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
Maybe the accident rate has gone up because New Yorkers are ignoring the cell phone ban. I like the hotline except, I never walk around carrying a cell phone. I would have to break the law to report someone from the car.
ALBANY, N.Y. - New York drivers hung up their cell phones for a while when the state banned them three years ago, but are back to using hand-held models at nearly the same rate they were before the ban, a study shows.
The institute found the rate of New York drivers chatting on cell phones declined from 2.3 percent before the law went into effect to 1.1 percent in the first few months after the law was passed. By March 2003, a year after the law took full effect, the rate had risen to 2.1 percent.
McCartt said there was a flurry of advertisements during the implementation of the New York ban, but publicity has since dwindled. She also said that while cell phone citations made up 2 percent of all traffic violations in 2002, there was no targeted enforcement such as seat belt checkpoints to ticket drivers who ignore the law.
Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat who fought to pass the ban, questioned the study's methods, but agreed that the state should do more to promote the law, such as putting signs on all highways telling people not to drive while using a hand-held cell phone.
Ortiz on Tuesday announced legislation to create a toll-free phone line for motorists and pedestrians to report drivers violating the ban, which carries a fine up to $100.
Another unbiased basis for the ban:
But a 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine said the hand-held phones posed about as much of a problem for drivers as drunken driving. The study found the chance of an accident was four times greater when using a hand-held cell phone.
It is clear to me that this debate will rage on, neither side ever to be vindicated, and here's why: we have two mindsets out there. 1. it is OK to make more laws if we think it might help improve a public problem, regardless of whether or not we have useful AND CONSISTENT data on that problem - our intuitive conclusions about the problem are more than enough to base such legislation on; AND 2. we should only make new laws when there is compelling evidence that the existing laws do not properly address a new or worsened public problem, and otherwise we should attempt to better enforce the laws we already have.
Obviously, I am in the second group, although I would not presume to criticize the first group's POV as "wrong" or any such thing (I certainly disagree VEHEMENTLY with it, though). But, IMHO, these cell phone laws are being written and passed by people whose thinking falls in group 1.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Because we want new studies lets take a look at non cell phone manufacturer studies.
"A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is the use of cell phones, (highlighted to make sure you realize I have read it.) followed by drowsiness. However, cell-phone use is far less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions, according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times, talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone only increased the risk by 1.3 times. The study tracked the behavior of the 241 drivers of 100 vehicles for more than one year. The drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 critical incidents.
These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers. That study was based on the analysis of videotapes from cameras installed in the vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
So how does this scientific study set with what we are banning? Who is in support of a law banning passengers talking while we are driving? How does this sit with the people that say that even if it saves one life it is worth it? So the law makers get this study, see that most people are using a hand held phone but they are only 1.3 times as likely to get in an accident and they focus on that but do nothing about other distractions that are nine times more likely yet we don't feel these restrictions are simply politically motivated? Anyone need to buy a bridge?
"So how does this scientific study set with what we are banning?"
What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour. Most other distractions last seconds, a cell phone distraction lasts minutes or even an hour. The study does not address what happens when you are on the cell phone for one hour.
Maybe you can shed some light on the danger or not to the public when a cell phone user is driving with the capacity of a drunk driver for one hour. BTW, I saw that study on the NTHTSA web site, it is just another confirmation that using cell phones while driving is a bad idea.
Since fatalities and rates are on the rise, I can presume, maybe increased cell phone usage has something to do with it.
No you can't. The fatality rate was almost identical between 2004 and 2005. The very slight rise was statistically insignificant and due entirely to a fairly large increase in motorcycle fatalities. Take out these additional motorcycle deaths and the rate once again declined. I don't think many motorcycle riders are using cell phones.
Accidents was your origional concern. Latest test data was another of your criteria, the NHTSA data was another of your criteria. The study does say that Cell phone use was "responsible for accidents only 1.3 percent of the time. so with distractions being "responsible for whatever percentages you like only 1.3 of the time Cell phone distraction caused an accident. Of those momentary distractions like talking to a passenger or changing a dial or reaching for a dropped item nine times as many of "those distractions resulted in Accidents." That is nine times more accidents happened and was the cause of the accident than cell phones by the very same group the NHTSA and confirmed the Study I quoted earlier as distractions causing "accidents." You said things have changed since the first study so this confirms by the NHTSA that the study is up to date. So the study in conjunction with NHTSA shows more people "are" distracted by cell phones but those distractions caused fewer accidents than activities like eating, talking to passengers, reaching for entertainment controls or dropped items. Those activities are cited as the "cause" of the accident "nine times" more often than the more common distraction of Cell phones. Not .09 not .9 but 9.0 times more often. So what caused them to turn a blind eye to the far more serious problem that was causing nine times more accidents that the more often used more often distracting but nine times less significant case of Accidents in the NHTSA supported study conducted by NON Cell phone supporting agencies and University? If you were going to spend the money on the legislation in the first place why pick on an activity that you already knew cause 1.3 percent of the accidents you were already looking at and not ban the activity that caused nine times more "accidents"? The figures are there, they used this study to support part of the legislation and yet, did not ban the very activities they "knew" caused more accidents percentage wise than cell phones? If time were a concern they could have limited the number of minutes one was allowed just like they do parking fines. But know, they took the study , cherry picked cell phones and ignored the other activities that have been a cause of accidents more often and longer than cell phones. That is the very heart of political motivation over safety motivation in a nut shell. It also address the issue of studies showing cell phone use and accidents. So even if cell phones are a distraction, lets admit that, they are not the major distraction causing accidents and so are singled out for reasons beyond safety.
I can't argue with that study or your logic. I have absolutely no doubt that reaching for a falling cup of scalding hot coffee, dealing with a rabid bat flying around the passenger compartment, and things of that general random nature are far more of a distraction than having a normal conversation on a cell phone.
But here's the thing -- at any given time on America's roads, how many cars contain falling cups of coffee, rabid bats, an exploding CD player, a falling-off rear-view mirror, or other unexpected distractions? Probably not very many, in a broad statistic sense. Maybe a thousand?
On the other hand, 90%+ of cars have a cell-phone-owning driver. And a lot of them are using their phone while driving. So at any given moment, there are millions of drivers who are impaired to an extent comparable to driving while intoxicated.
I applaud the legislators who have recognized the dangers of driving while using cell phones.
>Please tell me how 13/100th's of a second became such a critical, life-and-death interval of time,
I can give one datum: a lady returning from Indianapolis was on the cell phone to her family while driving on I70 at I75. There was construction at the time a couple years back and traffic slowed. She apparently was unaware for alot longer than the 13/100ths of a second which seems to have become the number-of-homeless quality figure in re authenticity. She plowed into the back of a stopped semi at full speed. Apprently a lot can happen in that 13/100ths sec. She was still on the phone when she hit. I can't recall if she had children in the van with her or not.
Yes, but we already have laws about not paying attention. The study address the very this you just said. If 90 percent of the cell phone owners were using their phones during this study they were responsible for 1.3 percent of the accidents. Other people in the car and eating and CD adjusting caused "more" accidents but they are not addressed. The very people using NHTSA figures to place a ban on cell phones have seen these studies. The study itself in conjuncture with NHTSA points out that while the "major" distraction to may be cell phone use it is not the "major" cause of accidents caused by distractions. This is they very proof some have been seeking is is the correlation between cell phone use and accidents. It also list the other more common distractions that have been linked to accidents. If accidents and their cause was a reason for this law then activities causing more of the accidents should at the very least have been addressed. But no, we skipped down the list to one that looks good in the papers. A reasoning law maker would or should have addressed whatever distraction was causing nine times more accident. or six or five or three times more accidents. After all the study already identified these distractions not only as distractions but as distractions that cause more of the "accidents". Not may have or someday may have or will in the future by now these other distractions cause more accidents than cell phones "even" though they are being done as much.
The study is unbiased in that it does not defend cell phone use. It condemns cell phone use, but it puts that condemnation well below other more common and more dangerous distractions that are "known' or Proved by the NHTSA related study to be the "cause" of more accidents than cell phones. So it isn't they don't have the numbers or haven't had access to the study because it is part of the same study they were supposed to be using as they did their homework as some have contended.
"Accidents was your origional concern. Latest test data was another of your criteria, the NHTSA data was another of your criteria."
Accidents and fatalities. This study presents a theoretical picture, based on less than 100 observations. I'm not ready to replace the NEJM with this study yet.
"No you can't. The fatality rate was almost identical between 2004 and 2005"
Do you deny the number of fatalities went up and so did the rate? Drunk driving fatalities are also up. Excluding motorcyles the number and rate still went up.
With that you and I have reached a total impasse I will find a way to be legal "and' use my cell if I "need" to. I know some people can't drink coffee and drive but that has never been a problem for me nor am I overly concerned. Political issues blow over sooner or later and they will be off on another tangent. I would rather worry about the 20 or 30 percent of the distractions that case accidents than the 1.3 percent.
I did read with interest about one of the states that added a rider on their cell phone legislation so that if a officer pulls someone over for speeding they can add a citation for putting on makeup of scolding your child in the back seat as a distraction. Maybe they do read studies? I doubt' it will work however.
In message 1060 ("2 mindsets"), NipponOnly succinctly observed that this debate is between those who are willing to enact laws restricting freedom based on either a) opinion/intuition supported by selective data or b) compelling evidence. Rational thinkers would support the later and, as is obvious from the number of people writing in support of a driving cell phone ban, there are LOTS of irrational thinkers out there.
I suspect that irrational thinking contributes significantly to traffic accidents. But before I support revoking the driver's licenses of those supporting a ban on cell phones, I think I'll wait for the compelling evidence.
Excluding motorcyles the number and rate still went up.
Passenger vehicle fatalities declined from 31,866 to 31,415 between 2004 and 2005. Motorcycle fatalities increased from 4,028 to 4,553. The fatality rate per 100 million VMT was at 1.47 up from 1.45 but still the second best on record. Even with the increase in motorcycle accidents the number of traffic injuries hit a historic low of 91 per 100 million VMT, down from 94 in 2004.
Rational thought would clearly favor banning cell phones while driving. This debate deals with phone babblers who think it is their right to talk about soap operas while driving and pure greed-based individuals with a financial stake in phones versus individuals who don't want the nitwits talking about soap operas while driving running into them.
"With that you and I have reached a total impasse"
The reason you and I have reached an impasse, is due to other factors not referred to in the study. If you read the NHTSA study you will find they estimate staggering number of people use their cell phones while driving. The sheer volume makes it a collectively dangerous behavior.
We're splitting hairs, but the last I saw, motorcycles shared the road with us. Motorcyclists can get hit by drunk drivers, they can get hit by cell phone users, and they can do the same to cars.
and while they used that staggering number they still said they were involved in 1.3 percent of the accidents. It is their study and their numbers not mine. The same study said as far as distractions go hands free was every bit as distracting. So it didn't matter if it was hands free or hand held your chances of being distracted were the same. And you may be four times more likely to be in an accident but still people on cells during this study were only involved in 1.3 percent of the accidents. Still other distractions were more likely to cause an accident. And even though they were nine times more likely to cause accidents they were ignored. And many are more than willing to ignore them even now because it isn't a hot button. If these studies had an impact then anti cell phone advocates would also be trying to ban hands free phones, and yet they are not. So it comes down to personal feelings and nothing more. evidence is presented on both sides. For now the hand held units are a target. For now hands free units are not. Just simply go hands free and smile at the cop as he drives by.
The study said more people talked on cell phones than the other activities they targeted. Still with that over welming number the other activities exceeded the cell phones as a contributing factor in accidents. If they cause more accidents they are more of a problem, plain and simple. So we are at in impasse. If I am to accept the study as proof that cell phones are a problem I must also accept that they are not the biggest problem and that the bigger problems are simply being ignored at the Cost, as you have often mentioned, of human lives. More accidents would endanger more people and even passengers in the car represent a bigger threat according to the study in conjuncture with NHTSA. So it is a impasse. I'll see your study and raise you two. :P
If you read the NHTSA study you will find they estimate staggering number of people use their cell phones while driving.
Well if that's true and the accident/fatality rate for passenger vehicles continues to decline then I would consider that to be an indication that they aren't all that dangerous.
"Rational thought would clearly favor banning cell phones while driving."
OK, guess I should have started with a presumption that I have about living in a free society, i.e., laws should only restrict liberty when compelling evidence indicates that 1) a certain behavior is harming others and 2) that such laws can reduce or eliminate that behavior. (No, I don't support laws banning prostitution and use of mind-altering drugs because they achieve neither of my two conditions. And yes, I realize I'm in the minority in this regard.)
I could probably accept that there is compelling evidence that distractions sometimes cause traffic accidents. But we can't outlaw being distracted while driving without banning driving. Nor can we distinguish between "nitwits talking about soap operas" and others who might be having nobler conversations.
But reading all of the studies posted herein fails to provide compelling evidence that cell phone use presents any greater threat to traffic safety than having a disruptive child in the car. Should we mandate Ridalin for all under-age passengers?
Let's keep the opinions on the sidelines. I'm still waiting for someone to make the case that, notwithstanding all the conflicting studies, there's reason to ban cell phone use while driving.
As this thread implies cell phone users are being singled out. There must be an explanation other than it is political. That is a lame reason. What I see as the major reason is that overwhelming numbers of cell phone users are rude and socially out of touch. It is rude to talk on the cell phone while having dinner with someone. It is rude talking on the cell phone while sitting next to a stranger. I went in for my annual physical this morning. Guess what in both the lobby of the DRs office and in the Lab were BIG SIGNS posted. "NO CELL PHONE USE IN HERE, Take it outside". You avid cell phone users need to take a hard long look at yourselves. You are becoming a group despised as smokers were a few years back before they were forced away from other people. That is all above the FACT that you cannot drive and talk on the phone without endangering me and those I love. And some of those I love are in that cell phone addicted category.
You and some others have presented the viewpoint in here that cell phones are annoying and/or cell phone users are rude/inconsiderate on a routine basis. While I won't argue your right to feel that way about them, I don't think that should be a basis for legislation against them in the hands of drivers. Do you agree? There are lots of things that are pretty rude or gross that I am not banned from doing behind the wheel. And rude or annoying is not a basis for any other part of the driving code.
And the reason the doctor's office and hospitals have those big signs is not because anyone thinks it is rude, it is because the phones interfere with the radiology equipment.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Let's keep the opinions on the sidelines. I'm still waiting for someone to make the case that, notwithstanding all the conflicting studies, there's reason to ban cell phone use while driving."
While they don't avocate an outright ban..well you can read this yourself. On older study that seems to be case for the ban on cell phone usage in moving vehicles.
NEW YORK, Feb 12 (Reuters) -- A new study might have you putting some distance between yourself and drivers busy talking on their cell phones.
"The use of cellular phones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call," according to University of Toronto researchers who studied the telephone billing records of nearly 700 drivers involved in collisions.
The study is published this week in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Cell-phone usage was often linked with more potentially dangerous driving situations. "The association appeared stronger for collisions on high-speed roadways than for collisions in parking lots, at gas stations, or in other low-speed locations," they say.
And, contrary to common belief, hands-free units were just as likely to be associated with accidents as hand-held cell phones. That fact led researchers to speculate "that motor vehicle collisions result from a driver's limitations with regard to attention rather than dexterity."
The Toronto researchers say there was one advantage for car phone users. "Cellular telephones have benefits, such as allowing drivers to make emergency calls quickly." Thirty-nine percent of those drivers involved in accidents called emergency services via their cell phones, the study says.
In a comment on the study, Dr. Malcolm Maclure of Harvard's School of Public Health, and Dr. Murray Mittleman of Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center point out that the use of cell phone technology may not be the real distraction. "Simply talking while driving may be the key factor." They say a 1993 study found that "placing a call was found to be no more distracting than tuning a car radio or engaging in an intense conversation."
They point out that, using the Toronto data, between 6% and 12% of the accidents in the study could have been attributed to cell phone use. "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use."
The Toronto study authors say they are not necessarily advocating a ban on the devices. They acknowledge that, although cell phones may contribute to poor driving, "public debate is needed, given that cellular telephones contribute to improvements in productivity, the quality of life, and peace of mind for more than 30 million people in North America alone."
For now, cell-phone users should regulate themselves, the study suggests, by "refraining from placing or receiving unnecessary calls, interrupting telephone conversations if necessary, and keeping calls brief."
Except that in the year 2005 the number of fatalities and fatality rate went up. Let's see what happens in 2006. It should be noted that declining fatality rates may have a lot to do with crumple zones and excellent medical attention. That does not mean the warnings on cell phone usage should be ignored.
It should be noted that declining fatality rates may have a lot to do with crumple zones and excellent medical attention.
Nice theory but the stats don't support it. The accident rate has decreased by as much as the fatality rate. If better crumple zones and medical attention was a factor the fatality rate would have decreased by more. In 1990 there were 302 accidents per 100 MVMT, that dropped to 206 by 2005. In this same period the fatality rate dropped from 2.07 to 1.47 per 100 MVMT . I'm almost starting to believe that cell phones prevent accidents.
Maybe the accident rate has gone up because New Yorkers are ignoring the cell phone ban.
So you are ASSUMING this, I gather? (Sorry about the all caps, but I'm following in Kdshapiro's footsteps here.)
By the way, the rate in New York didn't increase -- it declined more slowly than elsewhere in the country. New York's rate of improvement lags behind much of the nation, the phone ban obviously isn't turning the tables on its head, as you would have had us believe with your speculation.
What I see as the major reason is that overwhelming numbers of cell phone users are rude and socially out of touch.
What does this have to do with automotive safety? If anything, this makes it clear that you are not interested in the data, but only in banning phones because you don't like them. Sorry, but we aren't supposed to pass laws based upon your pet peeves, including over-the-top ones like that.
And the reason the doctor's office and hospitals have those big signs is not because anyone thinks it is rude, it is because the phones interfere with the radiology equipment.
Not true. My doctor answered a cell call in the hall while I was standing there. It is because the average cell phone user is oblivious to those around them.
The question that this thread asks is "Should cell phone users be singled out"? I have given you many, many good reasons why they should be. I am not alone on this. In fact I think I am with the majority if it was put to a vote. It is an accumulative dislike for the cell phone user's behavior. Not just because they cause accidents or hold up traffic. They are in your face with their obnoxious little toys. I have gone so far as to tell the maitre d' that if I hear one more cell phone ring in a nice restaurant in Las Vegas that I was out of there. Many nice restaurants will tell people to shut off their phones when they come in. It is a common courtesy thing. It really is too bad that so many cell phone users were not brought up with a sense of common decency. I agree we have too many laws. They are usually put into place because people are too stupid to use their head.
I agree we have too many laws. They are usually put into place because people are too stupid to use their head.
So laws should be geared towards the stupidest people's behavior? Sadly that is the trend and it results in infringements placed on the majority of people that posess reasonable judgement.
I rarely use my cell phone in the car but just yesterday my girlfriend called while I was on the way home from work to have me pick up a bottle of wine. The phone call lasted all of 20 seconds and it saved me about a 30 minute round trip. There is absolutely no way something like this should be prohibited.
FARS database link. Which is more important to you. Surviving an accident, or being dead? If it's surviving an accident I would think the number of fatalities would be the number I would focus on.
They point out that, using the Toronto data, between 6% and 12% of the accidents in the study could have been attributed to cell phone use. "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use."
Between 6% and 12% of the accidents attributable to cell phone use. If there are 6 million accidents a year saving 600,000 collisions a year seems to be a reasonable thought process for the ban on hand held cell phone use. Note this sentence: "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use. Does one think today 8 out of 10 drivers have cell phones? How does that change the percentages cited?
It doesn't! That's why New York and forty-some-odd countries can pass these laws, and not see great results.
The problem with claims about these "accidents" (which aren't accidental at all, but caused by bad drivers behaving badly) is that bad drivers find ways to find accidents, no matter what. Take away their phones, and they will proceed to continue to collide into others.
This is the problem when people misinterpret data in these studies -- they assume that if the phone is removed that the accidents attributed to the object will suddenly vanish. But of course, this doesn't happen, because those who are incompetent with their phones are likely to be incompetent in many ways, not just specifically with phones.
Go back to the numbers from the NHTSA/ Virginia Tech Naturalistic study, whip out your slide rules, and remember what happened among their subjects:
-1 out of 25 drivers were involved in 1/4th of the accidents -1 out of 7 drivers were involved in 2/3rds of the accidents -2 out of 3 drivers had no accidents at all
This is a significant finding -- a few people were involved in most of the accidents, while most had no crashes at all. To ASSUME that these bad drivers will suddenly become model citizens is simply naive. When they keep hitting each other, what object will you blame next?
I'm not sure what is hard to understand here but I'll state the obvious, not every accident results in a fatality.
You are correct, of course. To add to this, the accident rate and fatality rate are based upon accidents and deaths per 100 million miles driven -- it's a ratio. We have more accidents and fatalties than we did fifty years ago, but far lower rates because the population has increased and it drives more than it did before.
Also, fatality rates are affected in part by vehicle type and occupancy. For example, fatality rates actually tend to increase (or don't decrease as quickly) during periods of economic prosperity because people can afford to drive more, including driving vacations that increase the occupancy rates of vehicles. A pool of crashes involving cars with several occupants will likely have a higher fatality rate because there are more people in the cars who are at risk of death.
If we had more motorcycle fatalities during 2005, then that could possibly be attributed to the high fuel prices and increasing congestion, which may have transitioned some drivers onto motorcycles who are seeking to speed up their commutes. But you'd need to get the vehicle miles driven by motorcycles to put this info into context.
FARS database link. Which is more important to you. Surviving an accident, or being dead?
I'm familar with the FARS database. That's primarily where I get my statistics from. If your #1 priority is surviving an accident then don't ride a motorcycle. For passenger vehicles, which includes light trucks and SUVs, the fatality rate, accident rate, and injury rate all went down in 2005, again.
They point out that, using the Toronto data, between 6% and 12% of the accidents in the study could have been attributed to cell phone use. "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use."
The NHTSA can say whatever it wants. One thing that I haven't heard them say is why this new, significant risk hasn't seemed to impact their own yearly statistics. The latest data is now from 2005. I can assure you that far more than 1 in 10 vehicles have cell phones. I'd be surprised if its less than 40%. Meaning this should account for between 2.4% and 4.8% of the accidents. There is no way this significant of an amount could not have been reflected in the stats. They've also stated the risk of higher speed limits yet it has also never manifested itself in real world results. And you've stated that you personally oppose lowering the speed limits. So you either think the NHTSA is capable of being wrong or you don't actually subscribe to the "if it could save one life" philosophy. As far as I'm concerned the NHTSA should stick to what they're good at, keeping stats.
..almost no one ever died jumping out of a 20 story window. It's hitting the ground that did them in.
As someone who double majored in applied math, and went on to get an MBA in finance and economics, I've "probably" used probability and statistics more in my professional career than 98.3% of the general public.
And yet, it only took one incident last week to show the obvious. I was at the neighborhood grocery store and "witnessed" a 30 something woman struck by a cart driven by a 50 something man. The woman had abruptly pulled out in front of him from the deli counter without looking while she was on a cell phone. He clipped her ankle on the front of the cart, and she went down like a 50 pound sack of potatoes. He was extremely apologetic, but she had the gall to yell at him "why don't you watch where the hell you are going" as he helped her up. She then wanted to file an injury report with the store manager and police! I, as politely as I was capable of, stepped in and volunteered to be a witness and indicated I would be happy to testify that she was the "idiot" who caused the incident.
If you want to pay my hourly billing rate, I will be happy to provide a statistical analysis that shows cell phone use is "insignificantly correlated" to automobile accidents. And I will talk around 96.4% of the statisticians brought in to cross examine my analysis. The other 3.6% will be a deadlock.
But I have to tell you privately, as the client, that if you actually think hand held cell phone use in a moving automobile does not increase the likelihood of an accident, you are either related to the woman in the grocery store or have in independent "idiot" gene in your DNA. And I could statistically and/or forensically prove that, for another client willing to pay my hourly rate.
Oh, to be able to manipulate numb3rs! It's been my ticket to a "911".
I rarely use my cell phone in the car but just yesterday my girlfriend called while I was on the way home from work to have me pick up a bottle of wine. The phone call lasted all of 20 seconds and it saved me about a 30 minute round trip. There is absolutely no way something like this should be prohibited.
That is an "excellent example" of the criticality of drivers being able to talk on cell phones. If the driver had no cell phone or if some other reason that message did not get through, my gosh look at the terrible consequences. We should be thankful to the scientists that invented cell technology and the ability to maintain conversation while moving around the terrain.
That is an "excellent example" of the criticality of drivers being able to talk on cell phones. If the driver had no cell phone or if some other reason that message did not get through, my gosh look at the terrible consequences.
Actually, it does. Increased time on the road increases the likelihood of being involved in an accident, plus contributes to increased congestion and more resources being consumed. In the aggregate, it creates a measurable economic benefit that should be included in considering the overall results.
"It doesn't! That's why New York and forty-some-odd countries can pass these laws, and not see great results"
"This is the problem when people misinterpret data in these studies -- they assume that if the phone is removed that the accidents attributed to the object will suddenly vanish. But of course, this doesn't happen, because those who are incompetent with their phones are likely to be incompetent in many ways, not just specifically with phones."
I understand what you're saying. e.g., if you live in a dry county, you'll be going outside of the county to drink.
BTW. the number cited in the NEJM could place up to 12% of the accidents attributable to cell phone use. That's a staggering percentage. Up to 600,000 collisions a year, if their data is accurate, and since it's the NEJM, I would think it is.
Actually, it does. Increased time on the road increases the likelihood of being involved in an accident, plus contributes to increased congestion and more resources being consumed. In the aggregate, it creates a measurable economic benefit that should be included in considering the overall results.
We can only imagine what the situation was. However, I and most men would not waste 30 minutes going out for wine when there are obviously better things to do and that need attention.
Bingo. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand to err on the side of caution with this issue, is probably the right approach.
The conversation is not a theoretical conversation. I do not believe my personal liberty or any personal liberty has been compromised any more than my right to drive drunk. As evidenced by the laws banning use of hand held phones while driving, lawmakers don't either.
As evidenced by the laws banning use of hand held phones while driving
Haven't you referenced studies that state it is the conversation, not whether or not the phone is hands free that increases the risk? If that's what you believe why are you defending lawmakers enacting these hand held bans?
"Haven't you referenced studies that state it is the conversation, not whether or not the phone is hands free that increases the risk? If that's what you believe why are you defending lawmakers enacting these hand held bans?"
I applaud lawmakers for taking baby steps, but I don't think the bans go far enough. However, I am content for now in with the way the laws read. This is not opposite to my position, I said previously I support the laws and will obey the law regarding hand held cell phones while driving.
Comments
Maybe the accident rate has gone up because New Yorkers are ignoring the cell phone ban. I like the hotline except, I never walk around carrying a cell phone. I would have to break the law to report someone from the car.
ALBANY, N.Y. - New York drivers hung up their cell phones for a while when the state banned them three years ago, but are back to using hand-held models at nearly the same rate they were before the ban, a study shows.
The institute found the rate of New York drivers chatting on cell phones declined from 2.3 percent before the law went into effect to 1.1 percent in the first few months after the law was passed. By March 2003, a year after the law took full effect, the rate had risen to 2.1 percent.
McCartt said there was a flurry of advertisements during the implementation of the New York ban, but publicity has since dwindled. She also said that while cell phone citations made up 2 percent of all traffic violations in 2002, there was no targeted enforcement such as seat belt checkpoints to ticket drivers who ignore the law.
Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat who fought to pass the ban, questioned the study's methods, but agreed that the state should do more to promote the law, such as putting signs on all highways telling people not to drive while using a hand-held cell phone.
Ortiz on Tuesday announced legislation to create a toll-free phone line for motorists and pedestrians to report drivers violating the ban, which carries a fine up to $100.
Another unbiased basis for the ban:
But a 1997 study in the New England Journal of Medicine said the hand-held phones posed about as much of a problem for drivers as drunken driving. The study found the chance of an accident was four times greater when using a hand-held cell phone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4162174/
Now there's a fine use of public funds. Another politico who needs to be dragged out of his bed at night and beaten.
1. it is OK to make more laws if we think it might help improve a public problem, regardless of whether or not we have useful AND CONSISTENT data on that problem - our intuitive conclusions about the problem are more than enough to base such legislation on; AND
2. we should only make new laws when there is compelling evidence that the existing laws do not properly address a new or worsened public problem, and otherwise we should attempt to better enforce the laws we already have.
Obviously, I am in the second group, although I would not presume to criticize the first group's POV as "wrong" or any such thing (I certainly disagree VEHEMENTLY with it, though). But, IMHO, these cell phone laws are being written and passed by people whose thinking falls in group 1.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"A study released in April 2006 found that almost 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds of the event. The study, The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study, conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), breaks new ground. (Earlier research found that driver inattention was responsible for 25 to 30 percent of crashes.) The new study found that the most common distraction is the use of cell phones, (highlighted to make sure you realize I have read it.) followed by drowsiness. However, cell-phone use is far less likely to be the cause of a crash or near-miss than other distractions, according to the study. For example, while reaching for a moving object such as a falling cup increased the risk of a crash or near-crash by 9 times, talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone only increased the risk by 1.3 times. The study tracked the behavior of the 241 drivers of 100 vehicles for more than one year. The drivers were involved in 82 crashes, 761 near crashes and 8,295 critical incidents.
These findings confirm an August 2003 report from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety that concluded that drivers are far less distracted by their cell phones than by other common activities, such as reaching for items on the seat or glove compartment or talking to passengers. That study was based on the analysis of videotapes from cameras installed in the vehicles of 70 drivers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.
So how does this scientific study set with what we are banning? Who is in support of a law banning passengers talking while we are driving? How does this sit with the people that say that even if it saves one life it is worth it? So the law makers get this study, see that most people are using a hand held phone but they are only 1.3 times as likely to get in an accident and they focus on that but do nothing about other distractions that are nine times more likely yet we don't feel these restrictions are simply politically motivated? Anyone need to buy a bridge?
What this means, is that while a person is talking on the phone, let's say for an hour, they have the driving capacity of a drunk driver for an hour. Most other distractions last seconds, a cell phone distraction lasts minutes or even an hour. The study does not address what happens when you are on the cell phone for one hour.
Maybe you can shed some light on the danger or not to the public when a cell phone user is driving with the capacity of a drunk driver for one hour. BTW, I saw that study on the NTHTSA web site, it is just another confirmation that using cell phones while driving is a bad idea.
No you can't. The fatality rate was almost identical between 2004 and 2005. The very slight rise was statistically insignificant and due entirely to a fairly large increase in motorcycle fatalities. Take out these additional motorcycle deaths and the rate once again declined. I don't think many motorcycle riders are using cell phones.
I can't argue with that study or your logic. I have absolutely no doubt that reaching for a falling cup of scalding hot coffee, dealing with a rabid bat flying around the passenger compartment, and things of that general random nature are far more of a distraction than having a normal conversation on a cell phone.
But here's the thing -- at any given time on America's roads, how many cars contain falling cups of coffee, rabid bats, an exploding CD player, a falling-off rear-view mirror, or other unexpected distractions? Probably not very many, in a broad statistic sense. Maybe a thousand?
On the other hand, 90%+ of cars have a cell-phone-owning driver. And a lot of them are using their phone while driving. So at any given moment, there are millions of drivers who are impaired to an extent comparable to driving while intoxicated.
I applaud the legislators who have recognized the dangers of driving while using cell phones.
I can give one datum: a lady returning from Indianapolis was on the cell phone to her family while driving on I70 at I75. There was construction at the time a couple years back and traffic slowed. She apparently was unaware for alot longer than the 13/100ths of a second which seems to have become the number-of-homeless quality figure
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The study is unbiased in that it does not defend cell phone use. It condemns cell phone use, but it puts that condemnation well below other more common and more dangerous distractions that are "known' or Proved by the NHTSA related study to be the "cause" of more accidents than cell phones. So it isn't they don't have the numbers or haven't had access to the study because it is part of the same study they were supposed to be using as they did their homework as some have contended.
Accidents and fatalities. This study presents a theoretical picture, based on less than 100 observations. I'm not ready to replace the NEJM with this study yet.
These laws don't go far enough. Drivers who operate their vehicle at or near drunk driving levels shouldn't be allowed on the road. Period.
Do you deny the number of fatalities went up and so did the rate? Drunk driving fatalities are also up. Excluding motorcyles the number and rate still went up.
I did read with interest about one of the states that added a rider on their cell phone legislation so that if a officer pulls someone over for speeding they can add a citation for putting on makeup of scolding your child in the back seat as a distraction. Maybe they do read studies? I doubt' it will work however.
I suspect that irrational thinking contributes significantly to traffic accidents. But before I support revoking the driver's licenses of those supporting a ban on cell phones, I think I'll wait for the compelling evidence.
Passenger vehicle fatalities declined from 31,866 to 31,415 between 2004 and 2005. Motorcycle fatalities increased from 4,028 to 4,553. The fatality rate per 100 million VMT was at 1.47 up from 1.45 but still the second best on record. Even with the increase in motorcycle accidents the number of traffic injuries hit a historic low of 91 per 100 million VMT, down from 94 in 2004.
The reason you and I have reached an impasse, is due to other factors not referred to in the study. If you read the NHTSA study you will find they estimate staggering number of people use their cell phones while driving. The sheer volume makes it a collectively dangerous behavior.
The study said more people talked on cell phones than the other activities they targeted. Still with that over welming number the other activities exceeded the cell phones as a contributing factor in accidents. If they cause more accidents they are more of a problem, plain and simple. So we are at in impasse. If I am to accept the study as proof that cell phones are a problem I must also accept that they are not the biggest problem and that the bigger problems are simply being ignored at the Cost, as you have often mentioned, of human lives. More accidents would endanger more people and even passengers in the car represent a bigger threat according to the study in conjuncture with NHTSA. So it is a impasse. I'll see your study and raise you two. :P
Well if that's true and the accident/fatality rate for passenger vehicles continues to decline then I would consider that to be an indication that they aren't all that dangerous.
OK, guess I should have started with a presumption that I have about living in a free society, i.e., laws should only restrict liberty when compelling evidence indicates that 1) a certain behavior is harming others and 2) that such laws can reduce or eliminate that behavior. (No, I don't support laws banning prostitution and use of mind-altering drugs because they achieve neither of my two conditions. And yes, I realize I'm in the minority in this regard.)
I could probably accept that there is compelling evidence that distractions sometimes cause traffic accidents. But we can't outlaw being distracted while driving without banning driving. Nor can we distinguish between "nitwits talking about soap operas" and others who might be having nobler conversations.
But reading all of the studies posted herein fails to provide compelling evidence that cell phone use presents any greater threat to traffic safety than having a disruptive child in the car. Should we mandate Ridalin for all under-age passengers?
Let's keep the opinions on the sidelines. I'm still waiting for someone to make the case that, notwithstanding all the conflicting studies, there's reason to ban cell phone use while driving.
And the reason the doctor's office and hospitals have those big signs is not because anyone thinks it is rude, it is because the phones interfere with the radiology equipment.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Again, there is no real world data to support that claim. Only one study.
While they don't avocate an outright ban..well you can read this yourself. On older study that seems to be case for the ban on cell phone usage in moving vehicles.
http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1997021206.shtml
NEW YORK, Feb 12 (Reuters) -- A new study might have you putting some distance between yourself and drivers busy talking on their cell phones.
"The use of cellular phones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call," according to University of Toronto researchers who studied the telephone billing records of nearly 700 drivers involved in collisions.
The study is published this week in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Cell-phone usage was often linked with more potentially dangerous driving situations. "The association appeared stronger for collisions on high-speed roadways than for collisions in parking lots, at gas stations, or in other low-speed locations," they say.
And, contrary to common belief, hands-free units were just as likely to be associated with accidents as hand-held cell phones. That fact led researchers to speculate "that motor vehicle collisions result from a driver's limitations with regard to attention rather than dexterity."
The Toronto researchers say there was one advantage for car phone users. "Cellular telephones have benefits, such as allowing drivers to make emergency calls quickly." Thirty-nine percent of those drivers involved in accidents called emergency services via their cell phones, the study says.
In a comment on the study, Dr. Malcolm Maclure of Harvard's School of Public Health, and Dr. Murray Mittleman of Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center point out that the use of cell phone technology may not be the real distraction. "Simply talking while driving may be the key factor." They say a 1993 study found that "placing a call was found to be no more distracting than tuning a car radio or engaging in an intense conversation."
They point out that, using the Toronto data, between 6% and 12% of the accidents in the study could have been attributed to cell phone use. "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use."
The Toronto study authors say they are not necessarily advocating a ban on the devices. They acknowledge that, although cell phones may contribute to poor driving, "public debate is needed, given that cellular telephones contribute to improvements in productivity, the quality of life, and peace of mind for more than 30 million people in North America alone."
For now, cell-phone users should regulate themselves, the study suggests, by "refraining from placing or receiving unnecessary calls, interrupting telephone conversations if necessary, and keeping calls brief."
Nice theory but the stats don't support it. The accident rate has decreased by as much as the fatality rate. If better crumple zones and medical attention was a factor the fatality rate would have decreased by more. In 1990 there were 302 accidents per 100 MVMT, that dropped to 206 by 2005. In this same period the fatality rate dropped from 2.07 to 1.47 per 100 MVMT . I'm almost starting to believe that cell phones prevent accidents.
If the fatality rate and number of fatalities increased in 2005 how can the accident rate decrease?
So you are ASSUMING this, I gather? (Sorry about the all caps, but I'm following in Kdshapiro's footsteps here.)
By the way, the rate in New York didn't increase -- it declined more slowly than elsewhere in the country. New York's rate of improvement lags behind much of the nation, the phone ban obviously isn't turning the tables on its head, as you would have had us believe with your speculation.
What does this have to do with automotive safety? If anything, this makes it clear that you are not interested in the data, but only in banning phones because you don't like them. Sorry, but we aren't supposed to pass laws based upon your pet peeves, including over-the-top ones like that.
Not true. My doctor answered a cell call in the hall while I was standing there. It is because the average cell phone user is oblivious to those around them.
The question that this thread asks is "Should cell phone users be singled out"? I have given you many, many good reasons why they should be. I am not alone on this. In fact I think I am with the majority if it was put to a vote. It is an accumulative dislike for the cell phone user's behavior. Not just because they cause accidents or hold up traffic. They are in your face with their obnoxious little toys. I have gone so far as to tell the maitre d' that if I hear one more cell phone ring in a nice restaurant in Las Vegas that I was out of there. Many nice restaurants will tell people to shut off their phones when they come in. It is a common courtesy thing. It really is too bad that so many cell phone users were not brought up with a sense of common decency. I agree we have too many laws. They are usually put into place because people are too stupid to use their head.
I'm not sure what is hard to understand here but I'll state the obvious, not every accident results in a fatality. Here are the numbers.
Total accidents 2004 6,181,444
Total accidents 2005 6,159,189
Total fatalities 2004 42,836
Total fatalities 2005 43,443
Fatality rate 2004 1.45
Fatality rate 2005 1.47
Total injuries 2004 2,788,000
Total injuries 2005 2,699,000
Injury rate 2004 94
Injury rate 2005 91
So laws should be geared towards the stupidest people's behavior? Sadly that is the trend and it results in infringements placed on the majority of people that posess reasonable judgement.
I rarely use my cell phone in the car but just yesterday my girlfriend called while I was on the way home from work to have me pick up a bottle of wine. The phone call lasted all of 20 seconds and it saved me about a 30 minute round trip. There is absolutely no way something like this should be prohibited.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
They point out that, using the Toronto data, between 6% and 12% of the accidents in the study could have been attributed to cell phone use. "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use."
Between 6% and 12% of the accidents attributable to cell phone use. If there are 6 million accidents a year saving 600,000 collisions a year seems to be a reasonable thought process for the ban on hand held cell phone use. Note this sentence: "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use. Does one think today 8 out of 10 drivers have cell phones? How does that change the percentages cited?
It doesn't! That's why New York and forty-some-odd countries can pass these laws, and not see great results.
The problem with claims about these "accidents" (which aren't accidental at all, but caused by bad drivers behaving badly) is that bad drivers find ways to find accidents, no matter what. Take away their phones, and they will proceed to continue to collide into others.
This is the problem when people misinterpret data in these studies -- they assume that if the phone is removed that the accidents attributed to the object will suddenly vanish. But of course, this doesn't happen, because those who are incompetent with their phones are likely to be incompetent in many ways, not just specifically with phones.
Go back to the numbers from the NHTSA/ Virginia Tech Naturalistic study, whip out your slide rules, and remember what happened among their subjects:
-1 out of 25 drivers were involved in 1/4th of the accidents
-1 out of 7 drivers were involved in 2/3rds of the accidents
-2 out of 3 drivers had no accidents at all
This is a significant finding -- a few people were involved in most of the accidents, while most had no crashes at all. To ASSUME that these bad drivers will suddenly become model citizens is simply naive. When they keep hitting each other, what object will you blame next?
You are correct, of course. To add to this, the accident rate and fatality rate are based upon accidents and deaths per 100 million miles driven -- it's a ratio. We have more accidents and fatalties than we did fifty years ago, but far lower rates because the population has increased and it drives more than it did before.
Also, fatality rates are affected in part by vehicle type and occupancy. For example, fatality rates actually tend to increase (or don't decrease as quickly) during periods of economic prosperity because people can afford to drive more, including driving vacations that increase the occupancy rates of vehicles. A pool of crashes involving cars with several occupants will likely have a higher fatality rate because there are more people in the cars who are at risk of death.
If we had more motorcycle fatalities during 2005, then that could possibly be attributed to the high fuel prices and increasing congestion, which may have transitioned some drivers onto motorcycles who are seeking to speed up their commutes. But you'd need to get the vehicle miles driven by motorcycles to put this info into context.
I'm familar with the FARS database. That's primarily where I get my statistics from. If your #1 priority is surviving an accident then don't ride a motorcycle. For passenger vehicles, which includes light trucks and SUVs, the fatality rate, accident rate, and injury rate all went down in 2005, again.
They point out that, using the Toronto data, between 6% and 12% of the accidents in the study could have been attributed to cell phone use. "If 1 in 10 vehicles has a telephone by the year 2000... then between 0.6% and 1.2% of all collisions may be attributable to telephone use."
The NHTSA can say whatever it wants. One thing that I haven't heard them say is why this new, significant risk hasn't seemed to impact their own yearly statistics. The latest data is now from 2005. I can assure you that far more than 1 in 10 vehicles have cell phones. I'd be surprised if its less than 40%. Meaning this should account for between 2.4% and 4.8% of the accidents. There is no way this significant of an amount could not have been reflected in the stats. They've also stated the risk of higher speed limits yet it has also never manifested itself in real world results. And you've stated that you personally oppose lowering the speed limits. So you either think the NHTSA is capable of being wrong or you don't actually subscribe to the "if it could save one life" philosophy. As far as I'm concerned the NHTSA should stick to what they're good at, keeping stats.
As someone who double majored in applied math, and went on to get an MBA in finance and economics, I've "probably" used probability and statistics more in my professional career than 98.3% of the general public.
And yet, it only took one incident last week to show the obvious. I was at the neighborhood grocery store and "witnessed" a 30 something woman struck by a cart driven by a 50 something man. The woman had abruptly pulled out in front of him from the deli counter without looking while she was on a cell phone. He clipped her ankle on the front of the cart, and she went down like a 50 pound sack of potatoes. He was extremely apologetic, but she had the gall to yell at him "why don't you watch where the hell you are going" as he helped her up. She then wanted to file an injury report with the store manager and police! I, as politely as I was capable of, stepped in and volunteered to be a witness and indicated I would be happy to testify that she was the "idiot" who caused the incident.
If you want to pay my hourly billing rate, I will be happy to provide a statistical analysis that shows cell phone use is "insignificantly correlated" to automobile accidents. And I will talk around 96.4% of the statisticians brought in to cross examine my analysis. The other 3.6% will be a deadlock.
But I have to tell you privately, as the client, that if you actually think hand held cell phone use in a moving automobile does not increase the likelihood of an accident, you are either related to the woman in the grocery store or have in independent "idiot" gene in your DNA. And I could statistically and/or forensically prove that, for another client willing to pay my hourly rate.
Oh, to be able to manipulate numb3rs! It's been my ticket to a "911".
That is an "excellent example" of the criticality of drivers being able to talk on cell phones. If the driver had no cell phone or if some other reason that message did not get through, my gosh look at the terrible consequences. We should be thankful to the scientists that invented cell technology and the ability to maintain conversation while moving around the terrain.
Actually, it does. Increased time on the road increases the likelihood of being involved in an accident, plus contributes to increased congestion and more resources being consumed. In the aggregate, it creates a measurable economic benefit that should be included in considering the overall results.
How did you arrive at 98.3?
"This is the problem when people misinterpret data in these studies -- they assume that if the phone is removed that the accidents attributed to the object will suddenly vanish. But of course, this doesn't happen, because those who are incompetent with their phones are likely to be incompetent in many ways, not just specifically with phones."
I understand what you're saying. e.g., if you live in a dry county, you'll be going outside of the county to drink.
BTW. the number cited in the NEJM could place up to 12% of the accidents attributable to cell phone use. That's a staggering percentage. Up to 600,000 collisions a year, if their data is accurate, and since it's the NEJM, I would think it is.
We can only imagine what the situation was. However, I and most men would not waste 30 minutes going out for wine when there are obviously better things to do and that need attention.
The conversation is not a theoretical conversation. I do not believe my personal liberty or any personal liberty has been compromised any more than my right to drive drunk. As evidenced by the laws banning use of hand held phones while driving, lawmakers don't either.
Haven't you referenced studies that state it is the conversation, not whether or not the phone is hands free that increases the risk? If that's what you believe why are you defending lawmakers enacting these hand held bans?
I applaud lawmakers for taking baby steps, but I don't think the bans go far enough. However, I am content for now in with the way the laws read. This is not opposite to my position, I said previously I support the laws and will obey the law regarding hand held cell phones while driving.
I plan on obeying the law to the same extent that most cell phone opponents obey the speed limits.