If anyone thinks those rules were not a deterrent they are not living in reality.
The level of deterrence is directly related to the odds of being caught. My guess is that this oil field was somewhat similar to a military base that has a zillion rent-a-cops with nothing better to do than enforce traffic infractions. As fintail pointed out, not representative of the real world. Regardless, all this new legislation addresses handheld devices. Unless I am misinterpreting these studies that is not the primary distractor. So they won't have much of an impact, which has me curious as to why kdshapiro is so enthusiastic about them. My guess is he personally uses a hands free device, which he is somewhat proud of owning.
If you ask me, and I know most of you didn't, we should also, once and for all, put an end to smoking in vehicles as well! One can just imagine how many accidents and deaths have been caused by those nasty, degenerate smokers!
They don't care who they harm with their second and third-hand smoke! :mad:
Nope, still no seat belts in a school bus. In fact we don't have them in tour busses either. I guess kids and people on tour busses aren't worth the cost.
This is really going far afield, but I don'tknow if you know some states already have a total ban on indoor smoking. Laws such as these tend to move at a snail's pace.
My state will require seat belts in school busses next year. They will not mandate retroactive installation however. The belts will only have to be installed in new busses as they replace the old busses. So most of the kids forced to ride in a bus today will be out of college before his bus gets belts. It seems as if it took so long because they were worried that the kids might use the belts as weapons. Yes, we live in a strange world and law makers are always on the ball.
"How is it far-afield? We are talking about banning cells phones in cars, yet I am certain smoking inside a car has caused many more accidents!"
How do you know? Do you have statistics or evidence to prove smoking and cell phone usage as a distraction are equal? Can you point to studies that detail different types of distraction behavior and the probability the distraction ends in accident or fatality? How do you compare puffing on a cigarette with conversing on the phone for 15 minutes? Or are you implying since cell phone laws already exist then smoking, eating and drinking laws should be put in place? How come smoking has never been raised as a huge driver distraction issue at least as big as cell phones? Are you just tilting at windmills at this point?
Often times the person that is fatally injured is the person who caused the accident. You seem to think that isn't an adequate deterrent but a law will be.
Perhaps I should have saved our local county newspaper over the years when articles published on drunk drivers killing innocent driver and passenger(s) in other vehicles. I know my input here is ancedotal, but I think more often than not, the drunk driver survives the crash and the other innocent parties die or are severly injured.
A driver using a cell phone and t-boning and killing an innocent other driver will probably not get punishment similar to a drunk driver and that is a shame.
"but I think more often than not, the drunk driver survives the crash and the other innocent parties die or are severly injured."
Just in the last several days, a 23 year old soldier returned from 3 tours of duty in Iraq and was killed by a drunk driver in the DC area (Northern Virginia, I think). I'd pull the switch personally on that electric chair.
Why have metal bumpers disappeared? I've noticed an odd disease in the design of cars in the past decade, decade and a half. The bumper seems to have fallen off and been replaced with a weak plastic composite bump (not bumper). I can't think of any real reasons for this, especially for safety's sake, since the front and rear ends of a car crumple up like a discarded piece of paper in the lowest-speed fender benders. I don't want to be lied to that this is a safety feature. It's short-changing the buyer on a necessary piece of automotive anatomy. Perhaps the better question is why are only SUVs and trucks blessed with these metal saviors?
Why have metal bumpers disappeared? I've noticed an odd disease in the design of cars in the past decade, decade and a half.
It's for the sake of pedestrians and those outside the car.
Trucks get special exemptions as compared to cars, because laws related to trucks date back to the day when they were used largely for work, farming, etc., and not as substitutes for cars and station wagons.
It's for the sake of pedestrians and those outside the car.
Is that true? That's interesting. I know that hood ornaments are going away for the same reason. You don't want a cell phone user driving a Jaguar with that leaping cat just waiting to impale an unsuspecting pedestrian.
A lot of the impetus for designing around pedestrian safety is coming out of the EU because of the relatively high rate of pedestrian fatalities in vehicle accidents. (With more people on foot, it's not surprising.) Here's a bit of a write-up from Europe on the subject -- to translate, "bonnet" is British English for what we call the hood of the car:
In direct response to proposed and actual EU legislation, manufacturers are trying to stop pedestrians impacting with hard-points at the front of vehicles. The principle responses are to either raise the bonnet to a stance that better absorbs energy, or to use airbags to cushion against these hard-points. Although these approaches offer a way to maintain existing styling traits, they are unlikely to be as simple or effective as more dramatic changes in vehicle front design.
In 2000, 28% of UK road fatalities were pedestrians. Key improvements seem to revolve around giving the right amount of support, in the right areas, to a pedestrian in impact. It is suggested that bumpers have a deeper profile or a support structure below the surface to reduce “pitching of the leg-form and bending of the knee joint”. ‘Foam plastics’ could be used to absorb the energy of the impact as they possess good ‘recovery characteristics’ to reduce permanent damage to the vehicle in “low-speed car-to-car collisions”.
At the leading edge of the bonnet it is desirable to reduce the stiffness of the structure and avoid the location of catches and other fixings close to the surface. Bonnet reinforcing structure and panel seams add to the number of risk areas for impact. Statistics by the (UK) Transport Research Laboratory predict design improvements could prevent 8% of all pedestrian fatalities and 21% of serious injuries. The UK Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions (DETR) is more optimistic, believing up to 20% of pedestrian fatalities could be prevented within 8 years.
Several key changes to design can be considered as a means to improve pedestrian impact performance:
--Bumper foam needs to be 20-40mm thicker than on current vehicles and may need to be bigger in the vertical direction.
--A low level foam-covered beam is needed to reduce rotation of the knee joint. This could be disguised under a spoiler-style skin..”
--Lights should be kept below the upper leg crush zone or designed to deform in a controlled way.
--Under bonnet clearance should be at least 75mm, with special consideration paid to major features such as shock absorber mounts. Some suggestions have been made that double-wishbone suspension may be an alternative - this depends on the packaging in this area.
As you can guess, similar ideas are impacting design here, too. Note all the references to foam, not metal bumpers, and the implication that the front end parts should be made of foam and plastics, not metal. Sharp edges aren't desirable for this sort of design, either.
I've only stated that it doesn't appear to be a significant number.
I don't think anyone knows the real number. The person who hit me wasn't cited for cell phone use while driving (as it is not illegal in this state) so the accident won't show up in any studies that claim statistically significant or insignificant numbers.
I don't think anyone knows the real number. The person who hit me wasn't cited for cell phone use while driving (as it is not illegal in this state) so the accident won't show up in any studies that claim statistically significant or insignificant numbers.
But it will show up as an accident and add to the yearly total. If there were a significant number of accidents caused by cell phone users then this total should significantly increase regardless of whether or not cell phone use was cited as a factor. I've pointed out that in the past 15 years the number of accidents has steadily decreased. There were roughly 30% fewer accidents per 100 million vehicle miles travelled in 2005 compared to 1990, and that's with considerably more vehicles on the road. That's just a statistical fact. What I'd like to hear is a plausible explanation as to how this is possible if this new device being used by so many drivers represent such a significant hazard. I've read most of the studies that state the level of distraction caused by cell phone usage now I'd like some of these experts to explain the paradox of fewer accidents.
Out of curiousity, how do you know that the person who hit you was on a cell phone?
"If there were a significant number of accidents caused by cell phone users then this total should significantly increase regardless of whether or not cell phone use was cited as a factor."
No, that's the point you keep missing. Cell phone accidents are already factored in. You don't know if 70% or 10$ or 2% of the indeterminate causes of accidents are cell phones. You assume because the accident rate went down, although fatalities went up, cell phones aren't involved. They are involved to some degree, you and everybody doesn't know the number.
If there were a significant number of accidents caused by cell phone users then this total should significantly increase regardless of whether or not cell phone use was cited as a factor. I've pointed out that in the past 15 years the number of accidents has steadily decreased.
Of course, this is correct, and the huge gap that the anti-phone crowd is unable to address. If phones were a major problem as claimed, you would expect to see significant disruptions in the trend of accident and fatality rates in places that allow phones, and significant declines above the norm in places that ban them. If you can't link tangible, observable results to the theory, and then replicate those results independently, then the theory becomes weaker.
For example, we all know that bubonic plague was a significant problem in Europe during the Middle Ages because the death rate escalated far above normal and there were numerous examples of bodies with symptoms. The trend in the normal death rate was altered radically by the disease and returned to normal after the Plague had ended, so that statistical blip makes it impossible to deny that it was a major problem. The numbers make it clear in that example.
If phone are responsible for so many accidents, then no improvement in auto safety in other categories would be enough to offset the dangers. Yet this doesn't show up in any real-world data. This simply make no sense at all if you want to make the claim that the phones are such a critical item.
Again, the fatality rate did not go up for passenger vehicles.
No, that's the point you keep missing. Cell phone accidents are already factored in
No, that's the point you keep missing and it supports my case not yours. I do realize that cell phone accidents are factored into the total. If they weren't I wouldn't point to the total as an indication of cell phones not being a significant risk.
You don't know if 70% or 10$ or 2% of the indeterminate causes of accidents are cell phones.
You're right, nobody knows the exact number. I didn't claim it was 0% I only stated that if it was significant then it would be impossible for the totals not to reflect this. So I do know it isn't 70%.
BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have a hands free device in your vehicle?
Of course it's factual. You can observe the trends in these rates and see no major changes with phones, nor do you see major improvements in places that pass the laws. It is possible for phones to be a minor problem in this scenario, but a major problem would drastically change the numbers. You can't hide something as bad as the Plague, the statistics won't allow for it.
It is possible for phones to be a minor problem in this scenario, but a major problem would drastically change the numbers. You can't hide something as bad as the Plague, the statistics won't allow for it.
That is just an opinion. No facts. Plague is not good example.
It's a perfect example that just follows mathematical reason.
If a pharmaceuticals company administered a medicine that had alleged benefits but couldn't show you a large proportion of patients using the drug who got results, then you would question whether the medication had done any good at all. Such a medication might be removed from the market entirely for being ineffective, and you probably wouldn't be inclined to buy it.
Yet you don't apply this same basic standard to these phone laws. There are enough places that have had these laws in place long enough that it should be pretty obvious if they are effective, yet these places don't seem to exist. How can that be?
"No, that's the point you keep missing and it supports my case not yours."
Actually it's pointless to discuss this with you. If you read one my links posted from the NHTSAS' own, you would have read there is a lot of evidence but little statistical information. There is little statistical information because nobody collects it. Given the overwhelming evidence of the detrimental effect of cell phones to the attention to driving, these cell phone laws are justified.
"BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have a hands free device in your vehicle?"
"If a pharmaceuticals company administered a medicine "
Wow, now you are using an example from the drug industry to try to prove a point about cell phone usage?
"are enough places that have had these laws in place long enough that it should be pretty obvious if they are effective, yet these places don't seem to exist. How can that be? "
Okay explain how DUI fatalaties are going up with the tough laws we have in place. Maybe we should abolish those laws, because according to you, they are ineffective.
There is little statistical information because nobody collects it.
There is a ton of statistical data, actually. And if phones were such a problem, they should be reflected in the total, because you can't hide all of the bodies created by the Plague.
Again, show us the country that passed a phone law and got great results from it. If the phones were a problem, those countries that passed such laws should have acheived stellar above-average declines in their accident and fatality rates. Show us this place.
Wow, now you are using an example from the drug industry to try to prove a point about cell phone usage?
Sure, it's a fair analogy. If a drug doesn't work, we pull it off the market and question its value. If your magic potion for saving lives does nothing at all, then why should I believe anything that you have to say?
That is just an opinion. No facts. Plague is not good example.
Maybe it is an opinion but its supported by a wealth of data. Stating that cell phones are dangerous is also an opinion supported by studies but countered by data.
Maybe the plague isn't the best example. Let's look at seat belt usage. The percentage of belted drivers increased dramatically from the 70's through the early 90's. During this period the fatality rate declined more significantly than the accident rate. Since the early 90's the percentage of belted drivers has somewhat plateaued and the fatality rate has tracked downward right in line with the accident rate. That is an example of a perceived risk (not wearing your seatbelt) being supported by data. Since 1990 we have gone from almost 0 cell phones in this country to over 200 million, pretty close to saturation. Yet this perceived risk is not supported by any data during this time period. I'd just like to hear a plausible explanation?
What are you talking about? If 20% of accidents were caused by phone usage, for example, then why aren't we seeing 20% declines in places that pass these laws, in addition to the declines that are already occurring? By your logic, this should be happening, but it isn't.
Beware of the naked man who offers you his shirt. For something that you claim is so amazingly effective, you sure seem to come up short in providing any examples of how effective it really is once your advice has been followed. All sizzle, but no steak.
"Sure, it's a fair analogy. If a drug doesn't work, we pull it off the market and question its value. If your magic potion for saving lives does nothing at all, then why should I believe anything that you have to say?"
Yeah, it's a fair analogy but a poor discussion point for this forum. In the interest of trying to prove any point at all, that statement is a huge reach. You still haven't answered my question of why we shouldn't pull every law from the books that doesn't work to your satisfaction, including bad criminal acts. Or are you only interesting in pulling laws that inconvenience you?
"What are you talking about? If 20% of accidents were caused by phone usage, for example, then why aren't we seeing 20% declines in places that pass these laws, in addition to the declines that are already occurring? By your logic, this should be happening, but it isn't."
I don't understand what you are talking about. Statistics are one thing, compliance and enforcement are another. Why haven't drunk driving deaths been reduced to zero with the tough laws we have in place?
If it's a huge reach to expect you to prove your case, then we should question why you don't have trouble believing it yourself. Sounds like you engage in a lot of wishful thinking, while ignoring the reality.
Anyway, show us these great results achieved by places that passed laws. With these horrible instruments of death killing us left and right, it should be easy to show us these other places that have achieved a utopian state of being with their laws...right?
"BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have a hands free device in your vehicle?"
Further proves my point you don't read my posts
I do read your posts, I must have forgotten the answer. Do you mind refreshing my memory? The only reason I ask is that you seem to have an inordinate level of enthusiasm for these hand held bans despite the fact that your studies claim insignificant difference between the distraction caused by hands free or hand held devices.
You still haven't answered my question of why we shouldn't pull every law from the books that doesn't work to your satisfaction
What would be your level of satisfaction? If a new law gets enacted and there is no perceivable improvement in the problem it was addressing would you still want to keep this law?
Yes, I use a hands-free device. While I have the opinion all wireless communications should be banned, I stay within the law and the spirit of the law. Meaning I do use the hands-free. But I never claimed I didn't.
It's not my level of satisfaction, which matters. I think we need more data collection, not more studies. The data collection we have is insufficient.
"If a new law gets enacted and there is no perceivable improvement in the problem it was addressing would you still want to keep this law?"
That's what I'm asking about other laws too. Where do YOU draw the line? Why would you or the rational person want to keep drunk driving laws on the books if it weren't totally effective, especially after 30 years?
I found a car, Toyota few years old, wandering into my lane in a nasty construction area at I75 an hour ago. This is a 55 and should be 45 speed zone because of the lane shifts onto berms and such for the construction.
Guess who was leaning slightly forward as though intently listening to the conversation playing in her right ear where she was holding a cellphone. She'd easily bump another car because she WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. It's that easy for those that say it just ain't there. Look around you.
Yes, I use a hands-free device. While I have the opinion all wireless communications should be banned, I stay within the law and the spirit of the law. Meaning I do use the hands-free. But I never claimed I didn't.
That's interesting but I already assumed that you did. What exactly do you mean by the "spirit of the law". In most states there is no ban on cell phones at all. So I guess anyone using a hand held device is within the law and the spirit of the law. Also, I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile your personal behavior with these studies you believe so strongly in and your "if it could save one life" mantra.
BTW, I'm not criticizing you for using a hands free device because I've stated numerous times its the driver, not the device that causes the hazard. Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
That's what I'm asking about other laws too. Where do YOU draw the line? Why would you or the rational person want to keep drunk driving laws on the books if it weren't totally effective, especially after 30 years?
I've never stated that a law has to be totally effective in order to be justified. In the case of DUI laws there was a significant drop in alcohol related fatalities and accidents during the 70's and 80's. There is hard data to back this up. I'd guess that was probably a result of tougher laws and greater education/awareness during this period. However in the last 15 years there has been little change in these alcohol related incidents despite even tougher laws being enacted. So a reasonable person would conclude that the current legislative approach has come close to maxing out its effectiveness. I wouldn't advocate repealing DUI laws but I would contend that if we want further improvement it will require an additional, different approach.
kdshapiro: If you read one my links posted from the NHTSAS' own, you would have read there is a lot of evidence but little statistical information. There is little statistical information because nobody collects it.
All of the government agencies collecting "evidence," and interest groups pushing for a ban...but no one bothers to collect any statistics?
In a country where we know what percentage of toddlers are overweight, how many high schoolers have lost their virginity, and how many miles per year everyone drives, we can't - or no one has bothered to - break this down into statistics?
You've got to be kidding.
kdshapiro: Given the overwhelming evidence of the detrimental effect of cell phones to the attention to driving, these cell phone laws are justified.
If the evidence of this detrimental effect is "so overwhelming," why isn't anybody collecting it, quantifying it and breaking it down into statistics?
I note no one has posted about the potential problems of one of those cell phone users having some sort of stroke or whatever, due to the tumors the phones cause.... :sick:
"You may find it more productive to better understand what what studies actually say, so that you can properly interpret them.
Then spend more time becoming better informed about traffic safety issues. "
Actually most of us *really* understand the evidence and hard lack of statistical data. It's only a few who doesn't understand what the studies are saying.
Law enforcement won't collect data unless there are laws against it. It's a bit of a vicious circle.
Wasn't data being collect for 30 years. How in earth can we make informed judgements when we have a smattering of statistics from at most a state for a very short period of time, but a lot of evidence from 15 years of studies?
"If the evidence of this detrimental effect is "so overwhelming," why isn't anybody collecting it, quantifying it and breaking it down into statistics?"
In the same way people were allowed to drive drunk for 60 years before the government did something about it. This issue is finally getting some attention. Laws and data collection are proceeding in parallel.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The NHTSA has been collecting comprehensive national stats for around 40 years. IMO, we definitely shouldn't be enacting legislation without informed judgement. So if you're stating that we don't have enough evidence to be informed then legislation is premature.
Comments
The level of deterrence is directly related to the odds of being caught. My guess is that this oil field was somewhat similar to a military base that has a zillion rent-a-cops with nothing better to do than enforce traffic infractions. As fintail pointed out, not representative of the real world. Regardless, all this new legislation addresses handheld devices. Unless I am misinterpreting these studies that is not the primary distractor. So they won't have much of an impact, which has me curious as to why kdshapiro is so enthusiastic about them. My guess is he personally uses a hands free device, which he is somewhat proud of owning.
I'm calling phooey on this comment.
They don't care who they harm with their second and third-hand smoke! :mad:
Indoor smoking bans apply to public places, not private homes or vehicles.
Think of the children! :sick:
How do you know? Do you have statistics or evidence to prove smoking and cell phone usage as a distraction are equal? Can you point to studies that detail different types of distraction behavior and the probability the distraction ends in accident or fatality? How do you compare puffing on a cigarette with conversing on the phone for 15 minutes? Or are you implying since cell phone laws already exist then smoking, eating and drinking laws should be put in place? How come smoking has never been raised as a huge driver distraction issue at least as big as cell phones? Are you just tilting at windmills at this point?
Happy Wednesday everybody!
Perhaps I should have saved our local county newspaper over the years when articles published on drunk drivers killing innocent driver and passenger(s) in other vehicles. I know my input here is ancedotal, but I think more often than not, the drunk driver survives the crash and the other innocent parties die or are severly injured.
A driver using a cell phone and t-boning and killing an innocent other driver will probably not get punishment similar to a drunk driver and that is a shame.
Just in the last several days, a 23 year old soldier returned from 3 tours of duty in Iraq and was killed by a drunk driver in the DC area (Northern Virginia, I think). I'd pull the switch personally on that electric chair.
It's for the sake of pedestrians and those outside the car.
Trucks get special exemptions as compared to cars, because laws related to trucks date back to the day when they were used largely for work, farming, etc., and not as substitutes for cars and station wagons.
It's for the sake of pedestrians and those outside the car.
Is that true? That's interesting. I know that hood ornaments are going away for the same reason. You don't want a cell phone user driving a Jaguar with that leaping cat just waiting to impale an unsuspecting pedestrian.
In direct response to proposed and actual EU legislation, manufacturers are trying to stop pedestrians impacting with hard-points at the front of vehicles. The principle responses are to either raise the bonnet to a stance that better absorbs energy, or to use airbags to cushion against these hard-points. Although these approaches offer a way to maintain existing styling traits, they are unlikely to be as simple or effective as more dramatic changes in vehicle front design.
In 2000, 28% of UK road fatalities were pedestrians. Key improvements seem to revolve around giving the right amount of support, in the right areas, to a pedestrian in impact. It is suggested that bumpers have a deeper profile or a support structure below the surface to reduce “pitching of the leg-form and bending of the knee joint”. ‘Foam plastics’ could be used to absorb the energy of the impact as they possess good ‘recovery characteristics’ to reduce permanent damage to the vehicle in “low-speed car-to-car collisions”.
At the leading edge of the bonnet it is desirable to reduce the stiffness of the structure and avoid the location of catches and other fixings close to the surface. Bonnet reinforcing structure and panel seams add to the number of risk areas for impact. Statistics by the (UK) Transport Research Laboratory predict design improvements could prevent 8% of all pedestrian fatalities and 21% of serious injuries. The UK Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions (DETR) is more optimistic, believing up to 20% of pedestrian fatalities could be prevented within 8 years.
Several key changes to design can be considered as a means to improve pedestrian impact performance:
--Bumper foam needs to be 20-40mm thicker than on current vehicles and may need to be bigger in the vertical direction.
--A low level foam-covered beam is needed to reduce rotation of the knee joint. This could be disguised under a spoiler-style skin..”
--Lights should be kept below the upper leg crush zone or designed to deform in a controlled way.
--Under bonnet clearance should be at least 75mm, with special consideration paid to major features such as shock absorber mounts. Some suggestions have been made that double-wishbone suspension may be an alternative - this depends on the packaging in this area.
As you can guess, similar ideas are impacting design here, too. Note all the references to foam, not metal bumpers, and the implication that the front end parts should be made of foam and plastics, not metal. Sharp edges aren't desirable for this sort of design, either.
Article link
I don't think anyone knows the real number. The person who hit me wasn't cited for cell phone use while driving (as it is not illegal in this state) so the accident won't show up in any studies that claim statistically significant or insignificant numbers.
But it will show up as an accident and add to the yearly total. If there were a significant number of accidents caused by cell phone users then this total should significantly increase regardless of whether or not cell phone use was cited as a factor. I've pointed out that in the past 15 years the number of accidents has steadily decreased. There were roughly 30% fewer accidents per 100 million vehicle miles travelled in 2005 compared to 1990, and that's with considerably more vehicles on the road. That's just a statistical fact. What I'd like to hear is a plausible explanation as to how this is possible if this new device being used by so many drivers represent such a significant hazard. I've read most of the studies that state the level of distraction caused by cell phone usage now I'd like some of these experts to explain the paradox of fewer accidents.
Out of curiousity, how do you know that the person who hit you was on a cell phone?
No, that's the point you keep missing. Cell phone accidents are already factored in. You don't know if 70% or 10$ or 2% of the indeterminate causes of accidents are cell phones. You assume because the accident rate went down, although fatalities went up, cell phones aren't involved. They are involved to some degree, you and everybody doesn't know the number.
Of course, this is correct, and the huge gap that the anti-phone crowd is unable to address. If phones were a major problem as claimed, you would expect to see significant disruptions in the trend of accident and fatality rates in places that allow phones, and significant declines above the norm in places that ban them. If you can't link tangible, observable results to the theory, and then replicate those results independently, then the theory becomes weaker.
For example, we all know that bubonic plague was a significant problem in Europe during the Middle Ages because the death rate escalated far above normal and there were numerous examples of bodies with symptoms. The trend in the normal death rate was altered radically by the disease and returned to normal after the Plague had ended, so that statistical blip makes it impossible to deny that it was a major problem. The numbers make it clear in that example.
If phone are responsible for so many accidents, then no improvement in auto safety in other categories would be enough to offset the dangers. Yet this doesn't show up in any real-world data. This simply make no sense at all if you want to make the claim that the phones are such a critical item.
Again, the fatality rate did not go up for passenger vehicles.
No, that's the point you keep missing. Cell phone accidents are already factored in
No, that's the point you keep missing and it supports my case not yours. I do realize that cell phone accidents are factored into the total. If they weren't I wouldn't point to the total as an indication of cell phones not being a significant risk.
You don't know if 70% or 10$ or 2% of the indeterminate causes of accidents are cell phones.
You're right, nobody knows the exact number. I didn't claim it was 0% I only stated that if it was significant then it would be impossible for the totals not to reflect this. So I do know it isn't 70%.
BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have a hands free device in your vehicle?
That is an assertion without foundation in fact.
Of course it's factual. You can observe the trends in these rates and see no major changes with phones, nor do you see major improvements in places that pass the laws. It is possible for phones to be a minor problem in this scenario, but a major problem would drastically change the numbers. You can't hide something as bad as the Plague, the statistics won't allow for it.
That is just an opinion. No facts. Plague is not good example.
It's a perfect example that just follows mathematical reason.
If a pharmaceuticals company administered a medicine that had alleged benefits but couldn't show you a large proportion of patients using the drug who got results, then you would question whether the medication had done any good at all. Such a medication might be removed from the market entirely for being ineffective, and you probably wouldn't be inclined to buy it.
Yet you don't apply this same basic standard to these phone laws. There are enough places that have had these laws in place long enough that it should be pretty obvious if they are effective, yet these places don't seem to exist. How can that be?
Actually it's pointless to discuss this with you. If you read one my links posted from the NHTSAS' own, you would have read there is a lot of evidence but little statistical information. There is little statistical information because nobody collects it. Given the overwhelming evidence of the detrimental effect of cell phones to the attention to driving, these cell phone laws are justified.
"BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have a hands free device in your vehicle?"
Further proves my point you don't read my posts.
Wow, now you are using an example from the drug industry to try to prove a point about cell phone usage?
"are enough places that have had these laws in place long enough that it should be pretty obvious if they are effective, yet these places don't seem to exist. How can that be? "
Okay explain how DUI fatalaties are going up with the tough laws we have in place. Maybe we should abolish those laws, because according to you, they are ineffective.
There is a ton of statistical data, actually. And if phones were such a problem, they should be reflected in the total, because you can't hide all of the bodies created by the Plague.
Again, show us the country that passed a phone law and got great results from it. If the phones were a problem, those countries that passed such laws should have acheived stellar above-average declines in their accident and fatality rates. Show us this place.
Sure, it's a fair analogy. If a drug doesn't work, we pull it off the market and question its value. If your magic potion for saving lives does nothing at all, then why should I believe anything that you have to say?
Yes, just not related to phones.
"Again, show us the country that passed a phone law and got great results from it."
Again, to your way of thinking, murder, rape and DUI laws ought to be abolished also.
Maybe it is an opinion but its supported by a wealth of data. Stating that cell phones are dangerous is also an opinion supported by studies but countered by data.
Maybe the plague isn't the best example. Let's look at seat belt usage. The percentage of belted drivers increased dramatically from the 70's through the early 90's. During this period the fatality rate declined more significantly than the accident rate. Since the early 90's the percentage of belted drivers has somewhat plateaued and the fatality rate has tracked downward right in line with the accident rate. That is an example of a perceived risk (not wearing your seatbelt) being supported by data. Since 1990 we have gone from almost 0 cell phones in this country to over 200 million, pretty close to saturation. Yet this perceived risk is not supported by any data during this time period. I'd just like to hear a plausible explanation?
What are you talking about? If 20% of accidents were caused by phone usage, for example, then why aren't we seeing 20% declines in places that pass these laws, in addition to the declines that are already occurring? By your logic, this should be happening, but it isn't.
Beware of the naked man who offers you his shirt. For something that you claim is so amazingly effective, you sure seem to come up short in providing any examples of how effective it really is once your advice has been followed. All sizzle, but no steak.
Yeah, it's a fair analogy but a poor discussion point for this forum. In the interest of trying to prove any point at all, that statement is a huge reach. You still haven't answered my question of why we shouldn't pull every law from the books that doesn't work to your satisfaction, including bad criminal acts. Or are you only interesting in pulling laws that inconvenience you?
I don't understand what you are talking about. Statistics are one thing, compliance and enforcement are another. Why haven't drunk driving deaths been reduced to zero with the tough laws we have in place?
Anyway, show us these great results achieved by places that passed laws. With these horrible instruments of death killing us left and right, it should be easy to show us these other places that have achieved a utopian state of being with their laws...right?
"BTW, you never answered my question. Do you have a hands free device in your vehicle?"
Further proves my point you don't read my posts
I do read your posts, I must have forgotten the answer. Do you mind refreshing my memory? The only reason I ask is that you seem to have an inordinate level of enthusiasm for these hand held bans despite the fact that your studies claim insignificant difference between the distraction caused by hands free or hand held devices.
What would be your level of satisfaction? If a new law gets enacted and there is no perceivable improvement in the problem it was addressing would you still want to keep this law?
My case has alredy been proven by multiple studies and adoption of laws.
"If a new law gets enacted and there is no perceivable improvement in the problem it was addressing would you still want to keep this law?"
That's what I'm asking about other laws too. Where do YOU draw the line? Why would you or the rational person want to keep drunk driving laws on the books if it weren't totally effective, especially after 30 years?
Guess who was leaning slightly forward as though intently listening to the conversation playing in her right ear where she was holding a cellphone. She'd easily bump another car because she WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. It's that easy for those that say it just ain't there. Look around you.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just came across this, thought you might like it.
That's interesting but I already assumed that you did. What exactly do you mean by the "spirit of the law". In most states there is no ban on cell phones at all. So I guess anyone using a hand held device is within the law and the spirit of the law. Also, I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile your personal behavior with these studies you believe so strongly in and your "if it could save one life" mantra.
BTW, I'm not criticizing you for using a hands free device because I've stated numerous times its the driver, not the device that causes the hazard. Remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I've never stated that a law has to be totally effective in order to be justified. In the case of DUI laws there was a significant drop in alcohol related fatalities and accidents during the 70's and 80's. There is hard data to back this up. I'd guess that was probably a result of tougher laws and greater education/awareness during this period. However in the last 15 years there has been little change in these alcohol related incidents despite even tougher laws being enacted. So a reasonable person would conclude that the current legislative approach has come close to maxing out its effectiveness. I wouldn't advocate repealing DUI laws but I would contend that if we want further improvement it will require an additional, different approach.
You may find it more productive to better understand what what studies actually say, so that you can properly interpret them.
Then spend more time becoming better informed about traffic safety issues.
All of the government agencies collecting "evidence," and interest groups pushing for a ban...but no one bothers to collect any statistics?
In a country where we know what percentage of toddlers are overweight, how many high schoolers have lost their virginity, and how many miles per year everyone drives, we can't - or no one has bothered to - break this down into statistics?
You've got to be kidding.
kdshapiro: Given the overwhelming evidence of the detrimental effect of cell phones to the attention to driving, these cell phone laws are justified.
If the evidence of this detrimental effect is "so overwhelming," why isn't anybody collecting it, quantifying it and breaking it down into statistics?
Then spend more time becoming better informed about traffic safety issues.
Actually most of us *really* understand the evidence and hard lack of statistical data. It's only a few who doesn't understand what the studies are saying.
Law enforcement won't collect data unless there are laws against it. It's a bit of a vicious circle.
In the same way people were allowed to drive drunk for 60 years before the government did something about it. This issue is finally getting some attention. Laws and data collection are proceeding in parallel.