Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

At any given daylight moment, 600k drivers are using cellphones

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

At any given daylight moment, 600k drivers are using cellphones

Old 04-09-13, 01:12 PM
  #26  
Senior Member
 
Keith99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
It doesn't surprise me. Look how long some refused to believe cigarettes caused any health issues, even decades after we had plenty of "proof".

So, see? For some, it really doesn't matter how much proof you have.
I remember once seeing one of those ads blasting the tobacco companies for 'hiding' the dangers of cigarettes with someone blaming them and taking no personal responsibility while watching an OLD James Bond film. One from BEFORE the guy started smoking and where Bond has a Q special cigarette which he asks to be allowed to smoke when in a bad spot.

The bad guys reply is priceless, something like 'It won't be the cigarette that kills you'. To me that makes it pretty clear it was not just known in research circles at that point, but common knowledge, so common it was the basis of that little joke.
Keith99 is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 02:00 PM
  #27  
Mmm hm!
Thread Starter
 
agent pombero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,164
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ITLB, where is Russel's teapot now?
agent pombero is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 02:09 PM
  #28  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year
Angio Graham is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 02:22 PM
  #29  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
Ah yes, the enviable list of motor vehicle deaths... which really only goes to show how many people died in a situation some how related to the use of a motor vehicle.

The list does not show how safe or unsafe using a cell phone (or drinking a soda) while driving may be; and there is no correlation between the list and safety features added to motor vehicles, features that while preventing deaths, do not prevent crashes. And of course the list doesn't show any connection between texting motorists and survivable crashes into cyclists... the latter data which is compiled by no one.

Citing that list... one might assume that no texting drivers have hit any bicycle riding persons, ever. Further proof of nothing.
genec is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 03:38 PM
  #30  
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
$2,000 extortion for doing something that hasn't even been proven to be dangerous ?

Da police state salutes you comrade !!
If you are so against, not being allowed to talk on your cell phone while you are driving, then why bother even getting on a bike. If you are such a proponent of distracted driving, why even bother paying attention to the road while you are driving.

Your cell phone is obviously more important, than paying attention to the road. Killing another innocent motorist, courtesy of your ambivalent ignorance, would be no skin off your nose, I'm sure.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 04:27 PM
  #31  
DancesWithSUVs
 
dynaryder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Griffin Cycle Bethesda,MD
Posts: 6,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
$2,000 extortion for doing something that hasnt even been proven to be dangerous ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc

Or if you don't want to watch the videos:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBus..._Drunk_Driving
__________________

C'dale BBU('05 and '09)/Super Six/Hooligan8and 3,Kona Dew Deluxe,Novara Buzz/Safari,Surly Big Dummy,Marin Pt Reyes,Giant Defy 1,Schwinn DBX SuperSport,Dahon Speed Pro TT,Brompton S6L/S2E-X
dynaryder is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 04:49 PM
  #32  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
…And anti lock brakes, and traction/stability control systems, and on board “driver you are about to run off the road/hit something” notification/take over control of the vehicle, systems.

Yes, today’s cars are much safer! Which helps lower the annual death rate. I believe the recession has also lowered the total miles driven in recent years. Pretty hard to kill someone/die in your car when you're not driving it.

Unfortunately we have done nothing to improve the operator of these safer machines.
None of these safety devices do a thing for preventing or mitigating the effects of bicycling-motor vehicle collisions.

All the research in the laboratory about the "distraction factor" of cellphones has not been linked in any way with an increasing number of motor vehicle accidents as a result of cell phone use, and specifically no evidence has been demonstrated of rising number of bicycling-motor vehicle collisions with or without cell phone involvement.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 04:56 PM
  #33  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
None of these safety devices do a thing for preventing or mitigating the effects of bicycling-motor vehicle collisions.

All the research in the laboratory about the "distraction factor" of cellphones has not been linked in any way with an increasing number of motor vehicle accidents as a result of cell phone use, and specifically no evidence has been demonstrated of rising number of bicycling-motor vehicle collisions with or without cell phone involvement.
And who exactly would be collecting such data... especially if a cyclist was merely injured vice killed... as there is no agency tasked to do so, and police departments are reluctant to even bother to respond to walk away injury collisions. And of course... since hit and runs are on the rise... who is collecting data for those?

The bottom line is that cell phone use, especially texting IS distracting... what results from that distraction is unknown at this point... especially with regards to cyclists, and largely due to the lack of a mechanism to collect any potential data.

So essentially what you are saying is that since there is no definitive proof of distracted drivers hitting cyclists, it must not be happening?

Russel's teapot eh?

Last edited by genec; 04-09-13 at 05:00 PM.
genec is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 04:58 PM
  #34  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by agent pombero
Too many drivers think they're celebrities & need that constant connectedness. It's disgusting and very narcissistic.
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
It doesn't surprise me. Look how long some refused to believe cigarettes caused any health issues, even decades after we had plenty of "proof".

So, see? For some, it really doesn't matter how much proof you have.
Sure, how many people believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories because the truth just isn't satisfying enough? Emotionalism is driving this train.

Why not revive rants about women (or pick your favorite boogyman/minority) drivers, they are just as soundly "proved" as causes of bicycling-motor vehicle collisions?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:00 PM
  #35  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,942

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,511 Times in 1,027 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
And who exactly would be collecting such data... especially if a cyclist was merely injured vice killed... as there is no agency tasked to do so, and police departments are reluctant to even bother to respond walk away injury collisions. And of course... since hit and runs are on the rise... who is collecting data for those?

The bottom line is that cell phone use, especially texting IS distracting... what results from that distraction is unknown at this point... especially in regards to cyclists, and largely due to no mechanism to collect any potential data.
Therefore if the truth is unknown and uncollected, anything goes.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:06 PM
  #36  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
Therefore if the truth is unknown and uncollected, anything goes.
No, it is a tricky area... But since there is no mechanism in place to collect any data regarding cyclists, this is one of those issues that can only be addressed by simulation and speculation.

It would be nice if in the case of any collision, the first thing that was checked were cell phone records... but unless someone is killed that isn't even likely to happen. And if a driver is sober, police tend to give way to "it was an accident."

Yet all the data out there suggests that motorists distracted by texting are going to be less than competent motorists.
genec is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:10 PM
  #37  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,228
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4217 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
Fatalities might not be show a negative effect of cell-phone use.

What you need is the accident rate.

It would be expected that air-bags would reduce fatalities (and injuries) when it would be expected that air-bags would have no effect on the accident rates.

https://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

There's some missing data (data from before 2004 is every 5 years) but total number of accidents per year was fairly flat from 1995 through 2009 except for 1990 and 2000 (even though US population has grown about 25% since 1990).

https://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...atalities.html

https://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...s%20population


Here's a bit of information about the number of cell phone subscribers since 1997.

https://www.ctia.org/advocacy/researc....cfm/aid/10323

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-09-13 at 05:31 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:14 PM
  #38  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
Fatalities might not be the best indicator of a negative effect of cell-phone use.

What you need is the accident rate.

It would be expected that air-bags would reduce fatalities (and injuries) when it would clearly-unexpected that air-bags would have no effect on the accident rates.

I agree fully.

And to determine if cell phones are a factor, one needs cell phone records and collision rates specific to motorists hitting cyclists... which is data no one is collecting.

So do we then assume that this is a non issue, as ILTB might have us believe?
genec is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:40 PM
  #39  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,228
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4217 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
I agree fully.

And to determine if cell phones are a factor, one needs cell phone records and collision rates specific to motorists hitting cyclists... which is data no one is collecting.
It would be interesting to have the phone records for all collisions.

Originally Posted by genec
So do we then assume that this is a non issue, as ILTB might have us believe?
Let's assume that 5% (pick a smaller number, if you like) of collisions are caused by cell phones. If that is the case, then it would account for 500,000 accidents annually. Even with that large number, it wouldn't have an obvious effect on the total number of accidents (10 million per year).

Since cell phones really have nothing to do with the act of driving, there isn't much excuse for cell-phones being the cause of any accidents. And it's not that hard not to use cell-phones when driving.

One could argue that cell-phone use has no significant contribution to your overall risk but it's a cheap thing to fix. So, why not try to fix it?

People who argue (no one here) that we should focus first on "more significant" risks might be making the mistake of focusing on hard-to-fix things when it might make more sense to first eliminate a cheap/easy "less significant" risk (such as cell-phone use) which will start "paying dividends" immediately. And, there isn't any reason one can't focus on more than one thing at the same time.

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-09-13 at 05:48 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:41 PM
  #40  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It is a FACT that as cell phone usage has gone UP fatalities have gone DOWN.

How many of you are advocating for stronger DUI laws ? How many of you drink alcohol ?
Angio Graham is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:51 PM
  #41  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,228
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4217 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
It is a FACT that as cell phone usage has gone UP fatalities have gone DOWN.
It might be hard for you to understand the arguments.

Again, it's accident rates that matter. Fatalities as a measure are confounded by things like air bags.

There's ample evidence that cell-phone use is distracting. Cell-phone use has nothing to do with the act of driving. Therefore, there is no rational reason to allow it.

The risk of cell-phone use appears many, many times more frequent than cops abusing cyclists.

Originally Posted by Angio Graham
How many of you are advocating for stronger DUI laws ? How many of you drink alcohol ?
??? You aren't making much sense. Are you advocating eliminating DUI laws? Do you drink and drive?

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-09-13 at 05:56 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 05:59 PM
  #42  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,531 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
It would be interesting to have the phone records for all collisions.


Let's assume that 5% (pick a smaller number, if you like) of collisions are caused by cell phones. If that is the case, then it would account for 500,000 accidents annually. Even with that large number, it wouldn't have an obvious effect on the total number of accidents (10 million per year).

Since cell phones really have nothing to do with the act of driving, there isn't much excuse for cell-phones being the cause of any accidents. And it's not that hard not to use cell-phones when driving.

One could argue that cell-phone use has no significant contribution to your overall risk but it's a cheap thing to fix. So, why not try to fix it?

People who argue (no one here) that we should focus first on "more significant" risks might be making the mistake of focusing on hard-to-fix things when it might make more sense to first eliminate a cheap/easy "less significant" risk (such as cell-phone use) which will start "paying dividends" immediately. And, there isn't any reason one can't focus on more than one thing at the same time.
I hear you loud and clear... and this is an argument that Helmet Head used to make all the time... the low hanging fruit argument.

However, if you look at the most experienced cyclists here... the ones that use all the best practices for cycling, have experience and training, and wear proper gear and use quality lighting and have taken the responsibilities to make themselves predictable and obvious... The next thing to address for these folks is the factor of "Other" on the roadway.

How do we reduce the risks to ourselves (the aforementioned cyclists) if the other road users are not holding up their end of the bargain and are NOT being responsible road users themselves?

To give the most gross example I can... consider Ken Kifer and his experience as a cyclist... taken out by a drunk on the road...
genec is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 07:40 PM
  #43  
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
It is a FACT that as cell phone usage has gone UP fatalities have gone DOWN.

How many of you are advocating for stronger DUI laws ? How many of you drink alcohol ?
You are are wrong about fatalities as a result of distracted driving going down: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafet...acted_driving/


Stronger DUI laws, certainly. Along with law enforcement and the judicial system applying the same laws to motorists', when they hit a cyclist. That are applied, when a motorist hits/kills another motorist.

Now, On the Alcohol question. I don't drink alcohol because of medication to control a congenital(from birth) health condition. When I drank it in high school, I only had to be concerned about it affecting my meds, since I was never the 'designated driver'. Regardless, The only time I have ever become 'blitzed', was the night before my wedding. Ever since then, I don't touch alcohol. It all tastes like bad foot odor to me.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 07:42 PM
  #44  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
It might be hard for you to understand the arguments.

Again, it's accident rates that matter. Fatalities as a measure are confounded by things like air bags.

There's ample evidence that cell-phone use is distracting. Cell-phone use has nothing to do with the act of driving. Therefore, there is no rational reason to allow it.

The risk of cell-phone use appears many, many times more frequent than cops abusing cyclists.


??? You aren't making much sense. Are you advocating eliminating DUI laws? Do you drink and drive?
Well it appears ACCIDENTS are also going down in America.

https://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf


There is significant evidence that despite cell phone usage the roads are safer for fatalities AND accidents.

happy now ?

Last edited by Angio Graham; 04-09-13 at 07:49 PM.
Angio Graham is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 08:04 PM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
rekmeyata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 9,151

Bikes: 2020 Masi Giramondo 700c; 2013 Lynskey Peloton; 1992 Giant Rincon; 1989 Dawes needs parts; 1985 Trek 660; 1985 Fuji Club; 1984 Schwinn Voyager; 1984 Miyata 612; 1977 Raleigh Competition GS

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1092 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 188 Posts
Originally Posted by agent pombero
You're so funny ILTB!



You're so misinformed, comrade! Let me know if you need any extra reading material! I have bucketloads more!


All those people and studies are all bias, all bought and paid for by the insurance industry. Cell phones are and especially texting is completely 100% safe to use while driving. No one needs to be looking out the windshield all the time just to drive. Come on man, be serious.

Seriously it would be real easy to prevent people from using their cell phones while driving. All newer cell phones have GPS in them whether their used for mapping services or not. So all the phone companies have to do is program all phones to shut down after it's detected that it's moving faster then 15mph. Some police agencies are all ready doing this with the patrol cars computers due to increase crashes among the police agencies, and that same technology not only exist for cell phones but would be very easy to implement.
rekmeyata is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 08:12 PM
  #46  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 428
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
All those people and studies are all bias, all bought and paid for by the insurance industry. Cell phones are and especially texting is completely 100% safe to use while driving. No one needs to be looking out the windshield all the time just to drive. Come on man, be serious.

Seriously it would be real easy to prevent people from using their cell phones while driving. All newer cell phones have GPS in them whether their used for mapping services or not. So all the phone companies have to do is program all phones to shut down after it's detected that it's moving faster then 15mph. Some police agencies are all ready doing this with the patrol cars computers due to increase crashes among the police agencies, and that same technology not only exist for cell phones but would be very easy to implement.
so if you are a passenger in the car or on a bus or a train.........?

how about privacy issues ?

how about stop advocating for new laws when there is no proof cell phone usage is so dangerous.
Angio Graham is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 08:41 PM
  #47  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,228
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4217 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
Well it appears ACCIDENTS are also going down in America.

https://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf


There is significant evidence that despite cell phone usage the roads are safer for fatalities AND accidents.

happy now ?
Congratulations on finding the link I provided!

Anyway, no, I'm not happy that you still don't get it. Though, you might be in over your head.

Read this post carefully to see why the overall data might not show the problem:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post15491132

Originally Posted by Angio Graham
so if you are a passenger in the car or on a bus or a train.........?
You got this one right.

Originally Posted by Angio Graham
how about privacy issues ?
What "privacy issues"? Nobody's privacy is compromised. You didn't get this one right.

Originally Posted by Angio Graham
how about stop advocating for new laws when there is no proof cell phone usage is so dangerous.
What's the exact number of many accidents or fatalities that would cause it to be significant to you?

You are way in over your head. Your "contributions" here and your other posts are clear evidence of that.

Last edited by njkayaker; 04-09-13 at 08:55 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 08:46 PM
  #48  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,228
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4217 Post(s)
Liked 1,313 Times in 910 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris516
You are are wrong about fatalities as a result of distracted driving going down: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving.
It isn't clear how much of that distracted driving is distraction due to cell-phones.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 09:00 PM
  #49  
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Delaware shore
Posts: 13,568

Bikes: Cervelo C5, Guru Photon, Waterford, Specialized CX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1099 Post(s)
Liked 2,132 Times in 1,438 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker

There's ample evidence that cell-phone use is distracting. Cell-phone use has nothing to do with the act of driving. Therefore, there is no rational reason to allow it.

??? You aren't making much sense.
Whoa! Now you're not making sense. Cell-phone use has nothing to do with the act of driving and therefore no rational reason to allow it?

Neither is listening to music or talk radio, conversing with passengers, eating food, drinking sodas or coffee, etc.

I agree that lawmakers can decide to ban cell-phone use if they desire because it's distracting or something similar but not for the reason you gave.
StanSeven is offline  
Old 04-09-13, 10:06 PM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Angio Graham
Well it appears ACCIDENTS are also going down in America.


https://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf




There is significant evidence that despite cell phone usage the roads are safer for fatalities AND accidents.


happy now ?
Even "accidents" ("collisions" is a better word, since negligence isn't an accident) isn't the correct measure. The are also confounding factors there, such as the fact that ABS and so on can help to prevent collisions. It's a better measure than death rates, but still not a great metric. You simply can't draw the conclusion you are trying to from such limited data, and no one is collecting the data needed to make an accurate judgment. Aother big factor is that DUI is way down due to decades of stigmatization of it. So perhaps the decrease in DUI causes the rate to go down by a lot, while the increase in cell use causes it to go up by a lesser amount. The overall rate still ones down, and there is no way to tell if it would have gone down MORE without the cell phones without accurate data on the cause of collisions.


See why your reasoning is overly simplistic now?
mnemia is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.