I-Like-To-Bike

Note the post I specifically responded to, the poster specifically wrote of the "statistical fact" supporting his contention of increased risk to cyclists. I asked for his reference. Seems the obvious question/response to his unsupported claim.

howsteepisit

One of the problems of trying to determine any increase of risk due to cell phones is that most of the cited references lump cell phone use, testing , and all other sorts of distracted driving behaviors. The data is simply not collected to determine what distraction lead to the incident, or better yet the near incident. In fact, I was once cited for distracted driving when I fell asleep at the wheel and wrecked the car. I don't think I would argue that falling asleep is the same as texting, but that's the way the reporting system works. As a result, we have so many confounding factors in traffic accidents that teasing one of them out is nearly impossible. at the same time, there are numerous studies that show cell phone use is distracting, but how that correlates to actual accident occurrence rates is in-determinant.

My personal observation is that people on cell phones or texting certainly appear to be riskier drivers, but proving that is impossible. So like many things one has to use their own judgement and experience to determine if they are willing to accept the risk that distracted drivers pose to the cyclist.

By the way, what the heck is a statistical fact? When I studied statistics we could only determine the liklyhood of finding the null true.

I-Like-To-Bike

A very reasonable and thoughtful response to the OP.

Perhaps the poster (D1andonlyDman) who introduced the term "statistical fact" might explain it when he provides a reference for his statistical facts on the topic.

CbadRider

I deleted the childish name-calling. Let's not go there, please.