PDA

View Full Version : If you must call, don't drive.



farmerjumperdon
2005-Dec-29, 09:08 PM
Interesting new law in MN, USA. Can't use the phone while driving, IF you are a teenager. Highlights are:

<> Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for MN teens.
<> 16 year olds are 3 times as likely to die in a car accident than 18 & 19 year-olds (that's a tough learning curve).
<> Comparitve reaction times of teens versus adults while on the phone and not on the phone.

http://www.startribune.com/587/story/152738.html

SeanF
2005-Dec-29, 09:40 PM
16 year olds are 3 times as likely to die in a car accident than 18 & 19 year-olds (that's a tough learning curve).
I've heard this general statistic before, and it always makes me wonder if they correct for driving experience.

That is, is the accident/death rate for 16-year-old first-year drivers that much higher than 18-year-old first-year drivers? Or 30-year-old first-year drivers, for that matter?

Generally, I've got no problem with a law against talking on the phone while driving, but I think it should be generally applicable and not just to teenagers.

Doodler
2005-Dec-29, 09:45 PM
Feh, if they're going to go that route, why not write up a law that prevents women from driving when they have kids in the car with them?

You want to talk about some distracted and inconsiderate driving...for some reason they think the world owes them a lane when they've got their precious little bundles of joy in the back seat.

Superluminal
2005-Dec-29, 10:11 PM
Statistics can be used in almost anyway. I once heard someone say that 25% of all traffic accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Well, that means that 75% are caused by sober people, so therefore, your'e safer driving with a drunk.

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-29, 10:33 PM
Statistics can be used in almost anyway.

See the life on mars thread.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-29, 10:41 PM
It's been the law in Australia for years - can't use a mobile while driving. "Hands free" is deemed ok though.

Titana
2005-Dec-29, 10:57 PM
I think it is a good thing to put a law against driving and talking on the phone. I have heard of many accidents caused by that. But i dont think it should be put only on teenagers either. Talking on a phone well driving will distract anybody not only a teenager. It is best just to pull over while you talk on the phone.



Titana.

ToSeek
2005-Dec-29, 10:57 PM
It's been the law in Australia for years - can't use a mobile while driving. "Hands free" is deemed ok though.

Even though studies show it doesn't make that much difference - it's the splitting of concentration that's the real problem.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-29, 11:04 PM
Well,that's always been my belief. Hands free, hands on, you're still distracted.

soylentgreen
2005-Dec-29, 11:14 PM
I agree, as well. In-hand or hands-free...it's bad news.

What about those GPS/DirectionFinder machines? If everyone generally agrees that watching television while driving is a bad idea, wouldn't focusing on a small screen for directions be just as troubling, no matter where on the dash you mount it.

One would assume that if a driver needs to use one, they already have a small (or large :eek: )portion of their attention devoted to figuring out where they're going.

I know they do have versions that talk, but let's face it, it's human nature to look at the source of information, especially when it comes to geographical assistance.

Doodler
2005-Dec-29, 11:23 PM
I'd like to know how dash mounted DvD players get approval through state regulations...

Gillianren
2005-Dec-29, 11:26 PM
Feh, if they're going to go that route, why not write up a law that prevents women from driving when they have kids in the car with them?

You want to talk about some distracted and inconsiderate driving...for some reason they think the world owes them a lane when they've got their precious little bundles of joy in the back seat.

Oh, yes, because men are never distracted while driving with their kids.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-29, 11:29 PM
I'd like to know how dash mounted DvD players get approval through state regulations...


that's bugged me - they're *Supposed* to be map-only, bu tthey never are.

I don't think Colorado/Denver has gone to 'no phones while driving', but I could be wrong. We DO have a new law, though, that I'm still pondering in my copious free time.

first year, underage, drivers are not allowed to drive unless there is an adult in the car, or unless all the passegers are family members. I think this limitation lasts for 6 months

(I just heard about it on the radio coming to work this morning - some kid was driving, crossed centerline, killed at least 2 passengers in his car while receiving light injuries himself. All kids in car were under 18, and none was family member)

Gillianren - of course not. The little monsters are afraid of us! they're always quiet for me

Candy
2005-Dec-30, 06:24 AM
Are Men Better Drivers than Women? (http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Are_Men_Better_Drivers_than_Women/artid/259)

So… let's see what the statistics have to say about drivers, in terms of males vs. females. Figures compiled by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) show that more men than women die each year in motor vehicle crashes, figures that drew explanatory comments from various insurance industry observers such as Russ Rader of IIHS, in Arlington, Va., and Tully Lehman, of the Insurance Information Network of California (IINC).
:whistle:

pumpkinpie
2005-Dec-30, 01:41 PM
It's been the law in Australia for years - can't use a mobile while driving. "Hands free" is deemed ok though.


Even though studies show it doesn't make that much difference - it's the splitting of concentration that's the real problem.


I agree. I was talking on a hands-free the other day, and missed the exit that I take every day. I obviously was distracted. I'm working on being a better, more patient driver, and that will include avoiding talking on the phone while driving. I have to realize that the phone call can wait until I've gotten to my destination. I rarely drive anywhere that takes longer than a half hour anyway. And if I really have to make or take a call, I should wait until I can pull over safely and do it then. So many times I see a driver on the road not paying attention, and usually they are on the phone!

sidmel
2005-Dec-30, 02:10 PM
I believe stricter laws regarding phone use are (unfortunately) very necessary. I donít particularly like having to say that, more restrictions and government interferenceÖblah, blah, blah. But, it just seems like Iíve had to become much more defensive in my driving in recent years. Going to work, it seems like there is always somebody pulling out in front of my vehicle forcing me into a dangerous break situation, going from 45mph or 50mph down to 10mph or a to almost a dead stop! I had to break so severely yesterday that my tires screeched and I almost ended up going on the side walk. And there they go, driving off talking into the cell phone. Whew, off rant.

Yep, two pet peeves while driving, pulling out in front of someone when you could wait and extra 5 seconds for them to safely pass and not using turn signals for lane changes orÖactual turns.

zebo-the-fat
2005-Dec-30, 02:12 PM
It's been the law in Australia for years - can't use a mobile while driving. "Hands free" is deemed ok though.

It's the same in the UK, "hands-free" only

SeanF
2005-Dec-30, 02:34 PM
Even though studies show it doesn't make that much difference - it's the splitting of concentration that's the real problem.
And yet, interestingly enough, studies show that talking to a passenger who is physically in the car is not as distracting as talking to someone on the phone.

I wonder why that is.

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Dec-30, 03:22 PM
It's been the law in Australia for years - can't use a mobile while driving. "Hands free" is deemed ok though.
Same here in the Netherlands, but there is talk about banning "Hands free" as well.
http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/verschiedene/h010.gif

OptimusShr
2005-Dec-30, 04:03 PM
I've heard this general statistic before, and it always makes me wonder if they correct for driving experience.

That is, is the accident/death rate for 16-year-old first-year drivers that much higher than 18-year-old first-year drivers? Or 30-year-old first-year drivers, for that matter?

Generally, I've got no problem with a law against talking on the phone while driving, but I think it should be generally applicable and not just to teenagers.

I agree on the statistic, I heard it before and there was no information on whether they were just looking at experience, or if they took other factors into account such as slippery roads car trouble etc.

And they should block cell phone use for everyone. They have been trying to ban teenagers from using a cell phone while driving here in MA but I'm not sure if they passed it or not.

mid
2005-Dec-30, 04:19 PM
The link doesn't work for me, but I wonder if anyone knows more about the element "Comparitve reaction times of teens versus adults while on the phone and not on the phone"? Because the last study into the effect I heard showed that people who play a lot of videogames were better able to cope with the multitasking required to both talk and drive than those who didn't on average, and a vague guess would have teens as more likely to be in the former group than adults.

Personally, I only use the phone to inform my relatives that I'm sitting in a jam and so will be late; at that point my stationary car isn't going to hit anyone in a hurry.

mickal555
2005-Dec-30, 04:48 PM
You should see my dad... he has tried to send text messages while driving, scared the fecal matter out of me...

Gillianren
2005-Dec-30, 10:03 PM
And yet, interestingly enough, studies show that talking to a passenger who is physically in the car is not as distracting as talking to someone on the phone.

I wonder why that is.

Speaking as a frequent passenger, I'd guess it's because the passenger is also watching for exits, other cars, cops, etc. Certainly I do. There are also two interchanges in our area where I don't talk to my friend Heather while she's driving. (One, the one by our apartments, is referred to as "the big scary onramp of death.") However, the person with whom you're on the phone can't see that tree that's about to leap out in front of you.

Titana
2005-Dec-31, 01:52 AM
You should see my dad... he has tried to send text messages while driving, scared the fecal matter out of me...





:lol: :lol:




Titana.

tmosher
2005-Dec-31, 02:42 AM
Are Men Better Drivers than Women? (http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Are_Men_Better_Drivers_than_Women/artid/259)

:whistle:

I've heard about your driving although I've never had the pleasure of being a passenger in a car driven by you. However, you know how I drive and have a tendency to get lost (do you think that was unintentional?).

I don't know about those studies but some of the worse drivers in this town are inevitably female.

LurchGS
2005-Dec-31, 02:53 AM
I've never seen any studies, either, but here in Denver, there doesn't appear to be any bias/tendency toward any one segment of the population or another. Except locals.

mickal555
2005-Dec-31, 03:12 AM
Apparently people on a mobile phone while driving have to concentrate more because the phone keeps switching towers as you drive, this reduces the quality and you have to concentrate more to hear what is being said.

paulie jay
2005-Dec-31, 04:01 AM
And yet, interestingly enough, studies show that talking to a passenger who is physically in the car is not as distracting as talking to someone on the phone.

I wonder why that is.
I've often wondered that too. I reckon it becasue of the fact that when you are using a phone you tend to make more effort to concentrate on listening, to the detriment of the other senses. Also, in the case of holding the phone close to your ear, the speaker fires the talking directly into your ear - it's like it takes over as the primary stimulus.

Gullible Jones
2005-Dec-31, 04:07 AM
You know, there's one tendency I find equally pronounced in men and women: the tendency to turn everything into a tirade about the shortcomings of the opposite sex, usually in the form of sweeping and barely accurate generalizations. IMHO, there's one generalization that applies to everyone: that it is foolhardy to paint all members of a sex with the same brush.

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 05:19 AM
You know, there's one tendency I find equally pronounced in men and women: the tendency to turn everything into a tirade about the shortcomings of the opposite sex, usually in the form of sweeping and barely accurate generalizations. IMHO, there's one generalization that applies to everyone: that it is foolhardy to paint all members of a sex with the same brush.

From the link I provided, by an Insurance Company no less, the statistics disagree with you. I didn't intend to find such evidence, but when I did, I just had to post it. :D


Argue all you want; however you'd be hard-pressed to find documented proof that men are superior to women as drivers. But make no mistake – gender certainly does impact driving habits and insurance industry observers believe that issue manifests in other ways, too.
I wonder why no one's ever sued an Insurance Company for being prejudice. :shifty:

LurchGS
2005-Dec-31, 06:02 AM
y'know - that doesn't really indicate that women are *better* drivers, simply that they are more cautious - not quite the same thing.

I don't think I've ever seen a study that tests that, either - compare what young people do behind the wheel when presented identical circumstances (notice, this whole thing applies only to people under the age of 26). That is, you are driving merrily down the highway and a deer jumps out in rront of you...

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:13 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a study that tests that, either - compare what young people do behind the wheel when presented identical circumstances (notice, this whole thing applies only to people under the age of 26). That is, you are driving merrily down the highway and a deer jumps out in rront of you...
Well, this happened to me. I hit the deer, because I was looking at the sign that said Deer Crossing. :doh:

LurchGS
2005-Dec-31, 06:14 AM
nuff said

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:23 AM
nuff said
The deer lived, because I broke just in time. Totalled my car, though. I was hysterical at the scene. I was more worried about the deer. I really didn't care about my car. My attitude was rather different from the men standing around. ;)

montebianco
2005-Dec-31, 06:30 AM
I wonder why no one's ever sued an Insurance Company for being prejudice. :shifty:

Well, my understanding is that in the US, you are perfectly free to discriminate in whatever situation you like on whatever basis you like unless there is a law saying you can't. Most such laws apply to civil rights or employment. Don't know about other countries.

That said, I'm sure people have sued insurance companies for charging men and women different rates, and I have some vague recollection that some jurisdictions have outlawed the practice. I'm unable to post any supporting evidence, though.

N

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:35 AM
Well, my understanding is that in the US, you are perfectly free to discriminate in whatever situation you like on whatever basis you like unless there is a law saying you can't. Most such laws apply to civil rights or employment. Don't know about other countries.

That said, I'm sure people have sued insurance companies for charging men and women different rates, and I have some vague recollection that some jurisdictions have outlawed the practice. I'm unable to post any supporting evidence, though.

N
You're fine, I was making a somewhat joke. :D

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:37 AM
Oh, yeah, I got rid of my cell phone just after 9/11. It wouldn't stop ringing! It drove me "more" insane.

Trust me, this is the best thing to do.

montebianco
2005-Dec-31, 06:38 AM
You're fine, I was making a somewhat joke. :D

I know :D But the post was serious, I do have some recollection of discussions in some US states about outlawing the practice.

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:48 AM
I know :D But the post was serious, I do have some recollection of discussions in some US states about outlawing the practice.
Okay, don't do that, because my insurance rate will go up. :evil:

montebianco
2005-Dec-31, 06:50 AM
Okay, don't do that, because my insurance rate will go up. :evil:

Well, I'm not doing it. I don't make the laws...

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:55 AM
Okay, then, my rates will be super low! I like that! :dance:

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 07:00 AM
GJ, we are talking about real life. I know you don’t have a driver’s license, yet.

mickal555
2005-Dec-31, 06:20 PM
I can't wait until I get my licence... My dad let my drive the 4WD the other day...

I hate roundabouts... you have to go left then right then left again!!

I had three in a row!! ::evil:

Candy
2005-Dec-31, 06:26 PM
My hardest was learning how to keep from rolling backwards while stopped on an upward hill. I've had stick shifts since 1988.

I've never had a car accident involving another vehicle. The only damage I've had was hitting the deer. I've been driving since the age of 13. Wow, 26 years! :dance:

mickal555
2005-Dec-31, 06:43 PM
My hardest was learning how to keep from rolling backwards while stopped on an upward hill. I've had stick shifts since 1988.

I've never had a car accident involving another vehicle. The only damage I've had was hitting the deer. I've been driving since the age of 13. Wow, 26 years! :dance:

Poor dear :(

My mum has trouble with the hill thing :lol:

lek
2005-Dec-31, 07:51 PM
Such law has been here a year now... Meaning cant fiddle with the phone by hands, but handsfree system is ok. I dont know if its a good or bad thing. Its one of those regulations which is really difficult to endorse.

Dont know if its driving experience or what, some people can talk on phone while driving, and some really dont, regardless if its hands free system or not. The law is pretty much ignored really, i see a lot of people on phone while driving every day. :I

While talking about such difficult to endorse laws, why not have a drivers licence extra part for "driving while doing other things :p" heh.

I'ts not nice to spill your coffee on your lap while reading newspaper and shaving and suddenly see a police car around and worry about them mistaking your shaver as phone...

zebo-the-fat
2005-Dec-31, 08:32 PM
I can't wait until I get my licence... My dad let my drive the 4WD the other day...

I hate roundabouts... you have to go left then right then left again!!

I had three in a row!! ::evil:

What is the problem with roundabouts?

(Though I must say this is a bit extreme!! )

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/5779/Magic.jpg

JohnD
2005-Dec-31, 08:33 PM
Use a mobile (handheld) while driving?
Not allowed in the UK!

But why are they allowed to smoke while driving?
My wife has hit, hard, by a driver who had dropped their fag.
And was looking for it.
On the floor.

Does smoking lower your IQ?

John

zebo-the-fat
2005-Dec-31, 08:35 PM
Does smoking lower your IQ?

No you just need a low IQ to do it!

LurchGS
2005-Dec-31, 08:57 PM
Hills are no problem with a clutch... you just have to let it out a little bit.

I wonder what the cops would say about the RV? 3 cell phones, 5 two-way radios and a TV. (it's not really mine, it's the command center for our search and rescue group, but I'm the designated driver, and it sits in my drive. so there!). I've not installed the computer network yet - weather is too unreliable at the moment, and the satellite communications link is scheduled for next summer...

paulie jay
2006-Jan-01, 03:53 AM
I can't wait until I get my licence... My dad let my drive the 4WD the other day...

I hate roundabouts... you have to go left then right then left again!!

I had three in a row!! ::evil:
You've got a 4WD - just drive straight over the top!

LurchGS
2006-Jan-01, 04:33 AM
well, what if it's a volvo? or Subaru? or something else with pretensions of usefulness?

I agree, though, roundabouts seem pretty silly (we have 3 of them here in the town where I live.. and they're new!). Whatever happened to the good old fashioned 4 way stop? You have to stop for the blasted roundabout anyway (more often than not)

mickal555
2006-Jan-01, 04:13 PM
In my suburb we'd have about 20....

It was a pajero(1999)...

I'd probobly loose control if I just went over...

jkmccrann
2006-Jan-03, 12:29 PM
It's been the law in Australia for years - can't use a mobile while driving. "Hands free" is deemed ok though.

I can vouch for this because this particular law bit my behind a few months back. I was $200 out of pocket after I was caught on the phone. Interestingly, I tend to find its safest to be doing it whilst on the freeway - travelling fastest, perhaps because there aren't so many distractions and unpredictable situations in that arena. Everyone I know does it here anyhow, law or no law.

pumpkinpie
2006-Jan-03, 02:12 PM
Speaking as a frequent passenger, I'd guess it's because the passenger is also watching for exits, other cars, cops, etc. Certainly I do. There are also two interchanges in our area where I don't talk to my friend Heather while she's driving. (One, the one by our apartments, is referred to as "the big scary onramp of death.") However, the person with whom you're on the phone can't see that tree that's about to leap out in front of you.

That's a very good point. The passenger will in most cases give a warning or at the very least stop talking when said tree is on its way. A second set of eyes in tune to the dangers of the road is a helpful thing to have.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Jan-03, 02:37 PM
And yet, interestingly enough, studies show that talking to a passenger who is physically in the car is not as distracting as talking to someone on the phone.

I wonder why that is.

My guess - they are a much more integrated part of the driving experience. Paying attention to them requires much less effort. The telephone conversation is like a disconnected second story happening within the first, at least much more disconnected than the person sitting next to you in the car.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Jan-03, 02:48 PM
Well, this happened to me. I hit the deer, because I was looking at the sign that said Deer Crossing. :doh:

You did the right thing; not the watching the sign part, but the hitting the deer part. The worst thing to do, in almost all cases, is to swerve to miss a deer. Proper tactic is to hold your lane, slow as quickly as is safely possible, and mow 'em down if they don't get out of the way.

It is very rare to be injured by the deer collision itself. The serious injuries come when you leave your lane either before or after hitting the animal and then come in contact with trees, telephone poles, oncoming traffic, etc.

SeanF
2006-Jan-03, 02:58 PM
You did the right thing; not the watching the sign part, but the hitting the deer part. The worst thing to do, in almost all cases, is to swerve to miss a deer. Proper tactic is to hold your lane, slow as quickly as is safely possible, and mow 'em down if they don't get out of the way.

It is very rare to be injured by the deer collision itself. The serious injuries come when you leave your lane either before or after hitting the animal and then come in contact with trees, telephone poles, oncoming traffic, etc.
Not just deer. Generally speaking, you shouldn't swerve to avoid any accident, because of the simple fact that you have no idea what's going to happen if you swerve, and you don't want to lose control of the situation (what little you may have).

This is true from a legal standpoint, as well - if somebody, say, runs a stop sign and pulls out in front of you, they are at fault if you collide with them. If you swerve to miss them and collide with somebody else who was in the other lane, that'll put you at fault.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Jan-03, 03:00 PM
Well, my understanding is that in the US, you are perfectly free to discriminate in whatever situation you like on whatever basis you like unless there is a law saying you can't. Most such laws apply to civil rights or employment. Don't know about other countries.

That said, I'm sure people have sued insurance companies for charging men and women different rates, and I have some vague recollection that some jurisdictions have outlawed the practice. I'm unable to post any supporting evidence, though.

N

Because the industry is mostly regulated at the state level, it's a real mess. Each state can pass it's own regulations, and most insurance companies operate in multiple states, the big ones in all states. (As an aside, this is also one of the biggest reasons health care financing is such a mess - but there is so little vote-garnering potential to that angle that the politicians ignore it - especially since they are the ones that made the mess).

Anyway, the rate differentials set by underwriters are legal in most places and for most forms of insurance. They are dictated by experience, and for the most part do not deal with why, there are other experts for that.

Young men cause more accidents per driven mile than any other category. Why doesn't matter to an underwriter, regardless of how bruised the young men's egos may be.

lek
2006-Jan-03, 03:15 PM
One guideline i've heard is "if its dog or smaller, hit it (unless you are sure you can safely dodge it)".
You really dont want to crash into a deer animal, especially large ones like moose etc dead on. You'd have better chances of surviving while stearing out of the road and hit a cliff. If you are driving a large vehicle (like a truck) then its different of course...

farmerjumperdon
2006-Jan-03, 04:02 PM
One guideline i've heard is "if its dog or smaller, hit it (unless you are sure you can safely dodge it)".
You really dont want to crash into a deer animal, especially large ones like moose etc dead on. You'd have better chances of surviving while stearing out of the road and hit a cliff. If you are driving a large vehicle (like a truck) then its different of course...

Bad advice. You are much better off staying on the road. Actually very, very, very much better off. A deer has way more give than almost anything you could hit by leaving your lane. Getting hurt by hitting a deer is very rare; very.

Also, the first statement with the phrase "unless you are sure you can safely dodge it" is very bad advice for most people. It involves assessing more than the average person can deal with when behind the wheel and would put many in unknown territiory regarding the handling of their car. So even if the person could make the observations, do the assessment and make a decision; there is still the matter of execution. Play it safe - hit the animal.

I'll have to check out some info on things bigger than deer. We generally do not get anything bigger here, but the deer are certainly plentiful. They have gotten to be like vermin on the highway around here; and most people are aware that it is best to just hit them.

mickal555
2006-Jan-03, 04:15 PM
Poor dear :(

lek
2006-Jan-03, 04:28 PM
Bad advice. You are much better off staying on the road. Actually very, very, very much better off. A deer has way more give than almost anything you could hit by leaving your lane. Getting hurt by hitting a deer is very rare; very.

Also, the first statement with the phrase "unless you are sure you can safely dodge it" is very bad advice for most people. It involves assessing more than the average person can deal with when behind the wheel and would put many in unknown territiory regarding the handling of their car. So even if the person could make the observations, do the assessment and make a decision; there is still the matter of execution. Play it safe - hit the animal.

I'll have to check out some info on things bigger than deer. We generally do not get anything bigger here, but the deer are certainly plentiful. They have gotten to be like vermin on the highway around here; and most people are aware that it is best to just hit them.

Small deers might be ok, but some 700kg moose jumping in front of the car will do hidious damage, what makes it that bad is that the weight is on your windshield, not the front bumper: it can tear off entire roof off along with the passengers.
In here moose are very common, see lot less those smaller deer animals...
I see those buggers couple times a month on my way to work and back, hit one a couple years ago, tho I was able to stear away enough so only caught its front part on passenger side of the car so it wasnt that bad, poor car tho :( Scary thing is i didnt see them so often before the crash...

But yes, true, if theres much traffic there is no time to evaluate whether its safe to dodge an animal.

farmerjumperdon
2006-Jan-03, 05:19 PM
Found this:

http://www.losttarget.com/shoots2004/0604moose/0604moose.html

Looks legit, but you never know for certain I suppose. Couldn't find anything much specific about moose, but without exception the info on the web is to hit deer - do not swerve.

State Farm claims about 1.5 million deer/vehicle collisions per year, with about 150 human fatalities - for a rate of about 1/10,000. Couldn't find anything on how many fatalities were the result of hitting the deer versus hitting something else while avoiding or after hitting deer.

lek
2006-Jan-03, 06:09 PM
Found this:

http://www.losttarget.com/shoots2004/0604moose/0604moose.html

Looks legit, but you never know for certain I suppose. Couldn't find anything much specific about moose, but without exception the info on the web is to hit deer - do not swerve.

State Farm claims about 1.5 million deer/vehicle collisions per year, with about 150 human fatalities - for a rate of about 1/10,000. Couldn't find anything on how many fatalities were the result of hitting the deer versus hitting something else while avoiding or after hitting deer.

Found the same moose pics at snopes, they say its real thing also. Found some stats on moose accidents (other deer animals are included in numbers, but moose are most common) in here ~4000 accidents a year, 10 deaths / 300 injuries (compared to total traffic accidents ~300 deaths / year).

weatherc
2006-Jan-03, 06:29 PM
Found this:

http://www.losttarget.com/shoots2004/0604moose/0604moose.html
I have one word to describe that series of images:

Yikes. :eek:

OptimusShr
2006-Jan-03, 10:14 PM
Found this:

http://www.losttarget.com/shoots2004/0604moose/0604moose.html


That's why we have signs like this in NH, Vermont, and Maine.
http://www.roundamerica.com/images/August/2003-08-02/trip-2003-08-02-NH-Unknown-Brake-for-Moose-sign-200.jpg

paulie jay
2006-Jan-03, 10:21 PM
You did the right thing; not the watching the sign part, but the hitting the deer part. The worst thing to do, in almost all cases, is to swerve to miss a deer. Proper tactic is to hold your lane, slow as quickly as is safely possible, and mow 'em down if they don't get out of the way.

It is very rare to be injured by the deer collision itself. The serious injuries come when you leave your lane either before or after hitting the animal and then come in contact with trees, telephone poles, oncoming traffic, etc.

We have a simliar problem in our country areas with kangaroos. You should see that damage they do to the front of cars!

Candy
2006-Jan-04, 06:12 AM
One guideline i've heard is "if its dog or smaller, hit it (unless you are sure you can safely dodge it)".
You really dont want to crash into a deer animal, especially large ones like moose etc dead on. You'd have better chances of surviving while stearing out of the road and hit a cliff. If you are driving a large vehicle (like a truck) then its different of course...
A family member (cousin) traveling from North Dakota to Indiana hit a big buck. The buck entered the car and killed his wife (life support to death). The next year, he was traveling again to Indiana. He hit another buck, and killed his (long-time companion traveling with him) dog in the collision. I'm guessing, he won't be traveling to Indiana anytime soon. :(

I swerve if I see the potential. I'm a pretty good driver and very in control of my surroundings. I've yet to be in a "weird" situation (not counting that darn cute deer). He pooped all over my car's exterior. :(

My mother and stepfather were hit by a semi-trailor truck a few years back. The trucker ran a red light. He fell asleep, plus he had family members in his "rig", which is apparently against the law. My stepdad took the settlement, but my mother is holding out. She said it could take another "ten" years to settle. I'm going to have to call her on that, because I could have my facts wrong. She has literally no short term memory. It's very odd. She's good somedays, and really bad most days. :(