Re: Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

At least not while they're driving. Them parrots is smart. ;-)

Well, duh! Obviously they use a Parrot Bluetooth hands-free car kit. ;-)

Live without what? Good quoting is the key to avoid these exchanges. And while at it, fix your sig.

Sure it could be done correctly but there's no glory in finding "no relationship" and no further funding. You could set up a simulator, have the people drive it for an hour or two to get familiar with it, then give them THIER PERSONAL cell phone back, then program the computer to RANDOMLY call that phone no more then once in any 30 minute period during a two hour drive. You would NOT instruct the drivers to ANSWER the phone. You would not even let the drivers know that you are studying cell phone effects. All you would tell them is that they are doing a driving test but that if someone calls them on their phone it's ok for them to answer it if they want because they know it's a long boring test and it's OK if they want to talk to someone or make a call. As you can see, doing something that's anywhere close to a proper experiment would take a LOT of time and effort to actually pin down the CELL PHONE effects. So instead, they throw someone in a simulator, tell them they ARE to answer the cell phone OR make a call WHEN TOLD TO. Which, or course, they arrange to tell them to do so at the worst possible time, like in the middle of a turn when they have some pedestrian jump out from behind a car.

Among the results was that cell phone users disobeyed the speed limits, by which one assumes they were speeding, followed by, in the next sentence, that cell phone use results in slower speeds.... Bottom of page 3. In other parts they base conclusions on observations at accident scenes such as whether there was a cell phone present.. easy enough to see how screwed up that data will be, just like how when the police don't know what really caused an accident they just check the box for "speeding" since surely they must have been speeding or they wouldn't have had an accident!!! So they do the same for cell phones.. there's an accident, look around for a cell phone, there's one!!! Accident caused by cell phone - bias confirmed!!!

Interesting reports but nearly useless, just grist for the politically correct hatred of people using cell phones. It's all part of the American psyche - anything pleasurable has to be bad and by golly the authorities are going to prove it is. Just like they are still looking for reasons people should stop drinking coffee....

A simulation is a controlled environment, and it can only simulate a few major known scenarios but it's impossible to include all real-life scenarios. The only more creditable method that I could think of is to install a dashboard cam and point it to the driver to record every movement, and then periodically upload data to a national database until an accident, major or minor, happena. This is one of sure ways that we will know that if a car accident, large or small, reported or unreported, is caused by using hand-held cell phone. There might be other ways just that I don?t know. But, obviously, it will be a costly experiment and who is going to pay?

The logic behind banning using hand-held cell phone is quite easy to comprehend though everyone may agree or disagree.

Distraction or distracted driving is a proven cause of car accidents, and there is nothing to argue about it. So their goal is to reduce the overall distraction with a few pr-determined criteria, such as the level of the distraction, the necessity of the distraction, and enforceability, (and fill in the blank), etc.

It shouldn?t be surprised for that using hand-held cell phone will quickly come up to the top of list and then is being selected.

Distraction is the effect, and actions such as using cell phone, listening to music, falling asleep while driving, and so on are factors caused the effect, and their logic is to reduce factors that will have a greater effect, and of no good reasons (in most cases), and also enforceable.

This will save a lot of money and requires no experiment for every possible distraction to get so-called scientific data. Of course, it?s everyone?s own decision to determine if the logic is reasonable.

Nor glory in finding the opposite.

I doubt it. In the case of coffee and sex, drugs and rock and roll, the laws are bad in principal because the state has no business in saving people from themselves. In the case of cellphone use, until it is proved that it does not endanger others, the ban on hand helds while driving is sensible.

nobody is going to tolerate a dashcam watching their every move.

actually it doesn't. there are many other factors that are more distracting. cellphones are just easy to target.

yet nobody is trying to ban listening to music, eating food, children in the vehicle and other causes. they're only targeting cellphones.

Actually it does. You have misunderstood xfile. You have the scope of the force "come to the top" wrong. He means it is easy to identify and legislate against and is obviously a distraction. Similar to your idea except without your misguided and biased "just".

So what? You have a bagful of non-sequitors, almost limitless.

Under your theory, until it is proven that carrying passengers, particularly young children, does not endanger others, passengers should be banned from cars.

One of the studies cited by someone in this thread a day or two ago included such a study. As best I recall, it did not show any real harm from cell phone use, it showed a slight change in how people responded but not any statistically significant change in harmful events.

This is one of sure ways that we

Yet no one blinks an eye that the cops are using their HANDHELD radio microphones along with TYPING on their Mobile Data Terminals all day long, day in and day out including while they are engaged in high speed pursuits. Isn't it amazing that when the "authorities" want to do something, suddenly it's not a problem.

And where's the evidence that the cell phone use isn't IN LIEU of those other distractions yielding no net change in harmful outcomes? One might point to the overall accident statistics that continue their downward trend as evidence of that, although we can't say it's conclusive. We do know that as the use of cell phones as increased ASTONOMICLALY in the past decades, the accident and death rates have continued their downward trend.

We saw all this same stupidity play out with the National 55 mph speed limit. Yet in the end, the statistics, NOT THE BIASED RESEARCH, didn't support the harm of letting people drive the speed they are comfortable driving.

Unfortunately its not everyone decision. Like the 55, and Daytime Driving Lights, the safety Nazi's will work tirelessly on biased research trying justify their desire to tell others how they MUST live their lives. There is zero long term evidence that DRL's are a NET benefit, yet all of Europe has them and the safety Nazi's keep lobbying for them here.

No, that is not *under* my theory at all. It is part of the function of passenger cars to have passengers. Not all risks can or should be legislated against. Talking and texting on a hand held while actual

I remember reading similar posts but didn't comment because it is also a controlled environment. By itself, it may not be significant, but adding up other factors, outcome becomes more and more complicated and difficult to anticipate. What I proposed is to implement in real-life at least with a large scale. The current method of determining if using hand-held cell phone was involved by investigations *after* a car accident, as noted by many, has too many flaws.

The fundamental logical fallacy presented at the very beginning of the tread by the OP is that in order to establish a relationship between car accidents and car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone, we need some sort of creditable data for number of car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone, which we don?t have, and understandably as mentioned, is rather difficult to gather and verify.

A simple math can prove otherwise:

1 and 3 are numbers of car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone; 10 and 6 are numbers of total accidents. In this case, the numbers of total car accidents go down while the numbers of car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone go up, which is independent to the total cell phone usages ?in car? may go up or down.

Personally, I don?t have a definite answer for whether or not, using hand-held cell phone, will indisputably increase or has no effects on car accidents.

I already introduced the framework that they may have used to come up the decision, and since I was not invited nor assigned to the task, so I don?t know for sure.

Nevertheless, anyone can oppose the decision (or the law, in this case) by coming up with an even better framework and criteria with a clearly defined goal and solutions. Otherwise, it's just whining.

My assumption is that cops have received some training that ordinary folks like me don?t have, and it?s the same for professional racing car drivers can handle cars running at 200 mph but not by many of us?

We don't and one fundamental question needs to answer first, Who is going to pay for the lengthy and costly experiments to gather these evidences and are there any other better use of the limited resources?

To get anything done not to mention to have it done properly, it requires a budget.

See above.

No further comment since you have already determined that it's a Nazi practice.

There is always this type of distraction to consider.

Most causes of distraction (within the car) while driving that don't have a specific law are covered by laws like "Reckless Driving".

Since the OP's statement is a most reasonable one, there could not possibly be a "fundamental logical fallacy". So, take it as an exercise to find out where you are going wrong.

I'm very impressed by your lack of substance.

Can you point out where I am going wrong? How about the simple math example?

No, you can't. :)

Gods are insubstantial, the zero is an invention of Indians based on the most fundamental thing in some of their religions, Nothingness. Please, we hardly know each other, I am blushing at your compliment.

You are not post "The fundamental logical fallacy presented at the very beginning of the tread by the OP is that in order to establish a relationship between car accidents and car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone, we need some sort of creditable data for number of car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone, which we don?t have, and understandably as mentioned, is rather difficult to gather and verify."

You write in a chaotic manner. What did the OP think according to you?

Is it that "in order to establish a relationship between car accidents and car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone, we need some sort of creditable data for number of car accidents caused by using hand-held cell phone"?

If so, what could possibly be wrong in his or her thinking that?

It is so obviously true that any argument against it *must* be wrong that it could not possibly be productive to identify and explain what is wrong with them.

If you are saying the OP assumes that there is good data on how many accidents are caused by hand held phones, then maybe he or she is wrong. But that is not a *logical* fallacy.

Perhaps you would not know a logical (as opposed to another sort) fallacy if it was week-old unrefrigerated dead fish slapping you in the face.