Cell phone use study

An older study, long before the roads were littered with bodies from this.

formatting link
Conclusions

From the results of the study that has been described in this report, the following conclusions may be offered.

  1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic situations and increase in time to respond.
  2. Complex, intense conversation leads to the greatest increases in likelihood of overlooking significant highway traffic conditions, and the time to respond to them. The distracting effect is similar to that of tuning a radio. The effect of placing calls or engaging in casual conversation is less of a problem, although, calling tends to retard responses.
  3. The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers over age 50 is two- to three-times as great as that of younger drivers and encompasses all three aspects of cellular phone use - placing calls and carrying on simple and complex conversations. The effect is to increase non-response by 33-38%.
  4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use.
Reply to
Rich
Loading thread data ...

If the roads are littered with bodies from "this", then why do the accident and fatality rates continue to be historically low? If cell phone use was of any significance to accidents, the huge increase in such cell phone use would have caused a similarly huge increase in accidents. Since accidents have not gone up either cell phones aren't a problem OR something else is countering the cell phone increase. Since there seems to be nothing much new that would reduce accidents by any huge amount it follows that cell phones have not caused any huge increase in accidents, In fact, it seems they have not caused any increase in accidents. All that's increased is the nutty claims about cell phone use.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

Studies, like statistics, say what the information provider wants them to say. I didn't look up the link, but the older the study, the less solid it's information when compared to more recent conflicting studies. Just compare medical studies on how many eggs you can or can not eat.

And the moment you make such a blatantly over exaggerated statement as "An older study, long before the roads were littered with bodies from this." the reader is far less apt to believe.

While I have nothing handy to back it up, it is my guess that there is a far higher accident rate caused by collisions with wildlife. One need only travel the NY Turnpike and count the deer carcasses. Vehicles get more than hunters. So, should we outlaw animals? Or should we invest billions to redo the roadways to prevent any altercation between animals and vehicles? Spike

1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. Feb 2004 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpgFeb 2004 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpgJul 2005 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpgJul 2005 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg
Reply to
Spike

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.