"We've already had phones for years, yet the world still spins on its axis and fatality rates continue to fall."
But I still contend you don't know how many property damage accidents and fatalities are attributable to cell phone usage. Out of the number of accidents and fatalities a staggering number could be attributable to cell phone usage. But you don't know, because that information is not tracked. Since you don't know you are making an assumption. You know what happens when you ASSUME.....
Out of the number of accidents and fatalities a staggering number could be attributable to cell phone usage.
Since the rates are declining, there's no reason at all to believe that. We have been measuring accident fatality rates for decades, so there would be an abundance of opportunity to have these problems show up, if there was in fact a problem.
This is one of those situations when we're being told that the sky is falling, when the sky hasn't budged. You have had years of phone usage to have exhibited changes in the trend, but no such change has been demonstrated. There's no reason to believe that it is going to begin, when it hasn't started yet...
"Use of hand held phones is prohibited, except via a hands-free device. That would make text messaging a ticketable offense."
Hey, I'm just reading the amazing amount of posts in here since I last visited, and just thought I would interject here by saying that text messaging will, in fact, be perfectly legal under the new California law. I don't know about the rest of the country, but if in fact it was banned everywhere but here, then either they left this second loophole intentionally (I can't imagine why - text messaging while driving is a heck of a lot more distracting and potentially dangerous than talking with a phone to your ear) in California, or else our state assemblypersons are even bigger bozos than I thought.
And by the way, just how do you suppose police will enforce a ban on text messaging, which is done almost entirely below window-level, where it is impossible to observe from outside the vehicle? I get pulled over for that, I just snap the phone shut and toss it on the passenger seat before the cop comes to the window. Will we have open-phone laws next, similar to open container laws for drunk driving?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Your premise is incorrect. In fact before strick drunk driving laws 30+ years ago, fatalities increased, rates decreased. That would mean that drunk driving was not really a problem? According to your logic, it wasn't. I rest my case.
"I don't know about the rest of the country, but if in fact it was banned everywhere but here, then either they left this second loophole intentionally"
In these parts, use of a hand held phone while driving is against the law. If it is legal in California to text message, they are bigger bozos than I thought, or, you have mis-read something. I'm not into researching something that sounds to dang stupid. With TM not only is your concentrated diverted, but your eyes are off the road. I have a hard time believing this is the case.
"I have driven many years without accident. Since traffic was light I was trying to handle the cellphone and drive. It doesn't work. It is TOO much distraction to listen, think, synthesize response, and then communicate."
No offense meant, truly, but it may just be too much of a distraction for you. I have had a cell for a decade now, and have been talking on it in the car from the very beginning. I don't weave, I don't swerve, I don't brake or speed up suddenly, and I respond to what is going on in the traffic around me. As I said before, I try to minimize its use while I am driving, "just the facts" and I am off the line, usually within a couple of minutes, but it has been of no detriment to me.
The thing is, the lawmakers want to inhibit the many for the sins of the few here, and they want to ignore all the things that really cause distraction in the car, because they know that banning changing CDs in the 6-disc in-dash, or reading a map, or eating the Big Mac meal, or disciplining your kids, would create too much of a popular backlash.
They believe there are just enough cell users now that will just accept this that the minority that remains will have nothing of any effect to say about it.
To this, I say PROTEST!!!! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Can you believe we are on the same side on this issue? Discovery had a great show on the development of phones just the other night. Someone pointed out quite rightly that they could monitor our phones and maybe put a lock on them while moving. Except such a lock would fall under federal jurisdiction and require a federal restriction. Cell phones and their methods of communication fall under the FCC. So yes, they have to spot you with the phone to your ear. The tracking by GPS would require that they know your number and that takes a court order or once again has to go through the FCC.
"I would be all for a law that gives a cop the right to stop anyone that is distracted while driving for any reason"
Hear, hear! If we absolutely HAVE TO HAVE yet another new law to make everybody feel better, then I would MUCH rather see gagrice's suggestion come to fruition - aggressive enforcement of a law against all distractions in the driver's seat. The police officer would be exercising a lot of discretion, of course. It would be up to his/her judgment as to when someone was behaving in a distracted manner, and what the cause of that behavior was.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"I have no problem in putting down the cell phone while driving, why should you?"
Gee whiz, this is pretty darn presumptuous. Should we have no problem doing everything else you have no problem doing? And then structure our laws around what you have no problem doing?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You haven't made a case. You're alleging murder, yet you can't produce a body. That's not a credible argument at all.
In fact, you are ASSUMING a lot, despite a lack of evidence to the contrary. If phones were as bad as you say, then we should have been seeing some significant changes in the accident data since their introduction that reflects how dangerous they are. But we're not.
Believe it, it was part of the uproar after they passed the law. Made the news and everything. This is a state where cell phone legislation already failed twice when it was still just a proposal. On the third try, they made sure they weren't going to infringe on our liberties A LOT, just so this time it would get under the radar and onto the books.
But it makes no difference as I see it, for the reason I stated: enforcement of a TM ban is completely impossible.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As much as we enjoy our healthy debates, we actually see eye to eye on more things than we might care to admit. :-)
Now if I can just straighten out your anti-manual attitude! :-P
edit...PS, love the look of that item you linked. What I have hated about hands-free is you have to stick something in your ear, which I hate, or shout at a speakerphone, which doesn't always work very well. This seems to solve the problem. I guess I've got about two years to pick one up....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Hey everyone... Adam from the show AutoScoop has been reading this discussion and it will be the subject of the AutoScoop radio show this Saturday, Nov 18, 2006. It's your chance to call-in and sound-off about cell phone use in the car. If you call-in, be sure and give your username from the Forums.
Become friends with the AutoScoop show in CarSpace.
Wow, talk about condescending. I put down my cell phone due to the laws. Why do you have a tough time following the laws? In addition, I truly believe there are hidden dangers talking while driving.
"You haven't made a case. You're alleging murder, yet you can't produce a body. That's not a credible argument at all."
No sir. There are studies to back up the allegations. The only thing that can't be proved are the numbers, because these numbers are not tracked. In fact, you are assuming because you can't prove a point.
I don't have to reach into my bag of "tricks" very far to pull up a number of studies that confirm virtually the same thing about cell phones. As stated previously, I support this legistlation. This legistlation was not created because I assumed there was some hidden meaning to the FARS database.
There are studies to back up the allegations. The only thing that can't be proved are the numbers, because these numbers are not tracked.
That's simply a false statement, flat out wrong.
NHTSA maintains data on accidents and fatalities. We have accident and fatality data going back to prior to WWII. The NHTSA FARS database is just one place to find it.
So there is no shortage of data, we are overflowing with data. What is missing is any correlation in that data that can demonstrate that the cell phone laws produce results.
New York has had a hand-held cell phone ban since late 2001. If you compare its fatality rate in 2000 (the last full year that phones were allowed) and 2004 (the last year for which we have both fatality and mileage data), its fatality rate declined by .05 deaths per 100 million miles driven over that period.
To put that in context, when compared to the other states and DC, that would rank New York in 32nd place for the largest decline in its death rate. It also ranks New York below the national average, as the overall fatality rate fell by .08 per 100 million miles driven during the same period.
Here, you can see the outcome of the law you wanted. You have three full years of data, and you can see that the decline in New York's death trend is midpack compared to 50 other states and districts that allowed phones during that period.
So it's no wonder that nobody wants to discuss the real-world results -- there aren't any! But now that phone citations comprise about 2% of New York's citations, I'm curious to see how many dollar$ the state has generated from this fantastic step forward for public safety...
It's only false because you are not understanding the broader scope of the picture and the information available to back up some of the claims. (IMO)
But it really doesn't matter does it? You can believe what you want about my opinions and knowledge on the topic. We're having the theoretical conversation about data. In "real life" the ban against hand held cell phone usage is ongoing. The legistlatures are reacting to some real world information.
It is my belief this ban saves lives. Obviously NY does also. A widespread ban needs to be in effect for several years and only then can real information be gleaned about how many lives were saved..not lost.
BTW...DRLs are required on all cars. Why is that? It's a measure that is believed to save lives and/or property damage. Can you tell me how many lives were saved or accidents were avoided by use of DRLs? Some measures have to be put into place, even at the expense of your personal freedom for the greater public good.
The tracking by GPS would require that they know your number and that takes a court order or once again has to go through the FCC.
Actually it just takes a judge to get your cell records. Also part of a recent FCC mandate for all phone service was the ability for the law enforcement to be able to tap into any call at any time to listen. Not all phone companies were required to add the very expensive equipment without local government paying the bill. Most places that ability is in place. Cop keys in a license number. Your name pops up with all information about you including your cell number. Key in your number and listen and record what you are saying. It will not be difficult to police by the time the law goes into affect.
"So there is no shortage of data, we are overflowing with data. What is missing is any correlation in that data that can demonstrate that the cell phone laws produce results."
I agree, there is not a shortage of data. There is a shortage of useful information.NY didn't start writing tickets to errant cell phone users until recently, maybe a year or so of that information. Citations don't translate into accidents, they transalate into summonses.
So you can see, you are basing your conclusion on vapor data.
We seem to be entering an age when many folks seem to welcome Big Brother with open arms. It's rather depressing. But hey, as long as someone feels something is being "done", I guess it should be OK, huh?! :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
gun control debate. Is the device "bad" or is the person "bad"? Can I fire a weapon at a shooting range? Sure. Can I randomly fire a weapon while I'm driving? Absolutely not. One action has essentially no consequences, the other action places others in the line of fire for no good reason. This has nothing to to with "Big Brother". One could extend this to hundreds of other actions. Is it my right to drop cinder blocks? Sure - just not off of highway overpasses. ∞
You are confusing Big Brother with social responsiblity. I would think you would want to take an action, which could have a positive effect on fatalities and property damage on the road. I know I do. Some people are too stupid to do it themselves, so the legislators are doing it for us.
What is "vapor data" supposed to be? This is actual data, based upon three years with one of these "life saving" laws in place.
We can see from above that the New York law didn't save lives at all. Fatality rates fell more quickly in thirty-two other states, all of which allowed phones, than in the one state that didn't allow them.
You can hem and haw all you like, but your law produced no benefit whatsoever. The funny thing is that fatalities were declining in New York at an above-average rate prior to the cell phone law, but slid to below-average since then, so the state actually lost ground under the cell phone law, rather than gaining. When did sliding backward become a sign of progress?
"What is "vapor data" supposed to be? This is actual data, based upon three years with one of these "life saving" laws in place."
There is a limited amount of data from one state. Writing citations means nothing. NY didn't even starting writing cititations in earnest until very recently. You keep refering to this vast amount of data, when in reality the only thing the data shows is the number of citations. There is no national statistics on the number of fatalities or accidents due to cell phones. You can infer all you want, but the inference is merely an assumption. You know what happens when you ASSUME...
As I keep pointing out this is merely an exercise in garbage leads to garbage out. Lawmakers have all ready acted so it seems there is some basis for these laws, whether or not people agree with the basis.
What was the rational for the DRLs? To increase visibility and reduce collisions, of course. I think they are a great idea. Little financial outlay pays dividends on the road. Same for the ban on using hand held cell phones while driving.
Three years of data from a state with 19 million people. New York's population is similar to that of Australia, and almost five times higher than Ireland's.
That's a huge pool of data. It may not tell the story that you like, but it is what it is. And it doesn't confirm all of these fantastic life saving results that are being ASSUMED on this forum by the anti-phone activists.
There is not three years of data real data. NY did not start collecting or writing citations in earnest up until very recently.
Given the studies to date about the detrimental effects of hand held cell phone usage while driving, assuming the ban has a positive effect is not a very far leap of faith. There is some hardcore evidence to back up why the bans are good. Here is an example from NHTSA. Note they say cell phone statistics are hard to quantify, but they go ahead and do an analysis anyway. These stats won't be available for years.
There is some hardcore evidence to back up why the bans are good.
That's the problem -- there isn't. There is a lot of conjuncture and hypothetical speculation, but no proof.
The real world data contradicts the laboratory speculation. If you like, we can move on to comparing overall US fatality rates with those overseas, which will make it clear that the US has lower fatality rates than do many countries with phone bans.
There is a ton of data. Get outside of a lab and look at the real world, and we can see that phones are a non-issue. You can stop ASSUMING, and simply read it for yourself.
"That's the problem -- there isn't. There is a lot of conjuncture and hypothetical speculation, but no proof."
That is incorrect. There is hardcore evidence. You are not aware of all of the studies.
The lab I use is called the freeway. I see the erratic driving behaviors of people using cell phones. It's some anecdotal evidence that supports the behaviors observed in other studies. Please do more research before saying there is no hardcore evidence that suggests using hand held cell phones is safe. Again, I don't have to prove this, lawmakers are already proving to their satisfaction. California is another example, where I don't need to convince lawmakers to do the right thing.
It's some anecdotal evidence that supports the behaviors observed in other studies.
Anecdotes are NOT data. They are prejudiced by the observer seeing what he wants to see, and ignoring what he doesn't.
You are clearly hungry to see problems with phones, so your observations are not to be trusted. As I told you before, you are overconfident about your observation skills, and I would pray that not a single legislator makes a decision based upon a biased observer's gut feeling.
At least in the context of the gun control debate, gun control advocates can point to examples of those who have been killed by guns, and provide some evidence that it is likely that many of them would still be alive were it not for guns. For example, industrialized countries with legal guns have higher homicide rates than those countries that don't allow guns, the fatality rates are quite different between them.
We have no similar example in the case of phones. Those places that have put restrictions on phones have no great news to report in comparison to those places that allow phone usage. In many cases, locations where phones are allowed actually report better results than those that ban them, which is the opposite of what we should be expecting.
It might be nice to claim that phone usage "places others in the line of fire for no good reason", but if the phones aren't causing harm, then where is the fire? We're back to the "sky is falling" claims, when the sky is the same as it always has been.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that the usage of cell phones while driving cause loss or driver concentration, which doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand more distractions, more issues. Crawling under a rock and ignoring the evidence and studies will not make this issue go away.
Even the NHTSA admits pinning the cause of an accident is very difficult. Given this information has never been tracked except in a limited fashion by one state for a very short period of time, drawing conclusions about what is or is not the root cause of car crashes and fatalities is impossible. Making a false conclusion is not a conclusion, it's an assumption.
In the beginning drunk driving didn't cause any harm either. Cars, alcohol and drunk drivers have been together for over a 100 years, yet DUI laws have been on the books relatively recently.
Thank goodness lawmakers are looking at doing what they need to do in order to stem the tide of potential incidents on the road by people who don't know they are distracted. Much like drunk drivers lose the ability to judge they are incompentent, cell phone users lose the ability to judge their driving.
Out of curiousity, would you like to see the 55 mph national speed limit reinstated? The NHTSA was adamently opposed to lifting this limit. They have numerous studies that state this has resulted in thousands of additional highway fatalities. Their own numbers don't support this but, nonetheless, they stick to their position. Just like cell phones, no one needs to drive over 55 and if it could save just one life, blah, blah, blah... My guess is there are a lot of people that oppose cell phones but are quite comfortable with the higher speed limits. They will selectively choose to cite the NHTSA as a credible source only when it supports their own position.
There is plenty of evidence to prove that the usage of cell phones while driving cause loss or driver concentration
And has been pointed out on this thread, that does not necessarily correlate to a real world result! We are not rats and we don't live in laboratories.
Remember 13/100ths of a second. Please tell me how 13/100th's of a second became such a critical, life-and-death interval of time, when that amounts to one car length at 80 mph, and a fraction of a car length at typical speeds.
"And has been pointed out on this thread, that does not necessarily correlate to a real world result! We are not rats and we don't live in laboratories."
Well that's where we disagree. I don't think we need to wait for people to die before we (the lawmakers) take action.
Exactly. NHTSA can be relied upon for providing crash data, such as counting up accidents, and telling us when and where they occurred. But as a policy making organization, it's a joke.
NHTSA was totally wrong about the two speed limit increases, and all of its projections never amounted to anything. With a track record like that, I pretty much ignore whatever recommendations that they make.
"Out of curiousity, would you like to see the 55 mph national speed limit reinstated?"
There are many highways I still travel at 55. But to answer your question no. Nor would I like to see drunk driving laws repealed. But I would like stiffer penalties for speeders.
We can't have it both ways you know. Cite NHTSA as a credible source when it supports our arguements, but when it doesn't support our arguements call it's information unreliable and vague.
Yes, I'm of the opinion, if it saves one life...blah, blah, blah. That life could be yours or your loved ones.
I don't think we need to wait for people to die before we (the lawmakers) take action.
You already have these laws in place, and no lives are being saved by them now. I wouldn't ASSUME that laws that haven't done any good so far are suddenly going to become effective.
"You already have these laws in place, and no lives are being saved by them now. I wouldn't ASSUME that laws that haven't done any good so far are suddenly going to become effective"
These laws are saving lives today. And, they contribute to an overall lower accident rate in the states that have them on the books. You can believe what you want, but lawmakers are obviously seeing different things. If they didn't feel there wasn't sufficient justification for the laws, they would not be on the books. So it seems you are not seeing the correct picture.
And, they contribute to an overall lower accident rate in the states that have them on the books
Based upon what I showed you, that's absolutely not true. New York's fatality rates are falling more slowly than 2/3rds of the other states in the union that permitted phones.
New York was actually making more progress before it enacted the law than since then, so if anything, the law has arguably had the opposite effect of what was intended.
"Based upon what I showed you, that's absolutely not true. New York's fatality rates are falling more slowly than 2/3rds of the other states in the union that permitted phones"
You haven't shown anything that has any relevance to cell phone rates as the data is unclear. For all you know the ban has worked successfully with other causes contributing to the number of fatalities.
There are many highways I still travel at 55. But to answer your question no. Nor would I like to see drunk driving laws repealed. But I would like stiffer penalties for speeders
I'm not sure why you equated these two issues when they are conflicting in nature. According to the NHTSA the 55 mph limit saves lives. You oppose that but support the DUI laws because they save lives. There seems to be an inconsistency here.
but lawmakers are obviously seeing different things. If they didn't feel there wasn't sufficient justification for the laws, they would not be on the books.
Do you really believe that? Does that apply to all laws or is it just this cell phone issue that legislators are happened to be enlightened about? You obviously hold our legislators in a much higher regard than most people.
You haven't shown anything that has any relevance to cell phone rates as the data is unclear.
The data is clear as day.
You keep promising us that these laws save lives. I'm showing you that they don't seem to do anything, given that (a) New York's fatality rate was falling more quickly before the ban than afterward, and that (b) its fatality rate is falling more slowly than it is in places where phones are allowed.
It's pretty obvious that you can't show that these laws are effective in any way. If the New York law was saving lives, then we should be seeing New York's fatality rate fall more quickly than most of the country, yet it isn't.
You just want to ASSUME that things will improve, even though they haven't so far. Keep ASSUMING away, but you have no real world evidence to support your position.
Sorry. It's only clear, because your not understanding it. In fact between 2004 and 2005, not only has the number of fatalities gone up, but the fatality rates have gone up as well. How do you know these rises aren't attributable to cell phones. You don't, because there is no data being collected.
While I can't show these laws are effective I can't show these laws aren't ineffective either. Since fatalities and rates are on the rise, I can presume, maybe increased cell phone usage has something to do with it. You don't have to take my word with it, you can go to the FARS database and look these stats up.
The fact that NY rates are going down, might be an indication the ban is working.
Comments
But I still contend you don't know how many property damage accidents and fatalities are attributable to cell phone usage. Out of the number of accidents and fatalities a staggering number could be attributable to cell phone usage. But you don't know, because that information is not tracked. Since you don't know you are making an assumption. You know what happens when you ASSUME.....
Since the rates are declining, there's no reason at all to believe that. We have been measuring accident fatality rates for decades, so there would be an abundance of opportunity to have these problems show up, if there was in fact a problem.
This is one of those situations when we're being told that the sky is falling, when the sky hasn't budged. You have had years of phone usage to have exhibited changes in the trend, but no such change has been demonstrated. There's no reason to believe that it is going to begin, when it hasn't started yet...
Hey, I'm just reading the amazing amount of posts in here since I last visited, and just thought I would interject here by saying that text messaging will, in fact, be perfectly legal under the new California law. I don't know about the rest of the country, but if in fact it was banned everywhere but here, then either they left this second loophole intentionally (I can't imagine why - text messaging while driving is a heck of a lot more distracting and potentially dangerous than talking with a phone to your ear) in California, or else our state assemblypersons are even bigger bozos than I thought.
And by the way, just how do you suppose police will enforce a ban on text messaging, which is done almost entirely below window-level, where it is impossible to observe from outside the vehicle? I get pulled over for that, I just snap the phone shut and toss it on the passenger seat before the cop comes to the window. Will we have open-phone laws next, similar to open container laws for drunk driving?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
In these parts, use of a hand held phone while driving is against the law. If it is legal in California to text message, they are bigger bozos than I thought, or, you have mis-read something. I'm not into researching something that sounds to dang stupid. With TM not only is your concentrated diverted, but your eyes are off the road. I have a hard time believing this is the case.
No offense meant, truly, but it may just be too much of a distraction for you. I have had a cell for a decade now, and have been talking on it in the car from the very beginning. I don't weave, I don't swerve, I don't brake or speed up suddenly, and I respond to what is going on in the traffic around me. As I said before, I try to minimize its use while I am driving, "just the facts" and I am off the line, usually within a couple of minutes, but it has been of no detriment to me.
The thing is, the lawmakers want to inhibit the many for the sins of the few here, and they want to ignore all the things that really cause distraction in the car, because they know that banning changing CDs in the 6-disc in-dash, or reading a map, or eating the Big Mac meal, or disciplining your kids, would create too much of a popular backlash.
They believe there are just enough cell users now that will just accept this that the minority that remains will have nothing of any effect to say about it.
To this, I say PROTEST!!!! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Take a look at this option for your hand held.
http://www.autosportcatalog.com/index.cfm/fa/p/pid/3538/sc/10644
Hear, hear! If we absolutely HAVE TO HAVE yet another new law to make everybody feel better, then I would MUCH rather see gagrice's suggestion come to fruition - aggressive enforcement of a law against all distractions in the driver's seat. The police officer would be exercising a lot of discretion, of course. It would be up to his/her judgment as to when someone was behaving in a distracted manner, and what the cause of that behavior was.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Gee whiz, this is pretty darn presumptuous. Should we have no problem doing everything else you have no problem doing? And then structure our laws around what you have no problem doing?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You haven't made a case. You're alleging murder, yet you can't produce a body. That's not a credible argument at all.
In fact, you are ASSUMING a lot, despite a lack of evidence to the contrary. If phones were as bad as you say, then we should have been seeing some significant changes in the accident data since their introduction that reflects how dangerous they are. But we're not.
But it makes no difference as I see it, for the reason I stated: enforcement of a TM ban is completely impossible.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As much as we enjoy our healthy debates, we actually see eye to eye on more things than we might care to admit. :-)
Now if I can just straighten out your anti-manual attitude! :-P
edit...PS, love the look of that item you linked. What I have hated about hands-free is you have to stick something in your ear, which I hate, or shout at a speakerphone, which doesn't always work very well. This seems to solve the problem. I guess I've got about two years to pick one up....
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Become friends with the AutoScoop show in CarSpace.
suddenly"
Drunk drivers claim the same things.
No sir. There are studies to back up the allegations. The only thing that can't be proved are the numbers, because these numbers are not tracked. In fact, you are assuming because you can't prove a point.
I don't have to reach into my bag of "tricks" very far to pull up a number of studies that confirm virtually the same thing about cell phones. As stated previously, I support this legistlation. This legistlation was not created because I assumed there was some hidden meaning to the FARS database.
So my friend, you are the one that is assuming.
That's simply a false statement, flat out wrong.
NHTSA maintains data on accidents and fatalities. We have accident and fatality data going back to prior to WWII. The NHTSA FARS database is just one place to find it.
So there is no shortage of data, we are overflowing with data. What is missing is any correlation in that data that can demonstrate that the cell phone laws produce results.
New York has had a hand-held cell phone ban since late 2001. If you compare its fatality rate in 2000 (the last full year that phones were allowed) and 2004 (the last year for which we have both fatality and mileage data), its fatality rate declined by .05 deaths per 100 million miles driven over that period.
To put that in context, when compared to the other states and DC, that would rank New York in 32nd place for the largest decline in its death rate. It also ranks New York below the national average, as the overall fatality rate fell by .08 per 100 million miles driven during the same period.
Here, you can see the outcome of the law you wanted. You have three full years of data, and you can see that the decline in New York's death trend is midpack compared to 50 other states and districts that allowed phones during that period.
So it's no wonder that nobody wants to discuss the real-world results -- there aren't any! But now that phone citations comprise about 2% of New York's citations, I'm curious to see how many dollar$ the state has generated from this fantastic step forward for public safety...
It's only false because you are not understanding the broader scope of the picture and the information available to back up some of the claims. (IMO)
But it really doesn't matter does it? You can believe what you want about my opinions and knowledge on the topic. We're having the theoretical conversation about data. In "real life" the ban against hand held cell phone usage is ongoing. The legistlatures are reacting to some real world information.
It is my belief this ban saves lives. Obviously NY does also. A widespread ban needs to be in effect for several years and only then can real information be gleaned about how many lives were saved..not lost.
BTW...DRLs are required on all cars. Why is that? It's a measure that is believed to save lives and/or property damage. Can you tell me how many lives were saved or accidents were avoided by use of DRLs? Some measures have to be put into place, even at the expense of your personal freedom for the greater public good.
Actually it just takes a judge to get your cell records. Also part of a recent FCC mandate for all phone service was the ability for the law enforcement to be able to tap into any call at any time to listen. Not all phone companies were required to add the very expensive equipment without local government paying the bill. Most places that ability is in place. Cop keys in a license number. Your name pops up with all information about you including your cell number. Key in your number and listen and record what you are saying. It will not be difficult to police by the time the law goes into affect.
I agree, there is not a shortage of data. There is a shortage of useful information.NY didn't start writing tickets to errant cell phone users until recently, maybe a year or so of that information. Citations don't translate into accidents, they transalate into summonses.
So you can see, you are basing your conclusion on vapor data.
We seem to be entering an age when many folks seem to welcome Big Brother with open arms. It's rather depressing. But hey, as long as someone feels something is being "done", I guess it should be OK, huh?! :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Y E S ! as soon as possible, please. :shades:
What is "vapor data" supposed to be? This is actual data, based upon three years with one of these "life saving" laws in place.
We can see from above that the New York law didn't save lives at all. Fatality rates fell more quickly in thirty-two other states, all of which allowed phones, than in the one state that didn't allow them.
You can hem and haw all you like, but your law produced no benefit whatsoever. The funny thing is that fatalities were declining in New York at an above-average rate prior to the cell phone law, but slid to below-average since then, so the state actually lost ground under the cell phone law, rather than gaining. When did sliding backward become a sign of progress?
There is a limited amount of data from one state. Writing citations means nothing. NY didn't even starting writing cititations in earnest until very recently. You keep refering to this vast amount of data, when in reality the only thing the data shows is the number of citations. There is no national statistics on the number of fatalities or accidents due to cell phones. You can infer all you want, but the inference is merely an assumption. You know what happens when you ASSUME...
As I keep pointing out this is merely an exercise in garbage leads to garbage out. Lawmakers have all ready acted so it seems there is some basis for these laws, whether or not people agree with the basis.
Not in the US they aren't. In Canada and the Scandinavian countries, yes, but not here.
Three years of data from a state with 19 million people. New York's population is similar to that of Australia, and almost five times higher than Ireland's.
That's a huge pool of data. It may not tell the story that you like, but it is what it is. And it doesn't confirm all of these fantastic life saving results that are being ASSUMED on this forum by the anti-phone activists.
Given the studies to date about the detrimental effects of hand held cell phone usage while driving, assuming the ban has a positive effect is not a very far leap of faith. There is some hardcore evidence to back up why the bans are good. Here is an example from NHTSA. Note they say cell phone statistics are hard to quantify, but they go ahead and do an analysis anyway. These stats won't be available for years.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2001/809-293.pdf
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/vrtc/ca/nads/HFES2004_Mazzae092304.pdf
That's the problem -- there isn't. There is a lot of conjuncture and hypothetical speculation, but no proof.
The real world data contradicts the laboratory speculation. If you like, we can move on to comparing overall US fatality rates with those overseas, which will make it clear that the US has lower fatality rates than do many countries with phone bans.
There is a ton of data. Get outside of a lab and look at the real world, and we can see that phones are a non-issue. You can stop ASSUMING, and simply read it for yourself.
That is incorrect. There is hardcore evidence. You are not aware of all of the studies.
The lab I use is called the freeway. I see the erratic driving behaviors of people using cell phones. It's some anecdotal evidence that supports the behaviors observed in other studies. Please do more research before saying there is no hardcore evidence that suggests using hand held cell phones is safe. Again, I don't have to prove this, lawmakers are already proving to their satisfaction. California is another example, where I don't need to convince lawmakers to do the right thing.
Anecdotes are NOT data. They are prejudiced by the observer seeing what he wants to see, and ignoring what he doesn't.
You are clearly hungry to see problems with phones, so your observations are not to be trusted. As I told you before, you are overconfident about your observation skills, and I would pray that not a single legislator makes a decision based upon a biased observer's gut feeling.
Um, I never said they were. I was just stating my observations.
"They are prejudiced by the observer seeing what he wants to see, and ignoring what he doesn't."
Agreed, but I'm not sure this applies to my observations.
"You are clearly hungry to see problems with phones"
So far it's me and the NHTSA and a bunch of lawmakers. I guess the parable: "Can't please everybody 100% of the time", is applicable here.
We have no similar example in the case of phones. Those places that have put restrictions on phones have no great news to report in comparison to those places that allow phone usage. In many cases, locations where phones are allowed actually report better results than those that ban them, which is the opposite of what we should be expecting.
It might be nice to claim that phone usage "places others in the line of fire for no good reason", but if the phones aren't causing harm, then where is the fire? We're back to the "sky is falling" claims, when the sky is the same as it always has been.
Even the NHTSA admits pinning the cause of an accident is very difficult. Given this information has never been tracked except in a limited fashion by one state for a very short period of time, drawing conclusions about what is or is not the root cause of car crashes and fatalities is impossible. Making a false conclusion is not a conclusion, it's an assumption.
In the beginning drunk driving didn't cause any harm either. Cars, alcohol and drunk drivers have been together for over a 100 years, yet DUI laws have been on the books relatively recently.
Thank goodness lawmakers are looking at doing what they need to do in order to stem the tide of potential incidents on the road by people who don't know they are distracted. Much like drunk drivers lose the ability to judge they are incompentent, cell phone users lose the ability to judge their driving.
And has been pointed out on this thread, that does not necessarily correlate to a real world result! We are not rats and we don't live in laboratories.
Remember 13/100ths of a second. Please tell me how 13/100th's of a second became such a critical, life-and-death interval of time, when that amounts to one car length at 80 mph, and a fraction of a car length at typical speeds.
Well that's where we disagree. I don't think we need to wait for people to die before we (the lawmakers) take action.
NHTSA was totally wrong about the two speed limit increases, and all of its projections never amounted to anything. With a track record like that, I pretty much ignore whatever recommendations that they make.
There are many highways I still travel at 55. But to answer your question no. Nor would I like to see drunk driving laws repealed. But I would like stiffer penalties for speeders.
We can't have it both ways you know. Cite NHTSA as a credible source when it supports our arguements, but when it doesn't support our arguements call it's information unreliable and vague.
Yes, I'm of the opinion, if it saves one life...blah, blah, blah. That life could be yours or your loved ones.
You already have these laws in place, and no lives are being saved by them now. I wouldn't ASSUME that laws that haven't done any good so far are suddenly going to become effective.
These laws are saving lives today. And, they contribute to an overall lower accident rate in the states that have them on the books. You can believe what you want, but lawmakers are obviously seeing different things. If they didn't feel there wasn't sufficient justification for the laws, they would not be on the books. So it seems you are not seeing the correct picture.
Based upon what I showed you, that's absolutely not true. New York's fatality rates are falling more slowly than 2/3rds of the other states in the union that permitted phones.
New York was actually making more progress before it enacted the law than since then, so if anything, the law has arguably had the opposite effect of what was intended.
You haven't shown anything that has any relevance to cell phone rates as the data is unclear. For all you know the ban has worked successfully with other causes contributing to the number of fatalities.
I'm not sure why you equated these two issues when they are conflicting in nature. According to the NHTSA the 55 mph limit saves lives. You oppose that but support the DUI laws because they save lives. There seems to be an inconsistency here.
Do you really believe that? Does that apply to all laws or is it just this cell phone issue that legislators are happened to be enlightened about? You obviously hold our legislators in a much higher regard than most people.
The data is clear as day.
You keep promising us that these laws save lives. I'm showing you that they don't seem to do anything, given that (a) New York's fatality rate was falling more quickly before the ban than afterward, and that (b) its fatality rate is falling more slowly than it is in places where phones are allowed.
It's pretty obvious that you can't show that these laws are effective in any way. If the New York law was saving lives, then we should be seeing New York's fatality rate fall more quickly than most of the country, yet it isn't.
You just want to ASSUME that things will improve, even though they haven't so far. Keep ASSUMING away, but you have no real world evidence to support your position.
Sorry. It's only clear, because your not understanding it. In fact between 2004 and 2005, not only has the number of fatalities gone up, but the fatality rates have gone up as well. How do you know these rises aren't attributable to cell phones. You don't, because there is no data being collected.
While I can't show these laws are effective I can't show these laws aren't ineffective either. Since fatalities and rates are on the rise, I can presume, maybe increased cell phone usage has something to do with it. You don't have to take my word with it, you can go to the FARS database and look these stats up.
The fact that NY rates are going down, might be an indication the ban is working.