New Study Questions The Link Between Driving While Yakking And Car Crashes
from the no-link? dept
Well, this ought to be a bit on the controversial side. Despite previous studies that have claimed that driving while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident a new study has come out saying that there's no evidence of a link between driving while on the phone and accidents. Of course, there's a lot that can be questioned in the study. First of all, it focuses on aggregate data about the increase in mobile phone usage compared to aggregate crash data. You can hide an awful lot of significant information when you only look at the aggregate data. Furthermore, part of the study only looks at fatality crashes, where there could be plenty of other explanations for a decrease in crashes causing fatalities (safer cars, anyone?). The study does also look at overall crash data in seven states, as well as data for accidents at times when people are most likely to be on the phone -- and still couldn't find a link. However, as the authors of the report note, at the very least, it should lead to further study to see whether or not driving-while-yakking is really as big a threat as we've been told over the past few years.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: driving while yakking
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's still a hazard....for some
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's still a hazard....for some
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Methodology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Methodology
While I do have plenty of questions about the methodology of the study in question, I find it unlikely that the same methodology would show no link between drinking and driving. The key difference being that there's been a clear and massive increase in the number of people driving-while-yakking. The same cannot be said for driving and drinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Methodology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hearing what you want to hear
Can you say "confirmation bias"? Did you publish a single item about all the pieces of research showing that driving while talking on a cellphone does increase the incidence of crashes? Yet here is one item showing the opposite, and suddenly you think it's newsworthy. Do I get the feeling you'd rather hear one message than the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hearing what you want to hear
Lawrence, actually, if you follow the links, we've pointed to many studies that have shown that talking on mobile phones increases the likelihood of an accident.
However, even if we had not, your point doesn't make much sense. "Dog bites man" isn't a story, because it's common and well known. "Man bites dog" is a story.
This is a "man bites dog" story, because it seems to go against what people think -- and that's what makes it newsworthy.
As for your bizarre claim that we'd "rather" hear about one thing than the other, you will note that we were quite skeptical of the methodology of the study and even pointed to the reasons why it might not be accurate. So I'm having a hard time understanding any of your complaints about this post.
We have posted other stories on other studies, contrary to your claim.
This is newsworthy because it goes against conventional wisdom. And that's what makes it newsworthy, contrary to your claim.
Finally, we didn't believe the study and expressed our skepticism, contrary to your claim.
So, what exactly is the problem with the post again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:re: hearing what you want to hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a real Study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a real Study
I can get behind that statement, as long as it's understood that a "bad driver" can be the slow guy in the fast lane.
The problem with the law you mentioned is probably (though I can't be sure) that cops wouldn't make a distinction between aggressive driving and bad driving. If I have my turn signal on for longer than 30 seconds waiting for someone to let me go, I'm going to be an ass. It's that, or sit there for god knows how long.
DISCLAIMER: I live near Boston, maybe drivers in Virginia don't drive like massholes. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need a real Study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell Phones
That being said I don't think it should be a law, we have plenty of laws. If I am swerving or speeding, or driving dangerously I should be pulled over whether there is a phone in my hand or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
there's now an acronym for everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anything that distracts you while driving will increase the risk of you having an accident. Just like talking on the phone, chatting or whatever while using a knife to cut foods.
It's a tool, that can be - deadly at times, so an intelligent person realizes what his or her limitations are and abides by them.
Someone can simply be daydreaming and not paying attention.
The people who really make me wonder are those who actually do 'studies' on common sense issues like this. I mean, seriously - they didn't know this already?? Do they have a driver's license? I was told all that in Driver's Ed.
Regardless of the study, it's simply common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are the authors of the study habitual yakkers while THEY drive?
If so, I call bias :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
makes sense...
The difference is that the behavior is relatively new, so people worry about it. I stick to cars that have bluetooth.
I actually get more angry about people smoking while driving. How is it safer to hold a burning stick in your mouth and hand while driving a giant gas tank? And why do these idiots continue to throw lit ends of cigarettes out the window? Has no one seen Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? I love to see a little burning stick go flying under my car. Let's ban that first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban babies, for the children.
Ah, but there are also studies that say that hands free != safer. I found one story on it from a few years back here. (Link to NY times) and I have to agree, I find that if I'm paying attention to the person on the phone, I'm not really "seeing" the cars around me-- I've always thought of it as "autopilot". I still drive, and react (though, I'll wager much slower than if I weren't talking), but if you asked me what exit I was on, or what color the car was I just passed, I've have no clue. That's with or without hands free. Ever look at someone *pretending* to talk on a phone, you can tell they're pretending because their eyes lack the "far away" look people get when they're talking on the phone.
The simple fact is that there are features built into cars that distract a driver (radios anyone?) and then a near limitless number of distractions than can be brought in by the driver. Cell phones are no safer or worse, really, as far as I can tell. (Hell, I'd rank a crying baby at the very top of the distraction list-- should we ban babies?!)
Off topic: I could be wrong, but I imagine if you dropped a burning ember into your gas tank, it would simply go out due to a lack of oxygen in your gas tank. That's just a theory, I've never tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: makes sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: makes sense...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: makes sense...
DITTO! Gotcha!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
narrowminded?
So why the focus on cell phones? They aren't any more or less dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]