|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: London incidents
Mark Foster wrote: "Using phone company records, researchers assessed phone use immediately before the crash. There are 3 kinds of lies: lies damn lies statistics Coincidence != cause and effect.They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on cellphones. This was associated with a four-fold increased likelihood of crashing, and the risk was irrespective of age, sex or whether the phone was hands-free. Researchers said more new vehicles were being equipped with hands-free technology. Although this could lead to fewer hand-held phones in cars, the study showed it might not eliminate the risk." Despite all these studies saying that cell phone use "causes accidents", the overall accident rate is NOT going up. Therefore, the cell phone using drivers who get in accidents are drivers who would have been in an accident *anyway*. They are inattentive drivers. Take away their cell phones and they will get in accidents while driving and eating, or driving and tuning the radio, or driving and arguing with a passenger. Take the above "four-fold increase". Suppose you go BACK a step and find out why they were making a phone call within the 10 minutes before a crash. Odds are that the reason they made the phone call is highly related to the reason they got in a crash - they were running late - their boss called and yelled at them (employee) - they called home and were chewed out for not being home yet (teenager) - just had an argument with spouse, etc. So after engaging in a call of this nature (while driving or while NOT driving), they are more likely to get in an accident due to being upset and/or in a hurry. The *cell* phone use was totally incidental, rather than cause/effect. jc
|