By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
And when you can show that injuries and fatalities have increased in tandem with increasing cell phone use, please let us know. So far, the latest figures from NHTSA prove you incorrect.
ricardohead: Last night coming home there was a major accident that wasted 45 minutes of my evening and a few extra bucks in gas cash.
There is a difference between anecdotal evidence and actual statistics gathered on a regular basis in a uniform manner. Your post consists largely of the former.
This can be argued before the court in Pennsylvania, so the law really does not change anything.
kdshapiro: Again your definition of safer is different than mine. The roads are not safer. I was around 15 years ago and people did drive a whole bunch differently because they weren't distracted by cell phones.
Your definition of safer is at odds with virtually everyone who measures highway safety.
kdshapiro: You have no proof either way.
Yes, I do - the NHTSA report referenced earlier on this thread. If you can refute, please do, but so far you haven't.
kdshapiro: There are a multitude of studies on cell phones. Use a search engine to find them and what they say.
We've been through this before, and none of them have conclusively linked increased cell phone use to more fatatlies and injuries.
kdshapiro: Wrong. Without a backup system of fire, police and medical care, a heck a lot more people would die in severe accidents.
Except that rapid response of emergency services personnel and police for accidents has been around for the past 15, 20 and even 35 years.
No, you don't understand how the criminal justice system works.
First, I never denied that causing a death with a motor vehicle could be considered a criminal matter.
You originally said that causing a fatal accident while using cell phone use could be considered murder. And I pointed out that it would never be considered the most serious level of murder (you characterized the levels of murder as "flavors," but we aren't discussing Ben & Jerry's ice cream here, and those who understand the justice system do not use those terms).
I brought up the example of drunk driving, noting that no one is sentenced to death or life in prison without parole for killing someone in a drunk driving accident - two possible punishments for the most serious levels of homicide.
Those punishments will not be applied to a drunk driver. Pennsylvania's statute, for example, does not allow it. Here is the level of offense for causing a death while driving under the influence, as spelled out by Title 75 (Vehicles) of Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes:
Offense.--Any person who recklessly or with gross negligence causes the death of another person while engaged in the violation of any law of this Commonwealth or municipal ordinance applying to the operation or use of a vehicle or to the regulation of traffic except section 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance) is guilty of homicide by vehicle, a felony of the third degree, when the violation is the cause of death.
Because the offense is classified as a third-degree felony, the offender found guilty CANNOT receive either the death penatly or life in prison without parole (the levels of punishment for the most serious forms of murder in Pennsylvania).
That does not mean that a drunk driver who kills someone has not engaged in a CRIMINAL act. He or she can be prosecuted as a criminal, but will not receive the harshest penalty for murder, as the level of intent and culpability required for first-degree murder just isn't there.
The statute specifically spells out the level of homicide a person who commits this offense can be charged with before trial, and the punishments the jury or judge can levy.
The judge and/or jury CANNOT levy either life imprisonment without parole or the death sentence, because the statute does not allow it. And other states are no different.
Truck drivers were more likely to drive trucks WITHOUT governors that limited top speed, and more likely to use their CB radios to evade police patrols, in those days.
I know - my parents used to follow truckers, because the truckers knew where the speed traps were.
kdshapiro: 2. there were not (behemoth) cars driven by all types on cell phones wandering left and right out of the lane and tailgating due to lack of attention,
Go to a classic auto show, and tell me how many cars with names like Ford LTD, Dodge Monaco, Chrysler New Yorker, Olds Ninety-Eight, Buick Electra and Lincoln Continental you find, and then tell me that they weren't "behemoths."
kdshapiro: 3. people were much less inclined to take out a gun and shoot you because you were in the left lane,
Except that I first heard about this happening...in the late 1980s (in Texas and Philadelphia). Which was MORE Than 15 years ago (almost 20 in fact).
And it happens so rarely today, that it's hardly worth mentioning.
We've been through this before, and none of them have conclusively linked increased cell phone use to more fatatlies and injuries.
Eh, that is a partial truth. Many studies link cell phone use with crash rate. One example is the Harvard School of Medicine study or this article that demonstrates a link between cell phone use and crash rate.
What we don't have is something that shows causation, and that is pretty much statistically impossible. Correlation is pretty easy, causation, not so much.
That may be the problem because I do confuse the two. It's like if someone said it was less hot today I would take that to mean the same as cooler. But just because it is cooler doesn't mean the sun couldn't suddenly turn into a super nova causing it to get very, very hot. And the sun is getting older so the odds of that happening is going up.
I may have a higher probability of surviving a fatal crash,
I'm going to put your probability of surviving a fatal crash at exactly 0%.
Interesting study (in Forbes link) done by Utah University Prof that showed that reaction times were impaired by drivers using cell phones and that drunk drivers were safer than drivers using a cell phone.
I'm going to put your probability of surviving a fatal crash at exactly 0%.
LOL ah young Padawan, wise you are becoming in the way of probability and statistics.
I'm going to go out on a limb (I know here I go making unfounded statements) and assume (and we all know what happens when you do that) that he means surviving a collision that previously would've likely resulted in a fatality.
Safety
1. the quality or condition of being safe; freedom from danger, injury or damage; security
2. any of certain devices for preventing an accident or an undesirable effect: specif., a) a catch or locking device on a firearm that prevents it from firing b)[slang] a condom
Given that tests have shown that drivers using cell phones (hand-held or hands-free) have degradation of reaction time, the "freedom from danger" of motorists near the driver using the cell phone is reduced and their safety is thus diminished.
There seems to be something about cell phones that get under some peoples skin. Maybe it is because we notice the distracted driver more I am not sure but cell phones are here to stay. Hands free units are on the rise. Voice dialing is pretty much the norm and voice activated answering in pretty standard with blue tooth. While I am not surprised at the reaction some have to cell phone use and the perceived rudeness of cell phone users I still have to wonder why the same people aren't pushing for more laws on hamburger eating, spouse talking, children corrections and even short skirts on women walking down the street.
In more that 2300 posts no ones opinion has changed and hands free is pretty much standard. So what will change?
Except those who have to travel the roads.
"Yes, I do - the NHTSA report referenced earlier on this thread. If you can refute, please do, but so far you haven't."
Actually you don't, please prove it.
"We've been through this before, and none of them have conclusively linked increased cell phone use to more fatatlies and injuries."
These studies don't have to conclusively prove it. These studies only have show a casual relationship between use of hand held devices and wholesle loss of attention to driving, which they have.
"Except that rapid response of emergency services personnel and police for accidents has been around for the past 15, 20 and even 35 years."
Maybe in your live free and die state, but not here.
Maybe it's the fact that you can tell who is using a phone just by the way they are driving. People who weave and bob left and right and wait till the last minute before slamming on the brakes are distracted drivers. Maybe the reason the person didn't signal and just went into your lane is due to the text messages being sent. Maybe because even honking the horn doesn't awaken these idiots from their trance. Maybe distracted driving creates an anti-social atmosphere that causes all sorts or ripple effects. Just maybe.
It's not the distraction it's the frequency. It's the frequency. I can't remember the last time I saw the situation you describe.
But the roads are clogged with drivers on their cell phones. Even if they don't appear to be distracted, there is that feeling their mind isn't on the task at hand.
Some people might claim that safety features like ABS and stability control have perfectly offset this increased danger. That doesn't pass the litmus test either. Cell phones came on the scene very rapidly. If they were as dangerous as people claim there should have been a blip on the radar.
Rates have declined not numbers. When Guiliani cleaned up the city he didn't say murder rates were at their lowest levels in 20 years, he said murders were at their lowest level.
In that vein, reveiwing fatalities is more interesting. When fatalities go down over time it is very interesting, when they go up it is expected. For the most part fatalities have been going up. One has to wonder, why is that? Are there that many bad drivers out there? If people stopped multi-tasking while driving and drove defensively how many deaths could be prevented. While there are a fair share of courteous and sane drivers, there are also a fair share of drivers who multi-task and drive offensively. One wonders when this behavior will catch up with them as a statistic on FARS.
Even if the number of fatalities due to DWT(driving while talking) can't be measured, the ripple effect these drivers cause on the road can't be ignored. These people can cause crashes due to lane departures and not even know it.
I myself got the message a long time ago, I gave up attempting to find a cd and insert it into the player, at the same time while I was eating lunch, reading the paper and talking on the phone driving on the expressway. I knew my limitations, I didn't do half of what some other people did.
Okay here's the part that puzzles me. 15 years ago nobody was on a cell phone.
That's not true. Cell phones were catching on, but they were the type that required installation by cell phone licensed providers who mounted equipment in your trunk, an antenna on rear window and phone in a cradle on console or by front seat.
tpe
Some people might claim that safety features like ABS and stability control have perfectly offset this increased danger. That doesn't pass the litmus test either.
Of course it does. As I and previous posters mentioned, there have been numerous positive advancements in vehicle design, roadway construction and signage, roadway obstacle safe barriers, improved emt response time, advanced emt procedures in ambulance, emergency room and operating room procedures, medical advances, surgery advances, medicine, MADD efforts, tv ads on drunk driving dangers, and on and on.
Might also mention that vehicles, besides great advancements in structural integrity, air bags, seat belts, etc. have also become better in handling, more agile, brakes better, tires better, abs, stability control, traction control on and on.
And, the cell phone itself has probably "positively" contributed to lower death rates and faster response to crash injuries. Before the cell phone, anyone witnessing a crash/accident, had to either find a phone booth or a nearby house/business to get to a phone to report the crash. With advent of cell phone, and many drivers carrying one, these drivers witnessing an accident can stop at safe point near the accident scene and quickly call 911 for help. This gets the emts and police to crash/accident scene quicker.
A large contributor to less deaths in crashes are present-day vehicle structures that absorb crashes more effectively and protect the driver/passengers. This along with use of air-bags (front, side, curtain, etc) and increasing compliance of seat belt use.
Have to give a lot of credit to NHTSA and IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) for crash testing vehicles and then publishing results and showing footage on tv. This is a strong stimulus to manufacturers to improve their vehicles. I recall seeing a 2000 model mid-size suv of an American manufacturer have terrible structural integrity causing additional injury or death needlessly as shown by damage to dummies. There were other 2000 models tested that did not cause death and injury was less. That model by the American manufacturer was replaced with a model that had significant improvements in vehicle structure and crash survivability.
As another poster had mentioned, savvy non-cell phone using drivers are also making a contribution to a lower crash death/injury rate by watching out for (defensive driving) and staying/getting out of way of "irresponsible" drivers (DWTs) who are talking on cell phone.
tpe
If they were as dangerous as people claim there should have been a blip on the radar.
Would agree if all parameters/conditions were "held" constant over 15 years. But, not the case.
The reason that there aren't more accidents linked to cell phone use is probably due to the reactions of other -- more alert -- drivers, Drews said. "Currently, our system seems to be able to handle 8 percent of cell-phone drivers, because other drivers are paying attention," he said. "They are compensating for the errors these drivers are causing," he speculated.
This is a growing public health problem, Drews said. As more people are talking and driving, the accident rate will go up, he said.
Except that the number of people talking and driving has been increasing for several years, and the injury and fatality rates have been decreasing. Which greatly undermines his case.
Except that the number of people talking and driving has been increasing for several years, and the injury and fatality rates have been decreasing. Which greatly undermines his case.
He said the crash rate will go up, not injury and fatality rates. Injury and fatality rates are offset by having 27 airbags, better seatbelts, etc.
If you don't understand the report, just say so, and we'll help you through it.
kdshapiro: These studies don't have to conclusively prove it. These studies only have show a casual relationship between use of hand held devices and wholesle loss of attention to driving, which they have.
Sorry, not sufficient. These studies have to prove that there has been an increase in the number of injuries and fatalities, and they have not.
kdshapiro: Maybe in your live free and die state, but not here.
Who told you that? The same person who said that judges and/or juries can decided to sentence drunk drivers who kill someone to death, just because killing someone while driving drunk is a criminal offense?
May I suggest a new source of information?
First, I don't live in New Hampshire, which has used the "Live Free or Die" motto for years.
Second, if having provisions for these services for years makes a state more libertarian in nature, as you are apparently trying to suggest, I would suggest you learn the meaning of the word "libertarian," and the philosophy behind it.
A libertarian state would be less likely to pay for these services, as they ultimately cost tax payers money, either through direct or indirect support to the volunteer fire companies and local law enforcement agencies that provide these services.
Given that New Jersey's state government is about as far away from the libertarian philospophy as a state can get (unless we are talking about the current governor's personal habits regarding seat belt use and adherence to speed limits), and the state is relatively compact in size, I find it hard to believe that New Jersey didn't have rapid response teams for vehicular accidents 15 years ago.
He made a guess and so far he has not produced evidence to back it up, and his study did not prove anything regarding cell phone use and accidents, fatalities or injuries.
Nope, one can't. That is what we call a logical error.
He made a guess and so far he has not produced evidence to back it up, and his study did not prove anything regarding cell phone use and accidents, fatalities or injuries.
He showed a correlation between cell phone use and driving performance. His conclusion was people don't drive as well when talking on the phone as they do when not talking on the phone. I think that is pretty easy to see. Do they drive well enough when talking on the phone? That is the issue.
They need to work on teaching critical reading skills and logic in HS and college.
Yes and the number of fatalities have been increasing for the most part. Emphasis added, which supports the point.
I understand you don't really know, which is my point. You are making illogical conclusions based on some made up number that is derived at 100,000 feet. While I will say I don't really know either, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Do you just make this stuff up? In 1966 there were 50,894 people killed in automobile accidents. In 2006 there were 42,642 people killed. This number is lower than every single year during the 1980's despite the fact that the population, number of licensed drivers, and miles driven have all increased by over 25% since the 1980's.
Regardless, the accident/fatality/injury rate is far more important than the total number. Let me ask you this. Say you're in a room with one other person and I tell you that one of you will be in an accident. Now you're in a room with 100 other people and I tell you that 2 of you will be in an accident. Which situation would result in a greater "sense of safety"?
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/ Nah I just have a lousy memory. The number of fatalities is a more important metric when trying to figure if cell phone usage is causing an issue. It's amazing to me hang on to this one statistic like it is the holy grail.
"Which situation would result in a greater "sense of safety"?"
There's an expression: "IT's not the bullet with my name on it that I'm concerned about, it's the one addressed to Whom It May Concern".
You'd be hard pressed to find an intelligent person that doesn't consider factors like number of vehicles, number of drivers and miles traveled as being relevant factors in assessing highway safety.
Anyway, the total number of deaths in 2006 was lower than the last 4 years. This is despite the fact that the total number went up in the states with cell phone bans. And there were 93 million more cell phone subscribers in the US in 2006 than there were in 2002. So we'll use your metric. What was the point you were trying to make?
I'm for being safe rather than sorry and having the laws dealing with this. It's obvious DUI laws don't stop drinking, burglary laws don't stop burglaries and cell phone laws won't stop usage even with a lot of evidence supporting the distracted behaviors while using cell phones. At least we can make the offenders who cause injury and death pay for it.
And what would that personal opinion be?
Here is the thing...driving doesn't require 100% of attention all the time. There are times when the amount of brain power (for a technical term) required to drive isn't so much, and having a conversation (like you would with a passenger) might actually improve things to keep the driver awake and alert. I am concerned with the population's ability to make that judgment call.
I think there is a learning curve to driving while talking on the phone, and it leads to additional errors. In graduate school, I had to sit on a corner and count the number of people on the phone while driving, and then see if committed a driving infraction in that intersection. Driving errors committed by people on the phone vs not was about 3 to 1. Also, just about every report I've ever seen can show a decrease in driving performance.
As far as crash rate, things are too confounded to make any conclusions what so ever from that type of study, other than things are headed in the right direction. Cars are safer, roads are safer, real speeds on roads is slower, this is all things that reduce risk. I have used that database for research before, and I am pretty familiar with the reporting error that goes into it. I think its great trend data.
Maybe there is another way of saying that. Depending on where you are driving, the amount and possibility of situations "needing" attention for possible action/adjustment of vehicle controls varies.
An example of very small amount of situations would be driving in flat terrain farmland in early spring (no corn or other crops to block vision) in daylight on sunny day and on a very good smooth blacktop straight county designated road that has right of way and there are crossroads every one mile. An opposing vehicle might be encountered every 3 miles of travel. Not too many situation here that need attention, but nonetheless driver must continuously monitor and be aware. Deer probably not in this area (and would be spotted easily) but small animal could quickly emerge from ditch and run across road in driver's path.
Contrast this to driving at tail-end of morning rush hour on 3-lane (each way interstate) going toward big city and left lane at 75-80, middle a little less and right lane about 60-65. There are drivers wanting to move around and advance and are changing lanes, tail-gating. How much attention and how many "situations", multiple at any given instant, does a driver have to "continuously" have to monitor? We have all seen drivers holding cell phones and driving in left, center or right lanes. There is a lot to do by any driver, especially those in the left lane. Are they compromising safety of anyone near them by not devoting full and undivided attention to driving (and monitoring)?
Another example/place that needs high degree of monitoring and attention would be roads near suburban shopping centers on Saturdays that have drivers turning into and coming out of parking lots, lots of intersections with and without traffic lights.
Another example would be driving down big city streets on a summer weekday with cars parked on both sides of street, many children playing on almost every block, drivers wanting to pull out from parked curb areas, intersections, pedestrians at intersections, cars crossing at intersections without traffic signals, etc.
Drivers need to focus attention continuously and depending on what road they are on may face small to enormous amounts of situations to digest and process and decide what actions or adjustments to make or not make every second/instant.
For the most part that is a mis-leading statement and maybe why there is such a debate. I do agree there are situations in which you can believe you can be less on guard and less defensive. One example, going 15 mph in an empty parking lot with no obstacles. One can think they can probably look away for a number of seconds.
However, for the rest of us who may be on the roads at speeds of 50-75, not thinking, not driving defensively or not concentrating for the blink of an eye can lead to serious consequences. Driving is a 100% full time activity, and I drive with the same care in an empty parking lot, as driving in crowded rush hour traffic at 65.
Those who believe driving is a part time activity, kill others and/or themselves.
I'm actually a little more concerned with the driver who feels the task requires 100% of his attention to perform safely. In my case driving typically represents a background process. Certainly there are times when I have to be more focused. It's not all that difficult to recognize these situations. Well at least it isn't for me.
There have been a lot of studies as to what constitutes workload when driving. There are some situations that require more attention and cognition than others.
In a survey, the #1 hitter was traction. If traction is low (IE its snowy/icy) then workload goes up exponentially. Another factor is curve onset and exit, where the initial turn into a curve is a spike in workload and the exit (back to straight) is also, but on a constant radius curve, the middle is steady state. Speed maintenance and traffic density also affect workload, and things like road quality and lane width. Of course weather is another factor.
Notice speed on its own wasn't mentioned. I can't find anything other than 70s EPA propaganda that says anything about speed and driver workload. Its pretty obvious that when the car is moving faster, stuff happens faster, but when that is consistent with how fast everything else is happening, it is less of an issue.
This defines how bandwidth is required for the driving task. One issue is how much bandwidth is allocated for the secondary task (talking on the phone).
I was driving in the #2 lane (no merging traffic, 2 other fast lanes for faster traffic)on a 4 lane highway with light traffic with the cruise control set (delegating speed maintenance) while talking to a salesman. He was asking me make/model/trim/color type info which was well rehearsed and didn't take a lot of thought for me to reply. After that, he moved on to credit app questions and account numbers, etc and I didn't have enough bandwidth for that so I told him I would call him back from my destination.
My driving workload was low enough to handle an easy conversation but not so low I could pull key information out of my head. My issue is that I don't trust others enough to make that judgment.
I would not want to drive near you then. Defensive driving requires constant thought, awareness and the ability to proactively and quickly understand escape situations before they happen. This is not a background activity, it's a way of driving that requires attention to the road.
While many people, as yourself, drive on automatic and focus when you need to, do not confuse this style of driving with driving defensively.
I'm not so sure that I'd want to be driving near you either. If typical driving represents this big a workload for you I think that you could potentially blow a fuse if confronted with adverse road conditions.
It is the what-if situations. When on the phone, what amount of capacity, if any, can be devoted to defensive driving. As an example, if driving on a 2-lane numbererd route and on the phone, is cell phone driver thinking about approaching traffic which could be a mix of semis and regular vehicles? If opposing semi, or any vehicle starts veering toward the center line and maybe crosses over, will cell phone driver be able to even notice it let alone get ready to move over to right or perhaps go off road?
My State's Rules of the Road for Drivers License requires Concentration and Defensive Driving.
On Concentration, it states: "Operating a vehicle safely demands that the driver concentrates on driving". Given that "multi-tasking" over any given instant of time is not possible, how can one concentrate on driving and conduct cell conversation concurrently.
On Defensive Driving, it states: Plan ahead for the unexpected. Always be prepared to react to the other driver. If talking on the phone, can any planning be done.
There are studies that measure thing using what they call a peripheral detection task. It is kind of a way to measure how fast people notice something if they are not directly paying attention to it. Its pretty commonly used in driving studies dealing with distraction issues.
PDT as a Driving Performance Measure
On Concentration, it states: "Operating a vehicle safely demands that the driver concentrates on driving". Given that "multi-tasking" over any given instant of time is not possible, how can one concentrate on driving and conduct cell conversation concurrently.
That is a valid point, there is an opportunity cost to task switching. In low workload situations, it happens fast enough that its not an issue but as demand goes up and there are competing resources, it gets more challenging.
As far as task switching. Do you actually believe it is possible to concentrate on only one thing for extended periods of time? I sure don't. The brain is constantly task switching, that's just the way it works.
You might want to take a defensive driving class, and review some of the basics. An added bonus is you get to save on your insurance.
I believe pilots concentrate on landings below 10000ft. There are rules of the cockpit regarding this. Surgeons perform surgery for hours on end. Yes they talk, but I don't believe you would want them to take a short break to call in for the dinner call if you were on the operating table. You also wouldn't want to know if their primary focus wasn't on surgery.
I do admit, to scratching my ears, turning the radio, adjusting the HVAC, looking in mirrors, even talking, etc, while I'm driving. But my primary task is to drive the car and I don't take it casually and I taught my kids that as well. Priority is drive over talk. My wife hates it because I very rarely talk while driving. The upside is I pay a pittance for a lot of insurance coverage for 4 drivers and multiple cars, due to a clean record.
Okay, now you're just trying to make me laugh.
Blabbing with the phone to your ear, texting, reading the paper, etc, takes away from the primary duties of the driver. What myself and other posters are saying is that activities that diminish the overall concentration in some situations, even for a blink of an eye, could lead to injury or tragic results. Like those teenagers.
The number of collisions I avoided on crowded highways by paying attention to driving has me scratching my head. If both of us weren't paying attention a bad situation could have developed.
Why do you think that is funny? I don't. It is a big problem on the roads.
This gets at what most people define as acceptable risk. Most people would say its okay to change the radio station or a cassette tape, adjust the climate control, or select a POI from a nav system. Texting (a challenging visual/manual task even when you aren't driving), reading the paper, watching TV, and working on a computer are all considered to be unacceptable risk. Somewhere in the middle is using a cell phone, eating a cheeseburger, or certain navigation system tasks.
KD feels that the cell phone is unacceptable risk where as TPE doesn't have a problem with it.
In some states with cell phone laws acceptable risk has already been defined. I don't want to leave it up to people to define acceptable risk, most drivers have already shown they cannot do this responsibly.
"KD feels that the cell phone is unacceptable risk where as TPE doesn't have a problem with it."
Bingo. Some people feel driving while intoxicated(even though it is against the law) is okay also, else they wouldn't do it. For them the risk acceptable, although if I'm next to them I wouldn't fine it acceptable. But if they injure or kill someone, they should be held accountable. (Although that doesn't seem to happen all the time. The drunk driver who killed the Conn. student got probation). Comments are ditto for cell phones. You may deem the risk acceptable to talk on the phone, but since we both use the roads, I don't deem it an acceptable risk to me.
Hence, the government has to step in. BTW did you know in Germany you must stop your engine to make a call not using hands-free. Germany has been cited as having the roadways with the lowest fatality "rates". Maybe they know something we don't?
Which is pretty lame since the cognitive distraction is there regardless of whether or not you are holding the phone. I think they just do that so it doesn't overtax the VWs electrical system :P
No, that is not the issue.
Let's review.
My original post said that there is no conclusive proof that cell phone use while driving has led to increased injuries or fatalities.
You offered this study as proving that it has.
I pointed out that it does not prove this.
You have not refuted this. If you are trying to say that any correlation between cell phone use leads to increased accidents and injuries, you've just made a logical error yourself.
lilengineerboy: They need to work on teaching critical reading skills and logic in HS and college.
Sorry, but based on your posts, you are in no position to make any critical comments of other poster's reading skills and logic, especially in view of the first half of your post.