The math doesn’t work. We have way more cars on the road than we did in 1980. We have a lot fewer traffic fatalities now than in 1980.
Almost no one had a mobile phone in 1980 (cell or otherwise). Today at least a third of drivers have a cell phone.
It’s a huge disconnect.
The reason we have fewer fatalities than in 1980 is because highways are safer and, thanks to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, cars are *way* safer than they were then.
More to the point, the cell-phone attributed accidents weren’t normalized against 1980s statistics: they were normalized against the same drivers for the wek earlier period. Read the article. It very clearly states, “The increased risk was estimated by comparing phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash occurred with use by the same driver during the prior week.”
There’s already been some good explanations of why the psychological effects of being in a phone conversation (hands-free or not) can, and apparently does, increase the rates of crash. I think what’s important now is to acknowledge that in insurance, we have a tendency to accept our previous assumptions about the impact of a risk factor, rather than the actual statistics regarding the risk itself. I see that same trend applying with cell phone use, and I think it’s time we let our old assumptions on this one go, so we can adequately address the increase in risk.
Though it is true we can’t outlaw people shouting at their kids in the back seat while driving, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the risk factors that can be influenced. Banning hand-held phone use while driving may be somewhat of a start, but perhaps it’s time we looked at all non-emergency phone use while driving. For a homeowners example, just because we can’t keep inept people from starting BBQ fires next to their home, we can certainly outlaw taking a match to their wood siding in hopes of making a claim.
Anyone who drives very much will experience the “focus” on the phone conversation diminishing the “focus” on the traffic. Making more unenforceable laws will only help to provide more revenue for the local police, with a non measurable change in phone use. After all, if one has a hands free phone, how could a cop tell whether you were talking to a passenger, singing with the radio, or something else? You cannot legislate responsibility. You can, however, keep calls very short when in traffic, or let the voice mail get it until you can safely use the phone.
Sounds like another reason to pass laws for people who have no common sense in the first place. Laws generate more revenue for munincipalities for more ridiculous studies like this one.
Way to go. Whatever happened to the buttered movie popcorn study? Is it healthy to eat it again yet?
There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
— Ayn Rand
I do not disagree that drivers can be distracted talking on a phone and that is both hand held and hands free. I do wonder how distracting it is for drivers to have their pets walking free in the car or sitting on their laps. I would think this could be more dangerous and I don’t see anyone stirring over that.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
The math doesn’t work. We have way more cars on the road than we did in 1980. We have a lot fewer traffic fatalities now than in 1980.
Almost no one had a mobile phone in 1980 (cell or otherwise). Today at least a third of drivers have a cell phone.
It’s a huge disconnect.
The reason we have fewer fatalities than in 1980 is because highways are safer and, thanks to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, cars are *way* safer than they were then.
Like it or not, it *is* the cell phones.
More to the point, the cell-phone attributed accidents weren’t normalized against 1980s statistics: they were normalized against the same drivers for the wek earlier period. Read the article. It very clearly states, “The increased risk was estimated by comparing phone use within 10 minutes before an actual crash occurred with use by the same driver during the prior week.”
There’s already been some good explanations of why the psychological effects of being in a phone conversation (hands-free or not) can, and apparently does, increase the rates of crash. I think what’s important now is to acknowledge that in insurance, we have a tendency to accept our previous assumptions about the impact of a risk factor, rather than the actual statistics regarding the risk itself. I see that same trend applying with cell phone use, and I think it’s time we let our old assumptions on this one go, so we can adequately address the increase in risk.
Though it is true we can’t outlaw people shouting at their kids in the back seat while driving, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the risk factors that can be influenced. Banning hand-held phone use while driving may be somewhat of a start, but perhaps it’s time we looked at all non-emergency phone use while driving. For a homeowners example, just because we can’t keep inept people from starting BBQ fires next to their home, we can certainly outlaw taking a match to their wood siding in hopes of making a claim.
Anyone who drives very much will experience the “focus” on the phone conversation diminishing the “focus” on the traffic. Making more unenforceable laws will only help to provide more revenue for the local police, with a non measurable change in phone use. After all, if one has a hands free phone, how could a cop tell whether you were talking to a passenger, singing with the radio, or something else? You cannot legislate responsibility. You can, however, keep calls very short when in traffic, or let the voice mail get it until you can safely use the phone.
Sounds like another reason to pass laws for people who have no common sense in the first place. Laws generate more revenue for munincipalities for more ridiculous studies like this one.
Way to go. Whatever happened to the buttered movie popcorn study? Is it healthy to eat it again yet?
Sorry, just ranting
There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
— Ayn Rand
Amen Hal
Not true!! OOPS!
While I was text messaging this, I rear ended someone. Anyone know a good products attorney?
I do not disagree that drivers can be distracted talking on a phone and that is both hand held and hands free. I do wonder how distracting it is for drivers to have their pets walking free in the car or sitting on their laps. I would think this could be more dangerous and I don’t see anyone stirring over that.