As I read the abstract, they in effect compared the accident rates of
cell phone owners when using their phones, to the accident rates of
those same cell phone owners when not using their phones. They found a
very strong correlation : 4 times more likely to have an accident while
using the phone.
That of course does not _prove_ that using a cell phone _caused_ the
accidents, but it sure suggests to me that many of those accidents would
not have occurred if the drivers had not been using their phones. Ample
evidence to my mind, although we need a few more similar studies to be
sure this one wasn't flawed in some non-obvious way. I believe there
have been other studies, but I don't have the references handy.
I _can_ say that my personal observations agree with the study : when
someone wanders into my lane on the freeway without ever looking to see
that I'm already there, or suddenly swerves onto an off-ramp, they
almost always are talking on the phone.
Cause and effect is a very tricky thing to prove with statistics. While
scientists are very careful to make the distinction between
cause/effect, and correlation; the media (and courts) usually aren't so
careful.
Yeah, this is off-topic. I'll shut up now.
Randall
Larry Hoy wrote:
>
> That's the hair I'm trying to split. Seems to me we've heard a lot of
>negative info about cell phones and drivers. If this
> information is based on the report that was referenced, I think this report
>is flawed, or at least isn't saying what we hear
> reported in the media.
|