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
The only point it supports is that you still don't have any understanding of how to accurately measure highway safety.
We've been through this before - the raw number of fatalities is not a good measure, because the number of vehicles has increased since 1994, and the number of miles those vehicles were driven has also increased in that time frame. The most accurate measure is the number of fatalities per 100 million miles driven, which takes these figures into account.
Don't have casette tapes nor nav system. Do have a radio and climate controls. Yes, ok to change a radio station or adjust climate control. This requires a one brief deviation from driving/attention tasks and if planned can instantly get back to driving/attention quickly.
Don't know about other drivers, but I only do these things when road configuration and traffic (lack of) allow. As example, if driving on 2-lane highway, I will wait for large gap of no opposing traffic to make the changes and will not do at intersections. If driving on a road with curve sections, I will wait until in straightaway, no opposing traffic, not in woods, no farmer driveways, etc., then I will make the radio/ac/heat adjustment.
Those who follow the above type of protocol are planning ahead for period of anticipated low demand on brain processing capacity. In contrast, those using cell phone, such as conducting a conversation with a co-worker or client on details, have to switch back and forth between driving/vehicle control tasks/road monitoring and receiving/processing phone message and then formulating response to person on other end of cell phone. What percent of brain processing time is spent on each? What percent is "acceptable" risk?
Would be interesting to see scientific test (if feasible) on real roads with driver on cell phone with wires/sensors hooked up to head and sophisticated test devices. Would want test to record actual time segments (say to hundredth of second) of what brain is doing and then graph it. X-axis would be time and Y-axis would be tasks shown in bars. Green bars above X would be driving task and red bars below X would be cell conversation task. Could it be done?
There also would be 4 video cameras in car pointing front, back, left and right. How much green would we see vs red? How much red would be "acceptable risk". The output from camera video tapes would be synced up to the brain sensor outputs showing red and green segments on video of traffic/road situations. It would show if/when red segments appear in traffic situation requiring possible corrective/changed action by driver to react to events such as: bicyclist, pedestrian ready to cross street, approaching and to/be tailgater, traffic suddenly stopping ahead, lane changer coming into cell driver's lane, vehicles waiting at crossroad to enter cell driver's road, cars entering and leaving cell driver's road going to shopping center parking lots, etc.
Would also like to see same test applied to driving vs changing a radio station or driving and changing ac/heating control.
I no longer use cell phone while driving. I was early adopter of cell phone, think about 1991, and had cell phone equipment installed in trunk, antenna on rear window and phone on console. I did talk while driving and did realize that it was very difficult to pay attention to driving while talking.
I remember times "after" cell phone conversations (1, 5, 10, etc minute durations) when after I hung up I "did not" remember much, if any, details of road and traffic during conversation. If I were on a 2-lane numbered route, I did not remember passing a number of intersections or roads or features. It was as if I was in a trance. Same would be true on an interstate. Obviously, any short 1-minute conversations such as "I am on road x near route y and will be 15 minutes late. Sorry. Will see you soon." were least robbing of concentration, but still did put me in a brief trance nonetheless.
Somewhere in the middle is using a cell phone, eating a cheeseburger, or certain navigation system tasks.
Think that eating a cheeseburger is not remotely comparable to talking on cell phone in terms of distraction from driving.
Previous posters on this board have pointed out that some organizations (don't remember which - corporations, military?) and countries have an outright ban on any type of cell phone use while driving. These have obviously investigated and found their use detrimental to safety and determined that the risk of using was "unacceptable".
The general driving public that use cell phones while driving does not think about or understand the diminishment of their driving concentration. The cell phone service providers have not stepped up with tv commercials asking drivers to not use cell phones. Don't know why. They could do ongoing spots on tv, similar to beer advertisers, asking drivers to not use cell phone while driving. It would obviously hurt their revenue stream. Is this why they are not doing it or could they possibly not even have thought about the issue.
But you've admitted to having conversations in the car while driving. Even if you minimize these conversations, as you've stated, it is still a distraction or a risk. This implies that you believe some risks are low enough to be acceptable. Why should everyone have to adopt your standard when it comes to acceptable risks? You previously made the analogy of a pilot's concentration during landing. That's fair enough. I used to fly C-130s in the Navy and during take-off and landing your level of concentration was definitely higher. During the other portions of the flight a lot of conversation was going on over the headsets between members of the crew that had zero to do with flying or the mission. Since most people have no desire to be involved in a plane crash we obviously all felt these extraneous conversations did not pose an undue risk. Flying the plane was still the primary task but as lilengineerboy would say, it didn't require anywhere near 100% of the bandwidth. Just like many situations when you're on the road.
I must drive in a much safer area than you because even with my sometimes reduced level of concentration I haven't been in an accident in 33 years. The only accident I have ever been in occurred shortly after getting my license when I was 16 years old.
Yes based upon his measure of safety it turns out that California (4,236 fatalities) is almost 60 times as dangerous a place to drive as Alaska (74 fatalities). Even though Alaska does have a higher fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles.
You still don't understand the point, which is not highway safety, it's cell phone usage and the undersireable ripple effect usage has on the roads. Until you get this point, you will go around and around.
"We've been through this before -" the rate is to summarized to allow any meaningful analysis in this area.
I do agree with this and I believe it has been definitively proven. It's amazing that there are so many people who adamently oppose the use of handheld devices but they themselves use hands free devices. That absolutely cannot be justified on a rational level.
What I admitted to and what I do today are to different things.
"This implies that you believe some risks are low enough to be acceptable"
I did. I don't anymore.
"During the other portions of the flight a lot of conversation was going on over the headsets between members of the crew that had zero to do with flying or the mission."
How are you relating this to how you drive?
"I must drive in a much safer area than you"
You probably do drive in an area that is "safer" than my area, which is why you believe cell phone usage while driving is an acceptable risk for you and others.
Respecting your experience, what about today's aircraft? When at cruising altitude (40,000 ft?) can jetliners fly on auto-pilot with no pilot intervention (control) and also having air-traffic control safety system/feature? If so, then absolutely no comparison to driving on public roads which require 100 percent operator(driver) control. Also, don't many jetliners have computerized control systems that take over when landing and pilot is of course there to monitor and make any necessary corrections/adjustments? Absolutely nothing similar available or in use for ground based vehicles.
Wasn't there a situation a few years ago where a private jet with a famous golfer on board had an air management problem and all on board passed out and died? The plane then, on auto-pilot, did not crash to ground but went a couple thousand miles and then crashed (out of fuel?).
My original post said that there is no conclusive proof that cell phone use while driving has led to increased injuries or fatalities.
Actually, my discussion was primarily with TPE. Now that you have defined your thesis, I can respond to your comments as well.
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.
No, that is not what I said. The study I offered was stating there was a measurable decrement in driving performance for drivers using cell phones compared to drivers with no secondary task. For the sake of glamor, it referenced driving while intoxicated.
Your original statement:
One can logically conclude that if injuries and fatalities are decreasing, then crashes are, too.
is a logical error. Injuries and fatalities are decreasing because of things like airbags and other vehicle safety systems. Until we have collision warning and mitigation systems, people not paying attention will still run into other people not paying attention.
I still think critical reading and analysis skills are being called into question.
A point that is being missed is that few, if any, people fiddle with NAV, audio, climate control etc when merging on highways or changing lanes. That is not a case with cell phone drivers. In most cases, they don't turn on their side indicators, and are too slow when merging (often create a mess behind them which during peak hours translates to clogged traffic). And I almost witnessed a collision for that reason just this morning. Although the driver on cell phone got away with just a finger shown to him (which I doubt registered anything in his mind).
Actually people hang on the fars database rate as the holy grail to prove our roads our safer. People may die less, but thesroads are not safer, imo. The roads are more dangerous than the roads of 15 years ago, before cell phones and the like became a way of distracting drivers.
Actual fatalities since 1994 show a different story. Maybe the increase in fatalities has a lot to do with increased cell phone usage?
I'm sure that's true. IMO safety is not an absolute, it is a range. If it was an absolute then there would only be one safe driver and he'd be the person who possessed the best reflexes, skill, vision, judgment etc.. Everyone else would be unsafe. Obviously that's not the case so we are left to accept a range of what is considered safe and decide whether certain behaviors put you outside this range. From the data I've seen using a cell phone doesn't have that great an impact. If my using a cell phone makes the roads slightly less safe for those around me so be it. I can scrutinize anyone and find lifestyle choices that adversely affect society. From a driving perspective the choice to drive a large truck or SUV adversely impacts the safety of everyone in smaller vehicles. Since I drive one of these smaller vehicles are these people violating my rights?
Your original statement:
One can logically conclude that if injuries and fatalities are decreasing, then crashes are, too.
Did I really say that or was it grbeck? If so it was a mistake. What I meant to say and thought I said was that the 2006 data showed a reduction in total fatalities and total injuries along with a reduction in the rates of these crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The property damage only crash data was not included in this report but it has trended almost identically with the other crashes for the past 20 years. That being the case it's highly probable that the 2006 property damage only crash data will show a similar reduction. After all, airbags and other safety devices didn't suddenly burst onto the scene in 2006. But 2006 did show the biggest 1 year gain to date in the number of new cell phone subscribers.
After all, airbags and other safety devices didn't suddenly burst onto the scene in 2006.
This is very true, the trend for a reduction in fatalities and injuries has been aiming down since the early 90s when air bags started to be commonplace, and drunk driving laws became more severe (I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS WHY---just showing a correlation).
But 2006 did show the biggest 1 year gain to date in the number of new cell phone subscribers.
I also googled age of cell phone user 2006 and ended up with a report showing that big growth areas were those under 18 and those over 60, to age groups that might not interact as much with the majority of the driving population.
Can you quantify somehow to what extent you are "slightly less safe".
Is "so be it" somewhat cavalier?
From a driving perspective the choice to drive a large truck or SUV adversely impacts the safety of everyone in smaller vehicles. Since I drive one of these smaller vehicles are these people violating my rights?
Your chances of a crash with them are less if you do not use a phone and practice defensive driving. With that practice, and the probable better maneuverability of your small car, you can evade/avoid them. But, if you are on the phone you might not recognize a traffic situation and react in sufficient time to avoid a crash.
You are making this case in your mind. There is no correlation or causation to the fars data and cell phone usage.
I can't really quantify it numerically but I'll try to describe it. If I'm driving on an open road and choose to engage in a short cell phone conversation I would consider that as being slightly less safe. If you have any compelling data which provides a probability as to what the additional danger of doing this was then that's my numerical definition of "slightly less safe".
Is "so be it" somewhat cavalier?
Yeah maybe a little cavalier. Tell the driver of an SUV that he's making the roads less safe for smaller cars and replace "so be it" with his answer. Or if a person chooses to run an errand at night rather than wait until the next day because it is personally more convenient. You point out to him that it has been well established that driving at night is more dangerous than the daytime. You can insert his answer. Or tell a fat person or smoker that they are driving up everyone's health care costs. See what they say. "So be it" wasn't the best choice of words but you probably get my point.
No, actually it was with me.
Here is what you posted, in post #2378, on July 27, in response to my assertion that no studies have conclusively linked greater cell phone use with a higher fatality rate or injury rate:
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 study contained at the most, a GUESS that there might be a link between cell phone use and the crash rate. And it did not show a link between cell phone use while driving and the injury or fatality rate, which was the original question asked.
While working on your critical reading and analysis skills, not to mention of how traffic safety is measured, it might help to work on your memory, too.
lilengineerboy: No, that is not what I said. The study I offered was stating there was a measurable decrement in driving performance for drivers using cell phones compared to drivers with no secondary task. For the sake of glamor, it referenced driving while intoxicated.
If that was why you offered it, then you need to learn the importance of offering studies that address the point being raised.
lilenginneerboy: I still think critical reading and analysis skills are being called into question.
I agree, you need to work on those, along with memory skills, and how traffic safety is measured.
You spend several posts arguing that highway safety has not been improved, and now you say, regarding the point, "it's not highway safety?"
Was your post typed with a straight face?
I'm not entirely sure what that means. But I will agree there is no positive corellation between fars data and cell phone usage. That's kind of my whole point.
1990
5 million cell phone subscribers
44,599 traffic fatalities
3,231,000 injuries
6,471,000 property damage only crashes
2006
233 million cell phone subscribers
42,642 traffic fatalities
2,575,000 injuries
???? property damage only
Actual fatalities since 1994 show a different story. Maybe the increase in fatalities has a lot to do with increased cell phone usage?
I believe this is the report you are talking about.
fars
What's interesting is that you previously stated you can't draw conclusions as to the danger of cell phones by using fars data. Seems like a little bit of an inconsistency. What's more interesting is that you drew this conclusion by focusing on 2 numbers and ignoring all the rest.
Well, I just coined the phrase, so let me elaborate. A distracted driver moves into a lane without noticing someone in the blind spot who moves over to the next lane in panic and ends up in a collision. The distracted driver who started it all keeps driving.
Are we still arguing that drivers with cell phone aren't an issue at all? Or, perhaps we can say that stats don't lie... they prove that increased cell phone usage has reduced fatalities and accidents. :P
We are in agreement, no conclusion can be drawn.
Chances of surviving a collision in 2007 is far greater than years ago. Fatalities have been up since 1994, leveled off and then declined. The roads are not safer because fatalities went down. Chances of surviving are far better than in prior years, but as I've postulated the roads are more dangerous due to the amount of distractions the drivers face.
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.
It does show a link between cell phone use and crash rate. It shows you are x-times more likely to be in a collision when using a cell phone.
Again, that is not the issue, the issue is quantifying the decrement in driving performance while using a cell phone. Gross statistics like the one in that report are too confounded to provide any meaningful data with respect to a single driving hazard. Maybe fatalities and injuries are going down because Ford Explorers don't have Firestone tires anymore.
And it did not show a link between cell phone use while driving and the injury or fatality rate, which was the original question asked.
And I said in 2392:
"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."
It would be very challenging to isolate one single factor in automotive safety, any real would data is somewhat confounded. I think you realize this, and I think you are just playing devils advocate; makes for an exciting forum :P
If you need to justify your cell phone use one way or the other, that is fine, but that doesn't take the place of logic and research.
I agree, you need to work on those, along with memory skills, and how traffic safety is measured.
Thankfully, you are one of the few that feel that way. I think what helps is unlike yourself, I really don't have an agenda.
That is a valid point. A study done by a university research institute found drivers would answer the phone on the 1st or 2nd ring (like they were at home) independent of what was going on with the primary task That means if someone is driving at a difficult point (high workload), they still pick up the phone. That makes it very different from the other tasks where people are more leisurely.
That to me suggests that while level of distraction doing other things may be same (or even more) than having cell phone glued to the ears, drivers aren't hanging up under dangerous situations. They certainly won't say... "let me merge or change lanes first, I will call you right back".
That's interesting. I wonder how you'd go about conducting such a study. I personally don't answer the phone at all if the driving environment requires most of my attention. That's the nice thing about phones. You wait a couple minutes and just hit the call/send button. Whether or not other people exercise this discipline is outside my control. I'm opposed to making laws and policy based upon the actions of reckless and irresponsible people. I consider this the lowest common denominator approach to legislation. Using this rational cars shouldn't be legal.
We have a law against murder. Do we need specific laws against murder with a knife, poison, club, gun, etc., etc.? I don't think so. Since we have a law against inattentive driving and we hold people responsible for accidents that they cause why exactly do we need a law specifically aimed at cell phones? It's a reflection of our society and how enamored we are with laws. We see something that shouldn't have happened and immediately conclude that a law could have prevented that. Pretty naive as far as I'm concerned but maybe it provides a temporary sense of security for some.
Again, not true. The chances of an accident resulting in a fatality is 0.6 percent. That hasn't changed in over 20 years. But those are just stats, not nearly as compelling as anecdotal positions based upon personal observations.
These are not personal observations, they are facts. But all of that really doesn't matter. Some don't see cell phones as a issue on the road. It's not like seatbelts, if you choose not to wear them, the only person you hurt is you.
Cell Phone Ring Suppression and HUD Caller ID
I agree TPE, I will let calls go to voicemail, but I think the overwhelming population has been conditioned to pick up the phone at home as fast as they can, and they will put down what they are working on to do it. That can be a hard habit to break in the car.
I also agree about not needing an infinite number of laws, I think the "hands free" laws are foolish. A driver is either distracted or not, and either things go badly for that driver or not. If they go badly, the repremand should be especially severe. This is the idea of secondary enforcement.
I don't believe in secondary enforcement. "Hate Crimes" come to mind. Giving different statuses to the same offense doesn't make sense to me.
Sorry, I replaced collision with accident and I should have said crash. In my mind it's the same thing. Way too many words in the English language with similar meanings. But I'll rephrase. The chance of a crash resulting in a fatality is 0.6 percent, the same as it's been for a couple decades.
Refer to page 30.
fatality risk
I don't believe in secondary enforcement. "Hate Crimes" come to mind. Giving different statuses to the same offense doesn't make sense to me.
I was thinking that this discussion (especially from KDs view) has been about acceptable risk. Even within risk, there are 2 kinds, a driver can run a risk or take a risk. In one case, the driver is unaware of the risk, although still responsible (driving on an under-inflated tire...), while the other is fully aware of the risk and choses to do it anyway (driving while intoxicated, knowingly driving with poor brakes, etc). Society is more lenient with the driver on the under-inflated tire than the drunk driver, even if the outcome is the same. There are reckless driving laws already, so drunk driving laws are more severe than the standard laws.
I think cell phone laws could be similar, although not identical. Perhaps people wouldn't get pulled over for talking on the cell phone, if they are driving properly, but if they commit an infraction, the penalties could be more severe because of the risk they are taking. I am also particularly biased towards cell phones. If someone creams me because their Taco Bell started falling apart, they can put my kids though college too.
Using the fars database the "rate" of fatalities has been steadily declining. I can attribute this decrease, to better enforcement, better highways, roads, technology, cars, medical care, emergency systems, seatbelt usage etc. This says to me that more people are surviving crashes due to a lot of factors.
If you review page 30 as you suggested, a clear trend is less injuries and less fatalities, although there were blips. In my opinion, this is due to the aforementioned factors.
Bingo. The human mind knows no end to the stupid behavior that can be done at the same time as driving. However, the number of people eating taco bells, kissing the girlfriends/boyfriends, puts on makeup, etc, pales in comparison to cell phone usage. There does seem to be a difference in distractions, with cell phone distractions being the most severe as indicated by driving patterns.
I suppose that you are against law banning open liquour containers in vehicles. After all, DUI laws should already cover drunken drivers. How about legally owned and loaded handgun in glovebox. Is that OK?
I don't think that is a valid statement. I don't know of one car that doesn't have at least 4 cup holders and they wouldn't put them in cars if they didn't believe the customer was going to use them. Taco Bell, Micky Ds and any number of fast food places have "drive through" windows that do more business than people walking in. It is a gross assumption to believe people aren't eating and drinking while driving. I can attest that Coffee shops are doing just fine in the LA area and people are placing those hot cups of coffee and eating butterfly cookies each and every morning while driving on what many consider the most congested freeways in the country. Is drinking coffee an acceptable risk that doesn't need a specific law? Not the same thing? If the coffee is very hot and you take too big a sip what is the reaction? If you hit the brakes too hard and it spills in your lap what happens? The chances of being distracted while driving change depending on a lot of things but few of us would lobby for a law just to cover our pet peeve. If the driving while distracted laws can cover all the other distractions we freely allow and encourage. The number of cup holders should give us some idea of what we as a society think is acceptable risk. Just saying you don't do those things doesn't indicate you will never do those things. The temptation is just too great and for the most part driving simply seems like second nature to the average commuter.
The key question is still what makes cell phone users the primary target? The other distractions have been with us much longer and we as a society didn't seem to need additional laws targeting any one distraction. I can't ever remember anyone suggesting Big Macs were too messy to eat in a car so we needed a law forbidding Burger munching while driving?
It looks like cell phones are becoming a way of life for Americans. We have even decided that some top of the line cars should have cell phones installed in the dash. The technology exists to solve the hand held objections. I haven't used a hand held device in the car for quite a while now and I see fewer and fewer people with their hands to their ears. It seems as if the cell phone industry can move much faster than the government and even here in California the Government seems ot be losing interest. I have read that they may not eve enforce the hand held ban in my State till July of 2008. At one point they were talking about January 2008 but that must have changed. Looks like by the time they are ready to enforce the ban no one will be using that kind of phone.
It will be interesting to see if anyone starts a blog on passing a law against messy fast foods or hot coffee while driving.
You supposed correctly, I'm opposed to both of those laws as being unnecessary and somewhat ridiculous.
If I'm a cop and pull someone over for suspicion of DUI I could care less whether he got drunk while he was driving or before he started driving. As far as the danger posed to society is concerned there is certainly no difference.
I'm not sure that having a handgun in your vehicle is against the law. You probably need some kind of permit. I suspect that a lot of people do carry handguns in their vehicles. If you're someone that keeps a gun in his home for protection the same rational would apply in your vehicle. Regardless, if I was someone that wanted to go rob a liquor store do you think that a law against carrying a handgun in my vehicle would represent a major deterrent. It's laughable.
These superfluous laws are just an illustration of how ineffective the original law was. Why would these additional laws that address the same issue be any more effective?
Since prosecutors live and die by their conviction record, they may not be too eager to charge someone for driving distracted, but if the law says no talking, they can prove that easier just with the phone records.
With that said here is one law that I would endorse. A law that states for every new law that is enacted 2 existing laws need to be removed from the books.
"The key question is still what makes cell phone users the primary target?"
"It will be interesting to see if anyone starts a blog on passing a law against messy fast foods or hot coffee while driving."
I frankly don't care if the lawyers pass messy fast food bans. I won't eat in my car, so what. I do care about cell phone distractions. I do care that four teenages were killed, probable cause distractions from texting while driving. I do care the lawyers force me to put on seatbelts.
I don't care that some people have a lot of trouble understanding why.
You wouldn't think you'd need a specific law to prohibit TVs viewable by drivers either, but most states have come to that conclusion.
Except that when crashes of all types are totalled - fatal, non-fatal and property-only - we find that since 1988, the number of crashes has gone DOWN, even as cell phone use has increased, there are more vehicles and people are driving those vehicles an increasing number of miles.
In 1988, according to NHTSA, there were 6,887,000 crashes of all types. This declined to 6,000,000 in 1992, when the economy was still coming out of a recession (which decreases travel).
The number went back up to 6,159,000 by 1996 (when the economy was booming), but by 2005 it was down to 6,195,000. Even as cell phone use increased. So the real world data does not support that thought.
If driving while talking on a cell phone were as dangerous as driving while drunk, it would show up in the number of crashes.
lilengineerboy: Maybe fatalities and injuries are going down because Ford Explorers don't have Firestone tires anymore.
If perhaps 25 percent of all vehicles sold in one year were Explorers equipped with Firestones, you'd have a point.
When it was shown that fatalities declined even as cell phone use increased, the comeback was that perhaps injuries didn't, because air bags and other safety features were making the difference.
When it was shown that injuries declined, too, the comeback was that people were still getting into crashes, but the safety devices were preventing injuries.
Now, it turns out that crashes of all types - not just fatal ones - have declined, too. So the latest excuse goes out the window, too.
lilengineerboy: And I said in 2392: "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."
Except that the number of crashes is down, too, and airbags - regardless of their number in any particular vehicle - and safety belt laws do not prevent crashes. They prevent or minimize injuries.
lilengineerboy: If you need to justify your cell phone use one way or the other, that is fine, but that doesn't take the place of logic and research.
I believe in research - which is why I quoted the above crash statistics.
lilengineerboy: Thankfully, you are one of the few that feel that way. I think what helps is unlike yourself, I really don't have an agenda.
I have an agenda - discovering the truth, and making sure our laws address real problems, and represent an effective use of law enforcement resources.
The level of risk is not what determines the severity of punishment under the law. The level of intent on the part of the defendant does.
The level of risk is not what determines the severity of punishment under the law. The level of intent on the part of the defendant does.
Sorry I will spell it out better - if someone drives knowing there is an issue - that is taking a risk - the driver is criminally negligent. If a driver is running a risk, unaware of an issue, unless that issue is so gross they should be aware of it, they are not subject to the same penalties.
Except that when crashes of all types are totalled - fatal, non-fatal and property-only - we find that since 1988, the number of crashes has gone DOWN, even as cell phone use has increased, there are more vehicles and people are driving those vehicles an increasing number of miles.
In 1988, according to NHTSA, there were 6,887,000 crashes of all types. This declined to 6,000,000 in 1992, when the economy was still coming out of a recession (which decreases travel).
The number went back up to 6,159,000 by 1996 (when the economy was booming), but by 2005 it was down to 6,195,000. Even as cell phone use increased. So the real world data does not support that thought.
If driving while talking on a cell phone were as dangerous as driving while drunk, it would show up in the number of crashes.
So you have found the study indicates a drop in reported collisions. Since we are living in a vacuum, no safety features such as ABS and vehicle stability control could have offset those numbers at all.
Now, it turns out that crashes of all types - not just fatal ones - have declined, too. So the latest excuse goes out the window, too.
Reported crashes
I believe in research - which is why I quoted the above crash statistics.
I am going to paraphrase your argument, and ask you to correct it:
Your thesis is "this one study indicates fewer collisions/injuries/fatalities so cell phones must not be bad"
If cell phones are as bad as people would indicate shouldn't we see some signs of it in reported accidents, fatalities, or something? If cell phone use is going up and accident rates are going down what is wrong with this picture?
We don't need to do that, anymore than we need to prove driving with alchohol in your system is a detriment to driving. There is already enough proof to show, cell phones contribute to distracted driving, which in turn creates all sorts of ripple effects on the road from horn honking, to collision avoidance, to injuries and deaths. (in the tragic case of the teenagers)
I would agree if cell phone usage on the roads weren't a factor these laws would be superflous. But cell phone usage on the roads is a huge factor in peoples driving behavior, and thus the behavior needs to be addressed.
We don't need to do that, anymore than we need to prove driving with alcohol in your system is a detriment to driving.
We did need to prove the danger of drunk driving. And its been done with volumes of real world data. I know that you aren't a believer of the NHTSA's fars database but it goes into great detail regarding the accidents that involved drivers with alcohol in their system. It conclusively shows that drivers with high BAC levels account for a disproportionate percentage of accidents and fatalities. This has not been done with cell phones so your comparison is invalid. It is merely an assumption on your part. You like to spout cliches regarding generalizations. What do they say about assumptions?