Can playing games too much kill you?

2 people have died in the last week from playing computer games too much...

Article here: http://www.vnunet.com/News/1136154

read the article but that sounds more like an illegal substance was injested, and not the games fault.
a staff member found the man on the floor of the cafe's toilet foaming at the mouth and bleeding from the nose

Pulp Fiction ring any bells.

It's not an illegal substance, if you look through the articles, neither guy ate or drank properly during the period, nor did they sleep properly.

Lack of sleep will send you mad (and later kill you), lack of food and water will kill you too.

More likely than not, they will have drunk energy drinks and ate a little junk food, and not slept in 86 hours (over 3 days), (62 in the other case, which is about 2 1/2 days) which is easily enough to kill you if you are an unfit games addict who rarely exercises and eats rubbish food all the time.

Yes, Malnutrition will kill you, but not in less than three days.

If that was so there would have been no time at all to go to court to get a ruling to force feed Ian Brady. And how long did the Republican LongKesh hunger-strikers of 1981 last - just slightly longer than 3 days, I believe.

Lewis, it was 32 hours not 62 hours in the other case.

Yes, but prisoners tend to be well fed normally, and not awake nonstop for 86 hours in front of a computer...

Office guidelines recommend you have a break every hour, and certainly not to spend all day in front of a computer with no sleep, let alone 3 1/2 days.

Edit: it was the guy who spent 86 hours on the computer that was found foaming at the mouth, the 32 hour guy, I thought it was 62, either way, it doesn't say if he was on the computer/not sleeping before that.

Well, too much of anything will kill you, unless it's something really divine (like sleep-- and even that causes pains).
Originally posted by Lewis
Office guidelines recommend you have a break every hour
I thought that was for something like epilepsy, which causes seizures instead of rabies.

Too much exposure to a monitor causes damage to your eyes, I think playing games for 86 hours straight probably fried his brain.

You're also advised to drink 8 cups of water a day (and that doesn't include water in coke ;)), and eat 5 pieces of fruit and/or vegetables a day.

I think the lack of sleep, lack of food & water, lack of exercise and prolonged exposure to the game caused his body to shut down and he died.

looks like I should get out more.......;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

No seriously foaming at the mouth and bleeding from the nose in the cafe toliet? This certainly sounds like abuse of a certain white powder which makes Columbian gansters rich. What games were they playing, I mean I'm pretty into Warcraft III at the mo but for 3 DAYS!!!!

A police spokesman stated that doctors believe Wen-cheng died from exhaustion, having remained in the same position for too long. The death highlights the danger of such intensive game-playing.

Less than 10 days ago, a 24 year-old South Korean man died at an internet cafe in Kwangju, 260km outside Seoul, after playing continuously for 86 hours.

Psychologist Peter Watson explained that playing games over prolonged periods without sleep places the body under considerable stress.

"Depending on the game, the brain is receiving [the impression] that it is constantly under attack," he said.

"We would not expect hardened soldiers to cope with a 32-hour fire fight, and yet some people think they can play these games constantly for long periods of time."

Let's hope these incidents don't lead up to a programming-induced
death... we could lose a very important board member! ;)

Seriously though, I think that's just plain crazy. I could NEVER sit
in one place for that long.

I'm wondering why nobody kicked that guy out of the cyber café
before he went overboard.

Probably because he was a paying customer! :-\


And I doubt that it was their first time doing something like that

On a somewhat related note.....people who fly economy class on very long flights (eg. transatlantic/transpacific) have an increased risk of dying from strokes. It appears that sitting in one position for hours on end can cause your blood to pool in your legs and lower body creating small blood clots. When you land, your blood flows again and the clots are (mostly) reabsorbed. But for some people, the clots cause strokes.

I suppose sitting at a computer game for hours on end would have similar effects, unless you had a really comfortable chair...

This is a scary thought considering our collective occupations.:-\

Maybe thats what happened to Thinker. He's been quiet lately :)

Okay, NOW I've heard everything when playing video games can kill someone. ;)

I'd like to comment here, I think they should have stepped in and said get some sleep or something, but then again it's not a business'es responsibility to tell people when it's bed time.

I agree that sitting around playing video games in a chair is bad for you, not only because you're not doing anything, but because it would probably lead to the bag of potato chips and mountain dew as well.

I personally find a touch of humor in this story, but if you want to play video games, and want to "have your cake & eat it too", getting exercise, I'd said play "Dance Dance Revolution", a video game which keeps you in shape ;)

Thanks for listening to me babble,
Ed

Doesn't matter how comfy the chair is. DVT can affect anyone, allow I believe the problem is exacerbated by the poor quality re-cycled air in aircraft cabins.

Besides how many people can say that they sit motionless for hours on end at work. You move your legs, you go to the toilet, go for lunch.

Originally posted by Banjo
Besides how many people can say that they sit motionless for hours on end at work.
That looks like death without unconsciousness.

Also, what's DVT?

I imagine it's that blood clot thing I mentioned....

V probably stands for "vascular"....
D...hmmm...dermal? death?

Deep Vein Thrombosis

And yes, that blood clot thing ;)

There have been cases of DVT suffered by people driving for many hours non stop. Basically, if you are going to be in a confined area for a long time make sure you move about. Walk up and down the plane, go to the toilet, look out of the window at the back, don't just sit there. Similarly, stop the car every 2 hours, have a break and a drink of water or get some air. With regards to computers, don't sit in front of the screen for hours on end, walk about the office / downstairs / go outside etc. Make sure you are not just sat down in front of the screen.

With regards to the actual incident, for health and safety reasons, the staff should have stopped the guy playing so long, 32 hours is ludicrous, 86 is insane. They should have told him to take a break at the very least and got him to walk around a little. It's a tragedy that it has to come to this for people to realise the dangers.

DVT is also known as Economy Class Syndrome. Named because of the lack of leg room in an Economy Class seat in most, if not all, airlines.

But I don't think that DVT causes foaming in the mouth and nose-bleeds during death. That is more commonly caused by a chemical reaction in the stomach to something induced.

No lack of sleep won't kill you i have stayed awake for a week solid alreadyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......................................... ...................................................(falls down dead)

One disorder, known as narcolepsy consists of excessive, irresistible daytime sleepiness, sometimes like a sleep attack. It is equivalent to trying to stay awake after going 72 hours without sleep. Narcolepsy is a potentially disabling, lifelong disease that afflicts about one in every 1,500 people in the United States. While it is common, narcolepsy is often misdiagnosed or diagnosed years after symptoms first appear.

Along with extensive drowsiness, cataplexy is another primary symptom of the disorder. Cataplexy is the sudden loss of strength in voluntary muscles triggered by intense emotions such as laughter, excitement, or anger. The cataplectic attack, which can last from several seconds to several minutes, can range from partial muscle weakness often in the face or neck to almost complete loss of muscle control in arms and legs.

http://www.muhealth.org/~news/SLEEP00.shtml

See also:

http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/1999/19991021-sleepdebt.html

http://www.applesforhealth.com/enufsleep1.html

I have stayed awake for a few days without sleeping and i did not foam at the mouth.... although i did fall down and wake up a day later in my bed.

Originally posted by Lewis
With regards to the actual incident, for health and safety reasons, the staff should have stopped the guy playing so long, 32 hours is ludicrous, 86 is insane. They should have told him to take a break at the very least and got him to walk around a little. It's a tragedy that it has to come to this for people to realise the dangers.
I concur, however, I think he was a little on the suicidal side to just sit there... I can't imagine playing something for 60 hours and still be content. Or maybe just ignorance. Lack of sleep doesn't "kill" until about 120 hours. It just makes you think you're under attack (ie. voices, flashing lights, apparitions, psychophysical actions).
I think we've all realized that the human body needs activity to survive -- just the guy was suicidal or something. I mean, you don't just die instantly while sitting down at a game... :-\

I don't think lack of sleep will kill you and neither the lack of food. Becouse part of the US Army Spec. Op Training is staying awake for 7 days with one meal a day, and I have only heard of 1 person dying from that.

Is it possible he had a stroke or somthing like that. :)

I don't think lack of sleep will kill you and neither the lack of food. I'm reasonably certain if you stop eating you will die.

Playing a video game for more than 86 seconds is revoltingly disgusting, much less 86 hours...tsk tsk. He deserved it.

this remides me of an article i read bout a guy who stabbed a 17 year old to death after he lost to him in a long counterstrike game, but more on topic if he died from exhaustion why was he foaming at the mouth and bleeding sound like drug abuse or some obscure medical condition

Originally posted by reboot
I'm reasonably certain if you stop eating you will die.

Yeah but after 2 weeks not 2 days :)

The average, fit adult human body can last 30-40 days without food. The same body can last 2-3 days without water. This is assuming you're body is not under considerable stress. If it were, I can assure you these numbers would decrease dramatically.

If you are really into it a video game can be very stress full. :)

The staff probably worked in 3 shifts. Each shift would come to work and think "boy that guys a keener. He was here before me yesterday too...." Each shift would assume the guy went home during one of the other shifts....

Good point. Everyone is assuming the same employee was there the whole time he was. :)

I doubt that reboot, but fair point.

Afterall I am a workaholic and I am yet to work for 86 hours straight.

First off, if you sit anywhere for over like 5 hours at one time, you're dumb. Second, if you play a game for more then 5 hours straight, yo'ure dumb.

And the staff of the shop would be liable if this had happened in North American, over there(where it happened), they might not be. You can bet your bottom dollar that if this happened in Canada or America that the cyber cafe would have the pants sued off them(probably their shirts too).

It sucks to be that guy, but in all honesty, if you're that dumb then, well....

I really hate the American system where it it seems that you can be liable for the stupity of others. It is starting to become more prevailent here. There also seems to be an assumption that something can not be an accident. Someone always has to liable.
It drives me nuts when I hear of some of the ridiculous claims that are actually granted by a judge.

Originally posted by Tuskony
First off, if you sit anywhere for over like 5 hours at one time, you're dumb. Second, if you play a game for more then 5 hours straight, yo'ure dumb.
You calling me dumb(?), because I have played a game for more than 5 hours (9 and a half to be precise) and I wouldn't consider myself dumb.

I really hate the American system where it it seems that you can be liable for the stupity of others.
I had a discussion about this recently-- seems like it's some person's bizarre and/or selfish way of making everybody pay for some asinine event, and that "If you noticed it, you should have successfully stopped it-- bottom line" <-- Silly, I know.

Iceplug > I mean without moving about the room or anything. I've played games for long periods of time too, but I do take breaks and get food, or a drink, things like that.

And yeah, I don't agree with our judicial system either. Its pretty rediculous sometimes, especially given the fact that if you break in to someones house, fall and cut yourself on a knife or something(or break a leg), you can sue the home owner. Now, how ridiculous is that?

If you put barb wire on your wall (or broken glass, nails etc) to stop people climbing it, should they do so, and cut their hands (presumably you did it to discourage them from climbing up the wall) you can be sued...

In August I was involved in a car accident, my fault I admit, the car skidded on the wet road and hit the car in front at about 10 mph, and they in turn slightly shunted the car in front. Now the people in both cars are claiming damages for whiplash. I find this absolutely ludicrous as the people in the car I hit were fine, their car only had a slight crumple in the back, and they got out and were walking around fine (hardly a symptom of whiplash), and the car with the people in front wasn't even scratched, yet they've no doubt seen one of those "been in an accident? Let's get some money of other people" adverts, or been approached by one of those maggots in the street who try and get you to sue other people because you weren't looking where you were going and fell over. It really does my head in that people can so blatently lie (I've spoken to a guy I know who was in the police and he says if you really suffer from whiplash you'd have to walk round with one of those white neck support things on - specifically while you are driving, and I doubt the people in the cars have been wearing them, but I bet the insurance company pays out. It seems ridiculous to me, that people who are not injured can pretend to be to make money.

The most stupid thing, is that the maggots who tell you to sue everyone tell you that only the big companys lose out, but who pays the premiums that they need to make money out of? You and me, and when somebody sues the company, everyones' premiums go up, including the people who sued.

They should make the "blame culture" and related suing illegal for these stupid claims.

I was in a car accident last year (completely not our fault, we stopped at a pedestrian crossing and some moron ran up our rear, we're lucky our car wasn't shunted into the people on the crossing), but I got whiplash quite bad. I didn't have to wear a neck brace, but I could barely turn my head for a week or so. I really wanted to sue the guy because, although it was completely his fault, he was blaming the driver of our car, and she was completely in shock and upset enough as it was. Unfortunately in NZ actually taking someone to court to sue them is usually more trouble than it's worth.

So silly.
I guess you've heard the one about the lady who spilled some McD's coffee in her lap and won a lawsuit against McD's hot coffee :p.

But, the car stories, that's a pretty good enough reason not to drive for me. :) I hear carpooling is in.

By the same token there was the guy who sued various of the fast food places saying that they were responsible for his being fat. Apparently the guy only ate fast food, and claimed that he thought it was healthy. McDonalds settled out of court for roughly 10 million.

*Quick note re car crash - you should have x-ray proof of the injury to prove it to courts, and being hit at 10mph is not sufficient to cause it, however, in genuine cases, almost every time, no matter what happens, the person who hits the back of your car is the guilty party*


Named after the woman who sued McDs for spilling coffee on herself (and hence the reason why the cups now have a warning saying "Contents may be hot") - here are some cases from the last couple of years (they may or may not all be true, but I could believe they were all true :/ They'd make me laugh, but because they might be true it annoys me immensly :/

**If I remember correctly, Stella had an open cup of coffee on her lap and was driving when she spilt it, quite how that is McDs fault I can't see.**

The "Stella" awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. Stella Liebeck is the 81-year-old lady who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds, winning millions of dollars. This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award - for the most frivolous lawsuits in the U.S.

The following are this year's candidates:

1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little was Ms. Robertson's son.

2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his neighbour's hubcaps.

3. October 1998: Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars.

4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbour's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced in yard. The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it
>repeatedly with a pellet gun.

5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument.

6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.

7. And the winner is: Mr. Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000 Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32-foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the driver's seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnie. (Winniebago actually changed their owners' manuals because of this court case, just in case there are any other complete morons buying their vehicles.)

Originally posted by BillSoo
The staff probably worked in 3 shifts. Each shift would come to work and think "boy that guys a keener. He was here before me yesterday too...." Each shift would assume the guy went home during one of the other shifts....



well if a guy was playing a game before a shift and was still there when the shift was done would not the employees talk to each other about the person, or at least about how things have been going...............anyways he would come up in there conversation.


plus why wouldn't there be a time limit.

Originally posted by orufet
Playing a video game for more than 86 seconds is revoltingly disgusting, much less 86 hours...tsk tsk. He deserved it.

Why do you think this, Orufet?

While I don't make a habit of playing games (about 4 hours is my limit), I enjoy the odd first-person-shooter now and again, especially after a hard time coding.

However, I like to keep my gaming and working much separated :(

You never know when the urge to play a few rounds of Unreal Tournament will strike! hehe

This might be a little off-topic, but in this (very good) book I read,
"The Blue Nowhere", which is all about hackers, the main character
said he once programmed for 70 hours straight or something like
that. He broke his pinky finger from typing so much, but he didn't
realize it until it started turning black which is when he stopped.

Just a little bit of nonfiction there... It really was a good book, you
(yes, I mean you!) should read it.

Originally posted by frodobaggins

well if a guy was playing a game before a shift and was still there when the shift was done would not the employees talk to each other about the person, or at least about how things have been going...............anyways he would come up in there conversation.

plus why wouldn't there be a time limit.

Why should there be a time limit? You should be taking responsibility for your own actions. And why focus on the responsibility of the employees there? Shouldn't the guy's family have noticed that he was missing for the last 3 days?

Originally posted by Lewis
Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this.

LOL. An award given to the most self-centered, selfish, and greediest people of the world, perhaps. :)

I am completely anti-video game, as I'm sure some of you here already know. I have my reasons. Any game that can possibly bring up the word "dead" or "kill" into the player's mouth should be banned.

According to snopes (the urban legend website), those examples are mostly (all?) urban legends....ie. it didn't happen.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.htm

You sound like a kind person and that you care about other
people.

I don't play much games anymore except one game called
"Tennis". I used to play Doom II all the time but I thought I
was just ridding the universe of monsters so I didn't care.

The lady that sued McDonalds for the hot coffee is a true one though. Unbelieveable that somebody could actually buy a cup of hot coffee and not be intelligent enough to realize that it will burn you if it spills on you. I don't know about you all, but when I buy a cup of coffee, I prefer that it were piping hot.

Yeah, I know....but it was more like half a million rather than "millions"....

As I recall, McDonalds lost because
a) They had several hundred other cases where people were burned
b) The woman was in the hospital for several days with 3rd degree burns. I think she required skin grafts....
c) They refused to settle out of court for hospital costs ($20,000?)
d) Nobody else served coffee that hot. I think it was something like 180F whereas homebrew is more like 130-150F. Since the damage done is an exponential function of the temperature, that 30-50 degree difference was huge.

I think jury awards in the US are way overboard too, but not so much because of the McDonalds coffee story....


Quick search found this link:
http://www.atlanet.org/cjfacts/other/mcdonald.ht

Billsoo > It was more like $3,000,000 US, not 500,000 :)



The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

If you read further......


The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.


So the total was about 640,000 before they settled. The exact figure they settled on is unknown, but I'd guess it was less.

DOH! :D I got too excited after I thought I out smarted you that I didn't read on any further :P

Well I still think the jury was wrong in awarding the judgement to the lady in that case. Common sense would tell you not to put something that hot between your legs when you are driving your car down the street,that is what cup holders are for. Before anybody comes back with, "Well what if she had no cupholders...." I will say this; I don't think it is MickyD's responsiblity to make sure we have cupholders in our autos, nor is it their responsibility to make sure their customers have a healthy amount of commonsense either! :)

No, but in today's world everything you do *can* be the fault of someone else. It sucks, but it's the way it is.

I think the *jury* award of 2.7 million was excessive, but the trial court did cut it back...

Anyway, I think McDonalds should have settled for the original $20,000....

Well I think you would have to agree that McD was, atleast, in some part, responsible for the burns. I mean, 180 F coffee is a bit too much(it's their fault it's that hot). However, it was the ladies fault she spilt it so it is good that her winnings were reduced.

When you buy coffee you don't expect it to be hot enough to give you burns in 2 seconds...that's just rediculous.

I wonder if McD went on to sue the consultant that gave them that advice.....

Well he/she is probably a full time employee for them...so they'd be sueing themselves, and that'd be silly :P

I did say that the stories could be made up :p

Sad to say though, we get all the "no win no fee" companies advertising on TV, and even coming up to you in the street and trying to get you to sue people. They have people on the adverts saying things like "I fell off a ladder at work and got x thousand pounds" and it just encourages people to automatically seek blame and compensation for their own mistakes.

I'm am completely with Don on this one. When I buy food and drink which is supposed to be hot then I expect it to be as hot a possible. That means the ideal would be a boiling kettle poured straight into the cup, or a burger coming straight off the grill and into the bun. Now I realise that it won't always be this hot due the nature of preparing and serving large amounts of food, however, I would always want to have hot food served hot.

Its not fair to compare the temperature of coffee from McDs with the coffee from other places. 180F is 82C which means that the coffee was only 80% of the maximum.

As has been said, McDs are not responsible for ensuring that we use cup holders in our cars and even given that, they still offer cardboard holders to allow you to put it down on the passenger seat if your car doesn't have one.

Lets face it; the woman is a moron, and in my opinion so are both the jurors and the judge, and it is really scary that we (and I am including the UK here) have such ****** idiots metting out justice to the rest of us.
As far as I'm concerned, she deserved NOTHING from McDonalds at all. Something else has just occured to me and its even more scary than the stupidity of the judiciary. It is the fact that someone that dumb is allowed behind the controls of a car!

On a side, but related note regarding the "Caution: Contents may be hot" warning:
My general response is "It had better be!"

Sorry about that, but this sort of rubbish make my blood boil.

Shouldn't be drinking from a container like that whilst driving in my opinion especially with hot liquid. I use those bottles of water which if split will not distract me from the job in hand, trying to stay alive on the M11 (a motorway in England). People who use their mobile whilst driving, this raises my temperature. Thank god they are making it illegal. I have actually passed someone on the M11 who was on the phone and resting/reading a report on their lap whilst driving. Due to the nature of our congested little country/roads you can go from 90 mph to 0 mph in seconds, a moment lack of concentration...... you know the rest.:eek: :eek:

I was once driving ahead of a woman who was reading a book, it was quite worrying as I had to not only watch the car in front, and increase the distance between us (opening up a gap that some idiot driver will try and jump into as they don't understand stopping distances and safety) and watching her through my rear view mirror and hoping she didn't rear end me.

There should be better laws to say police can issue on the spot fines for stuff like that. I saw one insurer that actually gave you a discount if you were a non-smoker because of the need to look away from the road to light a *** while at the wheel.

I'vge seen women putting on make up on the motorway. Once I was in the centre lane overtaking a slower moving vehicle, and some old guy in a three wheeler (banned on the motorway as far as I know) overtook me in the outside (note - correct name, not "fast lane" used by people with limited knowledge of the highway code - and it should result in a ban if you call it that as it shows your lack of knowledge of the highway code, but I digress) and started turning back in while still alongside of me. I used my horn once (as a warning - the only, and correct use) and he nearly crashed into the barrier as he swerved away to the right, simply because of his lack of observation.

The dangers are there from the moment you step into your car to the moment you get out and get to your destination, and constant observation is the only way to drive.

Who can tell me how often you are supposed to look into your rear view mirror
a) on a normal road?
b) on a motorway?

I 'll out my neck on the line here .... I would says every six seconds or so? I'm probably way out:o

Every 5 secs on main roads
Every 2 secs on motorways

You were close though :)

Gallicus:
While I agree with your general sentiment, I really dislike the general establishment view that using any phone while driving is dangerous. I would certainly agree that hands free kits should be manadatory for car use, however, there are many who say that even they distract the driver. Of course they do, but no more than a nattering passenger or even worse, kids in the back seat, and they're not thinking of making them illegal. They also produce "scientific evidence" that talking on a phone is more dangerous than talking to a passenger due to things like body language and the ability of the passenger to shut up when a complex intersection is approaching.

1) If you gain more information from a passengers body language then you should be looking at the road and not the passenger.

2) You are the driver not the passenger and it is up to you to tell them to shut up (or just ignore them) when handling an junction. This applies just as easily to a person on the other end of the phone.

3) Do you know how this "scientific evidence" was obtained? They put people on a computer driving game and then got them to answer question on the phone. Sounds reasonable except for two things. First, a computer driving game does not have all the sensory cues that exist in real life and hence is harder to control and requires more concentration. Second, the questions they asked where maths and logic puzzles. Hardly the sort of thing that most people discuss on the phone while driving. Again, they require far more concentration than the usual tittle tattle that mobiles are used for.

One worrying thing that the study did reveal, but wasn't much commented on, was the complete lack of prioritisation skills on the part of drivers. When I use a phone in a car, the driving comes first, navigation second and the talking comes in last on my priority list. If you ever talk to me in a car you will hear me repeating asking you to repeat the last thing you said because my concentration has had to have been diverted completely away from the phone to handle a problem on the road.

As usual the technology is being blamed for people's complete incompetance in using it safely. The driving test emphasises lots of care and attention but fails to take into account the many and varied distraction and does not teach the pupil how to counter them. Mind you, in IMO the driving test is far too easy anyway. The number of drivers who are just completely hopeless is staggering. And then you hear them whining that they have a right to use a car just like everyone else. WHY? No one has to drive. Walk, use public transport. If you are not competant to at handling a car then you should not be allowed to do so. No one advocates a right to fly an aircraft, but somehow they have a right to drive a car!

Lewis:
You've caught another one of my pet hates. Middle lane drivers. Grrr! It all comes back to lack of competance.

As for the on the spot fines, I don't think that that is the problem. The problem as I see it is that there are not enough Police on patrol. Motorway police have pretty much been replaced by speed cameras and while they can catch speeders, they do not catch dangerous driving. Real human beings are needed for that and of course the government is too tight to pay for that.

And for the final question, I tend to do continuous sweeps around the mirrors, probably averaging a complete sweep every ten seconds. I somethings let that relax a little on a quiet motorway where it would be impossible for another vehicle to close with me in 10 seconds, but in general that's what I do.

With my work I do a lot of driving around Europe, (I have an advanced driving certificate, as well as a HGV Class 1), and am a quite an experienced driver, but:

Boy have I seen some things on the road.
1) 40Tonne lorry drivers reading the paper whilst driving (or rather tailgating the lorry infront).
2) people driving at 80-90mph in rolling fog.
3) people in cars tailgating Articulated Lorries on Motorways
4) boy races seeing if they can beat a lorry turning left (taking a wide berth) by going up the inside.
5) a person driving while drinking a cup of coffee and talking on the phone, steering the car with his knees.

I have seen I lot more but don't have time to put it here, but they are just as frightening.

I think that everybody should undergo an advanced driving test before being let loose on the road, Because knowing the Highway Code is fine, but that will not, and neither will the current English Driving Test, prepare you for what can happen on the road.

BTW Banjo

From January 1st 2003, It will become illegal to use a telephone whilst in charge of a moving vehicle, in the UK. At the moment the Police can only charge you with Driving without due care and attention.

Well that's the thing, I don't see the need to ban their use completely. All that is needed is for the police to use some common sense. The Driving without due care and attention charge has a very wide range of punishments from a small fine all the way through to 4 figure fines and large numbers of points on your license depending on the severity of the offense.
Personally I see this charge as far more appropriate for mobile phone users who drive poorly.

As with all bandwagons that the government jumps on, it ends using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Oh, and I agree that all drivers should have more advanced training, although I think that this should be included as a mandatory part of the standard driving test, not as an optionally extra. Its really odd that when you obtain a license you are supposedly trained to drive safely on the road and yet the test does not include night driving or motorway driving, both of which are very different from driving on local roads.

Davie, have you notice another annoying habit peoplem seem to be slipping into? That of indicating as they move. I mean what on Earth is the point. I can see that they are moving. I don't need a little flashing light to tell me. The indicators should be used in advance of moving to inform other drivers of your intentions.
Of course, on motorways you have to be careful with that, as some selfish drivers will deliberately speed up to close the gap that you are trying to pull into.

Originally posted by Banjo
You've caught another one of my pet hates. Middle lane drivers. Grrr!
I detect road rage. Although, I do agree that not everyone needs a license (like me). I'd end up being the person driving slow and blocking up all of the lanes, and straddling the divider line. :(
2) people driving at 80-90mph in rolling fog.
Yeah... also the little stunt drivers racing through dense traffic at this speed.
5) a person driving while drinking a cup of coffee and talking on the phone, steering the car with his knees.
LOL. :) A master careless driver.

Depends on how you define road rage. I get very vocal when I think other drivers are being stupid, but I never let that spill over into taking action. That would just be silly and dangerous.

Yeah... also the little stunt drivers racing through dense traffic at this speed.
Ah! you have them in Louisiana, too. I thought they were just around London.

I do have a fairly powerful car and the amount of 'boy racers' you have just passed their test and 'Mummy and Daddy' have bought them a new car for doing so that actually attempt to race me at traffic lights in London, especially, is comical. They haven't a clue about what damage a car can do, to both yourself and other road users, they seem to think that they are the only road user and everybody will get out of there way.

I do have a new Volvo 2.6litre, as well as a little run around. And while in my Volvo 'Boy Racers' in little 1.3/4litre cars do actually attempt to race me. All I can do is laugh at the fools, because if they are that stupid, how on earth did they pass the written test.

Originally posted by Banjo

Oh, and I agree that all drivers should have more advanced training, although I think that this should be included as a mandatory part of the standard driving test, not as an optionally extra. Its really odd that when you obtain a license you are supposedly trained to drive safely on the road and yet the test does not include night driving or motorway driving, both of which are very different from driving on local roads. [/B]


Goods points, well made, as usual Banjo. Your quote above about learners not driving on motorways. This has puzzled me for years! It seems like an insane rule! You are given no experience with a trained instuctor to do the most dangerous part of driving
:-\ :-\ :-\

I think we all agree driving standards could improve. Good discussion chaps

You have to remember that a lot of people don't learn with qualified driving instructors, they learn with family members and friends. Reason why, learners cannot drive on the Motorways is because they are not considered confident enough. Kind of Ironic really when you think about it.

I remember a friend of mine, a police officer, saying to me when I passed my test:
A Driving Instructor will teach you to pass your test, but it is up to you now to learn how to drive.
It is only years later that I realised how right he was.

That's a good phrase.

I think that there should be a two tier system (similar to the Australians I think) where you pass the test and swap L plates for P plates. An L plate holder should not be allowed on a motorway or or to drive at night period. P plate drivers can drive during the day on normal roads on their own and can drive at night and on the motorway with a qualified instructor. They then take an advanced test to allow them to drive without restriction.

That would still allow friends and family to teach the basics, while leaving the advanced stuff to a professional.

After the initial test, you can do pass plus - this is a further 6 lessons which are marked harder than the normal test. They involve:

Night
Town
Motorway
Country

and 2 other types of driving, I forget which. This should be compulsary for drivers upon passing. The problem is, people assume that passing a driving test means they are perfect drivers. I'd wager that 99% of people who have passed merely glance at the slip that had their minor faults and then binned it, immediately losing out on valuable lessons on how to improve their driving.

The IAM and RoSPA offer advanced driving lessons (typically £10-£20 p/h hour more than standard driving lessons, but they will bring you up to a better level, and ensure you keep to it with regular testing every 2 years. The highest stage is the RoSPA Gold award, but if you standards slip you can be downgraded to Bronze or Silver. The IAM has a different marking scheme but I forget it.

Banjo hit a raw nerve with me with regards to indicating. It is my pet hate of drivers, more because of the potential for accidents. Driving up and down the motorway you see 4 types of people:

The good driver: Mirror, Signal, Mirror again, look over shoulder, move out.
The poor and lazy driver: Signal, then move and don't bother looking.
The bad driver: Signal as you move (what's the point? We can already see you are moving.)
The dangerous driver: Just moves.

When I drive, I watch cars passing me on both sides and try and guess who will just pull in front of me so I can slow down and increase the space between us (following the 2 second rule), as I know a great many drivers just pull in without looking, and I do not wish to run into the backs of them.

So many drivers don't know how to overtake (doing so on hills, around bends), and often pull up behind you and tail gate you for many minutes until there is a potential opportunity. Goodness knows how fast they would react should you suddenly brake, not fast enough I would bet, and your car is out of service, while you hope that they are insured (as increasing numbers aren't) and don't just drive off.

The standard of driving is so low in the UK, the need for additional training should be a major issue for the government, not allowing learners out until they have done pass plus would be a good start.

Lewis,

If you stick around here long enough for a custom title, might I suggest "Master of the Incredibly Long Post" ?

:D

Oi! I was going for that ;)

Lewis:
I completely agree with you, but while I'm not advocating or condoning tailgating, I can understand the frustration that leads to some people doing it. It often comes from other drivers not getting a move on. A lot of people seem to be half asleep when they drive; they just seem to have no awareness of what is going on around them, and when some one's sitting in the outside lane blocking faster moving traffic while at the same time not overtaking anyone, it is incredibly annoying, especially when you're in a hurry.
The same lack of awareness is generally the cause of middle lane drivers too. They're just cruising along in their own little world.

Also, I realise that this is a generalisation, but in my experience it tends to be true: Old people are terrible drivers. They have a great insurance record because they don't have many accidents but that's because they drive so bloody slowly. They cause all sorts of snarls and jams through excessive lack of speed and indecision.

Oh, and back to the indicator's thing, have you ever noticed people who sit behind a slow moving lorry until you've gone by and then indicate and come out. They seem to think that indicating when someone is already overtaking them is bad. Thing is, how the hell am I supposed to know if they want to pull out if they don't indicate. If they'd indicated when I was still behind them then I might have been able to move over and let them out, or I may have flashed them out anyway if I'm feeling generous. Either way, indicating can't hurt, but some people seem to be scared of putting their indicators on when they can't move out immediately.

Originally posted by Lewis
After the initial test, you can do pass plus - this is a further 6 lessons which are marked harder than the normal test. They involve:

Night
Town
Motorway
Country

and 2 other types of driving, I forget which.
Sounds fun. I'd fail with flying colors (hopefully without flying pedestrians).

If you stick around here long enough for a custom title, might I suggest "Master of the Incredibly Long Post" ?
But I'd think he'd have to cut down on post size if he wants to expand the quota to more than 25 characters

As I'm not actually a VB programmer (shock :p) and only came on here looking for advice about programming for excel, but stuck around as I like the people here, I douybt I'll ever reach the 1600?? posts needed for a custom title. I was shocked to see I passed 100 the other day, and I've only been on here a few weeks.

That said, we do have some VB books around the office, so if I get the chance I may dabble. This type of programmign isn't really my thing though because I don't really understand how it all works. The programming language I know best is HTML, and I have a couple of training courses at work coming up, in HTML 4, DHTML and XML so who knows.

As for my post lengths, well, I used to play UO, and the shard I played on had quite an active community at its height, and I used to have some massive arguments with people about all sorts. Including all the quotes, explanations, insults etc, I've written posts that were 2,3 or more times longer than that one above ;)

Driving wise though, I dislike people who hang around in any lane other than the left hand lane unless it is not safe to do so. The middle lane is used for overtaking the inside lane, and the outside lane should only be used for overtaking traffic in the middle lane that is slower than you (say a lorry overtaking another). Holding people up, even if they want to break the speed limit is actually illegal, plus it is very dangerous as it can frustrate other drivers, leading to lack of concentration or road rage.

The correct procedure for overtaking (as told to me by an ex Police Grade 1 (the best police standard and pretty much joint equal best driving standard in the UK) is to drive up to the person in front of you, hang back off their car until you see they have looked in their mirror so they know you are there (all the while indicating - starting at least 2 seconds before you intend to move), once they see you, (assuming it is safe to do so), check your mirror (in case some loony or boy racer is doing a mass overtake), look over your shoulder, then pull out, accelerate past the car in front, wait until you can see them in your mirror (assuring safe distance), then indicate back and pull in.

Sadly, the only time you will ever see that is behind advanced drivers or police drivers and that ia a rare thing.

On the subject of old people - they have slower reactions (scientific fact) and often have failing eye sight (but often refuse to accept it because of lack of mobility caused by losing a car). While they may have less accidents (involving them), like women drivers, there is a myth about them being better drivers than anyone else. This is based on accidents involving drivers, rather than caused by drivers. If an old dear is driving, and does, say the incident I mentioned above) and if I was not aware of them, perhaps distracted by something else, and I didn't see till the last minute, I might have had to swerve left, causing an accident, and thus the incident goes down as my fault as the old dear drives off unaware of the accident caused.

Still, even talking about advanced techniques shows a useful interest in the area, and puts you above the majority of drivers, with John "I've passed therefore I'm a perfect driver" Public being the most dangerous thing on the road.

Just on the Australian driving system. You have to pass a theoretical exam on road rules and giving way. Need to get 80% of questions correct to pass. This gives you your Learners License, which allows you to drive anywhere, anytime, as long as you are accompanied by a driver who has held their Open License continuously for 1 year. You also have a 0.00 BAC allowance on this license. You must hold your Learners for 6 months before you can attempt a driving test. Once you pass this, you are awarded your Provisional license, which allows you to drive by yourself, but you have a 0.00 BAC allowance, and have only 4 demerit points for 12 months. (A typical speeding fine is 3 demerit points for 10-20Kph over the limit). You must hold your Provisional license for 3 continuous years to gain your Open license which gives you a BAC of 0.05 and 12 demerit points over 3 years. I think it is a pretty good system. They also made the actual test one in which you WILL be exposed to difficult traffic conditions dependent on where you live. i.e. if you live near a motorway or highway, they WILL take you on the road in question.

Not sure how we stack up against the US and UK in road deaths, but we generally only have 350ish per year killed on the roads.