You did not talk about certain situations. You used language that of absolutes when you said:
I’m calling you on that and pointing out that it is not always true. In fact, it is very often NOT true.
I notice that you didn’t post any information contradicting what I posted. NHTSA information about injuries tends to be behind the fatality information. The last year on injury accidents is 2009.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811401.pdf
Exhibit 3.
Shows a drop in injuries per 100 million VMT from 2005 to 2009 of 90 to 75. If you can find statistics on non-injury accidents, knock yourself out. A lot of those don’t even get reported.
You seem to have some peculiar ideas about when these safety changes went in. Seatbelts went in during the sixties and airbags in 89. The jury is still out on whether ABS actually saves lives ands they aren’t required in the US.
So you are posing a hypothetical savings in lives. Let me pose a change that I guarantee would save 4,000 lives a year. Outlaw motorcycles. Over 4,000 motorcyclists are killed every year and their fatality rate per vehicle mile is generally 20 to 30 times higher.
I don’t use my cellphone in the car, so you aren’t talking about me. Let me define reasonable precautions about how you should operate your car.
[ul]
[li]Don’t use the radio.[/li][li]Don’t use the CD-Player.[/li][li]Don’t talk to passengers.[/li][li]Don’t eat in the car.[/li][li]Don’t drink beverages.[/li][li]Don’t smoke.[/li][li]Don’t read in the car.[/li][/ul]
I already dealt with the vehicle safety improvements in another post, but decreases in drunk driving is actually fairly plausible. I could easily attribute half the decrease in fatalities during 2005-2010 to decreases in drunk driving. The trouble is that the decreases have been sort of leveling out in the last 10 years.
In regards to safety improvements, cars are getting safer. But perhaps more importantly over the last five years all those OLD cars (15 years old give or take) are slowly going away. And modern cars are way safer than those old fashioned beaters.
I actually found some statistics on distracted driving.
http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/
Apparently 20% of highway fatalities at attributed to driver distraction and 18% of the 20% to cell phones or 3.6%.
Some of the distractions they listed were already on my list, but some caused a WTF reaction.
Of course, we wouldn’t actually get a 3.6% reduction, since many people would just substitute one of the other distraction activities. Since the ban would be very hard to enforce, the overall reduction would be less than 1%.
Are there any stats out there in the great web-o-sphere that compare accident rates against the Blackberry outage? E.g. Did Blackberry Outages Cut Abu Dhabi Traffic Accidents by 40 Percent? - Freakonomics
But texting is Ok?
I walk my dogs in the park everyday. as I cross Telegraph, I wait for people turning right onto Telegraph. It used to be they waited for me and my beagles to cross. But not now. generally they drive right at us. I now wait until the last car goes by and then run the dogs across. Over half the people are on cell phones.
Yep, i love cell phone driving.
Gonzo, why is it that now half of the people who do not have cell phones drive right through when you are trying to cross, whereas previously they did not?
I already mentioned that I don’t use my cellphone in the car in the line above.
My jurisdiction (the province of Alberta, Canada) has just passed a “distracted driving” law. It is a lot more comprehensive than just banning cellphone use. From the government website:
Obviously more than just an anti-cellphone-while driving law. In fairness, I will say that GPSs and similar are OK as long as they have been programmed/set before the vehicle is underway–it is adjusting the GPS, the IPod, etc. while driving that is the problem. Interestingly, upon reading the legislation, one finds that CB radio use is also illegal, unless one is driving a commercial vehicle (truck, taxi, etc.).
What if your passenger is blind or a small child that can’t see out of the window? Should we ban conversations in the car with children and blind people? What if it saves just one life?
Yes, I have peculiar ideas. :rolleyes:
Ignoring seat belts there are other safety measures that came in later. Whether or not ABS is effective isn’t the point. The point is that there can be lots of reasons for the decrease in fatalities and for all we know they might have decreased more if people hadn’t used cellphones.
The Netherlands has made using hand-held cellphones while driving a misdemeanor since 2002. The fine is about 150 USD. If anyone is interested, I can try to dig up and translate some info on the effects.
Every law is subject to rational basis. All means is the law is not completely arbitrary and insane in how it treats different people. If it makes even superficial sense, it is good.
You know what law could pass rational basis? Banning all vehicles from public roads. So could banning all private vehicles. They could revoke everything but Class III licenses. We do not have the right to drive. However, we do have a right to equal protection. That means that they must grant the privilege of driving in a equal way, unless the exception can pass some level of review. Unless I missed something, cell phone users are not a protected class. They are barely a class at all.
I am not 100% sure, but I believe the GFP requirement is for building houses and licensed and permitted remodeling. If I replace one in my own house, no one is going to come inspect it.
There really isn’t such a thing as private air space. Any pilot can fly over your property at any time, as long as they stay 500 ft away from people and buildings. So that argument doesn’t really hold.
I notice you didn’t mention my discussion of airbags. You seen to pose hypotheticals without finding any objective evidence that supports you.
An interesting possibility is that cell phones are actually saving lives, so the fatalities from distracted driving are more than compensated by faster emergency response.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100901073401.htm
Study shows 10 minute improvement in emergency response would cut deaths by 1/3.
This would indicate that having cell phones available would improve emergency response time and save lives. Of course, I shouldn’t have to explain that anyone who is old enough to remember trying to call 911 after an accident and trying to find a pay phone or knocking on doors and asking people to call 911.
Also the deployment of E-911 service means that calls are routed to the appropriate service center and also the location information, so the 911 response is sent to the correct location.
We are up to 296,000 E-911 calls per day.
http://www.ctia.org/media/industry_info/index.cfm/AID/10323
Phase II wireless E911 location services started in October 2001 and was 83% complete in April 2008.
http://www.911dispatch.com/info/fact_figures.html
I’m starting to wonder if you are better calling 911 on your cell phone than your landline.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/ems-day2-cover.htm
I wonder how many people won’t bother to have a cell phone in their car if they can’t legally use them, except in an emergency?
But having a cell phone available while driving is not the same as using a cell phone while driving.
A I’m sure people will carry around a phone they can’t use.
I carry mine from home to work and back. A lot of people in my province do that, despite there being restictions on cell phone use while driving here (hands-free only is permitted). Even if one does not use handsfree, it is no big deal to pull off to make calls.