By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
We are almost there. The body control module in some vehicles knows if the bluetooth is active. This information can be recorded in the black box when someone crashes.
just find some the studies so far proferred by cellphobes rather self-contradictory: e.g. if there is no difference in hand-held vs. hands-free, then there should be no difference between talking on the cellphone vs. talking with a person
The passenger has situational awareness and the conversation will tend to lull during peak workloads.
Because the data point for having conversation, adjusting radio, etc. are not picked up in the accident statistics
Tuning the radio is less than 1 second, require a "glance" which is defined as ~500msec. In one's own car, tuning the radio using the presets is a ballistic motion and doesn't require a glance (the exception is cars that tune the radio via a touch screen, or iDrive, which doesn't count). It is very unlikely that the 500msec glance from the road will be enough to cause of a crash.
Indeed...that tops most of the logic shown by the wannabe-authoritarians here.
Scapegoating phone yappers while ignoring other distracted drivers (as our beloved law enforcement/revenue collection officers have done for eons) wouldn't be worth the effort. A legal effort to invalidate the claims would undoubtedly be successful. Innocence comes before guilt...let's see how these honorable and accountable souls would prove guilt...
Not if the passenger is a kid in the back row or a spouse keen on winning an argument ;-)
Tuning the radio is less than 1 second, require a "glance" which is defined as ~500msec. In one's own car, tuning the radio using the presets is a ballistic motion and doesn't require a glance
A car travelling at 65mph covers about 100ft in 1 second, or about 50ft in 500msec. Talking on the phone does not require taking eyes off the road at all. Most cell phone users probably spend more time with their cell phones than with their car radios, hence the cell phone wins the famililarity contest hands-down, so to speak.
After being "blocked" by others and accosted for being on the cell-phone she immediately maintained that she was not on the cell phone and that the light was green. There were several other witnesses to the event, so that argument did not hold up very well.
Maybe it was boaz47?
Look, it's real simple:
Many drivers now drive while talking and are not capable of it. They are abusing the privilege. Institute a law that if you cause an accident or moving violation and are on the phone, you get extra penalties.
Given that the stats we see show (a) lost reaction time is just a fraction of a second, and (b) that 5-6% of drivers seem to be on a handheld at any given moment, yet fewer than 1% of accidents involve a phone as a contributing factor, I'd say that you are confusing your observations with facts.
This is the problem when people confuse anecdotes and data. Obviously, you've got a thing about cell phones, so you scan the horizon looking for drivers whom you don't care for and who happen to be using the phone. Everytime that you notice someone on a phone, you put it in the forefront of your memory and then project this onto everything that you observe, forgetting that your own bias and prejudices influenced what you are looking for.
There is no conclusive evidence that the phones, by themselves, cause accidents. I keep asking anyone here to provide such evidence, but no one seems able to do it. If it's such a huge problem, then surely it should be easy to prove your cases?
I put my phone on speaker and all anyone hears is road noise. As far as burden of proof, well, the police officer just issues the ticket and doesn't have to prove anything. If the officer shows up in court then you have to pretty much prove that you were innocent, since it is your word against the officer's, who do you think the judge is going to believe?
I'd say that you are ignoring studies that don't support your view. Or did you forget about the one I linked that says they are as bad as drunk drivers.
The only "massaging" I'm seeing is coming from folks on the thread who obviously hate phones for the sake of it, but can't support their arguments with anything but more diatribes about phones. Yet when I look for some sort of proof that phones cause wrecks, no one can seem to present it, while the data is either inconclusive or proves the opposite point.
If you don't like the phones, that's fine, we all have the right to hold an opinion. But being passionate about an opinion does not make it factual, not by a long shot.
being rear-ended in car accidents six times in the last several years, (no panic stops involved, at rest for several seconds)- your tortured attempt to lay it on the lack of the appropriate "driving attitude"
Of course, attitude is key. If one holds the attitude that driving drunk, weaving through traffic, tailgating or driving inattentively, for whatever reason, are acceptable behaviors, then yes, of course the driver's attitude is the critical problem. It's the very reason that young people have more accidents than do the middle-aged, despite having superior reaction times -- because they are more likely to exercise poor judgment. People with good judgment don't drive in a reckless fashion, and are therefore less likely to cause accidents.
And I'm sorry, but if you've been rear-ended six times over a relatively short period, then I have to question your judgment as well. Defensive driving involves anticipating the actions of other drivers, and leaving a bit of room so that you can find an escape path if another car comes too close.
I once had a friend, now long disconnected, who as a trucker facing the insanity of daily driving on the interstate, carried both a 12 Gauge shot gun and a 357 Magnum and began shooting out the tires of other truckers
Your friend is a psychopath. I can only hope that he is in prison where he belongs.
Would you be incensed if it was at the hands of a cell phone engaged driver?
Conversely, would it be fair to say that the 99+% of accidents that have nothing to do with phones are perfectly acceptable to you?
Institute a law that if you cause an accident or moving violation and are influenced by any distraction such as eating, smoking, drinking, smacking kids around, playing with in car electronics, etc., you get extra penalties.
And the burden of proof shall be on the accuser, with methods of documentation made public record so those who are paying for it can see their dollars at work.
I read these soundbites, and while they sound very sexy and make for good conversation, I see no real meat behind them.
What is this "drunk driving" soundbite supposed to mean, exactly? Are they claiming that people using phones can't walk in a straight line, have bloodshot eyes and slur their speech?
I go back to the 13/100ths of a second measurement, the wide variance within that number, and the implications of there being a large variance. (Large variance would tend to indicate that the correlation between phone usage and delayed reaction time is weak.)
Some time ago, I asked if someone could explain the reason for this variance, when this variance puts a rather obvious hole into this bogus DUI analogy. So far, I've seen no takers. Why can't any of the phone foes address such a question, when the answer is so critical to the validity of your positions?
There is conclusive evidence of this from many studies and cases all over the world. Your not accepting the TRUTH does not make it any less the Truth. Better talk fast as the door is closing on cell phone calls from drivers.
THURSDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- Maneuvering through traffic while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident five-fold and is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, U.S. researchers report.
That finding held true whether the driver was holding a cell phone or using a hands-free device, the researchers noted.
"As a society, we have agreed on not tolerating the risk associated with drunk driving," said researcher Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah. "This study shows us that somebody who is conversing on a cell phone is exposing him or herself and others to a similar risk -- cell phones actually are a higher risk," he said.
His team's report appears in the summer issue of the journal Human Factors.
In the study, 40 people followed a pace car along a prescribed course, using a driving simulator. Some people drove while talking on a cell phone, others navigated while drunk (meaning their blood-alcohol limit matched the legal limit of 0.08 percent), and others drove with no such distractions or impairments.
"We found an increased accident rate when people were conversing on the cell phone," Drews said. Drivers on cell phones were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers, the researchers found.
The phone users fared even worse than the inebriated, the Utah team found. There were three accidents among those talking on cell phones -- all of them involving a rear-ending of the pace car. In contrast, there were no accidents recorded among participants who were drunk, or the sober, cell-phone-free group.
The bottom line: Cell-phone use was linked to "a significant increase in the accident rate," Drews said.
He said there was a difference between the behaviors of drunk drivers and those who were talking on the phone. Drunk drivers tended to be aggressive, while those talking on the phone were more sluggish, Drews said.
In addition, the researchers found talking on the cell phone reduce reaction time by 9 percent in terms of braking and 19 percent in terms of picking up speed after braking. "This is significant, because it has an impact on traffic as a system," Drews said. "If we have drivers who are taking a lot of time in accelerating once having slowed down, the overall flow of traffic is dramatically reduced," he said.
In response to safety concerns, some states have outlawed the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. But that type of legislation may not be effective, because the Utah researchers found no difference in driver performance whether the driver was holding the phone or talking on a hands-free model.
"We have seen again and again that there is no difference between hands-free and hand-held devices," Drews said. "The problem is the conversation," he added.
According to Drews, drivers talking on the phone are paying attention to the conversation -- not their driving. "Drivers are not perceiving the driving environment," he said. "We found 50 percent of the visual information wasn't processed at all -- this could be a red light. This increases the risk of getting into an accident dramatically," he said.
http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/06/29/hscout533489.htm- l
Not if the passenger is a kid in the back row or a spouse keen on winning an argument
Again, thank you for the anecdotal reference. I'm sorry you and your significant other use the car for brawling. No wonder you would rather be on the phone
Tuning the radio is less than 1 second, require a "glance" which is defined as ~500msec. In one's own car, tuning the radio using the presets is a ballistic motion and doesn't require a glance
A car travelling at 65mph covers about 100ft in 1 second, or about 50ft in 500msec. Talking on the phone does not require taking eyes off the road at all. Most cell phone users probably spend more time with their cell phones than with their car radios, hence the cell phone wins the familiarity contest hands-down, so to speak.
Please review the underlined section. Also, a cell phone certainly requires a glance as one has to navigate the phone book to select the number to dial, or manually dial, which is actually isn't a learned function so it will never be a ballistic movement. At the very least one has to locate the phone to receive the call. If using a portable hands free unit, it is unlikely that the "answer" button will be in exactly the same place each time, again, making it a monitored motion.
Talking on the cell phone isn't about eyes off road time, its about brain off road time, or situational awareness. It depends how involved or tasking the conversation is to the driver relative to the workload from driving.
No: The law is used to cite people smacking their kids, eating while driving, shaving, preparing power point, talking on cell phones and more. It is not just an after the fact citation when someone is swerving or has already caused an accident - a little late then. The best is the cell-phone driver using a stick shift, while shaving being cited because - no hands on the wheel at all never mind only one!
Institute a law that if you cause an accident or moving violation and are influenced by any distraction such as eating, smoking, drinking, smacking kids around, playing with in car electronics, etc., you get extra penalties.
And the burden of proof shall be on the accuser, with methods of documentation made public record so those who are paying for it can see their dollars at work.
Hmm sounds like, eh I dunno, secondary enforcement. If they had an icon with a guy jumping up and down blue in the face I would use it :sick: lol. I think if you have any driving infraction, distracted driving (driving while doing pretty much anything in the list fintail put together...and I did at some point) gets tacked on top. If you are involved in an collision, then the fines go way up.
It's a start but it's too late; people have already been injured or killed in the accident by then. Kind of like letting little Jonnie/Jannie play with a real gun until he shoots someone and then taking it away.
Lots of evidence presented and corroborated here, but if you are currently on the cell-phone you will not see it in time to act.
A British study just released shows that talking on a mobile phone while driving is more hazardous than operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The study is sure to raise a few eyebrows and fuel the controversy over legislation aimed at banning cell phone use by drivers.
Tests conducted by scientists at the UK-based Transport Research Laboratory for insurance firm Direct Line involved 20 subjects using a driving simulator to test reaction times and driving performance.
Researchers tested how driving impairment was affected when drivers were talking on a handheld mobile phone or a hands-free phone, and when drivers had consumed enough alcohol to register above the legal blood-alcohol limit. The UK legal alcohol limit is 80mg/100ml, or .80.
Direct Line reported that the results showed drivers' reaction times were, on average, 30 percent slower when talking on a handheld mobile phone than when legally drunk - and nearly 50 percent slower than under normal driving conditions.
Also, the tests showed, drivers talking on phones were less able than drunk drivers to maintain a constant speed, and they had greater difficulty keeping a safe distance from the car in front
http://www.1800duilaws.com/article/study_dui_ws_talking_on_cellphone.asp
It's a start but it's too late; people have already been injured or killed in the accident by then. Kind of like letting little Jonnie/Jannie play with a real gun until he shoots someone and then taking it away.
And then all of Jonnie/Jannie's friends will hear what happend and how they are now serving consecutive life terms in prision and had to give every cent they ever made to the wrongful death suit and will be less likely to play with the real guns anymore.
Except that they are not "Present". Many of us see this difference in mental awareness when we try to talk with our significant others who are engrossed in a TV talk show and we receive only semi coherent and delayed responses from them - they are not "Present".
20 subjects and a simulator? Conducted for an insurance company? That's a very small sample, too small to have a high confidence interval, and a simulator is just that.
Doesn't sound like much of a study. Compared to statistical collections of thousands of actual accidents that show something very different, and I know what I'll choose. (Yes, I favor reality over a simulated study involving so few people paid for by an insurer.)
My post was commentary on the relative arrogance demonstrated by this person that is driving the battle to get legislation passed to address this "attitude of entitlement" that afflicts so many in a rapidly growing segment of drivers.
"We were surprised by the results." Burch said the researchers expected that alcohol consumption would cause greater impairment of driving ability than talking on a mobile phone. "We would like to see the use of mobile phones when driving, both handsheld and hands-free, become as socially unacceptable as drunk driving," he added.
http://www.mobile-tech-today.com/perl/story/16908.html
-13/100ths of a second (taken from a meta-study that compiled the results of many studies together, not just one of 20 people on a machine paid for by an insurance company)
-less than 1% (compiled from the results of thousands of accidents in multiple states, not just one of 20 people on a machine paid for by an insurance company)
Thousands of data points compiled from the outcome of real events are superior to twenty simulated points paid for by an insurance company. That should be pretty obvious.
Indeed, a sample of 20 on a simulator is pretty amusing.
One doesn't post a dubious study, refuses to defend it himself, and then demands something refuting it. With that logic, I could claim you are from the moon, and you'd have to show me something refuting it to disprove my claim. That's not how it works.
Talk about rhetoric...
We seem to have hit an even worse nerve with you. You have gone from skilled drivers don't get into accidents, to good attitude prevents accidents, to no matter what, if you are hit in an accident, it is your fault for being in the way in the first place because you obviously lacked the skills and attitude needed to avoid the unseeable and unavoidable.
As to my friend, a decorated Nam vet, with the highest security clearance, and no prior history of violence; he is presumably still doing missionary work in a foreign country. The point, not lost on you despite the very well practiced veil of innocence, is that there are thousands of people like him who see the carnage that you support happening everyday who we would like to prevent from taking drastic action such as what I outlined.
Using the Legislative system to address cell-phone misuse, as well as all distractions, which you know I included in my threads, is a better way to go than shooting out tires - however if that particular "Grievance" is not addressed people will react in unacceptable and dangerous ways to compensate for legislative failure to protect the innocent.
You, now typically, fail to respond to questions, but like the average street perp claim innocence no matter what the evidence shows. You then go further to blame the innocent for being in the way.
Query: Do you have any children? Is this what you are teaching them - that if they hurt someone it is the victims fault because they obviously had inferior attitude and skills and therefore had it coming?
Do I smell Zyclone B?
Great post gagrice!
gagrice, "Should cell phone users be singled out?" #618, 27 Oct 2006 8:16 pm
One accident that is the fault of another is unfortunate. Two accidents is horrendously bad luck.
But six? Six sounds like something less than fluke, and more like someone who sets himself up for problems.
I've avoided being rear ended by being vigilant and attentive (oddly enough, I once avoided getting hit by a large truck towing a trailer while I was on the phone -- the person on the other end of the line got to hear my reaction...).
Had I not been more aware of my surroundings, I myself would have probably been rear-ended several times over, yet I have largely avoided this. It's not just luck.
As to my friend, a decorated Nam vet, with the highest security clearance, and no prior history of violence
If you're being truthful and the guy did what you claimed he did, then he does have a history of violence. Firing a weapon on a public highway at another vehicle is a felony, and deserves prison time.
He's a whack job, and need to sit in a cell and think about his anger management skills. I hope that the cops aren't ticketing some good driver on a phone when he's driving on the same highway.
Do I smell Zyclone B?
Now you're honestly making a comparison between defensive driving and a [non-permissible content removed] death camp? It's not just your friend who's a bit over the top!
Is this a suggested punishment of cell-phone drivers and others equally diminished? Can we sell tickets and watch the proceedings? Will it be televised? Will it bring back the already dead? Will it affect those believing in their "entittlement" leaving us with no way to prosecute without blood on the pavement?
Do you have children?
You must have missed the summary of accident data that showed that phones were a "contributing factor" in a fraction of 1% of accidents. Nowhere near the result that we see for drunk driving, there is simply no comparison.
These were not simulated accidents, but real accidents. Let's focus on the real world, shall we?
http://www.chumfm.com/MorningShow/bits/march24.swf
You are on a roll there pch101. You will not accept insurance company findings, but will support phone companies lobbying efforts to block legislation. The two groups have conflicting objectives - phone companies need the revenue stream from cell-phone users - insurance companies need to keep accident rates low to retain their revenue stream.
Is there any blind alley that does not seem like a freeway to you? Do you sell cell-phones? Have you seen "Thank you for Smoking"?
First study of its kind
The study, which ran in the British Medical Journal, is the first of its type to use actual crash data and cell phone records to correlate serious vehicular accident injuries with talking on the telephone. Further, the results show that the same risks are posed whether holding a phone to your ear or talking through a hands-free devise such as a speakerphone.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a similar study in the U.S. because cell phone records aren't considered public information. The new study looked at cell phone records of some 500 drivers who had accidents in Perth, where drivers cannot use hand-held phones. Researchers estimated the time of the crash and examined whether the motorist used a cell phone in the minutes leading up to the accident. They then looked at similar time intervals in the days before the crash to determine the added risk of using the cell phone.
Talking, not holding, is more distracting
The study was conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a nonprofit research organization in Virginia. IIHS dispatched researchers to three Perth hospitals for interviews of crash victims in years 2002 to 2004. Among other things, accident victims were asked whether they had hands-free phone devices in the vehicle and how frequently that equipment was used. The IIHS research in Australia found that the most distracting cell phone activity is the act of conversing on the phone, not the holding of equipment.
Consistency across groups of drivers
"The main finding of a fourfold increase in injury crash risk was consistent across groups of drivers," says Anne McCartt, IIHS vice president for research and an author of the study. "Male and female drivers experienced about the same increase in risk from using a phone. So did drivers older and younger than 30 and drivers using hand-held and hands-free phones."
McCartt's IIHS colleague Russ Rader contends, "it doesn't matter whether you're using a hand-held phone or hands-free equipment, the danger's ever present. This study clearly shows that drivers should not be using cell phones when driving. The research shows that the risk is significant. If you're on a cell phone when driving, you're putting yourself and your passengers at risk, and you're endangering the lives of other motorists. "
Need to use your cell when driving?
According to Mr. Rader, if you need to use your phone when driving, "Pull off to the side of the road and make your call or wait until you get to your destination." Rader warns motorists to avoid multi-tasking when behind the wheel. "Driving safely requires total concentration. Driving is a complex task. Keeping track of what's going on around you is difficult enough without distractions."
http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/Study_Shows_Cell_Phone_Users_More_Prone_to- _Accidents/artid/319
The National Conference of State Legislatures is just that, it's an association of state governments. Nothing to do whatsoever with Verizon. They got their data from their own law enforcement agencies, such as the CHP.
I would never even consider advocating the acceptance of a study paid for by the wireless industry, any more than I'd use one from the insurance industry. Particularly one that uses only 20 data points, which is not nearly large enough to qualify as a fair sample.
Now you're honestly making a comparison between defensive driving and a [non-permissible content removed] death camp? It's not just your friend who's a bit over the top!
Nicely done, with all of the points avoided, and all of the question unanswered, and the victim always at fault regardless of circumstances. But what else could you possibly say given your view of your own superiority? Did something like this happen to you?
Once you view yourself as superior and infallible, then all utterances become "Holy Writ" and unassailable. No matter what evidence will be presented, or what examples are available, nothing can change in you. As the Indians once said; "Bend like a willow or break like a stick".
What might your view of rape, and rapists, and muggers, and arsonists be? Should not have been outside, should not have been alone, should not have owned a flammable building?
Although you go to great lengths to create your "persona", It is possible you are just treating this life and death discussion as a lark and part of your "entittlement". However, your couched questioning of posters veracity seems to be a basic component of your make up and probably underlies much of what you utter, but may not believe in any significant way.
Time for my meds. now.
No, I just questioned how someone could be rear-ended so many times over a "several year" period, and still be paying attention. Perhaps you had an amazing run of bad luck, but you've not explained it.
I hate using anecdotes to prove anything, but in my limited experience, those few people whom I know who have had a lot of accidents but were not at fault were not particularly good drivers. They seemed to have below-average skills in observing those around them, and were therefore caught unaware much of the time, which made it easier for them to become involved.
Legally, they may not have been at fault, but their driving skills don't inspire confidence, either. They get hit that often because they never see it coming. They don't see it coming because they don't pay attention.
By the way, I'm still trying to figure out what Hitler has to do with any of this. Was he a bad driver, too?
Why would this change, when phone usage in the car is nothing new? Phone usage in the car has been on the rise for years, yet accident rates continue on their gradual long-run trend downward. If anything, driving is safer today than it ever was in the "good old days."
We know for a fact that minutes of use went up 27% in the first 6 months of this year compared to the first 6 months of 2005.
I wouldn't confuse overall usage with usage in the car. The product life cycle is now maturing to the point that people are beginning to use cell phones instead of land lines, to the point that an increasing number of people no longer even bother to get a land line phone at all.
Personally, my cellular/landline usage ratio increased radically in favor of the cell because of free weekends and nights. No point in paying toll charges on the land line phone when the call can be placed on a cellular with no charge.
Your premise is false. Any or all of the studies could have shown that there is no driving impairment in cell-phone use. None of those quoted here did that - they all pointed to driver impairment, not the opposite which they could have but did not.
Establishing that one is not from the moon is a permanent impossibility because there can be no answer. Testing for cell-phone induced impairment, or distraction has possible answers of at least yes or no. Those results are then subject to further scrutiny through the scientific process.
That is the way it is done.
As evidence mounts and sincere people become more understanding of the dangers in cell-phone use, the greater the possibility of significant legislation affecting cell phone use.
Fintail is absolutely right. If you are going to advocate a position, it is your obligation to prove its validity.
If you can't defend your own argument, no one is required to do it for you. Until you have proven it, no one has any reason to accept it.
Dubiousor and dubiousor! As already discussed on this site, improved vehicle safety features (among other things), including braking systems, and lighting, as well as road improvements have resulted in declining accident rates.
The real question is how much lower would the accident rates have been, and how many injuries and deaths would have been avoided, if you hung up your phone, and avoided other driver distractions. I think we are seeing evidence mount in support of that, and will certainly see more as the economic effects of the accidents become the driving engine in the now world wide debate and efforts to curtail this behavior.
We hope you are not typing this out while driving!
If phone usage was such a signficant problem, then I would expect that the rate of decline in fatality and accident rates would have been significantly changed. But it hasn't.
If you start seeing a strong shift in the trend that can't be explained by other causes, then there will be something to investigate. It hasn't happened yet.
I don't think you believe your own statement, as you ignore the salient points of the posting (good tactic in a losing argument), it fails logically, and denies the entire scientific process.
To use a variation of another posters logical fallacy; please prove your postings are not being produced by a phone company letter generator on the moon.
??? The scientific method requires the investigator to demonstrate a hypothesis, one that can be repeated when retested by others. It places the burden of proof on the party making the claim, not on the audience.
You don't prove a positive by demanding that someone prove a negative. You prove a positive by providing proof for it. Don't expect Fintail to do it for you.
You fall into your own trap - not that it matters to you: The variables here can not be easily controled. The trend in accident rate improvement is affected by state and federal highway expenditures, rates and levels of auto safety improvements, average driver age, inconsistent weather paterns, and more.
Closer to your logic is that the accident rates have declined due to cell-phone useage since they coincidently seem to track each other. In that case we should introduce a greater level of distraction to drivers in the hope that the rate of improvement will increase.
The trend is remarkably consistent over the long run, we have decades of data to review, and a lot of it.
Since the phones are allegedly this horrendous instrument of death, we should be seeing some serious changes to this trend if you are correct. So why is it that the only place that you can demonstrate this is with a simulator test conducted on a few people paid for by an insurance company?
If you want to claim that the accidents are already happening, then show us where they are happening. According to those state legislators (who aren't part of Verizon), the rate is well under 1%.
And, as you know, that is not what was posted. You refute a positive by providing an opposite and compelling case. Nothing you have been able to do despite multiple opportunities - which is not to say it could not happen, only that it has not.
If you were to say, run the same tests as presented and came up with opposite results you may then have a valid refutation. If you were to run a more complex test and found that cell-phone use had no effect on a drivers ability, you again may have a valid refutation. If your test is run countless times by many people with the same results then you will have logically refuted the claim that cell phone users do not have diminished abilities.
Or stated another way, if the phone companies could produce a test showing that cell-phone users do not have diminished capacity, and it was duplicated many times, and no compelling tests existed to refute it then you would have a valid refutation of the statement that cell-phone use does not impair driver ability.
I think we are all still waiting for those.
I know you know this.
Fess up, are you or your family in a cell-phone or a related business?