I’ve been doing my own leg work on this subject for a while now and what I have found is the numbers are ‘fudged’. If a Semi hits a car from behind and the driver is on the car is on the cell phone at the time then that ‘counts’ as a cell phone related accident.
Even though US Crash Rates have gone down 1% since 1994 and cell phone subscriptions have gone up over 1,200% people still assume cell phones and driving is high risk. The numbers just don’t add up.
This cell phone issue is outrageous. I find that using an ipod in the car is way riskier than a cell phone. I can text without looking down; I cant find the band that I want with out looking at the screen. Is that next? banning ipods? might as well ban the darn radio!
Its interesting that some states ban novice drivers from texting while driving. What about the experienced driveres, who are novice texters?! They are just as much, if not more of a hazard.
Nice article on the joys of not letting empirical data get in the way of one’s preordained conclusions. It could have been shorter, though. All you really had to say was “Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
My favorite version of the popular hysteria over cell phones is the meme that cell phone use while driving is just as dangerous as driving drink. In fact, this is an example of one hysteria feeding another. The only reason such a ludicrous comparison is possible is because the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, now known as MADD, has managed to strongarm the states into defining “drunk” all the way down to a BAC of .08, roughly half the level that most states considered “drunk” a mere 20 years ago. Now that we’ve strained the word “drunk” to include everyone whose driving is the least bit impaired by any amount of alcohol, then yes, driving while talking on a cell phone makes you just as dangerous as a “drunk” driver – meaning, of course, the safest and soberest “drunk” driver on the road. It doesn’t make you in any way comparable to the real drunk drivers out there, whose BACs are much higher than .08.
This article is an example of “confirmation bias” at work. If you believe something is a problem, you will only agree with findings that support your view. The IIHS study was based on real world crashes. The experimental studies that show decrements in driving performance are conducted in a simulator, which may not validly duplicate the conditions that cause crashes. Further confusing the issue is that the laws may not work for reasons unrelated to whatever role distraction plays in crashes. Alternatively, maybe most of the drivers in the states without laws are so aware of the dangers of distraction while holding a phone that they compensate and go slower or increase their following distance while talking.
I’ve been doing my own leg work on this subject for a while now and what I have found is the numbers are ‘fudged’. If a Semi hits a car from behind and the driver is on the car is on the cell phone at the time then that ‘counts’ as a cell phone related accident.
Even though US Crash Rates have gone down 1% since 1994 and cell phone subscriptions have gone up over 1,200% people still assume cell phones and driving is high risk. The numbers just don’t add up.
This cell phone issue is outrageous. I find that using an ipod in the car is way riskier than a cell phone. I can text without looking down; I cant find the band that I want with out looking at the screen. Is that next? banning ipods? might as well ban the darn radio!
Its interesting that some states ban novice drivers from texting while driving. What about the experienced driveres, who are novice texters?! They are just as much, if not more of a hazard.
Nice article on the joys of not letting empirical data get in the way of one’s preordained conclusions. It could have been shorter, though. All you really had to say was “Who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”
My favorite version of the popular hysteria over cell phones is the meme that cell phone use while driving is just as dangerous as driving drink. In fact, this is an example of one hysteria feeding another. The only reason such a ludicrous comparison is possible is because the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, now known as MADD, has managed to strongarm the states into defining “drunk” all the way down to a BAC of .08, roughly half the level that most states considered “drunk” a mere 20 years ago. Now that we’ve strained the word “drunk” to include everyone whose driving is the least bit impaired by any amount of alcohol, then yes, driving while talking on a cell phone makes you just as dangerous as a “drunk” driver – meaning, of course, the safest and soberest “drunk” driver on the road. It doesn’t make you in any way comparable to the real drunk drivers out there, whose BACs are much higher than .08.
This article is an example of “confirmation bias” at work. If you believe something is a problem, you will only agree with findings that support your view. The IIHS study was based on real world crashes. The experimental studies that show decrements in driving performance are conducted in a simulator, which may not validly duplicate the conditions that cause crashes. Further confusing the issue is that the laws may not work for reasons unrelated to whatever role distraction plays in crashes. Alternatively, maybe most of the drivers in the states without laws are so aware of the dangers of distraction while holding a phone that they compensate and go slower or increase their following distance while talking.