Yeah, with half a second's thought at the headline it should be obvious they're worried about people talking on the phone or bluetooth, which really is distracted driving. I was sort of flabbergasted at the focus in the article on "singing along to the radio" as if that's what this is about. I do get how that could be a bit of a false positive, but I doubt it's that common.
No, talking in a car has no measurable impact on safety. And talking on the phone is obviously even safer than talking to other people physically in the car, since you don't need to take your eyes off the road or tour hands off the wheel like you would be tempted to when talking to another person in the car.
Plus, the vast majority of people have a significant need for social contact. Working an eight hour shift alone in a car without any contact with any social contact (except a quick sign off when dropping a package), 5 days a week, is inhuman.
> No, talking in a car has no measurable impact on safety. And talking on the phone is obviously even safer than talking to other people physically in the car, since you don't need to take your eyes off the road or tour hands off the wheel like you would be tempted to when talking to another person in the car.
Curious why you state that so confidently when every study I'm aware of has found the opposite.
So driving with a phone in your hand is as safe as keeping your hands on the wheel and eyes on the road? Got it.
No mention of talking to passengers in the car, I wonder why that was not tested, that would be a distraction as well.
> And talking on the phone is obviously even safer than talking to other people physically in the car
This is not true, because people physically in the car have the context of what's happening on the road, and can be aware enough to pause for a few seconds while you navigate a difficult situation that requires your full attention.
> No, talking in a car has no measurable impact on safety.
It measurably impacts my own ability to concentrate, I have noticed. We should dispense with such absolutist claims; there is no doubt that any action not directly related to driving a car has potential to impact safe operation of that vehicle.
The function of the law is to discover and enforce tolerances, balancing freedom with safety. We don't have to ignore even minimal safety implications in order to secure freedom, an honest conversation is better for both sides.
It is definitely inhumane to expect drivers to not move their lips or talk while working in solitude for 8-10 hours a day. Instead, we need to design our various systems such that they are capable of withstanding such a tolerance without severely impacting safety.
I have ADHD and simply engaging in a conversation while driving is enough for me to miss turns, exits, etc. Sure, in the event of an impending crash I might go into the zone and avoid danger, but my general awareness is noticeably impacted.
It seems to be less so for people without ADHD in my experience, but we can't just say it has zero effect. It's better to discuss the threat to safety in terms of potential, since that accounts for individual variance.
Corporations don't need humans. They need mechanisms that efficiently do the work assigned to them. As that's currently not possible, corporations try to mechanize humans: give them a rigorous set of rules to follow and a machine to watch and punish them should they break the rules.
What studies? The only quality meta-analysis I could find showed mixed results, "It was concluded that, in some indicators, listening to music has adverse effects on driving. However, in many indicators, music has a positive impact on improving driving safety." [1]
Personally I find music can help me focus - both when driving and at work.
I read that one and a few of the one cited in that same link you posted. It goes both ways yes while listening to classical or lofi hip hop may help one relax and be calm, other music could distract you. I honestly have no skin in the game. But a decision like this coming from a data driven company begs the question. What data do they have?
From the link you posted:
On the other hand, listening to music while driving could raise the driver’s mental workload index and, thus, impair their driving performance. In fact, both driving and listening to music compete for the driver’s limited cognitive capacity.14 According to a study by the American National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in-vehicle driver distraction, such as listening to music, is responsible for 25% of traffic accidents.15
Lots of counties do precisely that, and for exactly that reason. And, as others have noted, it's likely to reduce the talking-on-cellphone, which studies have shown is just as distracting and likely to cause an accident hands-free as holding the phone.
I don't think the villain is the music. I think the villain in this case is the distracted driving.
I for one listen to music at full blast and tend to drive spiritedly which requires full 110% concentration. So I would agree that there are bigger fish to fry than listening to music while driving. But I'm going to be honest and say I've seen folks who don't listen to music and do bonehead things on the road because they're distracted. So yes, let's bad roadside billboards. I'm with you on that.
How much stress does having quotas to meet by the end of the day impact the driving safety of a delivery driver? If Amazon isn't making it up but just applying sound metrics, does that include not having tight delivery quotas placed on drivers?
I get that having quotas to meet is stressful. I'm not arguing against that. I don't understand what type of quotas they would have. Unless you know, I would assume it's deliver the packages you have in your truck by the end of the day. It's all designed by a system that I assume is closely intertwined. For instance, I'm sure it wouldn't load a truck up with 1000 stops if it had no data that would indicate that it's possible.
And if every healthy driver (old,young, strong or weak) before you could move and complete 200 stops in a day but you can only do half of that. Does that mean the expectation is unrealistic or is it something else?
It means that drivers are highly motivated to get their deliveries done in a day. Wait another minute for a safer chance to make a turn? Driver can't risk it, all those turns add up by the end of the day. So the driver tasks the riskier first traffic opportunity they get. And makes hundred of other safety choices daily based on meeting their quota.
Sure, previous driver Bob made 200 stops in a day, what does that have to do with safety? Especially considering Bob was forced to pee into a bottle to make his numbers:
If Amazon is controlling for things down to talking, they damn well better control for the fact that human beings produce waste and need to use restrooms.
