I would like to add that the rate of accidents, whether the driver is talking on a cell phone or driving drunk, will always be relatively low. Drunk drivers can get behind the wheel, and the majority of the time will either get pulled over or make it home. Likewise, someone who regularly talks on the phone while driving could go a very long time without being in an accident. However, in either case, when the odds catch up with the driver, the results will have more impact on people’s lives than that low probability number reflects. The costs in lost life, injuries, and damaged property isn’t properly represented in those “6%” statistics. I would like to see a statistic on something like “The average victim of a drunk driver spends XXX hours in the hospital and misses XXX days of work.” or “The average accident involving cell phones leads to $XX in property damage.”
If anyone leaps to the conclusion that talking on the phone makes one a better driver, why does all the evidence point in the opposite direction? Where is the evidence backing up that assumption? The only studies looking for causation have shown that cell phone use increases the chances of having being in an accident. Even if cell phones don’t cause accidents, avoiding accidents is the goal, no matter who is at fault.
Thank you, dagosa, I AM happy now that you are talking about the merits of these concepts. You make an interesting point about eliminating the 6% of cell phone drivers. I think I agree with you, but to achieve that 6% accident savings, you must actually prevent those 6% of drivers from driving at all with or without cell phones. Without cell phones, they will get into the same accidents everyone else gets into.
The other 94% of the drivers make up 94% of the accidents, so any “new converts” will also produce accidents at the same rate as the old non cell users. Net change=0
If you are going to compare cell driving with drunk driving, what percentage of drivers do you think are drunk on average? I don’t know the answer to that except I really do believe (my opinion, again) it is way less than 7% which is the rate of alcohol related accidents. If that were the case, this would be a very different case from the cell use situation.
The world may never know how many drunk drivers make it home safely each day. There is no way to count that. The best we can do is estimate, and I am not going to try.
The only reason I compare drunk drivers with those who drive on the phone is that many experiments have proven that each activity comparably impairs a driver’s ability to react to changing traffic situations and hazards.
I honestly don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to try to know that information, but hey, it’s not your responsibility, I guess…It’s not like you are a public figure advocating positions on major issues affecting millions of people or anything…Don’t you think it would be useful to compare the observed risk factors between the two activities? Maybe there are other activities that you would want to compare it to.
In any case, I’m sure that it is way less than 7%…I’m guessing maybe 2-3%??? Maybe even less? Do you acknowledge that that is a reasonable guess? If so, why would cell phone statistics be treated differently?
That is crap? What are they doing asking people who cause accidents Were you on your cell phone when you caused this pile up? Real scientific studies show people cannot devote enough time to driving while on a phone, not even close.
In any case, I’m sure that it is way less than 7%…I’m guessing maybe 2-3%??? Maybe even less? Do you acknowledge that that is a reasonable guess?
Why would I acknowledge a guess? Why would I treat a guess like a statistic? I believe that treating a guess like a fact only leads to people not taking you seriously.
Amen, CSA
Banning mobile phone use while driving may seem like a good idea, but
it smacks of elitism. Some will say, ?Why just cell phones? Why not
2-way business, amateur, or CB radios?? Once it starts, it never
ends. I’m a ham, and I resent anything that can result in the
prohibition of mobile communications of any sort.
Some people want to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator
because some idiot threw caution to the wind. This concept is ‘equal
justice under law’, and it’s Communist malarkey.
We must stand up to those touchy-feely psychobabble spouting
overreactors, and just say ?Talk to the hand!?, like the Terminator.
Furthermore, I hereby suggest that somebody create something similar
to the Moxie horse car (a vehicle outfitted with a life-size model of
a horse, with a steering wheel at the rider position), but have a
glass and aluminum phone booth where the driver’s seat and door
usually are, in brazen and blatant defiance of the contemptibles who
want to infringe on our freedom.
Obviously, you can’t drive such a thing on the public roadways, so it
would be wise to hack a car you couldn’t drive on the public ways
even without the modification.
Siebsig Drei,
Geschlechlichinginieur
Because I wanted to use a little common sense to illustrate that the drunk driving statistics differ from the cell phone statistics. What’s wrong with using a little common sense if you are transparent about it? That’s what makes people better at some things than robots! If you were to think that 7% of all drivers are drunk, then it would be my opinion that you are nuts! …or drunk!
If I am wrong about that, of course, my theorem falls apart…so I am interested in some sort of reality based statistic…Police must have a sense of what the odds are for randomly encountering drunk drivers.
Common sense tells me you have a vested interest in not seeing your theorem fall apart, so you are obviously biased. Common sense also tells me that debating imaginary statistics would be pointless. It would be like debating who would win a fight between two comic book super heroes, and I am old enough to know that conversation would be a waste of my time.
I don’t know if the amount of people who drive while on the phone is comparable to the number of people who drive drunk and I don’t care to know. In my opinion it is irrelevent. In my opinion, innocent drivers and passengers deserve protection from both types of drivers regardless of any statistic you find…or make up.
According to thoretical math, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primaries and the general elections in 2008 and 2012! (See the political cartoon below.)
Sounds like the the same imaginary statistics to validate 8 years of trickle down economics; as we wait for the rich to trickle on us they instead invest in foreign companies in foreign stock exchanges. That’s the why it’s so worthless to extrapolate with statistics. Only conclude on what the study says and NO MORE…
“Thank you, dagosa, I AM happy now that you are talking about the merits of these concepts.”
I was not talking about the merits…just giving an equally invalid conclusion as an example; which didn’t work I can see.
Wuh? I don’t get that analogy at all!!! I’d say it’s more like the fuel additive that is just more fuel…By “adding” “cell phone drivers” you are not adding anything else but stuff that yields the same results as the original stuff.
It seems so obvious to me…if 6% of all drivers drove red cars and 6% of all accidents involved red cars, I would also say the same thing: That there is no abnormal relationship (no causation) between your car being red and accidents. How is this different?
As for using multiple sources, don’t actuaries do this exact thing all day long? For example, they might want to know what the risk is for a particular age group and for somebody that has a particular history of traffic violations. They will make all sorts of permutations using all sorts of reputable data…and produce information that insurance companies will pay good money for.
I’m sure some percentage of those [hypothetical] red car drivers might be mid-life crisis maniacs who are compensating for something with “pull-me-over-red” Corvets, and they might very well get into more accidents than everyone else. This would show up statistically unless there were something else of equal weight balancing it out…I don’t know, maybe by little old ladies in pink(a little bit red) Cadillacs who get into less accidents? There could be all sorts of factors, but the bottom line remains faithful to the question.
That might be proof if deaths per driven mile were directly related. I think “accidents per driven mile” would be a better measure. In addition, this might be proof if you could eliminate all the other variables that contribute to decreased deaths per driven mile. Automotive safety equipment has improved. Airbags (particularly side curtain air bags), crumple zones, safety cages, anti-roll-over technology, ABS, traction control, stability management, and other safety developments are present in a larger percentage of cars than they were 10-15 years ago and have led to more people surviving accidents. With cars being safer, accident rates can increase while automotive deaths decrease. In addition, you could attribute decreased deaths to increased seatbelt use and a focus on enforcement of seatbelt and drunk driving laws.
An appropriate comparison would be motorcycle helmet laws. Some states have repealed their helmet laws but have also made a motorcycle safety class mandatory for all riders. If they make both changes at the same time and motorcycle deaths decrease, did deaths decrease because people don’t have to wear a helmet or is it because they are now required to take a motorcycle safety class before they can ride? Which would be the more logical assumption? I think the logical assumption is that riders who have taken the safety class are better at preventing collisions.
I guess if death was the only bad impact of cell phone use, you would be correct. I believe, however, that a preventable collision also qualifies as a “bad impact” of cell phone use. (No pun intended, [i]really![/i])