Dear Lord, Save Us from Ourselves
Ok, you have four options: read the following link and then read my comments, read my summary and then my comments, just read the comments, or just ignore this post all together. The topic in question is "cellphone use and its (apparent lack of) effect on driving." (Actual title of article: "Distractions, not phones, cause car crashes"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10444717-266.html
Ok so, the short version is "The Highway Loss Data Institute, a nonprofit organization funded by the auto insurance industry, compared monthly collision claims in four states that have banned handheld cell phone use before and after the bans took effect." The states they have chosen to examine are New York, Connecticut, California, and Washington D.C. What they find is that apparently the data shows no change in crash statistics in these four states. They also apparently examined the data from nearby states that have no such bans, and found that there was no change in these states statistics, either. The article goes on to discuss mostly pointless things after this, mainly focusing on discussions of the increase in cellphone usage and technology being integrated into automobiles (from internet connections to safety applications).
Right, so my first thought on seeing this was "What?! Uh... right." Common sense and personal experience make me say bullshit. Semi itemized list of complaints with the article:
1. The studies done by cigarette companies always showed that the link between smoking and (lung) cancer "was inconclusive." I'm pretty sure it's still a fairly widely accepted point now. Granted since the study was conducted by the insurance industry, I'd think that they'd want the link to be there, because then they could theoretically change their policies to "If you are in an accident involving cell-phone use, we pay less." Granted, they could also not want it, because it could make it so that even if the party who would not have been "at fault" (getting rear-ended at a traffic light) but was talking on a cell-phone now makes them guilty as well... so paperwork get trickier, blame gets shifted around, and the insurance companies all wind up paying more.... I could go either way on which they'd actually want.
2. The headline. "Distraction, not phones, cause car crashes." Thanks, guys. That's like saying "Cessation of breathing and heart function, not bullets, kill soldiers in war zones." While it's entirely possible that there are soldiers that die from heart attacks, infection, and other (mostly) natural causes, the bullets aren't helping things. I mean, I'm not saying that cell phones/texting are the primary cause of car accidents, but they certainly aren't making being distracted any less likely.
3. We have no idea how well the study has been conducted. Did they examine the percentage of accidents where cell-phone usage was involved? Do the states with and without the ban keep track of whether or not cell phones are involved in accidents or is it just something that a cop can pull you over and cite you for? How long have the bans been in effect? How stringently are the states enforcing the ban: is it jay-walking or going 15 over the speed limit? What non-ban states are they examining for comparison, and how did their pre-ban data compare to the pre-ban data of the ban states? Are the statistics actually lower but fall within a standard-deviation, and are therefore being dismissed as not changing because it could be a normal fluctuation? Are they comparing data from just months before and after and not comparing the months to months in previous years, since some months may tend to have higher rates of accidents than others but similar rates to themselves from year to year? How many months are being studied (from before and after)? All of these could influence the results of the study, and none of this information is even being considered.
4. Cell phones are expensive. This means that if the driver is using one and needs to make a driving correction, they are less likely to toss or drop the thing to use both hands to make the correction. Which would imply that the correction would be less effective, and possibly dangerously so. This level of distraction is not comparable to the level of distraction of turning the tuner or volume knob of your car stereo, where you have no problem with immediately returning your hand to the wheel. (They still have knobs on car radios, right? Wait, they still have car radios, right?)
5. This is nit-picky, but last time I checked, D.C. wasn't a state. Did I miss something while being out of the country?
Sorry for the massive amounts of irritation that I poured into this. It just struck me as lacking in common sense and just being dumb.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10444717-266.html
Ok so, the short version is "The Highway Loss Data Institute, a nonprofit organization funded by the auto insurance industry, compared monthly collision claims in four states that have banned handheld cell phone use before and after the bans took effect." The states they have chosen to examine are New York, Connecticut, California, and Washington D.C. What they find is that apparently the data shows no change in crash statistics in these four states. They also apparently examined the data from nearby states that have no such bans, and found that there was no change in these states statistics, either. The article goes on to discuss mostly pointless things after this, mainly focusing on discussions of the increase in cellphone usage and technology being integrated into automobiles (from internet connections to safety applications).
Right, so my first thought on seeing this was "What?! Uh... right." Common sense and personal experience make me say bullshit. Semi itemized list of complaints with the article:
1. The studies done by cigarette companies always showed that the link between smoking and (lung) cancer "was inconclusive." I'm pretty sure it's still a fairly widely accepted point now. Granted since the study was conducted by the insurance industry, I'd think that they'd want the link to be there, because then they could theoretically change their policies to "If you are in an accident involving cell-phone use, we pay less." Granted, they could also not want it, because it could make it so that even if the party who would not have been "at fault" (getting rear-ended at a traffic light) but was talking on a cell-phone now makes them guilty as well... so paperwork get trickier, blame gets shifted around, and the insurance companies all wind up paying more.... I could go either way on which they'd actually want.
2. The headline. "Distraction, not phones, cause car crashes." Thanks, guys. That's like saying "Cessation of breathing and heart function, not bullets, kill soldiers in war zones." While it's entirely possible that there are soldiers that die from heart attacks, infection, and other (mostly) natural causes, the bullets aren't helping things. I mean, I'm not saying that cell phones/texting are the primary cause of car accidents, but they certainly aren't making being distracted any less likely.
3. We have no idea how well the study has been conducted. Did they examine the percentage of accidents where cell-phone usage was involved? Do the states with and without the ban keep track of whether or not cell phones are involved in accidents or is it just something that a cop can pull you over and cite you for? How long have the bans been in effect? How stringently are the states enforcing the ban: is it jay-walking or going 15 over the speed limit? What non-ban states are they examining for comparison, and how did their pre-ban data compare to the pre-ban data of the ban states? Are the statistics actually lower but fall within a standard-deviation, and are therefore being dismissed as not changing because it could be a normal fluctuation? Are they comparing data from just months before and after and not comparing the months to months in previous years, since some months may tend to have higher rates of accidents than others but similar rates to themselves from year to year? How many months are being studied (from before and after)? All of these could influence the results of the study, and none of this information is even being considered.
4. Cell phones are expensive. This means that if the driver is using one and needs to make a driving correction, they are less likely to toss or drop the thing to use both hands to make the correction. Which would imply that the correction would be less effective, and possibly dangerously so. This level of distraction is not comparable to the level of distraction of turning the tuner or volume knob of your car stereo, where you have no problem with immediately returning your hand to the wheel. (They still have knobs on car radios, right? Wait, they still have car radios, right?)
5. This is nit-picky, but last time I checked, D.C. wasn't a state. Did I miss something while being out of the country?
Sorry for the massive amounts of irritation that I poured into this. It just struck me as lacking in common sense and just being dumb.