Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

USA Study: No link b/w phone use & accidents

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Jeffco, Aug 12, 2013.

  1. Mods don't know if this is the right area Please feel free to move

    I was coming home on the train today and I looked down at the bloke who was reading the MX and there was a story (small) on one of the pages that said an American researcher had found that after a study of 5 million MVA's ? throughout America, no link or correlation could be found to say that talking or texting on your phone was more likely to cause an accident.

    Did anyone else see this or have a copy I couldn't get a copy
  2. Researcher better not give up his night job filling supermarket shelves.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Yeh that's what I thought but I would still like to see the story
  4. It seems extremely easy to create a slanted report 43% of all people know that
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I'm guessing MVA means Motor Vehicle accidents, and whilst a large sample is good, reviewing 5 million is unreasonably large. It sounds far fetched, but so is MX - it is the tabloid of tabloids, a kind of the internet on paper for commuters who don't have a smartphone.

    On a serious note, there was a case recently of someone crashing in Melbourne while texting.
  6. I don't know, Mcsenna, it was in MX so it should be pretty credible
  7. Driving Under the (Cellular) Influence - Carnegie Mellon University.

    Cell-phone talking while driving doesn't lead to higher crash risk, research says

    August 9, 2013 03:31 PM ET

    Talking on a cell phone while driving doesn't increase the risk of an accident, according to new research that looked at real-world accidents and cell-phone calls by drivers in the U.S. from 2002 to 2005.

    "Using a cell phone while driving may be distracting, but does not lead to higher crash risk in the setting we examined," said Saurabh Bhargava, an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, and one of the two researchers in the study.

    The study, published in the August issue of American Economic Journal: Economic Policy was described in a report Thursday from Carnegie Mellon in Futurity, an online publication that brings research from leading universities to the public's attention. (Access to the full 33-page study article, "Driving under the (Cellular) Influence" in the economic journal costs $9.50 for 24 hours' access.)

    Bhargava did the research with Vikram Pathania, a fellow in the London School of Economics and Political Science. The researchers only focused on talking on a cell phone, not texting or Internet browsing, which have been highly popular in recent years. Pathania said it is possible that texting and browsing could pose a real hazard.

    The study used the cell-phone calling patterns of a single, unnamed wireless carrier to track an increase in call volume of 7% at 9 p.m. on weekdays when most carriers were offering free calls during the 2002 to 2005 period. Drivers were identified as those whose cell phone calls were routed through multiple cellular towers.

    The researchers also compared crash rates before and after 9 p.m., looking at about 8 million crashes in nine states and all the fatal crashes nationwide.
    The researchers found that the increase in cell phone usage had no effect on crash rates. The highest odds of a crash while using a cell phone was determined in the new study to be significantly less than that found by two researchers in 1997 who equated cell phone use by drivers to illegal levels of alcohol use.

    Bhargava explained the study's results saying that drivers may compensate for cell-phone use distractions by deciding to make or continue a call later or driving more carefully during a call. If drivers really do compensate for such distractions, then it makes sense for state lawmakers to penalize drivers for cell phone use as a secondary, rather than a primary, offense, he said. A secondary offense means a driver would have to be stopped first for a primary offense, such as speeding.

    Many studies of cell phone usage have focused on distractions in laboratory or field tests, but haven't used real world data, Bhargava noted.

    The National Safety Council has urged states to pass laws making cell phone usage of any kind while driving a primary offense. The council also advocates for a ban on using a cell phone for texting, talking, browsing or any other purpose while driving.

    The NSC believes talking on cell phones while driving leads to 20% of all crashes, while texting causes 4%. There were about 6 million car crashes in 2012 in the U.S., and 3.7 million of those resulted in significant injury or death. Most of the focus by state legislatures is on texting, with 41 states having some form of law restricting texting while driving.

    The CTIA, which represents the wireless industry and carriers, said it doesn't oppose total government bans on using wireless devices while behind the wheel, but said such decisions should be left to the public and lawmakers in their respective communities.

    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. so it's 9pm on a weeknight when the traffic is likely to be light and hence more forgiving of minor distractions. try repeating this at 9am on a weekday and see if you get the same result.
  9. Jeffco, perhaps MX missed the above snippet,
    "The NSC believes talking on cell phones while driving leads to 20% of all crashes, while texting causes 4%."
  10. So the researchers determine that multiple towers = someone driving.

    Busses, trains, passenger seats... any guesses as to the confidence level that could be attributed to this... this... this 'study'?
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Pseudo academic wankers, why they even rate a mention has me stuffed. Another useless "study", add it to the pile.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. That's some seriously confounded logic there. Sponsored by the Heartland institute?
  13. Must have entered different parameters to you mate but thanks anyway this is certainly larger than the MX article cheers
  14. There is a school of thought that these people would have crashed anyway, it just that they crashed whilst texting instead of dicking about with something else...

    Inattentive people are inattentive.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Yes, stigger, we indoctrinated to think everything is explicable - the scientific view. But we are humans and being alive is a volatile experience.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. On the contrary. I think it is pointing out the study is at odds with the NSCs beliefs.

    Personally I believe using the phone whilst driving is much less of a distraction than we have been lead to believe in the last 15 years. The brainwashing has made us a nation of tongue clickers.
  17. If you are talking about voice calls I tend to agree, texting on the other hand is a killer. I would like to see fines for texting while driving quadrupled and on the spot license suspension. It should be treated in the same way us drink driving IMHO.
  18. Is it?
    Are there any reliable stats to show it is?

    Or are we just guessing.

    There are already many offences that cover "Bad" driving why add another one?
  19. Google it, there are lots of examples. There was one locally recently, the last message on her phone was half typed before the crash that killed her.
    In most cases they kill only themselves but that will change. As motorcyclists it shouldn't be viewed as bad driving but more as life threatening driving.
    I struggle to understand your blase' attitude to it.
  20. People crash when doing their make up whilst driving, do we need a specific law for that?
    what about changing the channel on the radio need a law for that.

    A half written SMS doesn't prove that she was texting when she crashed, could have started it at any time in the past.

    Again there are already laws for bad driving.

    I struggle to understand your knee jerk attitude to it.
    • Agree Agree x 1