What about the 43,000 observed drivers? This study clearly found that 6% of them were using cell phones. How much simpler do you need it explained? Are you claiming that it is impossible to measure such a statistic accurately? Since this is such an important statistic, it should be very easily measured and repeated and refuted if wrong. Do you have any studies that refute this? Btw, what would you consider to be an acceptable ratio of accident to usage?
All of these comments imply that the study somehow UNDER reported cell phone usage. You are only making my point for me, as a higher true cell usage rate would allow for a higher acceptable cell accident rate.
I do not know why you think the NHTSB is biased and trying to minimize the rate of cell phone use for some reason. They are not biased, they have no reason to minimize cell phone use. Anyone doing such a study would know that anyone can easily confirm their data using a similar public sample on any road and get similar results. The other question might be in regards to the Harvard study reporting a 6% cell involved accident rate…Assuming a 6% usage rate, what is a reasonable accident rate?
The proper cell accident question to go with the cell usage stat is this: What percentage of cars INVOLVED in accidents were using cell phones at the time of the accident? This will result in a much lower number, as there are many more cars involved than there are accidents. This is only fair because assuming, no causation, each car would be accused of being responsible regardless of true guilt.
Because cell phone usage is so high (6&), it makes perfect sense that 6% of cars in accidents will be using cell phones…duh.
6% of drivers doing anything will be on the cell phone!
6% of drivers in red cars will be on their cell phone!
6% of drivers in blue cars will be on their cell phone!
6% of green cars will be on their cell phone!
Likewise, 6% of cars in accidents will be on their cell phone. There is NO CAUSATION!
If there was causation, it would stick out like a big fat sore thumb in the accident statistics. IT’S NOT THERE!
If it was there, don’t you think the NSC and NHTSB would point to it? They don’t because it is not there and they need to do a lot of hand waving about a fraction of the picture(reaction times, etc) while conveniently ignoring the NET bottom line.
The fact remains, if there are tangible negative effects such as slower reaction times, than something is making up for it. This is very interesting for anyone really interested in public safety.
I suspect it is mostly about aggressive driving. When I am on a cell phone, I drive WAY less aggressively. I speed less, I don’t change lanes to pass slower cars, I don’t do stupid things. I suspect that aggressive driving is responsible for WAY more accidents than cell phone distractions are, thus offsetting any negative effects from slower reaction times. If this is true, is it ok to “trade” such benefits for negative impacts?
I don’t dispute that of the 43,000 drivers observed in the study you cited, they were able to determine 6% of the observed drivers where using cell phones. What I dispute is the conclusion that YOU have drawn from that statistic. The people who conducted the study didn’t draw the same conclusion as you. In fact, they did not even attempt to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Therefore, their results indicate nothing about your hypothesis, either positively or negatively.
If you want to convince me that people are better drivers when they are on the phone, please prove it. Don’t just throw out an obscure statistic and claim it supports your belief. That isn’t proof. It isn’t even close to proof.
On Mythbusters, a TV show on the Discovery channel, they took two drivers and had them drive though an obstacle course to establish a baseline. The obstacle course was designed to mimic everyday driving hazards. Then they had the same two drivers drive through the obstacle course while on the phone and measured the difference in performance. Then they had the same two drivers drive through the obstacle course while talking on the phone with hands-free devices. Then, they got both drivers legally drunk and had them drive the same obstacle course again. Their results showed that the drivers talking on a cell phone performed at about the same level as when they were drunk. In fact, one of the drivers did slightly better when he was drunk compared to when he was on the phone. They also found that hands free devices didn’t make a difference. It was the lack of attention to driving that made the difference.
Several other studies have shown the same results as Mythbsters. Here are some links to articles that cite these studies:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/06/cell_phones_distaction.html
http://www.foodconsumer.org/777/8/Driving_While_on_Cell_Phone_Worse_Than_Driving_While_Drunk.shtml
http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
Here is an artlcle published by the NHTSA and the Department of Transportation that actually addresses what highway safety researchers have learned about cell phone use:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/PDF/nrd-13/BentsF_doc.pdf
Here is an article that compares young people on cell phones to elderly drivers:
http://web.utah.edu/unews/releases/05/feb/cellphones.html
If you want more proof, just let me know.
I would say yes it is important to look at the net impact. Kind of like saying vaccinations are worth doing in spite of some people having an allergic reaction. The NET affect is what is considered.
These only prove that there exist some negative effects from cell phone use. I don’t dispute that. I can think of other positive effects and other neutral effects. The studies you refer to don’t consider the NET results from ALL the affects. As for my referring to the 6% cell phone use rate, I was only using it for that purpose; To ask how many drivers are using their cell phones at any one time. I think these 43,000 people answer that question pretty well. The more important question, then, is how many cars involved in accidents are using cell phones? I referred to a study by the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis that the NSC article also referred to which bragged about a 6% rate as if that was a lot. IT’S NOT A LOT IF 6% OF DRIVERS ARE ON THE PHONE AT ANY ONE TIME!!! Do you dispute this statistic also?
Who cares about the details?!..
…anyone who is interested in finding the TRUTH.
Are you claiming that this number is way overstated and thus the percentage of accidents are wildly higher than the percentage of drivers using cell phones?
I have been pretty clear about what I am claiming. I don’t think I need to say it twice.
I do not know why you think the NHTSB is biased and trying to minimize the rate of cell phone use for some reason.
I don’t. I only questioned their methodology and the conclusion you have drawn from the data.
Wow. I have never seen so many responses to a single post by one person. You obviously believe your position very strongly. It is unfortunate you could not express all those thoughts in a single post.
The statistics and the study to which you refer don’t support your belief. If you have some actual proof to support your belief, please share it. I look forward to reading it.
You keep going back to that number that 6% number. What is that supposed to prove? Please explain it to me because I just don’t see what it proves other than the conclusions stated in the study, which seem to omit your strange belief. If you have some proof, don’t hold back. Share it already.
I would be glad to clarify for you, as you seem to be confused about the 6% numbers I keep referring to. There are TWO 6% numbers, and that is what I find so interesting. The first 6% is the rate of cell phone use as determined by the 43,000 people observed by the NHTSB. This you agreed not to dispute, thank you. The second 6% number is the percent of accidents that involve cell phones as determined by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and cited by the National Safety Council as if that is a disproportionally high number. My hypothesis is this: THESE TWO STATISTICS TOGETHER ILLUSTRATE THAT THERE IS NO CAUSATION BETWEEN THE NET EFFECTS OF CELL PHONE USE AND THE QUANTITY OF ACCIDENTS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE ATTRIBUTED TO CELL PHONE USE.
Capeesh?