Show me one place on earth the tracks nationwide cell phone accident and fatality rates for years.
OK, let's try to bottom-line this point, because it's going in circles.
#1 -- Since you're the one making the argument, it's up to you to prove it -- don't expect me or anyone else to do your debating for you. When you keep making an argument repeatedly, yet you can't provide even a single example of how well it actually works, then your argument looks very weak.
#2 -- If phones pose such a significant risk, the question I've asked should be very easy to answer, because the pace of improvement should just leap off of the page.
Let's remember, 12% is about 1/8th. To create a numeric example of what that means, if a given place had a fatality rate of X during Year 1, and the law does into effect on January 1 of Year 2, then we should see that rate fall at least .88X in the following year, because the phones are that big of a deal. (It should actually fall more than that, given that fatality rates are on the decline, anyway.)
12% is a rather large number. If phones are the Great Satan as you keep saying, then a phone law should have unmistakeable, large and almost immediate benefit. So show us this place where this has happened -- with your 12% figure, the world should be filled with such places, and you have a good time rubbing it in!
"Since you're the one making the argument, it's up to you to prove it"
I don't have to prove anything. There are multiple studies all concluding the same thing. I am basing my opinion on these studies. Heretofore until it was recently recognized there was even a danger stats were not being tracked in the same vein as with drunk driving.
"Let's remember, 12% is about 1/8th."
Yes I agree with your math so far. How many accidents (car crashes) occured last year? About 6 million? What is 1/8 of 6 million? 720,000? Isn't that significant enough for you? Since the root cause as related to cell phones are not tracked, it's tough to tell how accurate is the estimate.
Discussion boards don't work very well when people don't feel compelled to back up their positions. It would be more interesting and informative if you could offer at least a shred of evidence to show how well these laws work.
How many accidents (car crashes) occured last year? About 6 million? What is 1/8 of 6 million? 720,000?
Exactly -- it's a HUGE number. Which is why the data should show the accident and fatality rates plunging following enactment of a phone law if the phones are really that bad. The drop should be unmistakeable and immediate, and easy to find, but after 1200 posts on the thread, you obviously can't find it (and trust me, neither can I -- I looked for it, and it isn't anywhere to be found.)
To hopefully stop the use of this bogus statistic, let me give you a hint that should move you in the right direction: You are misinterpreting the supposition.
Your study claims (and let's emphasize the word "claims") this 12% figure as a "contributing factor". If you believe that you think that this means that 12% of accidents would be eliminated, as you are, then you are reading it incorrectly.
Accidents are often attributed to having several contributing factors, not just one. However, if you remove one of those factors, then the accident may still occur. You can end up with one less contributing factor, but the same quantity of accidents, because there are still plenty of other factors at work that lead to the negative outcome.
So please, stop using the 12% figure out of context. I'm sure that even the folks who authored the study wouldn't make the claims that you are with their data. When you read these studies in detail, you see that they don't extrapolate their number crunching to the extent that you have, because they know that their findings can't make such claims.
So most of us really don't feel compelled to operate our motor vehicles according to "all" laws. Some of us however think that we have a keener insight into which laws are more important.
Yeah, I guess you and "some" of the others are smarter and more intelligent than the rest of us. You and the "some" therefore are vips and are above the law and can pick and choose what you will comply with. The rest of us who have ordinary insight and intelligence will follow the laws but will petition our government to revisit laws that may not be fair, are antiquated and so forth to get them changed or removed. Think that this is a more civilized approach for society.
Let's see how many "pro-driving and using cell phoners" will contact their representatives when total ban on cell phone use while driving is in legislative discussion. What will they say? You are hurting my lifestyle, or my spouse can't call me while driving to tell me to bring wine home, or I really have multi-tasking skills, or I am a better more attentive driver than the average, etc?
I have heard the pilot ask to have reservations made for over night stays in a Hotel and even reservations for a car. Short and brief, yes. All emergency flight information, no.
So, what are FAA and particular airline rules on these types of calls?
Would think that airline pilots get training sessions in simulators on using radio and managing airplane controls. Using the radio is a necessity by pilot. Talking on a cell phone while driving is not a necessity.
Ordinary car/vehicle driver's license does not cover knowledge, training or skills to talk on cell phone and drive car at same time.
Have never heard of ordinary car drivers education course (class and on-road) where driver is trained to operate vehicle and be on cell phone at same time. Have never heard of State DOT conducting driver's test and observing how driver talks on cell phone while driving car.
"Your study claims (and let's emphasize the word "claims") this 12% figure as a "contributing factor". If you believe that you think that this means that 12% of accidents would be eliminated, as you are, then you are reading it incorrectly."
Exactly how do you know this? Can you guarantee with a 100% certainty your viewpoint is the correct viewpoint? Let me use an analogy. x% of people die on the road every year to drunk driving according to statistics, and y% are involved in non-fatal car crashes. You're saying if everyone tomorrow suddenly stopped drinking, these accidents and fatalities would still occur since accidents and fatalities have multiple contributing factors?
I'll make you a deal I'll stop using 12% if you stop using 33/1000 of a second. Let's not refer to any data or any studies and keep this strictly based on our informed or uninformed opinions.
I do think there are driving situations where it is possible to safely use a cell phone.
Name them and why, then cite what you consider unsafe. Also, state if you think that the average "driver cell phone user" in the US shares your assessment and limits cell phone use to only those "safe" situations.
Yeah, I guess you and "some" of the others are smarter and more intelligent than the rest of us. You and the "some" therefore are vips and are above the law and can pick and choose what you will comply with.
I think that you completely missed my point. Since I don't know anything about you or how you drive don't take this personally. I was stating that I am very confident a large percentage of these people advocating cell phone laws routinely excede the speed limit, and not by accident. Would you agree or disagree with that? I'll assume that you don't fall into that group but just look around. Where I live at least 80% of all drivers are going 10+ mph over the posted limit on certain roads. So if the cell phone law advocates abide by all traffic laws then they can make up no more than 20% of the driving population. In otherwords they are in the minority. The only other possibility is that they are the ones picking and choosing which traffic laws should be adhered to. Myself, I'm an advocate of common sense. I believe there are many times that the speed limit can be exceded safely, although its still against the law. I think there are also situations where a cell phone can be used safely. The argument that no call is that important doesn't cut it from the person who sometimes drives over the speed limit because going faster isn't all that important either.
I do think there are driving situations where it is possible to safely use a cell phone.
Name them and why, then cite what you consider unsafe. Also, state if you think that the average "driver cell phone user" in the US shares your assessment and limits cell phone use to only those "safe" situations.
Most of these studies provided indicate that the greatest impairment resulting from cell phone use is fractionally slower reaction time. That is easy to compensate for, simply leave more distance between yourself and other vehicles and don't use the phone in areas where a pedestrian may suddenly jump out in front of you. This can be accomplished during most of my driving. Whether or not others adhere to these guidelines is outside my control. I think that they should. Regardless I shouldn't be subject to the lowest common denominator approach to lawmaking. And even though the state I live in doesn't yet have any laws addressing cell phones and driving I am confident that if they ever adopt one it will be almost universally ignored.
I'm in MD, right next to DC that does have cell phone legislation along with red-light cameras. They are also one of the few areas in the country experiencing an increase in accidents and fatalities. It is however generating a lot of revenue for the DC cops donut fund.
"Most of these studies provided indicate that the greatest impairment resulting from cell phone use is fractionally slower reaction time."
Most of the studies show a few things but not that.
1. Cell phone users have the same mental capacity as a drunk driver. 2. Cell phone users increase their chances for a collision significantly.
That is not fractionally slower reaction time. If one had time to review only one study I also would cite the one that shows cell phone users in the best of the worst of situations.
Most of the studies show a few things but not that.
1. Cell phone users have the same mental capacity as a drunk driver. 2. Cell phone users increase their chances for a collision significantly.
I read most of the studies early in this thread and after awhile they all started saying the same thing. Here's a recap. Talking on a cell phone had little impact on lane discipline. The conversation was the main distractor, not holding the unit. The main impairment was on average a .15 second delay in reaction.
Any study that says cell phone users have the same capacity as a drunk driver is ridiculous. It is a soundbite made to generate hysteria. BTW, what is the definition of "drunk driver"? Legally drunk is .08 BAC but they account for very few accidents. Most accidents and fatalities are a result of people driving at almost twice that level.
Saying your chances of being in a collision goes up significantly is also rather vague. You've thrown around this 12% number and 720,000 accidents due to cell phones but that is also patently ridiculous. Cell phone use grew at an explosive rate for a few years. You couldn't hide this number of accidents. It would have affected the prevailing trends.
"I read most of the studies early in this thread and after awhile they all started saying the same thing. Here's a recap. Talking on a cell phone had little impact on lane discipline. The conversation was the main distractor, not holding the unit. The main impairment was on average a .15 second delay in reaction."
Here's my recap:
1. Talking on a cell phone reduces the driving capacity to a drunk driver. 2. Cell phones could cause up to 12% of the accidents, my estimate would be 720,000. 3. I'm not even going to bother, because it won't make a difference anyway.
"You couldn't hide this number of accidents. It would have affected the prevailing trends."
Actually whose hiding anything? I'm saying it has affected the prevailing trends. This is a gross estimate based on information from a previous study.
just how long and how much study the new England Journal of Medicine actually did on the number of accidents compared to the NHTSA? After all no one considers the NEJM automotive accident specialists. Aren't they the ones that once reccommended thalidomide to Pregnant women to cure headaches? I don't know if I would use a study by NHTSA to determine the best medical treatment for hospital patients in ER. I wonder how valid a 12 percent figure give by a group of doctors stacks up to a 1.3 percent figure give by a university doing a Study on distractions and the resulting accidents and confirmed by NHTSA? If I want a medical opinion I might read a NEMJ study, even if I get a weekly newsletter from Web MD. But if I am looking for Aircraft accident studies I would go to the FAA. If I wanted automotive accident studies then just maybe the NHTSA saying that increased Cell phone use was only found to cause only 1.3 percent of the accidents. I would go to a doctor to find out about baseball what makes them qualified to estimate cell phones accident rates with word like, could be or might be attributed to cell phones? They could just as well have said that they could be attributed to sun spots. The NHTSA confirmed the AAA study stating that 1.3 percent of the accidents studied were attributed to cell phones. Their study was to measure distractions and come to a conclusion and they did. 1.3 percent.
It should be hard to ignore that there were other common distractions that should have been dealt with before cell phones, if accident prevention was anywhere near the top of the list of reasons they wanted to ban cell phones.
Actually by your response, it's indicated you don't really know how prestigious the NEJM is. While you are within your right to dismiss the studies and the magazine you should do some research about the NEJM. They are considered the premier purveyor of medical information in the world.
edit - that other study on a 100 people? That's it? This is the only study that shows cell phone usage in a bad light, rather than a horrible light. That's what you are hanging your hat on?
I've now read enough of your posts to conclude one thing. You are incredibly naive. If you are even 25 yrs old I'd be very surprised. That's okay, you'll get smarter, it just takes time.
I guess referring to you as naive was derogatory and I apoligize, but we're all naive when we're young. I know that I don't hold the same positions that I held when I was 25 or 35. The tip-off regarding your age was how much faith you have in legislation and our lawmakers. I know that I personally lost that long before I turned 25.
No harm no foul. I'm not 25, but I've seen enough to know that this cell phone legislation is not a bad thing, IMO. Since we elect our officials, we can only hope they work for the public good. Of course we all have different opinions of what makes for the "public good".
In my mind, there is enough substantial evidence on what the use of hand held cell phones does to driving behavior to have such laws that are being enacted. As parents who have kids driving and who have seen four of my kids friends total their cars, I want my kids to have the safest driving experience possible. I believe this ban should help. If anything it will keep cell phones out of use, except for the hands free, for law abiding drivers.
It's okay we have different viewpoints, and that is why we are having this debate.
while the NEJM of medicine may be a fine medical information source it is not highly qualified to assess every non medical problem in the world. I would use their study to study how tall building are effected by high winds. I don't care what their opinion is about why an airplane crashes or what happens when a train hits a car.
A study by a university specifically designed to study distractions to people driving a Vehicle has more weight. Getting the raw numbers from such a study and having them confirmed by the NHTSA as being the correct numbers has more validity than getting the observations from a medical group. Such a study by the NEJM is considered ancillary information. They see some number of people reportedly involved in an accident. During an interview process they determine how many "may" have been using cell phones and then conclude 12 percent of these people could possibly attribute the cell phone as a contributing factor in their accident? That doesn't constitute evidence nor is it a study of the case of accidents. It might be of some value for people in the medical insurance industry but it does not hold as much value as a study based on actual drivers using cell phones. And you for sure can't take a possible 12 percent figure to the bank as being fact.
If I want information on Car accidents I might look at the NHTSA or other automotive experts. If I want to know about plane crashes I might look to the FAA. The NEJM would not be a primary source for information for either of those questions to many of us. Studies from the NEJM are designed to help people in the Medical industry with issues they are facing. They are not designed as information for the automotive industry or NHTSA. I am sure they do a good job at what they are designed to do or address. But in non medical situations there opinion is just another opinion.
If you were going to call an expert witness to the stand in a court action and the question was dealing with automotive issues would it be better to have a group like the NHTSA telling the jury about actual automotive studies rather than a medical group? I doubt if you would accept the NTHSA as experts in Medical matters why the other way around?
"while the NEJM of medicine may be a fine medical information source it is not highly qualified to assess every non medical problem in the world."
Actually, you are wrong, dead wrong on this. They are highly qualified to assess anything having to do with the human body. More so than NHTSA. They are viewed as the gold standard for this type of information.
Frankly whether you view them as a credible source is irrelevant to me. Just like I'm sure it's irrelevant to you the last study you cited I don't view as credible, or I view as a dirty data point.
NEJM is only one of many studies showing essentially the same type of information regarding usage of cell phones while driving.
Individual experiences are somewhat meaningless. I've never hit anyone nor been hit by someone on a cell phone yet I was in an accident 30 years ago that obviously didn't involve cell phones. Therefore cell phones seem to have made the roads safer.
LOL. Do you work for the cell phone industry or are you just joking?
You're right, 30 years ago there were no cell phone related accidents. Today there is some number X, adding one more factor that increases accident risk, preventing the accident rate from going down even further than it has.
"Actually, you are wrong, dead wrong on this. They are highly qualified to assess anything having to do with the human body. More so than NHTSA. They are viewed as the gold standard for this type of information."
What they know about the human body has nothing to do with what they know about accidents or cell phones. I have yet to see a writer for the NEJM at or during an accident investigation. Yes they know more about medical issues than NHTSA I somehow feel less inclined to believe they know more about highway safety.
It would seem to be more reasonable to accept a study on highway safety from an organization designed to study highway safety than it would be to base an opinion on an organization designed to study medical problems.
The AAA study in conjunction with NHTSA admitted that cell phone use increased. They also studied other distractions. They took the time to catalog each of those distractions and assign observed accident rates to each one. What percentage of other distractions did you gather from the NEJM magiznes article? because every other study based on distractions and accident rates has listed what those other distractions are and how they compare to cell phone use.
Lastly if you believed the studies showing cell phone use as being the major distraction you would also notice they do not say hands free cell phone use is less distracting than hand held cell phone use. You either have to decide they are correct on hand helds and ignore their opinion on hands free or have selectively decided you can use a hands free safely even though you oppose the use of cell phones in principle. Consistency would dictate one or the other. You did admit to using a hands free earlier I believe.
That wasn't the reason for the question. If the studies show hands free and hand helds are both distractions and your earlier contention was that if even one life was saved it was worth it to ban cell phones are you now telling me that it would take a law for you to restrict yourself from using a cell phone while driving?
I have no problem with using cell phones while driving. I don't consider 1.3 percent to be excessive. I can use a hand held for another year or so and then switch to hands free and it is not a contradiction to my stand on this issue. But if I believed the studies that indicated it was the intensity of the conversation on either type of cell phone and was in full support of a law banning one kind of cell phone consistency would indicate I should not allow hands free units in my vehicle either. Or are you now saying it isn't the conversation but the hand to the ear that is the problem?
Today there is some number X, adding one more factor that increases accident risk, preventing the accident rate from going down even further than it has.
I will concede that ther have been accidents that have resulted from people using their cell phones. I've never stated otherwise. I've only stated that it doesn't appear to be a significant number. If you want to get into that "if it could save one life" rational then its hard to respond. If we really bought into that mindset we wouldn't get out of bed.
That's the problem, we're throwing around a number that we have no clue over. 1.3 to 12% is a lot of variation. That is 70,000 to 700,000 potential accidents. Quite a spread.
"Or are you now saying it isn't the conversation but the hand to the ear that is the problem?"
Studies seems to have been mixed on this. From my own experience and seeing the contorted positions that people drive, I believe it's both holding and talking. But studies have said it's the talking. But while I do support a total ban on cell usage, I think hands-free is a good compromise.
"I've never stated otherwise. I've only stated that it doesn't appear to be a significant number."
That's because you don't know. The NEJM could put the number around 12%.
"If you want to get into that "if it could save one life" rational then its hard to respond. If we really bought into that mindset we wouldn't get out of bed."
Thank goodness our politicians don't think like that. There have been a number initiatives revolving around: "this could save one life attitude".
Myself, I'm an advocate of common sense. I believe there are many times that the speed limit can be exceded safely, although its still against the law. I think there are also situations where a cell phone can be used safely. The argument that no call is that important doesn't cut it from the person who sometimes drives over the speed limit because going faster isn't all that important either.
But, what is "common" sense? What do you consider safe vs unsafe? Do you claim that all cell phone using drivers have a baseline of situations where they agree that it is safe and where unsafe? How did this baseline get established? Is it published somewhere? Do cell phone providers provide guidance on when ok to use and when not? Is the "average" cell phone using driver oblivious to the safety factor and the impairment of his driving ability?
I really don't understand why that you continually insist on misquoting this study, so let's try this again --
First of all that study never cited the 12% figure at all. It cited a range of 0.6-1.2% based upon phone penetration of 10% as of 1997. If you apply the current penetration rate in the US (about two-thirds of the country as of 2005), and assume that all of phone users use phones in their cars (unlikely, given that some phone users won't do this), then the figure becomes a range of 4-8%. So you've totally misstated the figure and exaggerated it in an effort to prove your point, and have overstated it by a factor of 200-300% in the process.
And let's define what that figure is supposed to mean. If you look the abstract of the study, you see that it doesn't discuss causation, but a correlation of "risk."
They measured a correlation between use of the phone and the occurrence of accidents, but could not prove that the phones actually caused the accidents. And you have leaped a few bold steps by both misquoting the data, and jumping to conclusions about what it means.
Here's a fun example of how correlation cannot be used in a vacuum to determine causation: The World Series and elections. Since the World Series began, it has become an excellent predictor of elections, because in the vast majority of cases, a presidential candidate who comes from a state with a team in the Series will receive the same fate of his state's team -- if the team wins, he will win; if the team loses, he will lose.
I'll provide the World Series election predictor in the next post, and it offers a good example of why you can't assume that risk translates into real world outcomes. The same statistical methods were used to predict carnage on our highways following speed limit increases, but the study conclusions were all bogus because they relied excessively on single factors that were used to make illogical leaps from correlation to causation.
1912 – Boston Red Sox defeated New York Giants Teddy Roosevelt was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1916 - Boston Red Sox defeated Brooklyn Dodgers Charles Evans Hughes was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1920 - Cleveland Indians defeated. Brooklyn Dodgers Both major candidates from Ohio – n/a
1924 - Washington Senators defeated New York Giants John Davis was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1928 - New York Yankees defeated St. Louis Cardinals Al Smith was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1932 - New York Yankees defeated Chicago Cubs Franklin Delano Roosevelt was from New York state, and won – CORRELATION
1936 - New York Yankees defeated New York Giants FDR from New York state, both teams from New York state – n/a
1972 - Oakland A’s defeated Cincinnati Reds Richard Nixon was from California, and won – CORRELATION
1984 - Detroit Tigers defeated San Diego Padres Ronald Reagan was from California, and won – NO CORRELATION
2004 - Boston Red Sox defeated St. Louis Cardinals John Kerry was from Massachusetts, and lost – NO CORRELATION
The funny thing is that this sample hints that the correlation may have reversed since 1984, which further illustrates the problem with assuming that “correlation” is the same as causation.
What is more telling is that in the real world data, we don’t see any correlation at all between phone laws and lower accident rates. While correlation doesn’t necessarily prove anything, a lack of correlation is an obvious indicator that the issues aren’t linked. If you can’t show correlation, then you can’t logically argue causation with a straight face.
Because it shows that correlation does not equate to causation, which is what kdshapiro keeps trying to claim here with his misquoting of the study published in the NEJM.
Just because there is a statistical relationship between A and B does not mean that A causes B. The World Series shows an obvious example about it is possible to show a statistical relationship that doesn't demonstrate that there is actually a connection between the two things.
My two cents: I wouldn't dare take a cell phone call while driving. My hands need to be on the wheel and my mind must be on the act of motoring. Plus, I love driving and don't want to dilute the experience. So just leave me a message and I'll be sure to get back to you.
1. http://www.morganlee.org/ 2. Background Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.
Methods We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records.
Results A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P<0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event.
Conclusions The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.
The above are some tidbits. Oh I'm using the same funny math as you. I'm suggesting that up to 12% of the accidents could be attributable to cell phone use. 12% was what they said in the study.
-The study included only those people who (a) had been in accidents and (b) had a phone. The study claimed a range of 6-12% of those involved in the study.
To participate in the study, it was necessary to have a phone, which included only 10% of the population at the time.
The range provided by the study is the outcome of taking the data extrapolated from the subjects and multiplying it by the penetration rate of phones, which was 10% during 1997. The result: 0.6-1.2%. (6.0 X 10%, 12.0 X 10%)
Your 12% figure is obtained by (a) ignoring the complete range of findings of the study (the worst case scenario at the extreme end of the bell curve), and (b) assuming that 100% of drivers have phones, which is totally false.
Either you don't understand the study, or else you are twisting it deliberately to support your argument, but the end result is the same -- you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your interpretation of what it says.
And again, it claims correlation, not causation. Correlation does not equate to causation, as the baseball example illustrates.
And of course, another flaw of the study is that it did not create a control group to compare the findings to. It didn't study phone users who didn't have accidents, and it didn't study those who had accidents without having phones. Without having a useful basis for comparison, it's hard to know what to conclude from these results.
"Either you don't understand the study, or else you are twisting it deliberately to support your argument, but the end result is the same -- you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your interpretation of what it says."
Yes, I admit I'm twisting numbers, because nobody really knows. The argument the accident rate should be through the rood if fallacious. Whatever the accident/fatality rate is today, cell phone usage has already played a part.
If you thumb through one of the links in a previous post, you can get a glimpse of 4+ year old data.
Somehow the lawmakers understand there is an issue. We can certainly debate as to the extent, since accurate numbers are not currently available.
The argument the accident rate should be through the rood if fallacious.
Nope. You can't claim causation if you have no examples of correlation. While correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation, correlation is essential to proving causality.
You've got some major holes in your argument because you can't show a real world example of how phone laws have helped, or how a lack of them have hurt. You need to do something beyond extrapolating findings that were never reached.
The findings are there, the laws are written and passed. You just cannot accept reality. The anti cell phone group have done their homework and put the laws in place. The Pro cell phone users were too busy yakking on the phone to do any cognitive research to prove their case. Case closed at least in CA & NY. A big bite out of the population are going to have to come up with some other distraction while driving. Go eat a dozen Krispy Kremes while driving, that should be distracting enough to satisfy the urge.
Apparently you don't understand that the makeup and relative abilities of two baseball teams playing each other has no relationship to the politics in an election.
The use of cell phones and accidents in vehicles do have a relationship whether you wish to think they do or not.
"Nope. You can't claim causation if you have no examples of correlation. While correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation, correlation is essential to proving causality."
Actually, it's been proven to the lawmakers, without a shadow of a doubt. The US isn't the only country banning hand held cell phone usa while driving.
Actually you are correct. By 2008 hand held phones will be illegal in California and we only have a few choices. We can switch to hands free and become politically active to protect that ability. We can contact our legislators and form lobby groups to get the law reversed as some have done with helmet laws. Lastly people could simply take their chances and realize this will be a hard law to enforce. (the last one isn't a reasonable one but I am sure people will do it anyway.) That big bite of the population will simply have to use a different method to continue the very same activity.
The people getting cell phones increase every year as the people without only will decrease and once the majority of people have cell phones more than likely drivers will learn how to use it correctly and law makers will be more responsive to their objections. I just don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.
The US isn't the only country banning hand held cell phone usa while driving.
Yet you still have a hard time showing even one example of one of these laws being effective.
If you were right, this should be very easy for you to prove, and we could all go back to eating (too much of) our leftover turkey. The fact that you can't should make you more than a bit self-conscious!
"Yet you still have a hard time showing even one example of one of these laws being effective."
If cell phones were in fact "safe" to use, it should be a no-brainer to prove it. If in fact you are not saying cell phones are not "safe"...the opposite of "safe" is "unsafe", then I don't have to "prove" anything. Unsafe behaviors, such as drunk driving, hand held cell phone usage, etc...need to be dealt with. In fact, the deed is already done. If you think cell phone users are being treated unfairly and other laws need to be put in place...I'm all for it. Let's be real, drunk driving laws have been on the books for a while, but fatalities due to DUIs are now increasing. You can't legislate common sense, but you can make it difficult for those who cause issues on the road. And because some laws don't meet "your" criteria that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't try.
It certainly is true, that a person can drive legally drunk and get home safely. In the same way a person can use the phone and not cause a car crash. But since statistics, show, the driving public, mostly younger drivers, do not know when to put down the phone and pick up the steering wheel, this legislation is a good idea with stiff penalties accruing in the event the behavior causes a car crash.
If cell phones were in fact "safe" to use, it should be a no-brainer to prove it.
While I appreciate your efforts to avoid your burden of proof, you're still sidestepping and dancing around the reality -- you can't point to a single real-world example of a place on this planet that ended up with much improved highway safety because of these laws. Not one.
And anyone with common sense has to step back and ask why this evidence seems impossible to provide, when the claims being made about phone usage are so extreme. The emperor is wearing no clothes with this one.
In any case, you are strawmanning yet again. Nobody on this forum argued that phones are "safe", anymore that one would possibly claim that driving with your screaming kids or groceries in the car is "safe."
The issue isn't whether phones are "safe" -- I don't expect that driving skills will improve because of them -- but whether they cause harm. Several of us here keep asking you to show that they do, but you can't. The fact that you can't, and have to resort to deliberately inflating and misinterpreting your own preferred conjectural studies, shows that even you have a hard time believing it.
"While I appreciate your efforts to avoid your burden of proof, you're still sidestepping and dancing around the reality -- you can't point to a single real-world example of a place on this planet that ended up with much improved highway safety because of these laws. Not one."
Ahhhh yes. Back at ya! The great thing is. I don't have to. As I pointed to an example in my last post, the fatality rate to DUIs are going up, so the cynical would say the legislation isn't working we should remove it from our books (or make the penalties even more stiff than what they are). It's the responsible thing to do by having these laws on the books. In the same ways, it's the responsible thing to do to have the cell phone laws in place, even if they appear not to be working at the moment.
"The issue isn't whether phones are "safe" -- I don't expect that driving skills will improve because of them -- but whether they cause harm"
This is where we disagree. I believe the laws should be on the books if the they have the potential to cause harm. Due to the overwhelming information presented in studies I believe they have the potential. If at least one death is linked to cell phone use, which it is, then I believe we should have these laws on the books.
If you believe the cell phone users are being singled out, here are additional laws I would be most in favor of seeing:
1. make-up law 2. lunch eating law 3. hair combing law 4. cd/radio adjusting law 5. hot coffee drinking law 6. searching through glove box law
Can you think of other behaviors our legislators might be willing to place into law?
Comments
OK, let's try to bottom-line this point, because it's going in circles.
#1 -- Since you're the one making the argument, it's up to you to prove it -- don't expect me or anyone else to do your debating for you. When you keep making an argument repeatedly, yet you can't provide even a single example of how well it actually works, then your argument looks very weak.
#2 -- If phones pose such a significant risk, the question I've asked should be very easy to answer, because the pace of improvement should just leap off of the page.
Let's remember, 12% is about 1/8th. To create a numeric example of what that means, if a given place had a fatality rate of X during Year 1, and the law does into effect on January 1 of Year 2, then we should see that rate fall at least .88X in the following year, because the phones are that big of a deal. (It should actually fall more than that, given that fatality rates are on the decline, anyway.)
12% is a rather large number. If phones are the Great Satan as you keep saying, then a phone law should have unmistakeable, large and almost immediate benefit. So show us this place where this has happened -- with your 12% figure, the world should be filled with such places, and you have a good time rubbing it in!
I don't have to prove anything. There are multiple studies all concluding the same thing. I am basing my opinion on these studies. Heretofore until it was recently recognized there was even a danger stats were not being tracked in the same vein as with drunk driving.
"Let's remember, 12% is about 1/8th."
Yes I agree with your math so far. How many accidents (car crashes) occured last year? About 6 million? What is 1/8 of 6 million? 720,000? Isn't that significant enough for you? Since the root cause as related to cell phones are not tracked, it's tough to tell how accurate is the estimate.
Discussion boards don't work very well when people don't feel compelled to back up their positions. It would be more interesting and informative if you could offer at least a shred of evidence to show how well these laws work.
How many accidents (car crashes) occured last year? About 6 million? What is 1/8 of 6 million? 720,000?
Exactly -- it's a HUGE number. Which is why the data should show the accident and fatality rates plunging following enactment of a phone law if the phones are really that bad. The drop should be unmistakeable and immediate, and easy to find, but after 1200 posts on the thread, you obviously can't find it (and trust me, neither can I -- I looked for it, and it isn't anywhere to be found.)
To hopefully stop the use of this bogus statistic, let me give you a hint that should move you in the right direction: You are misinterpreting the supposition.
Your study claims (and let's emphasize the word "claims") this 12% figure as a "contributing factor". If you believe that you think that this means that 12% of accidents would be eliminated, as you are, then you are reading it incorrectly.
Accidents are often attributed to having several contributing factors, not just one. However, if you remove one of those factors, then the accident may still occur. You can end up with one less contributing factor, but the same quantity of accidents, because there are still plenty of other factors at work that lead to the negative outcome.
So please, stop using the 12% figure out of context. I'm sure that even the folks who authored the study wouldn't make the claims that you are with their data. When you read these studies in detail, you see that they don't extrapolate their number crunching to the extent that you have, because they know that their findings can't make such claims.
Yeah, I guess you and "some" of the others are smarter and more intelligent than the rest of us. You and the "some" therefore are vips and are above the law and can pick and choose what you will comply with. The rest of us who have ordinary insight and intelligence will follow the laws but will petition our government to revisit laws that may not be fair, are antiquated and so forth to get them changed or removed. Think that this is a more civilized approach for society.
Let's see how many "pro-driving and using cell phoners" will contact their representatives when total ban on cell phone use while driving is in legislative discussion. What will they say? You are hurting my lifestyle, or my spouse can't call me while driving to tell me to bring wine home, or I really have multi-tasking skills, or I am a better more attentive driver than the average, etc?
So, what are FAA and particular airline rules on these types of calls?
Would think that airline pilots get training sessions in simulators on using radio and managing airplane controls. Using the radio is a necessity by pilot. Talking on a cell phone while driving is not a necessity.
Ordinary car/vehicle driver's license does not cover knowledge, training or skills to talk on cell phone and drive car at same time.
Have never heard of ordinary car drivers education course (class and on-road) where driver is trained to operate vehicle and be on cell phone at same time. Have never heard of State DOT conducting driver's test and observing how driver talks on cell phone while driving car.
Exactly how do you know this? Can you guarantee with a 100% certainty your viewpoint is the correct viewpoint? Let me use an analogy. x% of people die on the road every year to drunk driving according to statistics, and y% are involved in non-fatal car crashes. You're saying if everyone tomorrow suddenly stopped drinking, these accidents and fatalities would still occur since accidents and fatalities have multiple contributing factors?
I'll make you a deal I'll stop using 12% if you stop using 33/1000 of a second. Let's not refer to any data or any studies and keep this strictly based on our informed or uninformed opinions.
Name them and why, then cite what you consider unsafe. Also, state if you think that the average "driver cell phone user" in the US shares your assessment and limits cell phone use to only those "safe" situations.
I think that you completely missed my point. Since I don't know anything about you or how you drive don't take this personally. I was stating that I am very confident a large percentage of these people advocating cell phone laws routinely excede the speed limit, and not by accident. Would you agree or disagree with that? I'll assume that you don't fall into that group but just look around. Where I live at least 80% of all drivers are going 10+ mph over the posted limit on certain roads. So if the cell phone law advocates abide by all traffic laws then they can make up no more than 20% of the driving population. In otherwords they are in the minority. The only other possibility is that they are the ones picking and choosing which traffic laws should be adhered to. Myself, I'm an advocate of common sense. I believe there are many times that the speed limit can be exceded safely, although its still against the law. I think there are also situations where a cell phone can be used safely. The argument that no call is that important doesn't cut it from the person who sometimes drives over the speed limit because going faster isn't all that important either.
Name them and why, then cite what you consider unsafe. Also, state if you think that the average "driver cell phone user" in the US shares your assessment and limits cell phone use to only those "safe" situations.
Most of these studies provided indicate that the greatest impairment resulting from cell phone use is fractionally slower reaction time. That is easy to compensate for, simply leave more distance between yourself and other vehicles and don't use the phone in areas where a pedestrian may suddenly jump out in front of you. This can be accomplished during most of my driving. Whether or not others adhere to these guidelines is outside my control. I think that they should. Regardless I shouldn't be subject to the lowest common denominator approach to lawmaking. And even though the state I live in doesn't yet have any laws addressing cell phones and driving I am confident that if they ever adopt one it will be almost universally ignored.
I'm in MD, right next to DC that does have cell phone legislation along with red-light cameras. They are also one of the few areas in the country experiencing an increase in accidents and fatalities. It is however generating a lot of revenue for the DC cops donut fund.
Most of the studies show a few things but not that.
1. Cell phone users have the same mental capacity as a drunk driver.
2. Cell phone users increase their chances for a collision significantly.
That is not fractionally slower reaction time. If one had time to review only one study I also would cite the one that shows cell phone users in the best of the worst of situations.
1. Cell phone users have the same mental capacity as a drunk driver.
2. Cell phone users increase their chances for a collision significantly.
I read most of the studies early in this thread and after awhile they all started saying the same thing. Here's a recap.
Talking on a cell phone had little impact on lane discipline.
The conversation was the main distractor, not holding the unit.
The main impairment was on average a .15 second delay in reaction.
Any study that says cell phone users have the same capacity as a drunk driver is ridiculous. It is a soundbite made to generate hysteria. BTW, what is the definition of "drunk driver"? Legally drunk is .08 BAC but they account for very few accidents. Most accidents and fatalities are a result of people driving at almost twice that level.
Saying your chances of being in a collision goes up significantly is also rather vague. You've thrown around this 12% number and 720,000 accidents due to cell phones but that is also patently ridiculous. Cell phone use grew at an explosive rate for a few years. You couldn't hide this number of accidents. It would have affected the prevailing trends.
Talking on a cell phone had little impact on lane discipline.
The conversation was the main distractor, not holding the unit.
The main impairment was on average a .15 second delay in reaction."
Here's my recap:
1. Talking on a cell phone reduces the driving capacity to a drunk driver.
2. Cell phones could cause up to 12% of the accidents, my estimate would be 720,000.
3. I'm not even going to bother, because it won't make a difference anyway.
"You couldn't hide this number of accidents. It would have affected the prevailing trends."
Actually whose hiding anything? I'm saying it has affected the prevailing trends. This is a gross estimate based on information from a previous study.
It should be hard to ignore that there were other common distractions that should have been dealt with before cell phones, if accident prevention was anywhere near the top of the list of reasons they wanted to ban cell phones.
edit - that other study on a 100 people? That's it? This is the only study that shows cell phone usage in a bad light, rather than a horrible light. That's what you are hanging your hat on?
In my mind, there is enough substantial evidence on what the use of hand held cell phones does to driving behavior to have such laws that are being enacted. As parents who have kids driving and who have seen four of my kids friends total their cars, I want my kids to have the safest driving experience possible. I believe this ban should help. If anything it will keep cell phones out of use, except for the hands free, for law abiding drivers.
It's okay we have different viewpoints, and that is why we are having this debate.
A study by a university specifically designed to study distractions to people driving a Vehicle has more weight. Getting the raw numbers from such a study and having them confirmed by the NHTSA as being the correct numbers has more validity than getting the observations from a medical group. Such a study by the NEJM is considered ancillary information. They see some number of people reportedly involved in an accident. During an interview process they determine how many "may" have been using cell phones and then conclude 12 percent of these people could possibly attribute the cell phone as a contributing factor in their accident? That doesn't constitute evidence nor is it a study of the case of accidents. It might be of some value for people in the medical insurance industry but it does not hold as much value as a study based on actual drivers using cell phones. And you for sure can't take a possible 12 percent figure to the bank as being fact.
If I want information on Car accidents I might look at the NHTSA or other automotive experts. If I want to know about plane crashes I might look to the FAA. The NEJM would not be a primary source for information for either of those questions to many of us. Studies from the NEJM are designed to help people in the Medical industry with issues they are facing. They are not designed as information for the automotive industry or NHTSA. I am sure they do a good job at what they are designed to do or address. But in non medical situations there opinion is just another opinion.
If you were going to call an expert witness to the stand in a court action and the question was dealing with automotive issues would it be better to have a group like the NHTSA telling the jury about actual automotive studies rather than a medical group? I doubt if you would accept the NTHSA as experts in Medical matters why the other way around?
Actually, you are wrong, dead wrong on this. They are highly qualified to assess anything having to do with the human body. More so than NHTSA. They are viewed as the gold standard for this type of information.
Frankly whether you view them as a credible source is irrelevant to me. Just like I'm sure it's irrelevant to you the last study you cited I don't view as credible, or I view as a dirty data point.
NEJM is only one of many studies showing essentially the same type of information regarding usage of cell phones while driving.
Individual experiences are somewhat meaningless. I've never hit anyone nor been hit by someone on a cell phone yet I was in an accident 30 years ago that obviously didn't involve cell phones. Therefore cell phones seem to have made the roads safer.
LOL. Do you work for the cell phone industry or are you just joking?
You're right, 30 years ago there were no cell phone related accidents. Today there is some number X, adding one more factor that increases accident risk, preventing the accident rate from going down even further than it has.
What they know about the human body has nothing to do with what they know about accidents or cell phones. I have yet to see a writer for the NEJM at or during an accident investigation. Yes they know more about medical issues than NHTSA I somehow feel less inclined to believe they know more about highway safety.
It would seem to be more reasonable to accept a study on highway safety from an organization designed to study highway safety than it would be to base an opinion on an organization designed to study medical problems.
The AAA study in conjunction with NHTSA admitted that cell phone use increased. They also studied other distractions. They took the time to catalog each of those distractions and assign observed accident rates to each one. What percentage of other distractions did you gather from the NEJM magiznes article? because every other study based on distractions and accident rates has listed what those other distractions are and how they compare to cell phone use.
Lastly if you believed the studies showing cell phone use as being the major distraction you would also notice they do not say hands free cell phone use is less distracting than hand held cell phone use. You either have to decide they are correct on hand helds and ignore their opinion on hands free or have selectively decided you can use a hands free safely even though you oppose the use of cell phones in principle. Consistency would dictate one or the other. You did admit to using a hands free earlier I believe.
We agree to disagree on this.
"You did admit to using a hands free earlier I believe."
A hands-free is not against the law.
That wasn't the reason for the question. If the studies show hands free and hand helds are both distractions and your earlier contention was that if even one life was saved it was worth it to ban cell phones are you now telling me that it would take a law for you to restrict yourself from using a cell phone while driving?
I have no problem with using cell phones while driving. I don't consider 1.3 percent to be excessive. I can use a hand held for another year or so and then switch to hands free and it is not a contradiction to my stand on this issue. But if I believed the studies that indicated it was the intensity of the conversation on either type of cell phone and was in full support of a law banning one kind of cell phone consistency would indicate I should not allow hands free units in my vehicle either. Or are you now saying it isn't the conversation but the hand to the ear that is the problem?
In fact best wished to all the posters in here. And specially to my friend Nippon.
I will concede that ther have been accidents that have resulted from people using their cell phones. I've never stated otherwise. I've only stated that it doesn't appear to be a significant number. If you want to get into that "if it could save one life" rational then its hard to respond. If we really bought into that mindset we wouldn't get out of bed.
That's the problem, we're throwing around a number that we have no clue over. 1.3 to 12% is a lot of variation. That is 70,000 to 700,000 potential accidents. Quite a spread.
"Or are you now saying it isn't the conversation but the hand to the ear that is the problem?"
Studies seems to have been mixed on this. From my own experience and seeing the contorted positions that people drive, I believe it's both holding and talking. But studies have said it's the talking. But while I do support a total ban on cell usage, I think hands-free is a good compromise.
PS Holiday wishes back at you!
That's because you don't know. The NEJM could put the number around 12%.
"If you want to get into that "if it could save one life" rational then its hard to respond. If we really bought into that mindset we wouldn't get out of bed."
Thank goodness our politicians don't think like that. There have been a number initiatives revolving around: "this could save one life attitude".
But, what is "common" sense? What do you consider safe vs unsafe? Do you claim that all cell phone using drivers have a baseline of situations where they agree that it is safe and where unsafe? How did this baseline get established? Is it published somewhere? Do cell phone providers provide guidance on when ok to use and when not? Is the "average" cell phone using driver oblivious to the safety factor and the impairment of his driving ability?
I really don't understand why that you continually insist on misquoting this study, so let's try this again --
First of all that study never cited the 12% figure at all. It cited a range of 0.6-1.2% based upon phone penetration of 10% as of 1997. If you apply the current penetration rate in the US (about two-thirds of the country as of 2005), and assume that all of phone users use phones in their cars (unlikely, given that some phone users won't do this), then the figure becomes a range of 4-8%. So you've totally misstated the figure and exaggerated it in an effort to prove your point, and have overstated it by a factor of 200-300% in the process.
And let's define what that figure is supposed to mean. If you look the abstract of the study, you see that it doesn't discuss causation, but a correlation of "risk."
They measured a correlation between use of the phone and the occurrence of accidents, but could not prove that the phones actually caused the accidents. And you have leaped a few bold steps by both misquoting the data, and jumping to conclusions about what it means.
Here's a fun example of how correlation cannot be used in a vacuum to determine causation: The World Series and elections. Since the World Series began, it has become an excellent predictor of elections, because in the vast majority of cases, a presidential candidate who comes from a state with a team in the Series will receive the same fate of his state's team -- if the team wins, he will win; if the team loses, he will lose.
I'll provide the World Series election predictor in the next post, and it offers a good example of why you can't assume that risk translates into real world outcomes. The same statistical methods were used to predict carnage on our highways following speed limit increases, but the study conclusions were all bogus because they relied excessively on single factors that were used to make illogical leaps from correlation to causation.
Teddy Roosevelt was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1916 - Boston Red Sox defeated Brooklyn Dodgers
Charles Evans Hughes was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1920 - Cleveland Indians defeated. Brooklyn Dodgers
Both major candidates from Ohio – n/a
1924 - Washington Senators defeated New York Giants
John Davis was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1928 - New York Yankees defeated St. Louis Cardinals
Al Smith was from New York state, and was defeated – CORRELATION
1932 - New York Yankees defeated Chicago Cubs
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was from New York state, and won – CORRELATION
1936 - New York Yankees defeated New York Giants
FDR from New York state, both teams from New York state – n/a
1972 - Oakland A’s defeated Cincinnati Reds
Richard Nixon was from California, and won – CORRELATION
1984 - Detroit Tigers defeated San Diego Padres
Ronald Reagan was from California, and won – NO CORRELATION
2004 - Boston Red Sox defeated St. Louis Cardinals
John Kerry was from Massachusetts, and lost – NO CORRELATION
The funny thing is that this sample hints that the correlation may have reversed since 1984, which further illustrates the problem with assuming that “correlation” is the same as causation.
What is more telling is that in the real world data, we don’t see any correlation at all between phone laws and lower accident rates. While correlation doesn’t necessarily prove anything, a lack of correlation is an obvious indicator that the issues aren’t linked. If you can’t show correlation, then you can’t logically argue causation with a straight face.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just because there is a statistical relationship between A and B does not mean that A causes B. The World Series shows an obvious example about it is possible to show a statistical relationship that doesn't demonstrate that there is actually a connection between the two things.
My two cents: I wouldn't dare take a cell phone call while driving. My hands need to be on the wheel and my mind must be on the act of motoring. Plus, I love driving and don't want to dilute the experience. So just leave me a message and I'll be sure to get back to you.
1. http://www.morganlee.org/
2. Background Because of a belief that the use of cellular telephones while driving may cause collisions, several countries have restricted their use in motor vehicles, and others are considering such regulations. We used an epidemiologic method, the case–crossover design, to study whether using a cellular telephone while driving increases the risk of a motor vehicle collision.
Methods We studied 699 drivers who had cellular telephones and who were involved in motor vehicle collisions resulting in substantial property damage but no personal injury. Each person's cellular-telephone calls on the day of the collision and during the previous week were analyzed through the use of detailed billing records.
Results A total of 26,798 cellular-telephone calls were made during the 14-month study period. The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used (relative risk, 4.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 3.0 to 6.5). The relative risk was similar for drivers who differed in personal characteristics such as age and driving experience; calls close to the time of the collision were particularly hazardous (relative risk, 4.8 for calls placed within 5 minutes of the collision, as compared with 1.3 for calls placed more than 15 minutes before the collision; P<0.001); and units that allowed the hands to be free (relative risk, 5.9) offered no safety advantage over hand-held units (relative risk, 3.9; P not significant). Thirty-nine percent of the drivers called emergency services after the collision, suggesting that having a cellular telephone may have had advantages in the aftermath of an event.
Conclusions The use of cellular telephones in motor vehicles is associated with a quadrupling of the risk of a collision during the brief period of a call. Decisions about regulation of such telephones, however, need to take into account the benefits of the technology and the role of individual responsibility.
3. <a href="http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate05.htm" target=_blank>http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate05.htm
The above are some tidbits. Oh I'm using the same funny math as you. I'm suggesting that up to 12% of the accidents could be attributable to cell phone use. 12% was what they said in the study.
Again, that is NOT what it said.
-The study included only those people who (a) had been in accidents and (b) had a phone. The study claimed a range of 6-12% of those involved in the study.
To participate in the study, it was necessary to have a phone, which included only 10% of the population at the time.
The range provided by the study is the outcome of taking the data extrapolated from the subjects and multiplying it by the penetration rate of phones, which was 10% during 1997. The result: 0.6-1.2%. (6.0 X 10%, 12.0 X 10%)
Your 12% figure is obtained by (a) ignoring the complete range of findings of the study (the worst case scenario at the extreme end of the bell curve), and (b) assuming that 100% of drivers have phones, which is totally false.
Either you don't understand the study, or else you are twisting it deliberately to support your argument, but the end result is the same -- you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off with your interpretation of what it says.
And again, it claims correlation, not causation. Correlation does not equate to causation, as the baseball example illustrates.
Yes, I admit I'm twisting numbers, because nobody really knows. The argument the accident rate should be through the rood if fallacious. Whatever the accident/fatality rate is today, cell phone usage has already played a part.
If you thumb through one of the links in a previous post, you can get a glimpse of 4+ year old data.
Somehow the lawmakers understand there is an issue. We can certainly debate as to the extent, since accurate numbers are not currently available.
Nope. You can't claim causation if you have no examples of correlation. While correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation, correlation is essential to proving causality.
You've got some major holes in your argument because you can't show a real world example of how phone laws have helped, or how a lack of them have hurt. You need to do something beyond extrapolating findings that were never reached.
The use of cell phones and accidents in vehicles do have a relationship whether you wish to think they do or not.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Actually, it's been proven to the lawmakers, without a shadow of a doubt. The US isn't the only country banning hand held cell phone usa while driving.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html
Here's how lawmakers are influenced.
http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/higgins/koh060201.htm
The people getting cell phones increase every year as the people without only will decrease and once the majority of people have cell phones more than likely drivers will learn how to use it correctly and law makers will be more responsive to their objections. I just don't think you can put the genie back in the bottle.
Yet you still have a hard time showing even one example of one of these laws being effective.
If you were right, this should be very easy for you to prove, and we could all go back to eating (too much of) our leftover turkey. The fact that you can't should make you more than a bit self-conscious!
If cell phones were in fact "safe" to use, it should be a no-brainer to prove it. If in fact you are not saying cell phones are not "safe"...the opposite of "safe" is "unsafe", then I don't have to "prove" anything. Unsafe behaviors, such as drunk driving, hand held cell phone usage, etc...need to be dealt with. In fact, the deed is already done. If you think cell phone users are being treated unfairly and other laws need to be put in place...I'm all for it. Let's be real, drunk driving laws have been on the books for a while, but fatalities due to DUIs are now increasing. You can't legislate common sense, but you can make it difficult for those who cause issues on the road. And because some laws don't meet "your" criteria that doesn't mean we as a society shouldn't try.
It certainly is true, that a person can drive legally drunk and get home safely. In the same way a person can use the phone and not cause a car crash. But since statistics, show, the driving public, mostly younger drivers, do not know when to put down the phone and pick up the steering wheel, this legislation is a good idea with stiff penalties accruing in the event the behavior causes a car crash.
While I appreciate your efforts to avoid your burden of proof, you're still sidestepping and dancing around the reality -- you can't point to a single real-world example of a place on this planet that ended up with much improved highway safety because of these laws. Not one.
And anyone with common sense has to step back and ask why this evidence seems impossible to provide, when the claims being made about phone usage are so extreme. The emperor is wearing no clothes with this one.
In any case, you are strawmanning yet again. Nobody on this forum argued that phones are "safe", anymore that one would possibly claim that driving with your screaming kids or groceries in the car is "safe."
The issue isn't whether phones are "safe" -- I don't expect that driving skills will improve because of them -- but whether they cause harm. Several of us here keep asking you to show that they do, but you can't. The fact that you can't, and have to resort to deliberately inflating and misinterpreting your own preferred conjectural studies, shows that even you have a hard time believing it.
Ahhhh yes. Back at ya! The great thing is. I don't have to. As I pointed to an example in my last post, the fatality rate to DUIs are going up, so the cynical would say the legislation isn't working we should remove it from our books (or make the penalties even more stiff than what they are). It's the responsible thing to do by having these laws on the books. In the same ways, it's the responsible thing to do to have the cell phone laws in place, even if they appear not to be working at the moment.
"The issue isn't whether phones are "safe" -- I don't expect that driving skills will improve because of them -- but whether they cause harm"
This is where we disagree. I believe the laws should be on the books if the they have the potential to cause harm. Due to the overwhelming information presented in studies I believe they have the potential. If at least one death is linked to cell phone use, which it is, then I believe we should have these laws on the books.
If you believe the cell phone users are being singled out, here are additional laws I would be most in favor of seeing:
1. make-up law
2. lunch eating law
3. hair combing law
4. cd/radio adjusting law
5. hot coffee drinking law
6. searching through glove box law
Can you think of other behaviors our legislators might be willing to place into law?
Well, if you can only demonstrate the "potential" by distorting the results of the studies that you quote, then I have to suspect your motives.
If you believe the cell phone users are being singled out, here are additional laws I would be most in favor of seeing:
1. make-up law
2. lunch eating law
3. hair combing law
4. cd/radio adjusting law
5. hot coffee drinking law
6. searching through glove box law
You are trolling, right? You can't be serious about any of that stuff!