I don't know what business lunch you have been to. Alcohol is hardly featured at business lunches (or dinners) anymore. Business lunches usually do not take place in cars. Besides, nobody really communicates through alcohol. If a call is not answered, there is no communication taking place; the same can not be said of aocohol.
That's an answer? Because thet like to implement silly laws? Dictatorships? You are very far off field.
Your arugment is that 40 other countries have instituted laws against it, so why don't we. Well, my response was that more than 40 other countries have other silly laws. Where is the off-fieldness in that? Do I have to go through formal logic steps to prove that point?
"Your arugment is that 40 other countries have instituted laws against it, so why don't we."
No, that is you saying something I never did. So let me repeat in case there is any question. My opinion is soley based on studies over the last 15 years and the conclusions drawn by those studies.
My question to the board is two fold:
1. If 40 countries plus states in the US has implemented some type of restriction what are they seeing that some are missing? And not some phoney baloney stuff about ecomonic interests and dictatorships?
2. What is your New York Times front-page article data that shows cell phones are safe, or at least benign? Not the same about how accident rates are going down, yet we still have some percentage of the 24,000 fataliities where the root cause is cell phones is unknown. It could be 100% or 0%.
"I don't know what business lunch you have been to. Alcohol is hardly featured at business lunches (or dinners) anymore."
Maybe in your part of the world, but that doesn't change my opinion of your position that anything good for the economy should be allowed carte blance in cars.
Cellphone subscription in the US was 21 per 1000-population in 1990, and 683 per 1000-population in 2005. Even ignoring the population growth, that's a 32x increase. That's not even taking into account of the fact that subscribers probably talked a lot less in 1990 than in 2005 simply due to the high cost of minutes back then. So, even if cellphones account for as little of 3% of accidents, the growth of cellphone subscription alone should at least produce a doubling of overall accident count! Probably more due to average subscribers talking more now. That's clearly not the case.
The reality is that accident rates have gone down significantly during that time span, while cellphone subscription has increased by 32 times! A Clear case can probably be made that cell phone calls that informing of delays hence no need to speed, additional items to pick up hence no need to make another trip, and etc. probably is a big contributor in reducing accident rates.
You are twisting. Banning something good for the economy requires considerable standards of proof. Alcohol is entertainment, not business or communication device. Even IRS rules state that you can not write-off alcohol at business lunches entirely. Heck, if you routinely buy alcohol at business lunches, be prepared for an audit. Do you guys in the lawmaking enjoy three-martini lunches nowadays?
More importantly, the standard of proof for banning drinking alcohol while driving is quite easily established: accident rates do go down after the ban. Heck, an even more convincing statistic: accidents do go up after peak holiday drinking evenings. There is no such statistic at all for cellphone use. What statstic we do have prove that cellphone use increase accidents over the past 15yrs!
1. If 40 countries plus states in the US has implemented some type of restriction what are they seeing that some are missing?
We are not missing the point at all. The lawmakers just want more money. That's why most of these countries and municipalities are among the over-regulated variety. Not a big surprise. They are just being their greedy selves.
2. What is your New York Times front-page article data that shows cell phones are safe, or at least benign? Not the same about how accident rates are going down, yet we still have some percentage of the 24,000 fataliities where the root cause is cell phones is unknown. It could be 100% or 0%.
Haven't you heard of "contrarian indicator"? If NYT puts something on the front page, I will look for ways to short it :-) Like the good old "We are now all Keynesians" proclaimation by Nixon, marking the very peak of Keynsian fortune/abuse.
So even though you do not know if it is 100% or 0% (neither likely frankly), you have no qualms about making a law that bans something? Here's a news flash: it could also be
-200%! (Minus 200%! cellphone reduce accidents)
Why? Because the annual fatality rate was 50,000+ back before cell phones were popular. People who can not call and say "I will be late for 5 min" may just have to speed instead!
But hey, you don't care, as a corrupt lawmaker, you just want to grab onto more money in the form of fines. If more people get killed and maimed, it's all the better; perhaps there will be a drive for public insurance, another pot of gold that you get to manage.
..you guys are trying to make your points by quoting various statistics and drawing convenient, oversimplified conclusions.
I guess the fact that life expectancy has increased over the last 30 years at the same time obesity has increased means we should all pig out on a pound of bacon every morning? And perhaps throw it down with a beer and cigarette? MacDonalds, Phillip Morris and Budwiser could co-sponser a breakfast of champions ad campaign.
There are a lot of factors that go into "cause and effect". Back when I first got out of B-School in the early 80's and worked for one of the large consumer products companies, we did all sorts of statistical analysis trying to figure out what drove their sales and profitability. Toilet paper and toothpaste consumption were 50% inversely correlated to the Prime rate. And 50% correlated to cereal and peanut butter consumption. And paper towel consumption was 80% correlated to the square of the difference of the mean temperature to the yearly average temperature. And...
No disrepect intended, but you all don't have enough time in the day to gather all of the statistical information necessary to fully identify to even the 95% level all of the factors (and their coefficients of correlation) that contibute to the actual frequency of occurance of auto accidents in Washington DC today vs. 1986; let alone the rest of the country. And if you did, I'd suggest you use your skills in genetic research rather than wasting your time in this foum.
Me, I think the reduction in the accident rate is due to the decline in the Big Three's market share of cars that can't get out of their own way and the increase in market share of BMW and Porsche. In the last month, I've avoided two accidents with crazy drivers. I had to employ maneuvers that used every bit of my 911's 1.0g handling and world class braking capabilities. And no, I wasn't speeding or driving aggressively in either case - both times my daughters were in the back seat. Also, in fairness, neither other driver was on the cell phone at the time. But they certainly weren't focused upon driving.
So, in conclusion, there should be a law that permits cell phones in 911's and other cars that are in that handling / braking category, but no others. Sounds fair to me.
The reality is you don't know what percentage of fatalities and accidents are attributable to cell phones. Nobody does. Until we know the statistics, the evidence presented in the studies seems to indicate that this laws are a good idea. IMO.
The (admittedly facetious) obesity cause longevity argument does not work for the simple reason that obese people do not live long lives. Also, the average life span in the US has not changed much in the US in the last 30 years. The rest of the world has changed a lot, due to better nutrition; better nutrition does cause longevity!
If your real argument is that nothing is knowable, then we should ban all lawmaking . . . which is fine with me :-) I'd rather lawmakers sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing than making whimsical laws.
Sportscars do not contribute to safety; that's also statisticly proven. On the other hand, certain types of devices, like DSC pioneered by the collaboration between Bosche and BMW, do indeed contribute to safety. That's also statisticly proven. However, that alone does not explain the massive decrease in accidents that we have had.
"We are not missing the point at all. The lawmakers just want more money"
Sorry. The whole premise of your discussion points center around self-serving and corrupt politicians. If that is your view, I can't fight it, because I can't say you're wrong. If however, one tempers that argument with every single study over the last 15 years, it seems to me to be a good idea.
If you look over NHTSAs website, you will not find one shred of evidence or talk suggesting use of cell phones while driving is a benign driver activity. Why do you suppose that is? That is the point you keep missing. A reasonable doubt is all that is needed. BTW considering there have already been major damages awarded by victims(deceased) of drivers using cell phones, don't you already think this is enough to prove causality?
"If your real argument is that nothing is knowable, then we should ban all lawmaking"
You really should focus on the evidence presented and quit with the rhetoric. It just doesn't make your position seem as credible as in other past discussions.
Thanks for pointing out the typo. The statistic proving cellphone use reduce accidents (or at least does not contribute much to accidents) is as following:
Over the past 15 years, cellphone subscription in the US has gone up by some 3200%, and accident rates have gone down by some 80%, and fatality rates have gone down by 50%! These are massive trends that simply do not jive with the paranoia about cellphone causing accidents. If cellphone, net-net, contributed to as little as 3% of accidents, the 32x increase in subscription should have led to cellphone users alone doubling the total number of accidents, not an 80% decrease.
The alternative theory that cellphones help reduce risky driving behavior (like speeding and redundent trips) can explain the available statistic data much better.
Please stick your nose to your three-martini taxpayer sponsored lunches. Or is that paid by some "friend" seeking graft? In other words, taxpayer end up paying even more.
It's redundant to say that politicians are self-serving, unless you have been under a rock since birth or that your livelihood is dependent on keeping up the pretense that politicians are "public servants." Everyone is more or less motivated by self-interest. Putting on the cloak of officialdom does not transform anyone into a saint.
The real issue is whether their self-interest can be aligned with public interest on certain issues. Yourself has pretty much admitted that there is no statistic evidence proving that cell phone use lead to more accidents. So what's the real motivation for the ban? Looks to me quite obvious: revenue generation.
considering there have already been major damages awarded by victims(deceased) of drivers using cell phones, don't you already think this is enough to prove causality?
Not at all. There are damages paid out for medical research every year. Does that mean we should ban all medical research altogether? Or even closer at home, damages related to auto accidents are paid out every year, does that mean we should ban cars because some people don't know how to drive? Some people are not capable driving while using cell phone; other people can.
kdshapiro: 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.
Sorry, but based on your posts, you are not one of those who "really" understands evidence and the lack of statistical data - not to mention how legislatures work.
kdshapiro: Law enforcement won't collect data unless there are laws against it. It's a bit of a vicious circle.
For several years, the Pennsylvania State Police has been instructed to note on accident reports whether cell phone use played a part in the accident.
And there is no law against using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle in Pennsylvania.
kdshapiro: If you look over NHTSAs website, you will not find one shred of evidence or talk suggesting use of cell phones while driving is a benign driver activity. Why do you suppose that is?
NHTSA is not looking to prove that it is a benign activity, because that question is irrelevent to this entire discussion, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and YOU keep missing this point.
We do not ban things because they fail to make a positive contribution to traffic safety.
kdshapiro: A reasonable doubt is all that is needed.
Completely wrong. We aren't talking about criminal law here. When seeking to ban or restrict an activity, there must be proof of its harmful effects.
With each successive post you further convince me that you don't know what you are talking about.
When one is in the hole, it is best to stop digging.
Methinks someone needs to stage an intervention and take away your shovel.
"NHTSA is not looking to prove that it is a benign activity, because that question is irrelevent to this entire discussion, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and YOU keep missing this point."
It's only been pointed out by those who don't understand the last 15 years of study. You keep missing this point.
"Completely wrong. We aren't talking about criminal law here. When seeking to ban or restrict an activity, there must be proof of its harmful effects."
Okay, so why has 40 countries enacted legislation? Oh I forgot you already know the answer.
"When one is in the hole, it is best to stop digging. Methinks someone needs to stage an intervention and take away your shovel."
"The real issue is whether their self-interest can be aligned with public interest on certain issues. Yourself has pretty much admitted that there is no statistic evidence proving that cell phone use lead to more accidents"
No. Let me repeat what I've been saying. There is little statistics but a lot of evidence that driving while on the cell phone distracts the driver. There is a big difference between knowing the statistics and having the evidence to prove the ill effects of driving while talking.
You still haven't told me out of the 24,000 people who died in non-alcohol related accidents what the exact percentage of fatalities where cell phones were a root cause. For all you know it could be 50%. Even if it is 1.3%, that is a number worthy of the current legislation. It must not really matter to you, unless you are one of the fatalities. And then it would matter to your family. And I don't wish anything bad for anybody, buy any law that can potentially lower the fatality rate is a good idea. (Please don't start with the driving ban nonsense)
"For several years, the Pennsylvania State Police has been instructed to note on accident reports whether cell phone use played a part in the accident.
And there is no law against using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle in Pennsylvania."
So please tell us the statistics about collisions and fatalities in Pa. with regard to cell phone usage. And can we use this as a model to describe the rest of the country?
Okay, let's just do a back-of-the-envelope number exercise here:
For the sake of argument, let's round the US populalation to 300mil for the entire past 15yrs, and a fleet of 200mil registered vehicles (the changes there are miniscule compared to the change in cellphone adoption rate growth and accident decrease). In 1990, 20 accidents per 100 registerants means 40mil accidents, and 50k deaths (all in round numbers, the potential rounding error is dwarfed by the size of the trend coming up). Even if only 2% of these accidents were caused by cellphone use, that would be 800,000 accidents and 1k deaths due to cellphone use. The subsequent 3200% increase in cellphone subscription should multiply that to 26mil accidents and 32k deaths due to cellphone use alone!
That obviously has not happened. 4 per 100 vehicle registration today means 8 mil accidents due to all causes, and 24k deaths each year, again due to all causes.
What does that mean? cellphone use cause much less than even 2% of accidents. That's assuming cellphone cause accidents at all.
A far more logical conclusion from these overwhelming major trends is that wide adoption of cellphone use correlate with reduced accidents and deaths! What's needed is finding a reasonable mechanism to explain the data. IMHO, what's happenening is that a timely cellphone call helps the need to reduce the need for speeding and reduce the need for extra trips in the neighborhood (where 80% of accidents happen, within 2miles of home).
Professional lawmaking is synonymous with tyranny and despotism.
Read the second link again. The article assumes "crash factor" apriori, dreaming up a number then apply it to 1999 and 2000 cell subscription numbers. There is no proof of the validity of the "crash factor" itself at all. I already addressed the issue in my previous post. The "crash factor" has to be infinitisimal to make numbers work from 1990 to 2005, a time period over which cell phone subscription went up 3200%.
It also does not take into account at all how cellphone may help reduce accidents in many other situations, as an unbias look at the dramatic reduction in accident at a time of massive increase in cellphone use took place would demand.
The first link you gave address inexperienced young drivers learning to drive and getting their liceses. Sure, perhaps an infant learning to walk should not be allowed to chew gum at the same time. But that does not mean there should be a ban against walking and chewing gum at the same time for every one.
The third link is really the clincher. In case you did not notice, the numbers indicate cellphone use was found in 0.1% of crashes!!! No, it's not even 1%, but 0.1%! (600 out 500,000 crashes in California, for example, the largest data source). That does not even take into account at all situations where cellphones help avoid accidents, like obviating the need to speed with a call ahead. Come on now, should the "professional lawmakers" have better things to do? It's becoming quite obvious that the movement is very much motivated by money, the ticket fines for the governments (and perhaps the sales for the headset makers).
This is a perfect example of not understanding the evidence presented and misinterpeting the information. I am not going to go point for point, but it seems to me, you do not want to believe cell phones are a danger to the motoring public, even in light of evidence(not statistics) to the contrary. Did you miss the part where it was said there is almost no statistical information available?
Did you also miss the part where it said multi-million dollar settlements are bad for business not good for it? Did you also miss the part where it said cell phone companies provide disclaimers on the use of cell phones? How bout the part that says each fatality cost society almost $1MM dollars while each crash costs society $37,000.
A rational person would say anything that saves lives and reduces financial impact is a good thing. Save 1,000 lives save a billion dollars. I can guarantee at least 1,000 people a year die at the hands of cell phone abusers in the US in one year.
Read your so-called evidence again. This time more carefully. The "crash factor" was not an emperical number, but simply assumed to exist. It's a "factor" to be multiplied by the number of subscribers Search the document if you wish. I already went through the math in my previous post to show that such a factor (before you even brough up that article), if existed at all, has to be exceedingly small.
Companies put disclaimers to ward off over-zealous lawyers on fishing expeditions. There are indeed people who can not walk and chew gum at the same time, but that does not mean it should be banned. Heck, you may even find warnings on not to operate radio while driving. Are you going to ban radio?
How bout the part that says each fatality cost society almost $1MM dollars while each crash costs society $37,000.
That's why we do not want to institute any laws that might increase accidents.
A rational person would say anything that saves lives and reduces financial impact is a good thing. Save 1,000 lives save a billion dollars. I can guarantee at least 1,000 people a year die at the hands of cell phone abusers in the US in one year.
I will remember not to take any guaratee from you. The accidents avoided by cellphone use, like no need to speed and no need to make a separate trip thanks to a timely phone call, certainly helps saving a lot lives and money.
"Read your so-called evidence again. This time more carefully. The "crash factor" was not an emperical number, but simply assumed to exist. Search the document if you wish."
You read it. Where did it say, cell phone usage was benign and as driver distraction should be okay? I don't think it said that. Please re-read very carefully. The links I posted,
- show most danger to young drivers - common objections and the answers, including detriment to big business and cost to society - tidbits on distracted driving
The three links all share a common theme:
- cell phones are bad because they distract the driver - there is very little hard statistics on the number of fatalities, but no study shows usage to have a benign effect on driver distraction - studies show cell phones cause varying levels of distracted behavior
And this is okay by you? As I previously said, a large chunk of world sees and understands something fundemental that you don't.
Damn, I guess I better not have a double helping of fettucini alfredo tonight.
My argument is not that nothing is knowable, it's just that statistical analysis of historical data - especially when there are a lot of other noise factors in the data and the baseline is not well established - is certainly not the only way to approach legislative policy.
It doesn't take a PHD in statistics to know that alchohol affects one's ability to drive. You can - and study groups have - conducted actual tests of driving skill between drivers under the influence vs. a sober control group. The same has been done for sleep deprived drivers. I am sure they could (and someone probably has) rig up a test for cell phone using drivers and see how they fare in various maneuvers and conditions. You don't have to wait for bodies and bumpers to pile up to determine whether or not use of a hand held cell phone has a detrimental impact on one's driving abilities.
The fact that I did score well on my SAT's and double majored in applied mathematics as an undergraduate gives me both a better appreciation of the potential power of statistical analysis and, at the same time, a direct understanding of its limitations. There are times when you can use other information and proactive deductive reasoning
Like I said previously, though, it ultimately comes down to a judgement call. I am sure that we are only one or two technology steps away from having Wi-Fi internet in your navigation system. Shall we allow net surfing in moving cars? Do we let it proliferate first and only control it if and when bodies start piling up?
On your quoted statistics, something doesn't sound right. You are claiming that there has been an 80% reduction in the number of accidents and 50% reduction in fatalities over the last 15 years. That would be extraordinary if true. Five times more accidents in 1991 than in 2006? What are all of the unemployed body shop workers doing now? Why haven't insurance rates fallen, or conversely, why haven't their stock prices skyrocketed. On the fatality side, your stats run counter to what one insurance exec told me some time ago. He claimed that, thanks to airbags, crumple zones etc., many accidents that would have been fatal 10-20+ years ago are being survived. But with much higher medical costs for recovery. But if accident rates have fallen by 80% and fatalities only 50%, then the percentage of fatal accidents vs. nonfatal ones has increased by 250%.
Can you point me to the source of your stats, please.
You brought these links up as evidence, especially asking us to read the second link. The second link turns outto hinge its entire argument on a hypothetical "crash factor"! So much for your credibility.
"You brought these links up as evidence, especially asking us to read the second link. The second link turns outto hinge its entirely argument on a hypothetical "crash factor"! So much for your credibility."
The 20 per 100 vs. 4 per 100 accident rate was brought up by Boaz in a previous post. I do have a pretty good idea about that fatality numbers have gone down dramaticly; you can search that online quite easily. The exactly mangnitude of the change does not change the basic point all that much when cellphone adoption rate has gone up 3200%! Even if there is no change at all in accident rates, the original per centage of cellphones accounting for accidents can not possibly exceed 3%! If cellphone is really as bad as some people are claiming, accident rates can not possibly avoid skyrocketing in the face of some 200 million cellphones being adopted in the last 15 years.
Now that you brought it up, I actually got 800 in SAT math, before they watered it down, and aced all the math/science-related AP exams, before going onto one of the premier engineering schools in the country, a decade and half ago. So there, for what it's worth :-)
The high cost of insurance can be attributed to: 1. higher labor cost due to inflation 2. color-matched composites 3. much higher medical cost, both due to what is do-able and due to labor inflation 4. consolidation and regulation in the insurance industry
Come on. You don't even believe this yourself. The studies you so often quote state that hands free cell phones are just as distracting as hand held one. Yet without a law banning hands free you feel quite at ease with chancing this distraction. To be consistent with your saving lives statement your personal behavior would reflect it in your personal banning of cell phone use in your own vehicle. Saying it is still legal is like making a promise and crossing your fingers. You don't want to believe Cell Phones are a danger to the public you only what to believe that the ones other happen to use are a danger. If the conversations are a distraction and the studies show little or no difference between hands free and hand held cell phones you personally wouldn't take the part you like and toss out the part you didn't unless you are just jerking everyones chain. You either have to believe cell phones are too much of a distraction to use at all while driving or you believe there are times you should be allowed to use them while driving. It isn't like you can't see the conundrum you have put yourself in. Sitting on the fence must be hard on the person sitting there. If you personally believe cell phones are distracting to the point that using them endangers other people's lives you are morally worse than people who deny they are a problem. The intent of a cell phone supporter is not to put the other person at risk they simply believe they are able to do two things at once. You don't profess such a belief so you are putting your fellow drivers at risk intentionally if you believe what you just said.
It is fine if you are simply making this stand because you support lawmakers but don't make a moral issue of it if you don't personally find a problem with cell phone based on your own quoted studies. You have every right to use a hands free cell phone and I applaud and support your decission to do so. But you can't separate yourself from the other cell phone users simply because your transgression is still legal if the studies you use make no discernible distinction between a hands free and hand held. The issue at this point is what level of distraction do you personally support? If you have a zero tolerance you would have to reconsider your personal attitude as to the people who oppose this law and their reasoning. How do you personally determine that you can manage the absolute distraction you have asked us all to forgo simply because they haven't preempted it? A distraction as you say endangers your fellow man. At this point you have admitted you are willing to accept that risk.
The first link was addressing young drivers learning to drive. Yes, infants should not chew gum while learning to walk, but does that mean there should be ban against chewing gum while walking for every one?
The second link, which you gave as as proof that cellphones do cause accidents, turns out to hinge its argument on the hypothetical "crash factor," which is not derived emperically from real data but simply a number pulled out thin air to be multiplied with subscription count. It's like saying, "if we assume 1% of cellphone users cause accidents then cell phone users cause accidents" Isn't that just a farce?
The third link really gives us the magnitude from real data. Turns out, cellphone use is observed in 0.1% of accidents in states that do collect such data. 0.1%!!! Holy cow, I had actually thought it was higher. You want to pass a law that bans a behavior that has nothing to do with 99.9% of accidents? And that's tracing from accidents. In order to caculate the net-net benefit/loss, you have to count in the other column all situations where a timely cellphone call avoids speeding and/or avoids an unnecessary trip altogether, hence avoiding accidents.
"The issue at this point is what level of distraction do you personally support? "
I disagree with this statment. It's not about me, it's about the overall percentage use of wireless devices in the car vs what the studies are in essence saying about the loss of driver concentration. If I was the only person on heading north on the 405 during rush hour using a cell phone you may say the overall risk to society is a minimal one. But if 5 people around me are all on the phone including myself, the chances of a collision or worse are made much higher. If this is the general pattern around the country, one can see how cell phone usage could be an issue.
Maybe instead of these laws, the insurance companies could get the okay to deny claims submitted by primary actor and make them personally responsible for damages, it would change a lot of peoples minds.
How would you feel being held personally financially responsible for a collision arising from your use of a cell phone?
Yes you do. Your analysis makes no sense in light of the evidence presented. Your version of pop-science statistics just doesn't make any sense.
"You want to pass a law that bans a behavior that has nothing to do with 99.9% of accidents?"
Yes. The number collected is from what year? 2002 or 2003. So the data is stale, but for the sake of argument let's take a hypothetical situation where the number is 500 for one state in 2002. To make calculations very simple, let's say 500 crashes are observed in every state. 500*37000*52. Almost $1B dollars spend on .1% of the accidents. That is money that I don't want to shell out in increased insurance costs because you use your cell phone and get into an accident.
Forward to 2006 you don't know the real numbers. These numbers could be staggering, but you can't decipher them due to lack of informative data. If you further read the numbers collected are from pilot studies. You have taken 4 year old sample data and made a non-existent case in 2006, while ignoring the 15 years of studies. Pop-science analysis at it's best.
Thanks for reposting. See my post above about the cost. Most of the data however is very stale, we need more up to date statistics with comprehensive data collection techniques. Doesn't change my opinion however. I did acknowledge there was some sample data. Most states have limited collection techniques. If you read for example regarding NY, police were not even using the correct form, so how can this be "real" real world data. Answer, it's not. It's sample data.
There are x many more accidents than would have occured without the usage of cell phones. Since most of this data is 4 year old, I would expect the numbers to dramatically increase as data collection gets better.
Let me ask a question. Why are 40 countries aboard on these restrictions? There must be a different reason than corruption and greed. Or is that the stock answer when one doesn't know any better?
That study that you love to cite was prepared back in 1997. This data is more current than that. Is this supposed to be like wine, in which 1997 was a good year, but the years since then are suddenly "stale"?
Let's just be honest -- you don't like real-world data, because none of it matches your argument. When reality checks don't match the theory, then it is time to revisit and question the theory.
Come on. By your logic, one state has a population of 34 millin (California), there are 50 so there must be 1.7 billion people in the US! BTW, in case you did not know there are 50 states, not 52. I want to know what state or city you are a lawmaker for; some professional lawmaker you are.
Your own link shows that Tenessee only had 48 cases (a far cry from 500) involving cellphone use. Tenessee is not even a small state in terms of population.
What 15 years of studies are you talking about? The only data that spans 15 years is that cellphone subscription has gone up 3200% while accident rates and fatality rates dropped. So cellphones have been saving lives, statisticly speaking. Now in the face of that 0.1% number, cellphones saving lives by avoiding accidents is entirely credible: just think of all the speeding and extra trips people avoid by making a timely phone call.
In other words, your entire premise is backwards. Cellphone use reduces accidents by obviating the need to speed or make extra trips, and perhaps other ways, such as making detours around traffic congestions, or even getting GPS direction service from the phone so that the driver does not have to work as hard taking eyes off the road to look at the map and look for road signs, etc., etc.. When you are down to 0.1% of accidents, it's easily overwhelmed by the accident mitigating aspects of cellphones themselves. No wonder accident and fatality rates have been going down while cellphone proliferated. This theory works out a lot better than the "crash factor" theory to fit the data.
So if you just want to count property damage and death rate, the pre-cellphone era had 5 times as high accident rate. . . on a 20 out of 100 registration scale, that's roughly 30million extra accidents that was happening before the proliferation of cellphones, or close to 1 Trillion dollars, which kinda cast doubt on your $37k per accident claim. I mean, seriously, the entire US economy was only a couple Trillion dollars back 15 years ago. The 25k reduction in annual fatality since the proliferation of cellphones work out to be 25 billion dollars.
If we want to do your 0%-100% math, that's the amount we can potentially attribute to the _benefit_ of having cellphones proliferating. Up to 1 Trillion dollars a year from accidents that are avoided because cellphones are used (no need to speed or make redudant trips, etc.).
Now let's take a look at the value of cellphone use outside the context of accident cost/benefit: assuming out of the 200 million cellphones, 150million are owned by drivers. Assuming each yaps only 6 minutes a day in the car at 15 cents a minute (or 2.5min at 40cents a minute), i.e. $1/day. The value is $365 a year, for the sake of argument, let me round it down to $300 a year. Times 150 million gives you $45 billion! That's the amount the users spend on making those calls. Presumably the benefit to them is much much higher than that. The economy grows by $45billion just by these phone bills; it probably grows significantly more than that due to the actitivies that have been made possible due to the conversation contained in these phone calls.
So there, it's at least $45 billion benefit to your $1 Billion loss (your $1 billion is vastly inflated BTW, because the US does not have 1700 million people, nor does accident cost $37k each, as the illustrated above) . . . and possibly $1 Trillion benefit from both the life savings, accident avoidence, and increased commerce thanks to timely cellphone use.
"That study that you love to cite was prepared back in 1997. This data is more current than that. Is this supposed to be like wine, in which 1997 was a good year, but the years since then are suddenly "stale"?"
Most of the data is from 2002/2003 that is not stale to you? The study admits data collection is spotty and incomplete, why did you miss that?
Again, you don't know because nobody knows the complete picture. The US needs the same level of granulatity as to drunk driving statistics to fully determine the extent of the issue. If you read these articles you would see the data collection is incomplete and spotty. Which leads to garbage-in/garbage-out on your analysis. Making assumptions on incomplete data produces fallacious results. It is however all that is available at this date.
This does not change my opinion, based on previous 15 year studies cell phone restriction laws are not necessarily a bad thing.
OK, so let me understand this -- data from 2-3 years ago is "stale", yet a study from 9 years ago is worth (mis)quoting. Yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense!
There are x many more accidents than would have occured without the usage of cell phones. Since most of this data is 4 year old, I would expect the numbers to dramatically increase as data collection gets better.
Or there could have been x many more accidents that would have occured without the usage of cell phones :-) The data we have so far seem to indicate that accident rates go down when cellphone ownership go up. Perhaps all these cell phone calls are making speeding, or even a whole extra trip unnecessary? Among many other beneficial scenrios.
Let me ask a question. Why are 40 countries aboard on these restrictions? There must be a different reason than corruption and greed.
Really? Which country is immune from corruption and greed? 40 countries only account for 1/5 of the total number of countries in the world. Why are 160 countries not on board? There must be a good reason (just kidding! using your own logic)
"OK, so let me understand this -- data from 2-3 years ago is "stale", yet a study from 9 years ago is worth (mis)quoting. Yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense!"
I wasn't making any assumptions about the data as it applies to today's environment. I was earlier making the same type of pulp fiction assumptions you were. I since owned up to that and posted what I could find. Because there is data, does not mean it is accurate, as the accompaning text indicates.
you don't know because nobody knows the complete picture.
Yet, not having the complete picture did not prevent you from coming up with that $1B number to justify legislating. How come it's suddenly incomplete when I use the same picture that you gave to produce a number that far outweighs your $1B? Somewhere between 45-to-1 and 1000-to-1, to be specific
The US needs the same level of granulatity as to drunk driving statistics to fully determine the extent of the issue.
So why legislate now? The harm of drunk driving is easily identifiable on holiday and weekend evenings and prom nights. There is no comparable phenomenom associated with cellphone use. While cellphone use can avoid a lot of accidents by obviating the need to speed and make extra trips, can you think of any situation where driving drunk saves lives??
You were the one who brought the "garbage" in here. Remember? The link came from you.
This does not change my opinion, based on previous 15 year studies cell phone restriction laws are not necessarily a bad thing.
Let's see, your three-martini lunch was paid by the headset maker? You just love to lay your hands on the revenue from ticketting?
15 years of what studies?? There is only one set of statistics that span the 15 years. The phone subscription rate went up 3200%, while accidents and fatality rates went down. What more do you need to prove that something is beneficial or at least nearly harmless?
How would you feel being held personally financially responsible for a collision arising from your use of a cell phone?
My feeling is that there are very few accidents. When a collision occurs it is usually not that difficult to determine the party at fault. At this point I have no problem with making the assumption that this person was either impaired, inattentive, or exercising poor judgement. I could care less what the specifics are and he should be held accountable. These laws that focus on a particular distraction are unnecessary and represent personal crusades.
Here's a very specific question. If I collide with you, causing injury, should the penalty be more severe if I was on a cell phone at that time instead of just talking to a passenger, changing the radio, daydreaming, or whatever? In my mind that is the crux of the matter.
a. Without a doubt cell phones DO distract from the act of operating a vehicle
b. Distracted drivers are more prone to accidents
c. Whether it's hands-free or not makes little difference since it's mainly a mental not physical (I.e. both hands on the wheel) distraction
d. Cell phone usage as a contributory factor in auto accidents is under reported (most drivers aren't going to volunteer that they were using their cell phone at the time of an accident)
e. Convincing drivers who have grown more and more dependent on their cell phones will not be easy
f. The cell phone industry is going to fight hard (and with deep pockets) against anything (either studies or legislation) that might restrict the use of cell phones
"Let's see, your three-martini lunch was paid by the headset maker? You just love to lay your hands on the revenue from ticketting?"
That is a little condescending, even from you. Honestly, you keep making assumptions.
"15 years of what studies??"
That is the whole problem, you haven't done any research other than to just jump in and discredit the posters who believe cell phone usage causing driver distraction is not necessarily a good thing. A suggestion, search the web for cell phone studies, cell phone fatalities NHTSA or something similiar. See what you come up with? A lot of this is posted in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat it.
At any rate, as I pointed out, lawmakers in 40 countries understand something that fundamentally you are missing. If you believe these laws are due to greed and corruption, so be it. The laws benefit society as a whole, whether you believe it or not.
Comments
That's an answer? Because thet like to implement silly laws? Dictatorships? You are very far off field.
Your arugment is that 40 other countries have instituted laws against it, so why don't we. Well, my response was that more than 40 other countries have other silly laws. Where is the off-fieldness in that? Do I have to go through formal logic steps to prove that point?
No, that is you saying something I never did. So let me repeat in case there is any question. My opinion is soley based on studies over the last 15 years and the conclusions drawn by those studies.
My question to the board is two fold:
1. If 40 countries plus states in the US has implemented some type of restriction what are they seeing that some are missing? And not some phoney baloney stuff about ecomonic interests and dictatorships?
2. What is your New York Times front-page article data that shows cell phones are safe, or at least benign? Not the same about how accident rates are going down, yet we still have some percentage of the 24,000 fataliities where the root cause is cell phones is unknown. It could be 100% or 0%.
Maybe in your part of the world, but that doesn't change my opinion of your position that anything good for the economy should be allowed carte blance in cars.
http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0206.htm
Cellphone subscription in the US was 21 per 1000-population in 1990, and 683 per 1000-population in 2005. Even ignoring the population growth, that's a 32x increase. That's not even taking into account of the fact that subscribers probably talked a lot less in 1990 than in 2005 simply due to the high cost of minutes back then. So, even if cellphones account for as little of 3% of accidents, the growth of cellphone subscription alone should at least produce a doubling of overall accident count! Probably more due to average subscribers talking more now. That's clearly not the case.
The reality is that accident rates have gone down significantly during that time span, while cellphone subscription has increased by 32 times! A Clear case can probably be made that cell phone calls that informing of delays hence no need to speed, additional items to pick up hence no need to make another trip, and etc. probably is a big contributor in reducing accident rates.
More importantly, the standard of proof for banning drinking alcohol while driving is quite easily established: accident rates do go down after the ban. Heck, an even more convincing statistic: accidents do go up after peak holiday drinking evenings. There is no such statistic at all for cellphone use. What statstic we do have prove that cellphone use increase accidents over the past 15yrs!
We are not missing the point at all. The lawmakers just want more money. That's why most of these countries and municipalities are among the over-regulated variety. Not a big surprise. They are just being their greedy selves.
2. What is your New York Times front-page article data that shows cell phones are safe, or at least benign? Not the same about how accident rates are going down, yet we still have some percentage of the 24,000 fataliities where the root cause is cell phones is unknown. It could be 100% or 0%.
Haven't you heard of "contrarian indicator"? If NYT puts something on the front page, I will look for ways to short it :-) Like the good old "We are now all Keynesians" proclaimation by Nixon, marking the very peak of Keynsian fortune/abuse.
So even though you do not know if it is 100% or 0% (neither likely frankly), you have no qualms about making a law that bans something? Here's a news flash: it could also be
-200%! (Minus 200%! cellphone reduce accidents)
Why? Because the annual fatality rate was 50,000+ back before cell phones were popular. People who can not call and say "I will be late for 5 min" may just have to speed instead!
But hey, you don't care, as a corrupt lawmaker, you just want to grab onto more money in the form of fines. If more people get killed and maimed, it's all the better; perhaps there will be a drive for public insurance, another pot of gold that you get to manage.
I guess the fact that life expectancy has increased over the last 30 years at the same time obesity has increased means we should all pig out on a pound of bacon every morning? And perhaps throw it down with a beer and cigarette? MacDonalds, Phillip Morris and Budwiser could co-sponser a breakfast of champions ad campaign.
There are a lot of factors that go into "cause and effect". Back when I first got out of B-School in the early 80's and worked for one of the large consumer products companies, we did all sorts of statistical analysis trying to figure out what drove their sales and profitability. Toilet paper and toothpaste consumption were 50% inversely correlated to the Prime rate. And 50% correlated to cereal and peanut butter consumption. And paper towel consumption was 80% correlated to the square of the difference of the mean temperature to the yearly average temperature. And...
No disrepect intended, but you all don't have enough time in the day to gather all of the statistical information necessary to fully identify to even the 95% level all of the factors (and their coefficients of correlation) that contibute to the actual frequency of occurance of auto accidents in Washington DC today vs. 1986; let alone the rest of the country. And if you did, I'd suggest you use your skills in genetic research rather than wasting your time in this foum.
Me, I think the reduction in the accident rate is due to the decline in the Big Three's market share of cars that can't get out of their own way and the increase in market share of BMW and Porsche. In the last month, I've avoided two accidents with crazy drivers. I had to employ maneuvers that used every bit of my 911's 1.0g handling and world class braking capabilities. And no, I wasn't speeding or driving aggressively in either case - both times my daughters were in the back seat. Also, in fairness, neither other driver was on the cell phone at the time. But they certainly weren't focused upon driving.
So, in conclusion, there should be a law that permits cell phones in 911's and other cars that are in that handling / braking category, but no others. Sounds fair to me.
Have a good weekend.
Exactly. You are supporting my point, we have no statistics. Until we do, the proactive approach by the lawmakers is the right thing to do.
If your real argument is that nothing is knowable, then we should ban all lawmaking . . . which is fine with me :-) I'd rather lawmakers sitting on their hands and doing absolutely nothing than making whimsical laws.
Sportscars do not contribute to safety; that's also statisticly proven. On the other hand, certain types of devices, like DSC pioneered by the collaboration between Bosche and BMW, do indeed contribute to safety. That's also statisticly proven. However, that alone does not explain the massive decrease in accidents that we have had.
Sorry. The whole premise of your discussion points center around self-serving and corrupt politicians. If that is your view, I can't fight it, because I can't say you're wrong. If however, one tempers that argument with every single study over the last 15 years, it seems to me to be a good idea.
If you look over NHTSAs website, you will not find one shred of evidence or talk suggesting use of cell phones while driving is a benign driver activity. Why do you suppose that is? That is the point you keep missing. A reasonable doubt is all that is needed. BTW considering there have already been major damages awarded by victims(deceased) of drivers using cell phones, don't you already think this is enough to prove causality?
You really should focus on the evidence presented and quit with the rhetoric. It just doesn't make your position seem as credible as in other past discussions.
Over the past 15 years, cellphone subscription in the US has gone up by some 3200%, and accident rates have gone down by some 80%, and fatality rates have gone down by 50%! These are massive trends that simply do not jive with the paranoia about cellphone causing accidents. If cellphone, net-net, contributed to as little as 3% of accidents, the 32x increase in subscription should have led to cellphone users alone doubling the total number of accidents, not an 80% decrease.
The alternative theory that cellphones help reduce risky driving behavior (like speeding and redundent trips) can explain the available statistic data much better.
The real issue is whether their self-interest can be aligned with public interest on certain issues. Yourself has pretty much admitted that there is no statistic evidence proving that cell phone use lead to more accidents. So what's the real motivation for the ban? Looks to me quite obvious: revenue generation.
considering there have already been major damages awarded by victims(deceased) of drivers using cell phones, don't you already think this is enough to prove causality?
Not at all. There are damages paid out for medical research every year. Does that mean we should ban all medical research altogether? Or even closer at home, damages related to auto accidents are paid out every year, does that mean we should ban cars because some people don't know how to drive? Some people are not capable driving while using cell phone; other people can.
Sorry, but based on your posts, you are not one of those who "really" understands evidence and the lack of statistical data - not to mention how legislatures work.
kdshapiro: Law enforcement won't collect data unless there are laws against it. It's a bit of a vicious circle.
For several years, the Pennsylvania State Police has been instructed to note on accident reports whether cell phone use played a part in the accident.
And there is no law against using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle in Pennsylvania.
So your contention is incorrect.
NHTSA is not looking to prove that it is a benign activity, because that question is irrelevent to this entire discussion, as has been pointed out repeatedly, and YOU keep missing this point.
We do not ban things because they fail to make a positive contribution to traffic safety.
kdshapiro: A reasonable doubt is all that is needed.
Completely wrong. We aren't talking about criminal law here. When seeking to ban or restrict an activity, there must be proof of its harmful effects.
With each successive post you further convince me that you don't know what you are talking about.
When one is in the hole, it is best to stop digging.
Methinks someone needs to stage an intervention and take away your shovel.
This is in response to your last three posts. Stick to the rhetoric and leave the lawmaking to professionals.
It's only been pointed out by those who don't understand the last 15 years of study. You keep missing this point.
"Completely wrong. We aren't talking about criminal law here. When seeking to ban or restrict an activity, there must be proof of its harmful effects."
Okay, so why has 40 countries enacted legislation? Oh I forgot you already know the answer.
"When one is in the hole, it is best to stop digging.
Methinks someone needs to stage an intervention and take away your shovel."
Actually methinks it's you who need the shovel.
No. Let me repeat what I've been saying. There is little statistics but a lot of evidence that driving while on the cell phone distracts the driver. There is a big difference between knowing the statistics and having the evidence to prove the ill effects of driving while talking.
You still haven't told me out of the 24,000 people who died in non-alcohol related accidents what the exact percentage of fatalities where cell phones were a root cause. For all you know it could be 50%. Even if it is 1.3%, that is a number worthy of the current legislation. It must not really matter to you, unless you are one of the fatalities. And then it would matter to your family. And I don't wish anything bad for anybody, buy any law that can potentially lower the fatality rate is a good idea. (Please don't start with the driving ban nonsense)
And there is no law against using a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle in Pennsylvania."
So please tell us the statistics about collisions and fatalities in Pa. with regard to cell phone usage. And can we use this as a model to describe the rest of the country?
For the sake of argument, let's round the US populalation to 300mil for the entire past 15yrs, and a fleet of 200mil registered vehicles (the changes there are miniscule compared to the change in cellphone adoption rate growth and accident decrease). In 1990, 20 accidents per 100 registerants means 40mil accidents, and 50k deaths (all in round numbers, the potential rounding error is dwarfed by the size of the trend coming up). Even if only 2% of these accidents were caused by cellphone use, that would be 800,000 accidents and 1k deaths due to cellphone use. The subsequent 3200% increase in cellphone subscription should multiply that to 26mil accidents and 32k deaths due to cellphone use alone!
That obviously has not happened. 4 per 100 vehicle registration today means 8 mil accidents due to all causes, and 24k deaths each year, again due to all causes.
What does that mean? cellphone use cause much less than even 2% of accidents. That's assuming cellphone cause accidents at all.
A far more logical conclusion from these overwhelming major trends is that wide adoption of cellphone use correlate with reduced accidents and deaths! What's needed is finding a reasonable mechanism to explain the data. IMHO, what's happenening is that a timely cellphone call helps the need to reduce the need for speeding and reduce the need for extra trips in the neighborhood (where 80% of accidents happen, within 2miles of home).
Professional lawmaking is synonymous with tyranny and despotism.
http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/hersman/daph060213.htm
http://www.geocities.com/morganleepena/rebuttal.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate1203.htm
http://www.distracteddriving.ca/english/documents/MattSundeen_000.pdf
It also does not take into account at all how cellphone may help reduce accidents in many other situations, as an unbias look at the dramatic reduction in accident at a time of massive increase in cellphone use took place would demand.
The first link you gave address inexperienced young drivers learning to drive and getting their liceses. Sure, perhaps an infant learning to walk should not be allowed to chew gum at the same time. But that does not mean there should be a ban against walking and chewing gum at the same time for every one.
The third link is really the clincher. In case you did not notice, the numbers indicate cellphone use was found in 0.1% of crashes!!! No, it's not even 1%, but 0.1%! (600 out 500,000 crashes in California, for example, the largest data source). That does not even take into account at all situations where cellphones help avoid accidents, like obviating the need to speed with a call ahead. Come on now, should the "professional lawmakers" have better things to do? It's becoming quite obvious that the movement is very much motivated by money, the ticket fines for the governments (and perhaps the sales for the headset makers).
Did you also miss the part where it said multi-million dollar settlements are bad for business not good for it? Did you also miss the part where it said cell phone companies provide disclaimers on the use of cell phones? How bout the part that says each fatality cost society almost $1MM dollars while each crash costs society $37,000.
A rational person would say anything that saves lives and reduces financial impact is a good thing. Save 1,000 lives save a billion dollars. I can guarantee at least 1,000 people a year die at the hands of cell phone abusers in the US in one year.
Companies put disclaimers to ward off over-zealous lawyers on fishing expeditions. There are indeed people who can not walk and chew gum at the same time, but that does not mean it should be banned. Heck, you may even find warnings on not to operate radio while driving. Are you going to ban radio?
How bout the part that says each fatality cost society almost $1MM dollars while each crash costs society $37,000.
That's why we do not want to institute any laws that might increase accidents.
A rational person would say anything that saves lives and reduces financial impact is a good thing. Save 1,000 lives save a billion dollars. I can guarantee at least 1,000 people a year die at the hands of cell phone abusers in the US in one year.
I will remember not to take any guaratee from you. The accidents avoided by cellphone use, like no need to speed and no need to make a separate trip thanks to a timely phone call, certainly helps saving a lot lives and money.
You read it. Where did it say, cell phone usage was benign and as driver distraction should be okay? I don't think it said that. Please re-read very carefully. The links I posted,
- show most danger to young drivers
- common objections and the answers, including detriment to big business and cost to society
- tidbits on distracted driving
The three links all share a common theme:
- cell phones are bad because they distract the driver
- there is very little hard statistics on the number of fatalities, but no study shows usage to have a benign effect on driver distraction
- studies show cell phones cause varying levels of distracted behavior
And this is okay by you? As I previously said, a large chunk of world sees and understands something fundemental that you don't.
My argument is not that nothing is knowable, it's just that statistical analysis of historical data - especially when there are a lot of other noise factors in the data and the baseline is not well established - is certainly not the only way to approach legislative policy.
It doesn't take a PHD in statistics to know that alchohol affects one's ability to drive. You can - and study groups have - conducted actual tests of driving skill between drivers under the influence vs. a sober control group. The same has been done for sleep deprived drivers. I am sure they could (and someone probably has) rig up a test for cell phone using drivers and see how they fare in various maneuvers and conditions. You don't have to wait for bodies and bumpers to pile up to determine whether or not use of a hand held cell phone has a detrimental impact on one's driving abilities.
The fact that I did score well on my SAT's and double majored in applied mathematics as an undergraduate gives me both a better appreciation of the potential power of statistical analysis and, at the same time, a direct understanding of its limitations. There are times when you can use other information and proactive deductive reasoning
Like I said previously, though, it ultimately comes down to a judgement call. I am sure that we are only one or two technology steps away from having Wi-Fi internet in your navigation system. Shall we allow net surfing in moving cars? Do we let it proliferate first and only control it if and when bodies start piling up?
On your quoted statistics, something doesn't sound right. You are claiming that there has been an 80% reduction in the number of accidents and 50% reduction in fatalities over the last 15 years. That would be extraordinary if true. Five times more accidents in 1991 than in 2006? What are all of the unemployed body shop workers doing now? Why haven't insurance rates fallen, or conversely, why haven't their stock prices skyrocketed. On the fatality side, your stats run counter to what one insurance exec told me some time ago. He claimed that, thanks to airbags, crumple zones etc., many accidents that would have been fatal 10-20+ years ago are being survived. But with much higher medical costs for recovery. But if accident rates have fallen by 80% and fatalities only 50%, then the percentage of fatal accidents vs. nonfatal ones has increased by 250%.
Can you point me to the source of your stats, please.
Okay.
Now that you brought it up, I actually got 800 in SAT math, before they watered it down, and aced all the math/science-related AP exams, before going onto one of the premier engineering schools in the country, a decade and half ago. So there, for what it's worth :-)
The high cost of insurance can be attributed to:
1. higher labor cost due to inflation
2. color-matched composites
3. much higher medical cost, both due to what is do-able and due to labor inflation
4. consolidation and regulation in the insurance industry
It is fine if you are simply making this stand because you support lawmakers but don't make a moral issue of it if you don't personally find a problem with cell phone based on your own quoted studies. You have every right to use a hands free cell phone and I applaud and support your decission to do so. But you can't separate yourself from the other cell phone users simply because your transgression is still legal if the studies you use make no discernible distinction between a hands free and hand held. The issue at this point is what level of distraction do you personally support? If you have a zero tolerance you would have to reconsider your personal attitude as to the people who oppose this law and their reasoning. How do you personally determine that you can manage the absolute distraction you have asked us all to forgo simply because they haven't preempted it? A distraction as you say endangers your fellow man. At this point you have admitted you are willing to accept that risk.
The first link was addressing young drivers learning to drive. Yes, infants should not chew gum while learning to walk, but does that mean there should be ban against chewing gum while walking for every one?
The second link, which you gave as as proof that cellphones do cause accidents, turns out to hinge its argument on the hypothetical "crash factor," which is not derived emperically from real data but simply a number pulled out thin air to be multiplied with subscription count. It's like saying, "if we assume 1% of cellphone users cause accidents then cell phone users cause accidents" Isn't that just a farce?
The third link really gives us the magnitude from real data. Turns out, cellphone use is observed in 0.1% of accidents in states that do collect such data. 0.1%!!! Holy cow, I had actually thought it was higher. You want to pass a law that bans a behavior that has nothing to do with 99.9% of accidents? And that's tracing from accidents. In order to caculate the net-net benefit/loss, you have to count in the other column all situations where a timely cellphone call avoids speeding and/or avoids an unnecessary trip altogether, hence avoiding accidents.
It's about renevue generation, quite clearly.
I disagree with this statment. It's not about me, it's about the overall percentage use of wireless devices in the car vs what the studies are in essence saying about the loss of driver concentration. If I was the only person on heading north on the 405 during rush hour using a cell phone you may say the overall risk to society is a minimal one. But if 5 people around me are all on the phone including myself, the chances of a collision or worse are made much higher. If this is the general pattern around the country, one can see how cell phone usage could be an issue.
Maybe instead of these laws, the insurance companies could get the okay to deny claims submitted by primary actor and make them personally responsible for damages, it would change a lot of peoples minds.
How would you feel being held personally financially responsible for a collision arising from your use of a cell phone?
Yes you do. Your analysis makes no sense in light of the evidence presented. Your version of pop-science statistics just doesn't make any sense.
"You want to pass a law that bans a behavior that has nothing to do with 99.9% of accidents?"
Yes. The number collected is from what year? 2002 or 2003. So the data is stale, but for the sake of argument let's take a hypothetical situation where the number is 500 for one state in 2002. To make calculations very simple, let's say 500 crashes are observed in every state. 500*37000*52. Almost $1B dollars spend on .1% of the accidents. That is money that I don't want to shell out in increased insurance costs because you use your cell phone and get into an accident.
Forward to 2006 you don't know the real numbers. These numbers could be staggering, but you can't decipher them due to lack of informative data. If you further read the numbers collected are from pilot studies. You have taken 4 year old sample data and made a non-existent case in 2006, while ignoring the 15 years of studies. Pop-science analysis at it's best.
This is the percentage of accidents that these states claim include phones as a contributing factor:
California - 0.1%
Florida - 0.2%
Michigan - 0.2%
Minnesota - 0.2%
Montana - 0.4%
Nebraska - 0.2%
New York - 0.1%
Oklahoma - 0.5%
Pennsylvania - 0.1%
Tennessee - 0.02%
Texas - 0.3%
Wisconsin - 0.9%
There you go. Don't tell us that there aren't any stats based upon real world data, when it's right here.
There are x many more accidents than would have occured without the usage of cell phones. Since most of this data is 4 year old, I would expect the numbers to dramatically increase as data collection gets better.
Let me ask a question. Why are 40 countries aboard on these restrictions? There must be a different reason than corruption and greed. Or is that the stock answer when one doesn't know any better?
That study that you love to cite was prepared back in 1997. This data is more current than that. Is this supposed to be like wine, in which 1997 was a good year, but the years since then are suddenly "stale"?
Let's just be honest -- you don't like real-world data, because none of it matches your argument. When reality checks don't match the theory, then it is time to revisit and question the theory.
Your own link shows that Tenessee only had 48 cases (a far cry from 500) involving cellphone use. Tenessee is not even a small state in terms of population.
What 15 years of studies are you talking about? The only data that spans 15 years is that cellphone subscription has gone up 3200% while accident rates and fatality rates dropped. So cellphones have been saving lives, statisticly speaking. Now in the face of that 0.1% number, cellphones saving lives by avoiding accidents is entirely credible: just think of all the speeding and extra trips people avoid by making a timely phone call.
In other words, your entire premise is backwards. Cellphone use reduces accidents by obviating the need to speed or make extra trips, and perhaps other ways, such as making detours around traffic congestions, or even getting GPS direction service from the phone so that the driver does not have to work as hard taking eyes off the road to look at the map and look for road signs, etc., etc.. When you are down to 0.1% of accidents, it's easily overwhelmed by the accident mitigating aspects of cellphones themselves. No wonder accident and fatality rates have been going down while cellphone proliferated. This theory works out a lot better than the "crash factor" theory to fit the data.
So if you just want to count property damage and death rate, the pre-cellphone era had 5 times as high accident rate. . . on a 20 out of 100 registration scale, that's roughly 30million extra accidents that was happening before the proliferation of cellphones, or close to 1 Trillion dollars, which kinda cast doubt on your $37k per accident claim. I mean, seriously, the entire US economy was only a couple Trillion dollars back 15 years ago. The 25k reduction in annual fatality since the proliferation of cellphones work out to be 25 billion dollars.
If we want to do your 0%-100% math, that's the amount we can potentially attribute to the _benefit_ of having cellphones proliferating. Up to 1 Trillion dollars a year from accidents that are avoided because cellphones are used (no need to speed or make redudant trips, etc.).
Now let's take a look at the value of cellphone use outside the context of accident cost/benefit: assuming out of the 200 million cellphones, 150million are owned by drivers. Assuming each yaps only 6 minutes a day in the car at 15 cents a minute (or 2.5min at 40cents a minute), i.e. $1/day. The value is $365 a year, for the sake of argument, let me round it down to $300 a year. Times 150 million gives you $45 billion! That's the amount the users spend on making those calls. Presumably the benefit to them is much much higher than that. The economy grows by $45billion just by these phone bills; it probably grows significantly more than that due to the actitivies that have been made possible due to the conversation contained in these phone calls.
So there, it's at least $45 billion benefit to your $1 Billion loss (your $1 billion is vastly inflated BTW, because the US does not have 1700 million people, nor does accident cost $37k each, as the illustrated above) . . . and possibly $1 Trillion benefit from both the life savings, accident avoidence, and increased commerce thanks to timely cellphone use.
Most of the data is from 2002/2003 that is not stale to you? The study admits data collection is spotty and incomplete, why did you miss that?
This does not change my opinion, based on previous 15 year studies cell phone restriction laws are not necessarily a bad thing.
Or there could have been x many more accidents that would have occured without the usage of cell phones :-) The data we have so far seem to indicate that accident rates go down when cellphone ownership go up. Perhaps all these cell phone calls are making speeding, or even a whole extra trip unnecessary? Among many other beneficial scenrios.
Let me ask a question. Why are 40 countries aboard on these restrictions? There must be a different reason than corruption and greed.
Really? Which country is immune from corruption and greed? 40 countries only account for 1/5 of the total number of countries in the world. Why are 160 countries not on board? There must be a good reason (just kidding! using your own logic)
I wasn't making any assumptions about the data as it applies to today's environment. I was earlier making the same type of pulp fiction assumptions you were. I since owned up to that and posted what I could find. Because there is data, does not mean it is accurate, as the accompaning text indicates.
Yet, not having the complete picture did not prevent you from coming up with that $1B number to justify legislating. How come it's suddenly incomplete when I use the same picture that you gave to produce a number that far outweighs your $1B? Somewhere between 45-to-1 and 1000-to-1, to be specific
The US needs the same level of granulatity as to drunk driving statistics to fully determine the extent of the issue.
So why legislate now? The harm of drunk driving is easily identifiable on holiday and weekend evenings and prom nights. There is no comparable phenomenom associated with cellphone use. While cellphone use can avoid a lot of accidents by obviating the need to speed and make extra trips, can you think of any situation where driving drunk saves lives??
You were the one who brought the "garbage" in here. Remember? The link came from you.
This does not change my opinion, based on previous 15 year studies cell phone restriction laws are not necessarily a bad thing.
Let's see, your three-martini lunch was paid by the headset maker? You just love to lay your hands on the revenue from ticketting?
15 years of what studies?? There is only one set of statistics that span the 15 years. The phone subscription rate went up 3200%, while accidents and fatality rates went down. What more do you need to prove that something is beneficial or at least nearly harmless?
My feeling is that there are very few accidents. When a collision occurs it is usually not that difficult to determine the party at fault. At this point I have no problem with making the assumption that this person was either impaired, inattentive, or exercising poor judgement. I could care less what the specifics are and he should be held accountable. These laws that focus on a particular distraction are unnecessary and represent personal crusades.
Here's a very specific question. If I collide with you, causing injury, should the penalty be more severe if I was on a cell phone at that time instead of just talking to a passenger, changing the radio, daydreaming, or whatever? In my mind that is the crux of the matter.
a. Without a doubt cell phones DO distract from the act of operating a vehicle
b. Distracted drivers are more prone to accidents
c. Whether it's hands-free or not makes little difference since it's mainly a mental not physical (I.e. both hands on the wheel) distraction
d. Cell phone usage as a contributory factor in auto accidents is under reported (most drivers aren't going to volunteer that they were using their cell phone at the time of an accident)
e. Convincing drivers who have grown more and more dependent on their cell phones will not be easy
f. The cell phone industry is going to fight hard (and with deep pockets) against anything (either studies or legislation) that might restrict the use of cell phones
Just my two cents
-Frank
1. 500 crashes per state (assumption/estimate based on 2002 data)
2. 37,000/crash - given in article
3. 50 states
Multiply 'em together and you get almost $1B. The numbers at least have some basis in reality. For the most part the number is probably low.
That is a little condescending, even from you. Honestly, you keep making assumptions.
"15 years of what studies??"
That is the whole problem, you haven't done any research other than to just jump in and discredit the posters who believe cell phone usage causing driver distraction is not necessarily a good thing. A suggestion, search the web for cell phone studies, cell phone fatalities NHTSA or something similiar. See what you come up with? A lot of this is posted in this thread, so I'm not going to repeat it.
At any rate, as I pointed out, lawmakers in 40 countries understand something that fundamentally you are missing. If you believe these laws are due to greed and corruption, so be it. The laws benefit society as a whole, whether you believe it or not.