting?!?!?

Then tell them to shut the fuck up, you're trying to drive. Look, none of this is hard.

Look, none of this is hard.

famous last words if you ask me

WHICH IS MOST DANGEROUSEST - texting while driving or throwing knives at someone's face?

Here's what Britishes are doing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/technology/02texting.html?_r=1&hp

They are filled with the mangled spellings and abbreviations that typify the new lingua franca of the young. “LOL did you sing to her?” a friend asks. Ms. Curtis replies by typing in an expletive and adding, “I sang the wrong song.” A last incoming message, never opened, came in seconds before the accident.

if only she spelled better this would never have happened ;_;

haha Yeah clearly the problem for the Brits isn't so much the death, it's the mangling of the Queen's English.

I wouldn't text while driving any more than I'd play Worms on my iPhone while driving. Fucking idiocy. If, you know, stopped in a horrific traffic jam, maybe, but the phone's off and out of my hand as soon as I start the car moving again.

I can text without looking at my phone but I don't make a habit of doing so while driving. I've also never driven after drinking even it that is just one drink. I'm a little overly cautious about this sort of thing I guess.

the nyt is hilarious

apart from "LOL" there was actually no abbreviation in those example texts, and all spelling seem non-mangled.

uh yeah just to be clear texting while driving is ridiculously careless driving. i'm sure i've said that upthread but just in case some kids are reading this- kids, don't text n drive

They might have been correcting them to make meaning clear to their reader. Like how the girl called her mother "mom".

xpost to Ken

And, hello, the NYT did publish a scientific finding years in the making: texting and driving is dangerous.

Right, but so's driving, and if you don't say just how relatively dangerous, you're not going to get through to anyone, because they're already in a mad mad mad mad world of denial just to get behind the wheel of a car in the first place. And really, even saying over and over again just HOW dangerous a particular activity is while driving also doesn't get through to anyone. Handing out really expensive tickets seems to help, though.

It's a lot like wall street. Regulate or die.

because they're already in a mad mad mad mad world of denial just to get behind the wheel of a car in the first place.

see, i still think you're kind of overdoing this.

i got tix to see michael jackson last time i texted and drove (then he died :|)

xp If you drive a car, it's statistically almost certainly the deadliest thing you do by a long, long way. Unless you're also a firefighter, I guess.

kenan's right about tickets probably being the only thing that will get through to people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/12/AR2009101202965.html

That appearance is deceiving, according to a new study, which concludes that use of hand-helds would be 43 percent higher were it not for the District's ban and the vigor with which police have enforced it.

or ride a bike

or walk around at night where youths exist.

or smoke

xpost

Smoking and bike riding, I'll give you. There are risks we all live with, I guess, and denial is part of the game.

should jail anyone who smokes if you ask me

Who wants to live without risks? There's a difference between a risk like driving, and, you know, adding further risk multipliers into driving by sending a text / having a wank / being drunk.

should jail anyone who smokes if you ask me

No. Should curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.

Anyway, cyclists and smokers aren't likely to take out whole families at one with their irresponsibility, and that's the "stops at the end of my nose" of this particular issue. Let's not get all libertarian-let-God-sort-em-out or anything.

Cyclists especially. What they're famous for is getting their own damn selves killed.

By cars.

yeah smoking harms nobody other than yourself.

I said cyclists especially. And there are laws against smoking in certain places now. For instance, anywhere.

not enough people jailed for my liking.

it is unlawful to smoke in the butt

Ear smoking is right out.

cyclists and smokers aren't likely to take out whole families at one with their irresponsibility,

You have perhaps heard of these things called "house fires?" Of which smoking is the number one cause?

omg Pancakes yr username :D

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/europe/motion-allowing-some-drinks-before-driving-draws-fire-in-ireland.html?_r=1&

cmon buzza you know v well we covered this in the irish politics thread a month ago

that thread is too depressing

haaaaaa otfm

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/12/10/teen-sentenced-to-probation-for-deadly-dwi-crash/

Couch’s attorneys argued his parents were responsible for the teen’s actions that night because of the way he had been raised. Defense attorneys put a psychologist on the stand who testified Couch was a product of wealth and got whatever he wanted. The psychologist also testified the teen was allowed to drink at a very young age and began driving at 13 years old. Defense attorneys argued Couch needed treatment, not jail and suggested a facility that costs almost half a million dollars a year.

Ugh I feel awful and guilty as fuck even though nothing went wrong. I went way past my limits, normally I don't have more than two drinks if I have to drive, but I had five and still drove. Nothing went wrong and I made it home safe and ok, but still I feel like I monumentally fucked up. :(

yeah it's a deep, shitty feeling.

i've left the keys behind any night since.

Yeah, normally I give my keys to someone else if I'm too impaired, but I was out by myself most of the night.

I bought a police grade breathalyzer not that long ago due to the near-DUI of 2014. one doesn't have to be intoxicated to be impaired obv but it was amazing to me how much higher your BAC is than you actually think it is. lesson being - you're probably more intoxicated than you think at any given time, take a cab and be safe.

(having it actually has encouraged me to drink less).