Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
Here is the quote!
Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
of Public Health.
You're the one who's confused. The study mentioned is not based on
correlations, unlike the jokey (negative) correlation between Global
Warming and piracy (at sea) you're alluding to.
The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
different factors have an affect on car crash related hospitalisations.
They found that texting bans, handheld bans, seatbelt laws and graduate
licensing laws all had a measurable and significant decrease in the
Likewise high speed limits and illegal blood alcohol levels had
significant increases in hospitalisation rates.
Gas prices, per capita income and unemployment rates had no effect.
All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is here:
What's strange is that they found no relationship whatsoever to
Methinks there is a smell emanating from the data.
For example, just having a cellphone could mean that you can call for
an ambulance which will take you to the hospital even if you were
just scratched up a bit.
If you didn't have the cell phone, you wouldn't easily have that
ambulance, which means you wouldn't have that ride to the hospital.
You might just walk home, or drive home, or take a longer time
to get "official" help (like from police or ambulance).
So, BECAUSE they can't find ANY relationship to accidents,
they can only find a relationship to hospital visits, but
that could just be BECAUSE it was convenient.
Any study that can't find any relationship to accidents is
Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents.
There certainly is with the claim that gas prices
have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes.
But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether
there is a ban on texting while driving wont have any effect
on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident.
That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no
one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident.
Or get someone else with a cellphone to call an ambulance.
Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is.
But it clearly finds a relationship to the more
serious accidents that produce hospitalisation.
A more important criticism of the study is that
no relationship was found with gas prices which
is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic
volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious
accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly
involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:50:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Like *all* arguments for restrictions on cellphone use while driving,
they *require* additional *highly unproven* assumptions.
Occam's razor tells us that the simplest answer is the best
answer until/unless we know otherwise.
The simplest answer is that they could find absolutely zero
increase in accidents, period.
However, I do agree, that the data stinks because of other
issues (like who cares about hospital visits if the accidents
aren't happening in the first place, and, if the accidents
are happening, then they'd have to prove they are worse for
us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack.
I have to agree with you there. Lower prices would mean greater
miles, which should mean greater accidents. We don't need to
look further for second-order issues, but, since the study could
find no first-order indications, those greater accidents would
likely result in greater numbers of hospital visits.
But, without the accidents, they're just shooting blind.
Good point. I was trying to figure out *why* they couldn't
find accidents, yet, they found more hospital visits?????
Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said, but, 'cmon,
they can't even find the accidents, let alone prove they're
OK. I understand that single-vehicle accidents would be in
But, then, how come they can't find accidents, but they
can find hospital visits?
Something stinks in the data.
I understand your point, which is this, in effect:
1. Cell phone use
2. Causes not more accidents, but,
3. Causes same number of accidents, which
4. Are more serious.
While I agree *that* would account for the data, seems to me
that it's pretty clear that the *rate* of accidents didn't
But, it seems *fishy* that the hospital visits did change.
Yes. I agree. Gas prices lowering should increase miles
driven which should increase accidents period.
Something is fishy in this data, but, one takeaway that
was unintended, I'm sure, is that the accident rate
itself certainly didn't increase or decrease.
Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE conclusion
that they would have wanted to prove, so, that it wasn't
proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study.
Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that
texting while driving is absolutely guaranteed to
be harder to do than driving without texting at all.
Is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort.
BULLSHIT when its obvious that texting while driving
is much harder to do than driving without texting.
They obviously are happening to get a hospital admission.
No if about it.
Wrong on both counts. Nothing unlikely about it.
More accidents, actually.
Corse we do when trying to decide if texting while driving
produces more accidents that are serious enough to result
We aren't talking about hospital VISITS, we are
talking about HOSPITALIZATION if the original
paper has been accurately reported.
Even sillier than you usually manage. Nothing
blind about it and no shooting at all either.
It looks like they could find accidents but the rate of those
that required HOSPITALIZATION, didn’t vary between the
states that ban texting and those that didn’t, if chris has
summarised the paper accurately.
That’s a lie.
And so is that. The rate of hospitalization proves that
they are worse in the states that don’t ban texting.
Hospitalization, not hospital visits. That may well be because
the data on HOSPITALIZATION is much more reliable than the
data on accidents, no matter how minor that don’t even get
reported to anyone.
I didn’t say that.
Or that. They JUST said that there is no variation
on that between the states which ban texting
while driving those that don’t if chris has
reported what the paper says accurately.
You don’t know that either.
Not if that data is much more reliable and it likely is.
You don’t know that either.
But they may not have reliable data on all accidents, particularly
those that aren't bad enough to get reported to anyone because
the driver just swerves all over the road etc and doesn’t actually
hit any other car or any stationary object.
But may be an unavoidable consequence of the lack of
anything like as good data on the total accident rate.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Look. Eating a banana is harder to do while texting, but you can still
do it without slipping on the floor.
Driving is so easy that almost every single person can do it.
Driving while distracted is impossible NOT to do.
Nobody has ever driven a single mile without some distraction.
There are literally thousands of distractions every mile you drive.
You handle them.
For most stupid people, they'd *think* cellphone are a *big* distraction.
So, with *huge* increases in cellphone ownership, you'd expect a
correspondingly huge increase in cellphone use, where you'd expect
a correspondingly huge increase of distractions, where you'd expect a
correspondingly huge increase in the accident rate.
I would too.
It *sounds* logical.
But nobody on the planet can *find* these new accidents.
Not even this biased study can find them.
What does *that* tell you?
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:26:05 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Rod, I know you can read.
So, let's try this again, since, you must be also intelligent.
If you can't *understand* what I'm writing, it's either you're
not intelligent enough to understand, or you don't want to
I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious.
Let's repeat (but you really need to be able to read).
1. All of us (including me) would assume that distractions are dangerous.
2. All of us (including me) would assume that cellphones are distracting.
3. All of us (including me) would assume that they're a BIG distraction!
4. All of us (including me) would assume that will result in accidents!
That none of us (including you and that study) can find these accidents
should be cause for all of us to doublecheck our assumptions.
That most of us (including you but not including me) simply *assume*
unproven external forces (aliens should be added to that list) are
"manipulating" or "changing" the data is patently ridiculous, but, if
you (or anyone) can *show* that manipulation of the data, I'm all ears.
What you constantly refuse to do is read and understand the facts
when they don't completely fit your assumptions.
Most people are like that.
The facts are all that matter.
1. The study couldn't find the increased accidents (no study can because
the accidents don't exist).
2. The study did NOT resort to what you resorted to though, to explain
that (you may as well tell me aliens are manipulating the data).
3. The study did find increased HOSPITALIZATIONS, which is interesting
as that has to be a second-order effect.
So, what I find interesting is that, while the study could not find
increased accidents, they found increased hospitalizations.
Your conjecture is apropos, given *those* facts, which is something like:
A. The cellphone distraction may not be causing any increased accidents,
B. But the accidents that were already happening "may" be more severe.
That's a reasonable take on the data.
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:27:43 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Yup. What most of you try to do, because you are extremely uncomfortable
with facts that don't fit your preconceived notion of what you feel
should be, is that you all *invent* reasons (all unproven) for the facts
being as they are.
You may as well invent aliens who are manipulating the data.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.