My hypothetical numbers have some basis in incomplete data. Your analysis was totally off the wall.
In case you did not realize, my analysis was based on the same data that you used.
1. 500 crashes per state (assumption/estimate based on 2002 data)
That's just not true at all. Look at your own number, TN was 48, PENN was 139, OK was 134, MN was 223, FL was 140. These are not even small states. You can't just multiply CA number by 50, or 52, to get the national number. Otherwise, you'd end up the US population being 1.7 billion, eclipsing China as the most populous country in the world.
2. 37,000/crash - given in article
That's the same number that I used. Only I added the sidebar that the number may be a little high, as that would mean $1.5 Trillion damage from car accidents in 1990 when the entire US economy was only a couple Trillion dollars.
3. 50 states
Nah, you used 52. That was rather commical for a "professional lawmaker." So where is your echo chamber located?
In any case, as illustrated before, $1B is far outweighed by the $45B+ economy activity generated by these cell phone calls and potentially up to $1T or more saved by avoiding accidents that would have happened before the age of cellphone proliferation.
You are assuming way too much. I have read these studies, in addition to the cream puff material that you linked. They are all bunks. A lot of echo chamber what-if material. No proof whatsoever on how that minute reduction in conentration would play out in real life or that it outweighs the opportunities presented by cellphones in avoiding accidents by not having to speed or making extra trips.
The only real life data is that cellphones are linked to 0.1 of accidents. That's a miniscule amount, easily outweighed by the benefit of cellphones in avoiding accidents, not to mention outweighed by other factors such as types of cars etc.. i.e. shall we ban sports cars if it makes more than 0.1% difference?
lawmakers in 40 countries understand something that fundamentally you are missing.
Your assumption is wrong again. I'm not missing anything there. I see the game matrix that they are facing quite clearly. Ticketting represents a windfall in municipal revenue.
The laws benefit society as a whole, whether you believe it or not.
I'm very skeptical about claims of benefitting the society as a whole, especially from someone who wanted to tell me that there are 52 states in the United States.
"The only real life data is that cellphones are linked to 0.1 of accidents."
Incomplete data as the article noted, for a few states for a limited amount of time. As the article noted.
"That's a miniscule amount, easily outweighed by the benefit of cellphones in avoiding accidents"
As my friend pch101 says: Straw-man alert.
Okay before the host steps in, I'm bowing out of this endless Yes, No repetitive garbage. You have made your statement, I have made mine. End of story.
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.
If you want to argue your point based on logic or reason that's one thing. Please don't defend your position by citing other countries' laws or our laws. Because I guarantee you that I can come up with examples of laws that even you don't agree with, especially in other countries. You have this idealistic view regarding the wisdom of governments. I'm not saying that our legislator's are stupid. I'm saying it doesn't matter. They play political games, that's all they do. Making sense doesn't often factor into the equation.
"I'm not saying that our legislator's are stupid. I'm saying it doesn't matter."
Clearly you haven't said that, but others have. But you have to wonder what the impetus was? You probably agree that drunk driving laws should be in place in all of civilized society. What is wrong with one country sharing/data information with another to make the roads safer?
The same thing applies to cell phones. Across the globe there are a lot of trends in common, cell phones for one. One has to wonder why lawmakers in 40 countries have seen fit to establish broad policies regarding cell phone use.
The problem is that part of this debate is about you, or at least about your reasoning. You have made statements that the laws are correct because they are preemptive and even if there is no proof it is better to pass the law and see what the effects are later. You have claimed that those of us in opposition are not being sensitive to our fellow drivers if we aren't willing to accept the study and the very idea that their actions on the cell phones are endangering other drivers. And this is because in some states hand held phones are banned. But if you believed that how could you even consider using a hands free device knowing you believe the distraction endangers your fellow drivers? You know that people can simply use their headsets and continue driving and talking just as they are now. So you are willing to support a law that does nothing more than restrict where someone holds his or her hand while talking? In the same breath you have no problem accepting the level of distraction that hands free has on you and that would indicate you think it is worth the risk. What other conclusions can we make other than you simply wish to debate this particular point? If you were against cell phones based on the studies and the very idea you consider them a distraction, as you so often quote, and you believed they had any relevance you would be campaigning for the removal of hands free cells as well and would eschew their use personally in consideration for the very same drivers you are pleading the case for in the ban on hand held cells. Well maybe you wouldn't see a relationship between your continued use of a hands free unit based or your level of comfort at its distraction level but it makes you a fellow pot or a fellow kettle in the context of this debate. How can you support a law that benefits society and deny you are breaking the very spirit of that law simply because you can? Tell me up front, do you not see the contradiction in your stand? Do not consider this a personal attack but rather a quest to see how you think.
Just to be sure I am not out of line am I the only one that finds this stand confusing?
Like who? While it's arguably fair to call lawmakers who think there are 52 states in the Unite States somewhat lacking in common knowledge, I don't remember anyone calling lawmakers stupid. Sometimes lawmakers may pretend to be naive, but usually there are ulterior motives for the pretense.
What is wrong with one country sharing/data information with another to make the roads safer?
Except in this case, it does not; or at least, no proof that a ban makes road safer at all. On the contrary, if statistic evidence is to be accepted, proliferation of cellphones made road safer! The legislative ban would only make it less safe.
What's really being shared is a new campaign/excuse to raise revenue. It's just like the sueing of tobacco companies . . . the whole process only served to victimize smokers, making a windfall for the government and strengthening tobacco monopolies, which were all too happy to embrace the settlement.
You are not out of line at all. I find that stand very confusing and politically/financially convenient as well. That's why I wondered aloud if Ken gets political contribution from headset makers.
The bloody irony of such political movements is that, it all started with the spirit of soak the rich half a decade ago when cell phones were perceived as rich man/woman's toy. Now the low-income youths are using cellphones only, skipping the idea of ground lines. They are the ones most likely to try to make do without headsets and end up paying those triple-digit fines.
That's about right, but to be honest, I think we've spent too much time allowing one poster to be the spokesperson for the "anti phone" contingent. (And to be blunt, I do believe that there may be others who could be better spokespeople, given all of his/her apparent contradictions.)
Allow me to try to change direction here -- if we presume that phone usage is problematic, hands-free or not, then why is nobody in a position of authority trying to ban phone usage entirely? It seems odd to cite hypothetical studies as an excuse to ban handhelds, when the studies put hands-free phones on equal footing.
So the laws really don't make any sense at all, given that the hypothetical studies see no difference between hand-held and hands-free, yet the laws do. Are they just trying to humor us by going after the handhelds, when the studies would argue that hands-free is no better?
It strikes me that the answer is that this is political expediency on the part of the legislators, by passing laws that will soon be irrelevant as bluetooth becomes an in-car standard. Their actions don't match the very same research that they cite, so you have to wonder what exactly is going on here...
"The problem is that part of this debate is about you, or at least about your reasoning. You have made statements that the laws are correct because they are preemptive and even if there is no proof it is better to pass the law and see what the effects are later."
The issue with cell phones are driver control are two sided. One issue is the loss of cognitive ability dealing with the conversation on the other end. The other is with the loss of vehicle control that happens when a phone user either: a) holds the phone to the ear, or b) cranes his or her neck to hold the phone to their ear, keeping both hands on the wheel, but tilting the head to a 45 degree angle.
First off, I stay within law, so be it. Second I do recognize in myself an issue when the conversation takes priority over driving.
As far as I know there is no thinking about an outright ban on use of phones yet. The current legislation is a half-way point.
From my personal experience, less attention is diverted when using a hands-free. That's why I support these restrictions. Is it perfect no? I have enough sense not to use the phone at all at highway speeds or in muddled, confusing traffic situations.
People I know say the same thing about what I'm describing.
But this has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with why lawmakers are doing what they are doing, given the studies to date. I have nothing to do with the studies or the lawmakers. I am merely agreeing I believe this is a good thing and said I would remain in compliance with the law and the spirit of the law because in my experience I notice the same effects as being described in the studies.
So where there is no law, life goes on as usual. Where there is a law I would hope people adopt. This huge debate is about what these laws represent. I had nothing to do with any of that.
I am not the poster child for this legislation. These laws started long before this thread.
"That's about right, but to be honest, I think we've spent too much time allowing one poster to be the spokesperson for the "anti phone" contingent. (And to be blunt, I do believe that there may be others who could be better spokespeople, given all of his/her apparent contradictions.)"
The problem is in 1600 or so posts, nobody has posted anything that suggests using cell phones is safe, benign or has no effect on drivers, doesn't result in any crashes or fatalities.
The ignoring of evidence is just as contradictory and has me and other posters scratching our collective heads. How could a group of presumably intelligent people, ignore evidence, ignore the fact the 20% (and growning) of the worlds countries have instituted some form of ban.
There could be others that could have voiced a cogent opinion of why cell phone use is bad, instead of getting in greed, corruption and politics. It may have had more of an effect on those who believe that using cell phones while driving is an unnecessary distraction to see the others point of view.
By the way I also agree we've spent too much time allowing one or two posters to be centerstage for the pro-cell phone contingent.
The problem is in 1600 or so posts, nobody has posted anything that suggests using cell phones is safe, benign or has no effect on drivers, doesn't result in any crashes or fatalities.
Where have you been? I have made more than half a dozen post addressing exactly this point. The very consistent statistic that Cellphone subscription having gone up 3200% while accident and fatality rates dropped prove that:
1. cell phone is safe and benigh
2. cell phones has little to no effect to actual driving performance despite what the distraction studies show; perhap the level of distraction simply does not reach a threashold to make it really matter and show up in the real life statistics.
3. Even if cell phone use does occasionally cause accidents, they are far out-weighed by the accidents that are avoided due to cell phone use. For example, calling ahead "I'm late by 5min" so one does not have to speed; "honey, can you pick up milk" so a separate trip does not have to be made; cell-phone based GPS guidance; etc.
That explains the curious correlation of accident and fatality rates dropping during the decade and half when the cellphones proliferated.
The problem is in 1600 or so posts, nobody has posted anything that suggests using cell phones is safe, benign or has no effect on drivers, doesn't result in any crashes or fatalities.
This might be where your fundamental problem lies. What is "safe"? When car manufacturers first started adding features to cars that might require a driver to divert his attention they couldn't possibly have thought that this would enhance safety. It comes down to what is acceptable risk. I'm not sure you will ever get a consensus there.
You personally state that hand held devices are unsafe but have acknowledged using a hands free device. The studies you base your opinions on state that we are basically splitting hairs here. So as far as I'm concerned your point of view can be dismissed.
In other words, your new theory is that, where there is a law banning cellphones, cellphone use must be bad for driving; where there is a law banning use of hand-held, but not hands-free, then hand-held must be bad but hands-free does not interfere with driving; where there is no ban against any form of cell phone use at all, then there is no interference between cellphone use and driving. Very interesting view of the world indeed. The spirit of the law in your view is not whether cellphone is good or bad per se, but simply you do as I say.
Is there a brand of philosophy that is even more slavish?
What is "safe"?...It comes down to what is acceptable risk.
Exactly, the "safety" argument doesn't hold water, because no activity is free of risk. Using that "one death = ban" argument, we may as well get rid of jet aircraft, cars, and tall buildings.
The ultimate issue is a matter of measuring cost and benefit. And in the case of phones, I'm frankly not sure that there is even any cost at all. It simply doesn't make sense to claim that phones are so problematic when the stats can't be used to verify such a claim. It's a bit like claiming that your kid has a fever when his temperature is a steady 98.6 degrees. It's the automotive equivalent of Munchausen by Proxy -- creating hype around an illness that doesn't exist.
So accidents have decreased by 80% over the past 15 years?
Try virtually no decrease (less than 3%). In 1990, 6,471,000 accidents. In 2003 (last data), 6,328,000 accidents. accident table
So fatalities have decreased 50% over the past 15 years?
Try virtually no decrease again. Total highway traffic fatalities have ranged from a low of 39,250 (1992) and a high of 44,599 (1990) for every single year in the chart from 1985 to 2004. The 2004 figure of 42,636 is only 4.4% less than the 1990 figure (highest on record) and is 8.6% higher than 1992. fatalities
What has decreased over the past 15 years is the number of alcohol related deaths, from 22,587 to 16,694 form 1990 to 2004. Which could lead your opponents to conclude that those laws are working and it must be cell phones that are making up the majority of the 18% INCREASE in non-alcohol related traffic fatalities. :mad:
I rather enjoy a good debate among intelligent people that have different opinions and perspectives. But when you pull "statistics" out of your behind (or repeat them without checking their validity) you are no better than the allegedly misguided legislators and politicians that you criticize. And anyone that purportedly got a perfect 800 on their Math SAT should have recognized in their sleep that the statistics you were quoting didn't come close to passing the "smell" test. I suppose you are going to suggest we should believe the 3200% increase in cell phone use because...?
If you really have the intelligence you claim, use it a little more. You've spent hours posting and re-posting the same opinions and completely erroneous "statistics" on this forum. It would have taken a couple of minutes for a "bright" guy like you to check their validity. But then again, maybe you aren't as much of an old fart as you proclaim. In my day, accuracy and credibility stood for something; now it seems that one can repeat BS without any verification and get credited for creating an "urban legend". :confuse:
"Where have you been? I have made more than half a dozen post addressing exactly this point. The very consistent statistic that Cellphone subscription having gone up 3200% while accident and fatality rates dropped prove that"
Every one of your posts is pop-science and doesn't prove a thing.
"You personally state that hand held devices are unsafe but have acknowledged using a hands free device. The studies you base your opinions on state that we are basically splitting hairs here. So as far as I'm concerned your point of view can be dismissed."
You are welcome to dismiss my posts and I'll dismiss yours. My point of view is cell phones are unsafe. But as everybody pointed out and I agree and I thought you agreed, taking your eyes off the road to futz with the cell phones is as bad as the conversation. So I removed that element with the hands-free. But you and everybody else that dials, text messages and whatever else by driving is a hazard to other drivers. So it seems to me you don't walk the talk either. Unless you know say, taking your eyes off the road to dial the phone is safe.
Bingo. Or said another way, what were the root causes of the non-alcohol related deaths or the root causes of the non-alcohol related accidents. You assume it's these numbers, like .1%, that have been thrown around, when 99% of the country do not report cell phones as a root cause.
Out of the 7 million crashes and 40,000 fatalities the numbers are hidden. You can make an assumption, but you really don't know.
Your point is as good, as far as am concerned, the most cogent post to date dealing with the data suggests.
But I guarantee you will be picked on for using the number of fatalities and not the fatality rate. Maybe you should have used the accident rate, instead of the number of accidents. :confuse
If someone, not yourself necessarily, believed that cell phones were responsible for an increase in the accident rate shouldn't there be some evidence to this effect? If the NHTSA supports the AAA study stating that Cell phones were attributed to being a distraction in 1.3 percent of the accidents be given some consideration? That aside, if someone believes that cell phone use contributes to accidents and so endangers their fellow drivers to the point they believe we need a law banning their use how could they continue to use a cell phone themselves? And as you posted 2004 accident rates are lower than 1990 rates and I am sure you agree that cell phones have increased in usage by a lot more than 4 percent. The Insurance industry is reporting a 20 percent reduction in Property damage claims taking into account all 50 states and the increased number of drivers. How do we as a group reconcile supporting a law banning holding a cell phone to your ear and applaud it as a safety issue while at the same time all a person has to do to avoid a ticket is use their speaker function or a headset. I even posted a site that sells a holder that allows you to use your hand set with your entertainment center as speakers. Tell me how this law does anything to increase safety or decrease the use of cell phones in cars. What has been intimated time and time again is they hope the law will force people to keep two hands on the wheel at all times and everyone in this room knows that isn't going to happen.
What it all comes down to is all the time, money, enforcement effort effort will be directed at a few people because they didn't use their hands free unit and by the time the law goes into effect in California that will be very few people indeed. The majority of the cell phones users that the anti cell phone people are so concerned about will not notice a blip in the cell phone usage habits. I would also bet the cell phone minutes recorded by any of the major carriers does not decrease by a minute after January 1, 2008 in California.
We have disagreed on things before but what is your honest opinion on the effect this new law will have on cell phone use and the accident rate. I would be interested to hear your take on what the law itself will do.
"If the NHTSA supports the AAA study stating that Cell phones were attributed to being a distraction in 1.3 percent of the accidents be given some consideration?"
That is the whole issue. As habitat1 pointed out there could be a case for causing 18% of the fatalities. But since there is little or no accurate statistics available nationwide we will never know. According to links I previously posted the cost to society for each car crash is $37,000. 7 million crashes * $37K = $259,000,000,000. Yes, that is a rather large number. So it is to our best interest to accurately identify the contribution that cell phone users have, given the number of cell phones for the motoring public.
"What it all comes down to is all the time, money, enforcement effort effort will be directed at a few people because they didn't use their hands free unit and by the time the law goes into effect in California that will be very few people indeed."
Not necessarily. Ever get a ticket for not signaling a lane change or turn. That is as benign as you can get, you already did the manuever, and did it safely why are you getting a ticket? The police should be chasing drug suspects. It's the same type of thing with cell phones. Cops will not make it a priority to single out hand held cell phone users, but if they catch you by the by, you get a ticket.
That wasn't the point. Will it change anything? The law is passed will it curtail cell phone use? will it even slow cell phone use? If there is no expectation for some result why bother?
"That wasn't the point. Will it change anything? The law is passed will it curtail cell phone use? will it even slow cell phone use? If there is no expectation for some result why bother?"
We're getting back to if it doesn't change anything why bother? I believe these laws will cause a change over time. Causing a change on the road will directly and indirectly all who use the road. Issues to society at large must be dealt with using laws. In this case the issue is potential for crashes and fatalities. (of which the real number is unknown due to lack of data, but the studies show the potential is there)
Very idealistic but it still doesn't answer the question. If you don't know the problem how do you come up with a solution? If you do think you know the problem why come up with a solution that doesn't address the problem? I ask again, how will this law change anything specifically? You and some others have expressed your concern. You and some others have quoted studies that you conclude identify part of the problem. Now how will this specific law address the problem you believe has been identified? In other words if you believe cell phone use is causing accidents and you believe we need to reduce accidents how do you think this specific law will impact that assertion? I don't care about idealism or the feel good factor in this case. Do you believe it will decrease cell phone use by the very people you believe are risking accidents? What are your expected results? If there are none why bother? Saying they passed the law so it must be true or good doesn't cut it. Just because they passed a law doesn't indicate that it is a good one or an effective one.
I can't speak to Brightness' specific stats, but the concept here is that the fatality rate has declined significantly during the era of phones.
And that is correct. Here are some historical statistics that go back to the beginning of the 20th century, this is what we find for some selected years --
If you choose this timeframe of 1980-2005, you can see that the fatality rate declined by 56% during that period. The rate accounts for the fact that there are more drivers on the road and that those drivers are driving more.
I would expect that much of this decline is due to shifting more traffic away from highways toward interstates, and to active and passive safety equipment such as airbags, better crush zone design, antilock brakes, etc. I would also expect the pace of these benefits to slow over time, as these improvements in the future will likely be less significant and more incremental, so I would anticipate that the decline in the rate should slow.
But obviously, the presence of phones isn't such an overwhelming factor that it can singularly undo these trends. It is not possible for these absurd drunk driving soundbites and huge numbers to be accurate, while at the same time seeing these overall fatality rates behaving as they do. It's a strong hint that at worst, the phones have little to no impact, as the data from the states that I provided above would indicate. And those indicate that phones are a contributing factor in less than 1% of crashes. (And let's remember that it is possible to remove a "contributing factor" and still have the event occur because of all of the other contributing factors at work.)
The number of fatalities as habitat1 has specifically shown been about level since about 1990. You are using the wrong numbers to show a conclusion. You cannot use the fatality rate as it has no relevance to the problem at hand. You are mixing and matching and coming up with something that doesn't make a solid case.
"Very idealistic but it still doesn't answer the question. If you don't know the problem how do you come up with a solution?"
The problem is known, the measurement of the problem is not known. There is a difference.
"I ask again, how will this law change anything specifically"
I can't believe this is still being asked. The purpose of these laws is to reduce driver distraction on the road. Do you agree reducing driver distraction is a good thing? If you agree then I can continue. It you disagree might as well quit reading here.
Ok, you got to this paragraph so I guess we both agree reducing driving distraction is a good thing. Reduced driver distraction leads to reduced car crashes and reduced fatalities. The exact number will not be known until all 50 states collect meaningful information.
There were more auto-related fatalities in 2005 than there were in 1905. Any clue as to why that might be the case?
I'm sorry, but going forward, I'm going to discuss this others, and not with you. If you can't understand what a "rate" is, then you add no value to this discussion.
"There were more auto-related fatalities in 2005 than there were in 1905. Any clue as to why that might be the case?"
That is not the question that needs to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is this: (I'm paraphrasing from habitat1)If the number of fatalities has essentially stayed flat since 1990, but the number of dui fatalities has been cut in half, what does it seem to saying?
1. Maybe the legislation is working since in the long run even in spite of more cars and more miles, there are less dui fatalities. 2. What took up slack from the fatalities? Speeding, inserting cds, smoking, putting on makeup, eating lunch, distractions from cell phones? You haven't even attempted to answer that question. Because you can't. You know full well that without back-end data nobody really knows the answer. It will take 10 years before we understand the scope of this issue.
"I'm sorry, but going forward, I'm going to discuss this others, and not with you. If you can't understand what a "rate" is, then you add no value to this discussion."
You don't like my interperation of the numbers? Give me a brake. You can discuss this with anybody you want and devise any answer based on any one metric available today. You will still not come to an answer that anybody outside of this forum will accept as anything more than funny science.
Good luck in proving there is no correlation between cell phone usage and either car crashes or fatalities. I will attempt to stay out of the discussion and forward your final result to the NHTSA for review.
"Those who would give up Liberty to purchase a little Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
But this of course does not mean one doesn't have both Liberty and Safety. So if I read your post correctly, you are in favor of repealing drunk driving laws?
"Those who would give up Liberty to purchase a little Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Get your ACLU head out of your butt. We all give up liberty every day to purchase a little safety. Otherwise I'd be allowed to test the 182 mph top speed of my 911S on I95. And shoot that annoying crow that poops on its hood with a 30-06. There are a lot of things I can't do because of laws instituted out of respect for your safety, whether you particularly deserve such protection or not.
We all give up liberty every day to purchase a little safety. Otherwise I'd be allowed to test the 182 mph top speed of my 911S on I95.
Ironically, the Germans have allowed you to do this very thing for a long time, yet they have consistently lower motorway fatality rates than does the US. (And I have little doubt that it has also contributed to the dominance of German automakers in the prestige-performance segments, given their need to hurdle such a high bar, which benefits their workers and people by providing added jobs and tax revenue.) I wouldn't presume that all of these "safety" measures achieve everything that they purport to accomplish.
But OTOH an accident at 150 has a totally different context than an accident at 60. It's really tough to compare the Autobahn with other roads in the US. Since Europeans on the Autobahn have much more driver respect than most Americans. In your estimate, how many motorists going 150 would even attempt to hold a phone to their ear and have a very involved converation?
That's good, since the ones quoted clearly do not exist.
"...but the concept here is that the fatality rate has declined significantly during the era of phones".
Fair enough, I'll bite on taking a closer look at your fatality "rate" statistics, since at least they are real and you were credible and kind enough to provide the actual source:
- From 1990 to 2003, the fatality rate decreased from 2.080 to 1.48 per 100 million miles. That's a 28.8% decrease, which I would concur, is significant. But let's look a little closer.
- The alchohol related deaths portion during that period decreased from 1.054 to 0.578 per 100 million miles, a whopping 45.2% decrease.
- The non-alchohol related death rates decreased from 1.027 to 0.90. That's a 12.5% decrease. Better than nothing, but barely a quarter of the rate of drop in alchohol related deaths.
So, in spite of tremendous advancements in car safety and engineering over the past 15 years such as multiple airbags, ABS brakes, skid control systems, crumple zones, the non-alcohol related fatality rate has only decreased 12.5%. Go take a look at a typical 1987 Toyota Camry or Honda Accord and compare them to the 2000 models of each to refresh your memory. What does that tell you?
I could answer that question myself with some voodoo statistical interpolations of my own, which would go: From 1990 to 2003, engineering advancements would have decreased fatality rates by 50%. Offsetting this, however, was the proliferation of driver distractions brought to you by McDonalds drive throughs, Sony CD changers, Motorola cell phones, and bikini clad roller bladers. They, along with Ritlin addicted multi-taskers caused an increase in fatalities by 37.5%, leaving us with only a 12.5% overall reduction. I don't believe in voodoo analysis, but that's far more credible than 90% of the arguments I've read here.
On the other hand, I could answer my rhetorical question with a more poignant proposal. That all of the best automotive safety engineers in the world are only good for a 12.5% reduction in fatalities, but MADD was good for 45%+ by forcing legislators to get tough on drunk drivers. And what does that tell you?
Thanks for posting your statistical data sources. Even if we disagree on opinions and interpretations, it helps to at least be working form the same set of verifiable data.
From 1990 to 2003, the fatality rate decreased from 2.080 to 1.48 per 100 million miles. That's a 28.8% decrease, which I would concur, is significant. But let's look a little closer.
The alchohol related deaths portion during that period decreased from 1.054 to 0.578 per 100 million miles, a whopping 45.2% decrease.
The problem is that when start mixing up percentages like that, you end up with some disconnects because you are working with different denominators. In those instance, you should compare the rates directly, rather than look just at percentages.
Taking your DUI-related deaths at face value (I'll assume that they came from your earlier link), the overall fatality rate declined by 0.6 per 100 million VMT (2.08 - 1.48 = 0.6), while the deaths attributed to DUI fell by 0.476 per 100 million VMT (1.054 - 0.578 = 0.476). If true, that would mean that roughly 80% of the decline in the overall fatality rate would be attributable to reductions in DUI.
The point is that irrespective of the reason for the decline -- I don't see anyone seriously claiming that phones are significant contributors to safety -- this decline should have been reversed if we wish to take the phone=drunk driving rhetoric literally. If that extreme language is to believed, then the fatality rate should have remained relatively stable as phone deaths replaced DUI deaths. And we know that this hasn't happened at all.
BTW, I also appreciate your use of sources that are verifiable and credible. It helps all of us with the learning process and to reduce the hype if we emphasize facts rather than just anecdotes and I-said-so type arguments.
Using the VMT does not give the granularity needed to answer the question. If it were enough the NHTSA would have already made a statement on that. .6 per 100 million says nothing about the problem at hand because it can't be related to a number with any real world significance.
I appreciate the effort needed to understand this, but until real world data about cell phone crash and fatality numbers are collected and analyzed nationally by an authoritative source this question will remain a question.
BTW - Germany has a cell phone ban as follows:
Ban imposed Feb. 2001 - usage allowed without a hands-free unit only when the engine is switched off. Fine of 40(?) per infraction.
"The point is that irrespective of the reason for the decline -- I don't see anyone seriously claiming that phones are significant contributors to safety -- this decline should have been reversed if we wish to take the phone=drunk driving rhetoric literally"
The point I should have made more concisely is that, statistically speaking, we don't know the exact impact of cell phones and it is virtually impossible to figure out from the raw data I've seen. I (intuitively) fully agree that it would be an extreme stretch to claim they are the cause of even 1/3 of the number of fatalities that alcohol caused in 1990. But (by my hypothetical example) if engineering advancements from 1990 to 2003 should have resulted in a 50% decrease in fatalities, then a variety of things are simultaneously contributing to an offsetting 37.5% increase. Or, as you might claim, perhaps the engineering advancements should have only been worth a 10% reduction in fatalities and all of those bikini clad rollerbladers caused teenage boys to slow down for a better look and further reduced fatalites by 2.5%. :surprise: And I couldn't prove you wrong.
Part of the problem we have to deal with in cell phones is that they now are being used by the broadest demographic of the driving public. Going back to my 911 example, I pay $60 less per year in insurance for my 2005 911S than I do for my 2004 Acura TL 6-speed! And the former was three times the price of the latter. When I discussed this with a friend who is a GEICO exec, he confirmed that, with the 911, probably because of the "upper end" demographic profile of buyers, the accident rating is actually substantially less than for the plain Jane TL. I don't mean this to sound elitist, but I had much less of a problem seeing pinstripe suited execs using a cell phone driving around 10+/- years ago than I do today seeing a soccer mom with 4 screaming kids in the back of her minivan. Or a teenager. But be assured, I'm not so elitist to suggest that I should be allowed a hand held phone but others not. It's just that we all may have to adjust our safety restrictions to a lower common denominator of driver - just as we have with 65 mph speed limits on roads that would be considered safe at 120 in Germany.
But (by my hypothetical example) if engineering advancements from 1990 to 2003 should have resulted in a 50% decrease in fatalities, then a variety of things are simultaneously contributing to an offsetting 37.5% increase.
If we're going to indulge in hypotheticals, I wouldn't expect airbags, anti-lock brakes and the like to reduce fatalities by 50% or anywhere near that figure. While these devices can help, they don't negate the laws of physics.
More importantly, they don't reverse stupidity behind the wheel. I go back to the Virginia Tech Naturalistic Study that showed that 1/7th of the drivers in the study were involved in 2/3rds of the crashes, while 2/3rds of the drivers weren't involved in any crashes at all.
It should be obvious that crashes are not at all evenly distributed within the driving pool -- quite the opposite, they skew very heavily to a small minority of drivers. If you want to address crash rates, you need to figure out why this is the case.
"It should be obvious that crashes are not at all evenly distributed within the driving pool -- quite the opposite, they skew very heavily to a small minority of drivers. If you want to address crash rates, you need to figure out why this is the case."
How many car crashed occured last year 7 million? Does it really matter who generated them or what was the root cause? If you are talking about cell phone users you need to know exactly how many were caused by cell phones and then track cell phone related crashes vs other crashes over a number of years, nationwide, before there are statistics that are meaningful.
"Those who would give up Liberty to purchase a little Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
But this of course does not mean one doesn't have both Liberty and Safety. So if I read your post correctly, you are in favor of repealing drunk driving laws?
What point are you trying to make?
Well, the point is, people lacking any convictions, and simply complicating what should be common sense into convoluted arguments.
Someone using a phone responsibly, wearing a headset, or using hands-free, is one thing. Someone holding a phone and smoking, or sending a FAX, or working on the computer, while driving, is another.
I would submit that someone wearing a headset and talking on the phone, and therefore becoming "distracted" and causing an accident is a person who is normally easily distracted, and if it wasn't talking on the phone, they are just as likely to be easily distracted by something else.....
Therefore, perhaps to be certain, draconian measures should be taken. Outlaw eating, phones, drinking, DVD's and GPS's in all vehicles. Or make them so they will not work unless the vehicle is in "Park".
Therefore, perhaps to be certain, draconian measures should be taken.
I've advised use of a surgical procedure that removes car keys from the hands of the "easily distracted." Seems more accurate than claiming that everyone is equally afflicted.
Well, that indeed would be a part of draconian measures! :P
I try to use a small portion of humor, to counteract all those who are entirely too earnest.
Draco is dead, and I am entirely happy leaving him so. That said, if someone is so easily distracted as to be the cause of accidents merely talking, they certainly would be the cause of more accidents reading a map, GPS, or even adjusting the temperature controls....
And if one believes "talking" and being distracted on the phone, is really cause for more accidents, one must also accept that their talking to another passenger leaves them just as vulnerable, so I therefore believe we should also outlaw talking while driving, or maybe build a sound-proof cage around the driver, thus forcing him to not be "distracted". :shades:
Comments
In case you did not realize, my analysis was based on the same data that you used.
1. 500 crashes per state (assumption/estimate based on 2002 data)
That's just not true at all. Look at your own number, TN was 48, PENN was 139, OK was 134, MN was 223, FL was 140. These are not even small states. You can't just multiply CA number by 50, or 52, to get the national number. Otherwise, you'd end up the US population being 1.7 billion, eclipsing China as the most populous country in the world.
2. 37,000/crash - given in article
That's the same number that I used. Only I added the sidebar that the number may be a little high, as that would mean $1.5 Trillion damage from car accidents in 1990 when the entire US economy was only a couple Trillion dollars.
3. 50 states
Nah, you used 52. That was rather commical for a "professional lawmaker." So where is your echo chamber located?
In any case, as illustrated before, $1B is far outweighed by the $45B+ economy activity generated by these cell phone calls and potentially up to $1T or more saved by avoiding accidents that would have happened before the age of cellphone proliferation.
The only real life data is that cellphones are linked to 0.1 of accidents. That's a miniscule amount, easily outweighed by the benefit of cellphones in avoiding accidents, not to mention outweighed by other factors such as types of cars etc.. i.e. shall we ban sports cars if it makes more than 0.1% difference?
lawmakers in 40 countries understand something that fundamentally you are missing.
Your assumption is wrong again. I'm not missing anything there. I see the game matrix that they are facing quite clearly. Ticketting represents a windfall in municipal revenue.
The laws benefit society as a whole, whether you believe it or not.
I'm very skeptical about claims of benefitting the society as a whole, especially from someone who wanted to tell me that there are 52 states in the United States.
Okay. Whatever. I can't force you to understand this.
Incomplete data as the article noted, for a few states for a limited amount of time. As the article noted.
"That's a miniscule amount, easily outweighed by the benefit of cellphones in avoiding accidents"
As my friend pch101 says: Straw-man alert.
Okay before the host steps in, I'm bowing out of this endless Yes, No repetitive garbage. You have made your statement, I have made mine. End of story.
40 countries and I agree.
1. Radio and CD player
2. Passengers who are not taped shut
3. Powered seats that can move while the car is moving
4. Maps and written directions
5. GPS's that can either display or talk; i.e. GPS altogether; you can see where (4)+(5)+(2) combined leave us
6. No On-Star either, just in case you think you are smart after reading (5)
7. No stick shift and no tacometer.
Any one of these things can be distracting to the inexperienced operator just like cell phones.
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.
If you want to argue your point based on logic or reason that's one thing. Please don't defend your position by citing other countries' laws or our laws. Because I guarantee you that I can come up with examples of laws that even you don't agree with, especially in other countries. You have this idealistic view regarding the wisdom of governments. I'm not saying that our legislator's are stupid. I'm saying it doesn't matter. They play political games, that's all they do. Making sense doesn't often factor into the equation.
If you want to legislate, you'd better come up with more convincing arguments.
Clearly you haven't said that, but others have. But you have to wonder what the impetus was? You probably agree that drunk driving laws should be in place in all of civilized society. What is wrong with one country sharing/data information with another to make the roads safer?
The same thing applies to cell phones. Across the globe there are a lot of trends in common, cell phones for one. One has to wonder why lawmakers in 40 countries have seen fit to establish broad policies regarding cell phone use.
What about the other 160? The 40 are outnumbered 4 to 1.
Just to be sure I am not out of line am I the only one that finds this stand confusing?
Like who? While it's arguably fair to call lawmakers who think there are 52 states in the Unite States somewhat lacking in common knowledge, I don't remember anyone calling lawmakers stupid. Sometimes lawmakers may pretend to be naive, but usually there are ulterior motives for the pretense.
What is wrong with one country sharing/data information with another to make the roads safer?
Except in this case, it does not; or at least, no proof that a ban makes road safer at all. On the contrary, if statistic evidence is to be accepted, proliferation of cellphones made road safer! The legislative ban would only make it less safe.
What's really being shared is a new campaign/excuse to raise revenue. It's just like the sueing of tobacco companies . . . the whole process only served to victimize smokers, making a windfall for the government and strengthening tobacco monopolies, which were all too happy to embrace the settlement.
The bloody irony of such political movements is that, it all started with the spirit of soak the rich half a decade ago when cell phones were perceived as rich man/woman's toy. Now the low-income youths are using cellphones only, skipping the idea of ground lines. They are the ones most likely to try to make do without headsets and end up paying those triple-digit fines.
Allow me to try to change direction here -- if we presume that phone usage is problematic, hands-free or not, then why is nobody in a position of authority trying to ban phone usage entirely? It seems odd to cite hypothetical studies as an excuse to ban handhelds, when the studies put hands-free phones on equal footing.
So the laws really don't make any sense at all, given that the hypothetical studies see no difference between hand-held and hands-free, yet the laws do. Are they just trying to humor us by going after the handhelds, when the studies would argue that hands-free is no better?
It strikes me that the answer is that this is political expediency on the part of the legislators, by passing laws that will soon be irrelevant as bluetooth becomes an in-car standard. Their actions don't match the very same research that they cite, so you have to wonder what exactly is going on here...
The issue with cell phones are driver control are two sided. One issue is the loss of cognitive ability dealing with the conversation on the other end. The other is with the loss of vehicle control that happens when a phone user either: a) holds the phone to the ear, or b) cranes his or her neck to hold the phone to their ear, keeping both hands on the wheel, but tilting the head to a 45 degree angle.
First off, I stay within law, so be it. Second I do recognize in myself an issue when the conversation takes priority over driving.
As far as I know there is no thinking about an outright ban on use of phones yet. The current legislation is a half-way point.
From my personal experience, less attention is diverted when using a hands-free. That's why I support these restrictions. Is it perfect no? I have enough sense not to use the phone at all at highway speeds or in muddled, confusing traffic situations.
People I know say the same thing about what I'm describing.
But this has nothing to do with my views. It has to do with why lawmakers are doing what they are doing, given the studies to date. I have nothing to do with the studies or the lawmakers. I am merely agreeing I believe this is a good thing and said I would remain in compliance with the law and the spirit of the law because in my experience I notice the same effects as being described in the studies.
So where there is no law, life goes on as usual. Where there is a law I would hope people adopt. This huge debate is about what these laws represent. I had nothing to do with any of that.
I am not the poster child for this legislation. These laws started long before this thread.
The problem is in 1600 or so posts, nobody has posted anything that suggests using cell phones is safe, benign or has no effect on drivers, doesn't result in any crashes or fatalities.
The ignoring of evidence is just as contradictory and has me and other posters scratching our collective heads. How could a group of presumably intelligent people, ignore evidence, ignore the fact the 20% (and growning) of the worlds countries have instituted some form of ban.
There could be others that could have voiced a cogent opinion of why cell phone use is bad, instead of getting in greed, corruption and politics. It may have had more of an effect on those who believe that using cell phones while driving is an unnecessary distraction to see the others point of view.
By the way I also agree we've spent too much time allowing one or two posters to be centerstage for the pro-cell phone contingent.
Where have you been? I have made more than half a dozen post addressing exactly this point. The very consistent statistic that Cellphone subscription having gone up 3200% while accident and fatality rates dropped prove that:
1. cell phone is safe and benigh
2. cell phones has little to no effect to actual driving performance despite what the distraction studies show; perhap the level of distraction simply does not reach a threashold to make it really matter and show up in the real life statistics.
3. Even if cell phone use does occasionally cause accidents, they are far out-weighed by the accidents that are avoided due to cell phone use. For example, calling ahead "I'm late by 5min" so one does not have to speed; "honey, can you pick up milk" so a separate trip does not have to be made; cell-phone based GPS guidance; etc.
That explains the curious correlation of accident and fatality rates dropping during the decade and half when the cellphones proliferated.
This might be where your fundamental problem lies. What is "safe"? When car manufacturers first started adding features to cars that might require a driver to divert his attention they couldn't possibly have thought that this would enhance safety. It comes down to what is acceptable risk. I'm not sure you will ever get a consensus there.
You personally state that hand held devices are unsafe but have acknowledged using a hands free device. The studies you base your opinions on state that we are basically splitting hairs here. So as far as I'm concerned your point of view can be dismissed.
Is there a brand of philosophy that is even more slavish?
Exactly, the "safety" argument doesn't hold water, because no activity is free of risk. Using that "one death = ban" argument, we may as well get rid of jet aircraft, cars, and tall buildings.
The ultimate issue is a matter of measuring cost and benefit. And in the case of phones, I'm frankly not sure that there is even any cost at all. It simply doesn't make sense to claim that phones are so problematic when the stats can't be used to verify such a claim. It's a bit like claiming that your kid has a fever when his temperature is a steady 98.6 degrees. It's the automotive equivalent of Munchausen by Proxy -- creating hype around an illness that doesn't exist.
Try virtually no decrease (less than 3%). In 1990, 6,471,000 accidents. In 2003 (last data), 6,328,000 accidents. accident table
So fatalities have decreased 50% over the past 15 years?
Try virtually no decrease again. Total highway traffic fatalities have ranged from a low of 39,250 (1992) and a high of 44,599 (1990) for every single year in the chart from 1985 to 2004. The 2004 figure of 42,636 is only 4.4% less than the 1990 figure (highest on record) and is 8.6% higher than 1992. fatalities
What has decreased over the past 15 years is the number of alcohol related deaths, from 22,587 to 16,694 form 1990 to 2004. Which could lead your opponents to conclude that those laws are working and it must be cell phones that are making up the majority of the 18% INCREASE in non-alcohol related traffic fatalities. :mad:
Want the entire study? : Bureau of Transportation Statistics
I rather enjoy a good debate among intelligent people that have different opinions and perspectives. But when you pull "statistics" out of your behind (or repeat them without checking their validity) you are no better than the allegedly misguided legislators and politicians that you criticize. And anyone that purportedly got a perfect 800 on their Math SAT should have recognized in their sleep that the statistics you were quoting didn't come close to passing the "smell" test. I suppose you are going to suggest we should believe the 3200% increase in cell phone use because...?
If you really have the intelligence you claim, use it a little more. You've spent hours posting and re-posting the same opinions and completely erroneous "statistics" on this forum. It would have taken a couple of minutes for a "bright" guy like you to check their validity. But then again, maybe you aren't as much of an old fart as you proclaim. In my day, accuracy and credibility stood for something; now it seems that one can repeat BS without any verification and get credited for creating an "urban legend". :confuse:
Every one of your posts is pop-science and doesn't prove a thing.
You are welcome to dismiss my posts and I'll dismiss yours. My point of view is cell phones are unsafe. But as everybody pointed out and I agree and I thought you agreed, taking your eyes off the road to futz with the cell phones is as bad as the conversation. So I removed that element with the hands-free. But you and everybody else that dials, text messages and whatever else by driving is a hazard to other drivers. So it seems to me you don't walk the talk either. Unless you know say, taking your eyes off the road to dial the phone is safe.
Out of the 7 million crashes and 40,000 fatalities the numbers are hidden. You can make an assumption, but you really don't know.
Your point is as good, as far as am concerned, the most cogent post to date dealing with the data suggests.
But I guarantee you will be picked on for using the number of fatalities and not the fatality rate. Maybe you should have used the accident rate, instead of the number of accidents. :confuse
But my point stands.
What it all comes down to is all the time, money, enforcement effort effort will be directed at a few people because they didn't use their hands free unit and by the time the law goes into effect in California that will be very few people indeed. The majority of the cell phones users that the anti cell phone people are so concerned about will not notice a blip in the cell phone usage habits. I would also bet the cell phone minutes recorded by any of the major carriers does not decrease by a minute after January 1, 2008 in California.
We have disagreed on things before but what is your honest opinion on the effect this new law will have on cell phone use and the accident rate. I would be interested to hear your take on what the law itself will do.
That is the whole issue. As habitat1 pointed out there could be a case for causing 18% of the fatalities. But since there is little or no accurate statistics available nationwide we will never know. According to links I previously posted the cost to society for each car crash is $37,000. 7 million crashes * $37K = $259,000,000,000. Yes, that is a rather large number. So it is to our best interest to accurately identify the contribution that cell phone users have, given the number of cell phones for the motoring public.
"What it all comes down to is all the time, money, enforcement effort effort will be directed at a few people because they didn't use their hands free unit and by the time the law goes into effect in California that will be very few people indeed."
Not necessarily. Ever get a ticket for not signaling a lane change or turn. That is as benign as you can get, you already did the manuever, and did it safely why are you getting a ticket? The police should be chasing drug suspects. It's the same type of thing with cell phones. Cops will not make it a priority to single out hand held cell phone users, but if they catch you by the by, you get a ticket.
We're getting back to if it doesn't change anything why bother? I believe these laws will cause a change over time. Causing a change on the road will directly and indirectly all who use the road. Issues to society at large must be dealt with using laws. In this case the issue is potential for crashes and fatalities. (of which the real number is unknown due to lack of data, but the studies show the potential is there)
And that is correct. Here are some historical statistics that go back to the beginning of the 20th century, this is what we find for some selected years --
Year - Fatality rate per 100 million miles
1980 - 3.345
1985 - 2.470
1990 - 2.080
1995 - 1.726
2000 - 1.53
2005 - 1.47
If you choose this timeframe of 1980-2005, you can see that the fatality rate declined by 56% during that period. The rate accounts for the fact that there are more drivers on the road and that those drivers are driving more.
I would expect that much of this decline is due to shifting more traffic away from highways toward interstates, and to active and passive safety equipment such as airbags, better crush zone design, antilock brakes, etc. I would also expect the pace of these benefits to slow over time, as these improvements in the future will likely be less significant and more incremental, so I would anticipate that the decline in the rate should slow.
But obviously, the presence of phones isn't such an overwhelming factor that it can singularly undo these trends. It is not possible for these absurd drunk driving soundbites and huge numbers to be accurate, while at the same time seeing these overall fatality rates behaving as they do. It's a strong hint that at worst, the phones have little to no impact, as the data from the states that I provided above would indicate. And those indicate that phones are a contributing factor in less than 1% of crashes. (And let's remember that it is possible to remove a "contributing factor" and still have the event occur because of all of the other contributing factors at work.)
http://www.saferoads.org/federal/2004/TrafficFatalities1899-2003.pdf
NHTSA FARS database (2005)
habitat1 - BTW I called it a few posts above.
The problem is known, the measurement of the problem is not known. There is a difference.
"I ask again, how will this law change anything specifically"
I can't believe this is still being asked. The purpose of these laws is to reduce driver distraction on the road. Do you agree reducing driver distraction is a good thing? If you agree then I can continue. It you disagree might as well quit reading here.
Ok, you got to this paragraph so I guess we both agree reducing driving distraction is a good thing. Reduced driver distraction leads to reduced car crashes and reduced fatalities. The exact number will not be known until all 50 states collect meaningful information.
I'm sorry, but going forward, I'm going to discuss this others, and not with you. If you can't understand what a "rate" is, then you add no value to this discussion.
That is not the question that needs to be asked. The question that needs to be asked is this: (I'm paraphrasing from habitat1)If the number of fatalities has essentially stayed flat since 1990, but the number of dui fatalities has been cut in half, what does it seem to saying?
1. Maybe the legislation is working since in the long run even in spite of more cars and more miles, there are less dui fatalities.
2. What took up slack from the fatalities? Speeding, inserting cds, smoking, putting on makeup, eating lunch, distractions from cell phones? You haven't even attempted to answer that question. Because you can't. You know full well that without back-end data nobody really knows the answer. It will take 10 years before we understand the scope of this issue.
"I'm sorry, but going forward, I'm going to discuss this others, and not with you. If you can't understand what a "rate" is, then you add no value to this discussion."
You don't like my interperation of the numbers? Give me a brake. You can discuss this with anybody you want and devise any answer based on any one metric available today. You will still not come to an answer that anybody outside of this forum will accept as anything more than funny science.
Good luck in proving there is no correlation between cell phone usage and either car crashes or fatalities. I will attempt to stay out of the discussion and forward your final result to the NHTSA for review.
Those who would give up Liberty to purchase a little Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
But this of course does not mean one doesn't have both Liberty and Safety. So if I read your post correctly, you are in favor of repealing drunk driving laws?
What point are you trying to make?
Get your ACLU head out of your butt. We all give up liberty every day to purchase a little safety. Otherwise I'd be allowed to test the 182 mph top speed of my 911S on I95. And shoot that annoying crow that poops on its hood with a 30-06. There are a lot of things I can't do because of laws instituted out of respect for your safety, whether you particularly deserve such protection or not.
Ironically, the Germans have allowed you to do this very thing for a long time, yet they have consistently lower motorway fatality rates than does the US. (And I have little doubt that it has also contributed to the dominance of German automakers in the prestige-performance segments, given their need to hurdle such a high bar, which benefits their workers and people by providing added jobs and tax revenue.) I wouldn't presume that all of these "safety" measures achieve everything that they purport to accomplish.
That's good, since the ones quoted clearly do not exist.
"...but the concept here is that the fatality rate has declined significantly during the era of phones".
Fair enough, I'll bite on taking a closer look at your fatality "rate" statistics, since at least they are real and you were credible and kind enough to provide the actual source:
- From 1990 to 2003, the fatality rate decreased from 2.080 to 1.48 per 100 million miles. That's a 28.8% decrease, which I would concur, is significant. But let's look a little closer.
- The alchohol related deaths portion during that period decreased from 1.054 to 0.578 per 100 million miles, a whopping 45.2% decrease.
- The non-alchohol related death rates decreased from 1.027 to 0.90. That's a 12.5% decrease. Better than nothing, but barely a quarter of the rate of drop in alchohol related deaths.
So, in spite of tremendous advancements in car safety and engineering over the past 15 years such as multiple airbags, ABS brakes, skid control systems, crumple zones, the non-alcohol related fatality rate has only decreased 12.5%. Go take a look at a typical 1987 Toyota Camry or Honda Accord and compare them to the 2000 models of each to refresh your memory. What does that tell you?
I could answer that question myself with some voodoo statistical interpolations of my own, which would go: From 1990 to 2003, engineering advancements would have decreased fatality rates by 50%. Offsetting this, however, was the proliferation of driver distractions brought to you by McDonalds drive throughs, Sony CD changers, Motorola cell phones, and bikini clad roller bladers. They, along with Ritlin addicted multi-taskers caused an increase in fatalities by 37.5%, leaving us with only a 12.5% overall reduction. I don't believe in voodoo analysis, but that's far more credible than 90% of the arguments I've read here.
On the other hand, I could answer my rhetorical question with a more poignant proposal. That all of the best automotive safety engineers in the world are only good for a 12.5% reduction in fatalities, but MADD was good for 45%+ by forcing legislators to get tough on drunk drivers. And what does that tell you?
Thanks for posting your statistical data sources. Even if we disagree on opinions and interpretations, it helps to at least be working form the same set of verifiable data.
The alchohol related deaths portion during that period decreased from 1.054 to 0.578 per 100 million miles, a whopping 45.2% decrease.
The problem is that when start mixing up percentages like that, you end up with some disconnects because you are working with different denominators. In those instance, you should compare the rates directly, rather than look just at percentages.
Taking your DUI-related deaths at face value (I'll assume that they came from your earlier link), the overall fatality rate declined by 0.6 per 100 million VMT (2.08 - 1.48 = 0.6), while the deaths attributed to DUI fell by 0.476 per 100 million VMT (1.054 - 0.578 = 0.476). If true, that would mean that roughly 80% of the decline in the overall fatality rate would be attributable to reductions in DUI.
The point is that irrespective of the reason for the decline -- I don't see anyone seriously claiming that phones are significant contributors to safety -- this decline should have been reversed if we wish to take the phone=drunk driving rhetoric literally. If that extreme language is to believed, then the fatality rate should have remained relatively stable as phone deaths replaced DUI deaths. And we know that this hasn't happened at all.
BTW, I also appreciate your use of sources that are verifiable and credible. It helps all of us with the learning process and to reduce the hype if we emphasize facts rather than just anecdotes and I-said-so type arguments.
I appreciate the effort needed to understand this, but until real world data about cell phone crash and fatality numbers are collected and analyzed nationally by an authoritative source this question will remain a question.
BTW - Germany has a cell phone ban as follows:
Ban imposed Feb. 2001 - usage allowed without a hands-free unit only when the engine is switched off. Fine of 40(?) per infraction.
Seems they have a rather strict policy.
The point I should have made more concisely is that, statistically speaking, we don't know the exact impact of cell phones and it is virtually impossible to figure out from the raw data I've seen. I (intuitively) fully agree that it would be an extreme stretch to claim they are the cause of even 1/3 of the number of fatalities that alcohol caused in 1990. But (by my hypothetical example) if engineering advancements from 1990 to 2003 should have resulted in a 50% decrease in fatalities, then a variety of things are simultaneously contributing to an offsetting 37.5% increase. Or, as you might claim, perhaps the engineering advancements should have only been worth a 10% reduction in fatalities and all of those bikini clad rollerbladers caused teenage boys to slow down for a better look and further reduced fatalites by 2.5%. :surprise: And I couldn't prove you wrong.
Part of the problem we have to deal with in cell phones is that they now are being used by the broadest demographic of the driving public. Going back to my 911 example, I pay $60 less per year in insurance for my 2005 911S than I do for my 2004 Acura TL 6-speed! And the former was three times the price of the latter. When I discussed this with a friend who is a GEICO exec, he confirmed that, with the 911, probably because of the "upper end" demographic profile of buyers, the accident rating is actually substantially less than for the plain Jane TL. I don't mean this to sound elitist, but I had much less of a problem seeing pinstripe suited execs using a cell phone driving around 10+/- years ago than I do today seeing a soccer mom with 4 screaming kids in the back of her minivan. Or a teenager. But be assured, I'm not so elitist to suggest that I should be allowed a hand held phone but others not. It's just that we all may have to adjust our safety restrictions to a lower common denominator of driver - just as we have with 65 mph speed limits on roads that would be considered safe at 120 in Germany.
If we're going to indulge in hypotheticals, I wouldn't expect airbags, anti-lock brakes and the like to reduce fatalities by 50% or anywhere near that figure. While these devices can help, they don't negate the laws of physics.
More importantly, they don't reverse stupidity behind the wheel. I go back to the Virginia Tech Naturalistic Study that showed that 1/7th of the drivers in the study were involved in 2/3rds of the crashes, while 2/3rds of the drivers weren't involved in any crashes at all.
It should be obvious that crashes are not at all evenly distributed within the driving pool -- quite the opposite, they skew very heavily to a small minority of drivers. If you want to address crash rates, you need to figure out why this is the case.
distributed within the driving pool -- quite the opposite, they skew very heavily to a small minority of drivers. If you want to address crash rates, you need to figure out why this is the case."
How many car crashed occured last year 7 million? Does it really matter who generated them or what was the root cause? If you are talking about cell phone users you need to know exactly how many were caused by cell phones and then track cell phone related crashes vs other crashes over a number of years, nationwide, before there are statistics that are meaningful.
Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
But this of course does not mean one doesn't have both Liberty and Safety. So if I read your post correctly, you are in favor of repealing drunk driving laws?
What point are you trying to make?
Well, the point is, people lacking any convictions, and simply complicating what should be common sense into convoluted arguments.
Someone using a phone responsibly, wearing a headset, or using hands-free, is one thing. Someone holding a phone and smoking, or sending a FAX, or working on the computer, while driving, is another.
I would submit that someone wearing a headset and talking on the phone, and therefore becoming "distracted" and causing an accident is a person who is normally easily distracted, and if it wasn't talking on the phone, they are just as likely to be easily distracted by something else.....
Therefore, perhaps to be certain, draconian measures should be taken. Outlaw eating, phones, drinking, DVD's and GPS's in all vehicles. Or make them so they will not work unless the vehicle is in "Park".
I've advised use of a surgical procedure that removes car keys from the hands of the "easily distracted." Seems more accurate than claiming that everyone is equally afflicted.
I try to use a small portion of humor, to counteract all those who are entirely too earnest.
Draco is dead, and I am entirely happy leaving him so. That said, if someone is so easily distracted as to be the cause of accidents merely talking, they certainly would be the cause of more accidents reading a map, GPS, or even adjusting the temperature controls....
And if one believes "talking" and being distracted on the phone, is really cause for more accidents, one must also accept that their talking to another passenger leaves them just as vulnerable, so I therefore believe we should also outlaw talking while driving, or maybe build a sound-proof cage around the driver, thus forcing him to not be "distracted". :shades: