Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We hear about how horrible it is. (For those of you who want a digest version and want to skip all of this, go down the the very bottom. I know I hate it when someone writes an OP with lots of stuff but no digest, so I figure I'll make it easier, too, right? )


Stats:
-35% of reaction time is lost while texting.
-SMSing while driving contributes to a rise in the possibilities of accidents by about 23 times.
-Texting keeps the driver involved in the activity for 5 seconds or 100 yards (at speed).
-Texting results in a greater loss of driving ability of MJ and alcohol.



I've been researching this and I've discovered some amazing facts.

Number of total crashes is decreasing each year while the total number of those texting while driving steadily increases.

Number of deaths each has been decreasing since 2007, each year. Per capita (per capita measured against the total number of miles traveled AND the number of deaths per accidents), the number of deaths have been decreasing for years longer than 2007.

So, wait...if 28% of wrecks happen each year due to texting while driving, why is the total number of vehicles AND the total number of miles traveled, each year, increasing each year WHILE the total number of wrecks AND the total number of fatalities decreasing? If texting while driving is REALLY that bad (it is bad, so don't mistake the tone), why is there this gigantic disparity in numbers?

In other words, if texting accounts for 28% of total wrecks, then we could easily measure to see if that has affected total number of wrecks over the last 14 years.

So let's REALLY take a look:

There is no data that I could find on text messages sent while driving, increasing...so I could only settle for total text messages by year:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/ SMS_messages_sent_monthly_in_USA_%28in_billions%29
.svg

The number of text messages sent is exponentially increasing. EGADS!

We can at least say, with some degree of logic, that texting while driving also increased. There's no way it could not have.

So how many total wrecks 14 years ago (1997)?

13.8 million.

How many in the latest set of data, 2008?

10.2 million.

Wait a minute.

If the number of licensed drivers, total miles traveled, the population, AND text messaging are increasing, how in the world can 28% of wrecks be blamed on texting?

Total wrecks are decreasing as well as the total number of fatalities despite all other trends pointing towards safer roads per capita. IT would be one thing if the total deaths and wrecks were increasing at a slower rate than the number of miles traveled. Not only is that not happening...the number of wrecks and deaths is DECREASING while the other is increasing.

Someone may say, 'BUT CARE SAFETY!" I did the numbers and, per capita, the number of deaths per car wreck increased for several years in a row and then the numbers started to drop, magically, in 2007.

Why?

I dunno.

Bottom line: if texting is so dangerous, and 28% of wrecks are due to texting, explain the disparity.

How can it be possible that texting causes so many problems? Does this mean if we had a law that prevented phones from working while one drives, we would experience a HUGE drop in total accidents by 28%?

That makes no sense. As the total number of accidents decrease, we are supposed to believe that the total number of accidents due to texting is greatly increasing?

How about something a tad more logical: many of those getting into wrecks got into wrecks, regardless of whether or not they were texting. How about the problem is the person rather than the texting? Meaning, take away texting and most of them would still have wrecked?

I could be a douche and make a case for texting decreasing the number of accidents while driving...and that would be marginally as sound as the sh*t we are supposed to swallow on texting.

Do I text while driving? Yes. But I rarely do it with any sort of "eyes of the road" situation.

Don't tell anyone...but I play spider solitaire on my phone whlie driving, at times. Sometimes I even watch TV.





Here's where I got my data for wreck and death stats:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

Here's where I got my "facts" and the 28% #
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/texting-while-driving-facts.html




So if texting while driving is increasing (probably exponentially, to fit along the trend of the total number of texts by year), yet wrecks are decreasing...yet 28% of wrecks are supposedly SMS related, then explain the decrease not only in total wrekcs but per capita (per miles and per licensed driver)?

Maybe, just maybe...there's something else going on that is making driving safer even beyond the negative influence of texting while driving? This/these new element/s would have to not only make up for the badness of texting while driving (which would have to account for 28%) but it would also have to also make up the disparity of the increased number of drivers WHILE also decreasing total # of wrecks.


That's a tall order. I looked at the numbers from 1997 to 2008, found the standard deviation, and concluded that this new element or elements that are making driving safer would have to account for greater than 16 standard deviations, if you count the 28% SMS caused wrecks as true (that element or those elements have to account for the 28% related SMS accidents (because virtually no accidents were caused by texting in 1997) WHILE also accounting for the decrease (despite the actual increase in driving) in total wrecks). MORE THAN SIXTEEN! That's such a giant paradigm shift in human behavior in less than 20 years that I seriously cannot believe it.



But, here are some ideas on what has improved safety beyond the 16 standard deviations required:

GPS. GPS has made driving safer because people are more sure of where they are going.

Internet. The internet, tied in with GPS, has made driving more safe because they know where they are going on more accurate maps.

Technology. My coworker indicates that speeding accounts for lots of wrecks so a large chunk of this can be taken "out" if technologies improve to decrease the total number of speeders in the US. This site which cites TomTom shows us that we don't really speed, on average:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/speeding-in-america-nah/ So this category may not have contributed at all. But, catching speeders...has it slowed down people? I dunno. People are obviously not speeding too much, now, so I don't know how that would change the 1997 measure due to the highway speeds increasing since the 90s.

Safety laws. Safety laws have done it. Doubtful, but it can't be ruled out.

X. Factor X. There is something else going on that I haven't noticed. This accounts for the giant change.





One idea that I had was texting was improving safety. Hear me out. Because people are aware of how dangerous it is to text, they are actually driving a bit safer. The amount of "safety consciousness" is greater than the negative consequences resulting in a net change of greater safety. It's certainly the only area or change in driving habits that can have a large enough influence over driving in order to account for such a large difference in safety.




Digest!: Texting while driving has increased a WHOLE bunch...but wrecks and fatalities have decreased. There is a number disparity in the total number of texters, the safety it causes, and the claims of the number of texters contributing to the total. There's just way too much of a numbers disparity to blame 28% of all US wrecks on texting. I posit that most of those 28% would have caused wrecks, regardless of texting. Read the rest of the above to see how I support my case with numbers. Thanks!


Thoughts?
Talk about your opinion on texting while driving.
Talk about my findings not matching up with logic on the 28% number.
Talk about anything else related to texting while driving that I may have brought up.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We can at least say, with some degree of logic, that texting while driving also increased. There's no way it could not have.

That seems like a reasonable inference but it might not be quite as strong a correlation as you think. Early adopters for texting, like most things, were young. Many later users have been adults. As a rule young people are more likely to be suicidally stupid. There's also the possibility that as parents become more aware of texting (see my previous point) they emphasize not doing it while driving to their children.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This site which cites TomTom shows us that we don't really speed, on average:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/speeding-in-america-nah/

Meh, averages are just pretty numbers on their own. I'd like to see the median speeds and the percentage of driving that is done over the limit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
One idea that I had was texting was improving safety. Hear me out. Because people are aware of how dangerous it is to text, they are actually driving a bit safer. The amount of "safety consciousness" is greater than the negative consequences resulting in a net change of greater safety. It's certainly the only area or change in driving habits that can have a large enough influence over driving in order to account for such a large difference in safety.

Actually texting could reduce crashes in a much less roundabout way. One of the benefits of a text is that there's little pressure to answer immediately. A transition from traditional phones to texing could mean that there are not as many people who immediately get distracted when someone tries to contact them.

I don't think you really have reliable data to make any conclusions... it could be any number of factors and tbh, your theory seems like the least likely of all of them.

Where does that 28% figure come from, anyway?

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think you really have reliable data to make any conclusions... it could be any number of factors and tbh, your theory seems like the least likely of all of them.

Where does that 28% figure come from, anyway?

"My" Theory? I have listed multiple theories. Which one wold be "mine" particular theory? If you're referring to the least likely scenario of people driving safer due to being aware of using their cell phone...that's the least likely scenario but the only one that makes up the 16+ standard deviations.


The 28% figure comes from a figur released by the national safety council on the 12th of Janurary, 2010.

http://www.truckwreckattorney.com/cell-phones-texting-cause-accidents.php

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That seems like a reasonable inference but it might not be quite as strong a correlation as you think. Early adopters for texting, like most things, were young. Many later users have been adults. As a rule young people are more likely to be suicidally stupid. There's also the possibility that as parents become more aware of texting (see my previous point) they emphasize not doing it while driving to their children.

Check it out: adults text more than teens. I know, right? Odd.

Also, teens are more likely to die in car wrecks because they do not wear their seatbelts (on a much more likely average, believe it or not. It must be "cool" to not wear your seatbelt as a kid or something). Pretty stupid, I think...



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Meh, averages are just pretty numbers on their own. I'd like to see the median speeds and the percentage of driving that is done over the limit.

I would say that the majority of driving is done uner the speed limit and here's why: stopping and traffic. The speeding for the quarter mile stretches that some people can do is greatly offset by the stopping and slow driving portions by a large margin. This is why the "top" limit of highway is barely averaging over the averge speed limit (and in some places, that highway is 80.) They call this a statistical outlier. It just doesn't work out enough to allow for people to speed.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually texting could reduce crashes in a much less roundabout way. One of the benefits of a text is that there's little pressure to answer immediately. A transition from traditional phones to texing could mean that there are not as many people who immediately get distracted when someone tries to contact them.

Makes sense. I do most of my texting at a stoplight. When I get a phone with a qwerty keyboard (maybe?) I'll text while driving because then I don't have to take my eyes away from the road.

I am totally against texting and driving, Im against their being a law in any state with talking on ur cell while driving though. What if you are stuck somwhere or you are lost, or someone giving you directions, or its an emergency and someone is trying to reach out to you.

One thing though ive almost had afew accidents from others talking on their cells though I gotta admit. they almost made some contact with me like cutting me off really really close while talking.

texting while driving is no more dangerous than having a conversation with someone in the car while driving. the key is that your mind is off the driving and on something else.

Bullshit. Texting and driving is dangerous as hell. You gotta take your eyes off the road to text. Even if you can type blindfolded, your attention suffers.

exactly, just as it suffers when you talk to someone next to you.

No. You can talk to someone and keep both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road. You cannot do this while texting. No matter how you slice it, texting and driving is dangerous. Studies have proven this.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Bullshit. Texting and driving is dangerous as hell. You gotta take your eyes off the road to text. Even if you can type blindfolded, your attention suffers.

Yeah, the "numbers" say 5 seconds is how long you take your eyes off the road. That's a LOOOOOOOONG time. I don't know if I have ever taken my eyes off of the road for longer than 2 seconds while doing anything except the "drive while staring" thing from 2 fast 2 furious.


Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
No. You can talk to someone and keep both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road. You cannot do this while texting. No matter how you slice it, texting and driving is dangerous. Studies have proven this.

You're wrong because I can send an entire text message on a the old 12-key pads and the qwerty keyboards without even looking at my phone. That includes selecting the contact, typing the message, and sending. Gefallen Engel can do the same thing. It's fairly common, I'd say.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, the "numbers" say 5 seconds is how long you take your eyes off the road. That's a LOOOOOOOONG time. I don't know if I have ever taken my eyes off of the road for longer than 2 seconds while doing anything except the "drive while staring" thing from 2 fast 2 furious.

So how do you hold your phone while texting? And what about the thought put into the text?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/news/article4776063.ece


Yeah I'm gonna trust the experts here.

i doubt they have even done it, so i'm pretty much not taking their word for it.

haermm Read the report, champ.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong because I can send an entire text message on a the old 12-key pads and the qwerty keyboards without even looking at my phone. That includes selecting the contact, typing the message, and sending. Gefallen Engel can do the same thing. It's fairly common, I'd say.

YOU CAN READ THINGS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEM??!?!?!!? D=

Oh, it only takes you a fraction of a second to read a sentence. A fraction of a second looking away from the road can result in traveling like a hundred yards though, depending on your speed.

I drive over 2 hours a day, and text constantly. no problems, ever.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
YOU CAN READ THINGS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEM??!?!?!!? D=

Oh, it only takes you a fraction of a second to read a sentence. A fraction of a second looking away from the road can result in traveling like a hundred yards though, depending on your speed.


haermm Burn.

Blax: You say that like everyone who isn't texting is constantly paying attention to the road instead. That's bullshit. If its not your cell, its your radio, your food, other passengers in the car. Texting is no worse than anything else.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
YOU CAN READ THINGS WITHOUT LOOKING AT THEM??!?!?!!? D=

How are you confusing sending a text with reading a text? You don't have to read your texts, either: your texts can be read to you.



http://www.ilovefreesoftware.com/12/iphone/download-drivesafely-free.html


There's also diction software where you can send a text just with your voice, too.


You're stuck in the 2000s, bro. estahuh




Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Oh, it only takes you a fraction of a second to read a sentence. A fraction of a second looking away from the road can result in traveling like a hundred yards though, depending on your speed.

By that logic, anything that distracts you for a fraction of a second would be just as likely to cause a wreck. That includes passengers, an itch, a bug splatting, the radio, etc.


Originally posted by truejedi
Blax: You say that like everyone who isn't texting is constantly paying attention to the road instead. That's bullshit. If its not your cell, its your radio, your food, other passengers in the car. Texting is no worse than anything else.

I sort of agree. Texting is 8x more likely to cause a wreck than just driving normally. That's what the research shows. That's 4X greater than drunk driving.

Yet, waaaaaaaaaay more people die from drunk driving than texting. Why is that?

Originally posted by dadudemon
How are you confusing sending a text with reading a text? You don't have to read your texts, either: your texts can be read to you.



http://www.ilovefreesoftware.com/12/iphone/download-drivesafely-free.html


There's also diction software where you can send a text just with your voice, too.


You're stuck in the 2000s, bro. estahuh






By that logic, anything that distracts you for a fraction of a second would be just as likely to cause a wreck. That includes passengers, an itch, a bug splatting, the radio, etc.




I sort of agree. Texting is 8x more likely to cause a wreck than just driving normally. That's what the research shows. That's 4X greater than drunk driving.

Yet, waaaaaaaaaay more people die from drunk driving than texting. Why is that? Correct. When I drive I focus on the road unless it's something absolutely necessary requires my attention. "just drivin wut about u lol" is not something I or anyone else is absolutely obligated to risk one's life for. More importantly, it's not something that you should risk other people's lives for. And that's what a lot of people don't seem to understand, I think.

Guess her texting was worth it:


9krX9fHAfHM

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Correct. When I drive I focus on the road unless it's something absolutely necessary requires my attention. "just drivin wut about u lol" is not something I or anyone else is absolutely obligated to risk one's life for. More importantly, it's not something that you should risk other people's lives for. And that's what a lot of people don't seem to understand, I think.

My life is risked, each day, I drive because I think that 70% of the drivers around me are idiots. I don't send texts very often while actually driving because I don't have a qwerty or 12-key: it's really hard to tell what you're pressing. So I'm good there.


With the diction software, though, texting issues should be more readily resolved.



It won't be, however. If you notice what my point was, in the OP, there's too much of a numbers' disparity to blame 28% of wrecks on texting. How is that possible with wrecks decreasing and the number of drivers increasing when texting while driving is greatly increasing? Someone is full of shit, somewhere.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Correct. When I drive I focus on the road unless it's something absolutely necessary requires my attention. "just drivin wut about u lol" is not something I or anyone else is absolutely obligated to risk one's life for. More importantly, it's not something that you should risk other people's lives for. And that's what a lot of people don't seem to understand, I think. Hey, it's all good, bro. They can text without looking at their phone, hell, they can read texts without looking at their phone. They're safe. They're more of an expert on the subject than a government agency!!!

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Guess her texting was worth it:


9krX9fHAfHM

Ahhhh, yes. A government dramatization about texting and driving. So what did they blame it on before texting?

If you read the OP, you'd know that there's a disparity somewhere.

Having done some rudimentary research about the 28% number (googling the source, 3 second job), it is not about texting, but about general cell phone use, including talking on the phone and using it on your girlfriend (or boyfriend) as vibrator while driving.

Texting they say makes up a minimum of 200 000 of these 1.6 million accidents, which would be is 12.5% of them and only 3.5% of the overall stats.

http://www.nsc.org/pages/ nscestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingce
llphonesandtexting.aspx (straight from the horses mouth)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Having done some rudimentary research about the 28% number (googling the source, 3 second job), it is not about texting, but about general cell phone use, including talking on the phone and using it on your girlfriend (or boyfriend) as vibrator while driving.

Texting they say makes up a minimum of 200 000 of these 1.6 million accidents, which would be is 12.5% of them and only 3.5% of the overall stats.

http://www.nsc.org/pages/ nscestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingce
llphonesandtexting.aspx (straight from the horses mouth)

That's still several multiples of standard deviations...which does not really dimish the point, at all.

They had put signs up about texting and driving and it is shown on tv as well.But no one is stopping and as as a result there really had not been no car crashes as a result.So I think it really depends on the driver.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Guess her texting was worth it:


9krX9fHAfHM
You do 5realize that that was simulation, produced by the same agency that is telling you not to text and drive, right?

Originally posted by truejedi
You do 5realize that that was simulation, produced by the same agency that is telling you not to text and drive, right? No. I assumed that the girls in the car just happened to be filming at the time of the wreck. I assumed that the cameras were thrown about at just the right angles as the car came to a halt. I assumed that it like.....really happened and stuff.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's still several multiples of standard deviations...which does not really dimish the point, at all.

Were you making a point? I thought you were representing facts and offered multiple explanations for discussion?

Originally posted by dadudemon
With the diction software, though, texting issues should be more readily resolved.

not really

studies consistently find it has nothing to do with your hands, but the allocation of attention over multiple zones/sensory modalities that is problematic while driving. hands free phones are just as dangerous as cell phones when you drive.

sure, you might argue that someone can just "stop dictating when they need to drive", but you could say the same about texting proper (whereas, phone use has another person sort of demanding your attention). The real risk is that your attention will be so divided that you wont realize you now need to focus on driving, and that is not addressed at all by speaking to text.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's still several multiples of standard deviations...which does not really dimish the point, at all.

standard deviation from what?

you are reporting means... which mean is this one standardly different from? the average number of accidents caused by things? that seems like a meaningless stat...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Meh, averages are just pretty numbers on their own. I'd like to see the median speeds and the percentage of driving that is done over the limit.

I could see confidence intervals of the mode being useful... what is the median going to tell us about speeding?

EDIT: tripple post, YEAH!

Originally posted by inimalist
I could see confidence intervals of the mode being useful... what is the median going to tell us about speeding?

EDIT: tripple post, YEAH!

If the median is much higher or lower than the average you know that the numbers are being skewed. Like lets say the average speed is 60, exactly the speed limit, and people declare "Americans don't speed" but then you look and discover that the median speed is 20! Most likely that means the road has serious traffic problems much of the time, in which case its impossible to speed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the median is much higher or lower than the average you know that the numbers are being skewed. Like lets say the average speed is 60, exactly the speed limit, and people declare "Americans don't speed" but then you look and discover that the median speed is 20! Most likely that means the road has serious traffic problems much of the time, in which case its impossible to speed.

true, but in that instance, you would have to have had a few people going 300mph+ on that road

I suppose whether the median was greater or lower than the average would tell you where the majority of your data cluster, so whether more people are going faster or slower, but for something as serious as you are saying, you would have to have some really serious outliers in the other direction.

Originally posted by inimalist
true, but in that instance, you would have to have had a few people going 300mph+ on that road

I suppose whether the median was greater or lower than the average would tell you where the majority of your data cluster, so whether more people are going faster or slower, but for something as serious as you are saying, you would have to have some really serious outliers in the other direction.

It's an example. I didn't run through the numbers to see what they would result in. Between traffic, which can account for a lot of driving, and stopping at intersections or lights I'd say there's a lot of things to bring down the average.

Like the hare from the tortoise and the hare. His average speed for the whole race was less than the tortoises but when he was moving he was going vastly faster.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's an example. I didn't run through the numbers to see what they would result in. Between traffic, which can account for a lot of driving, and stopping at intersections or lights I'd say there's a lot of things to bring down the average.

Like the hare from the tortoise and the hare. His average speed for the whole race was less than the tortoises but when he was moving he was going vastly faster.

ok, I get where you are coming from, didn't really think of that...

I'd still go with CI's of mode, but thats like a taste thing... or, well, I guess it actually depends on how the data would be distributed anyways, if it were ~normal, mean would be fine, but I can't imagine that would be the case...

I am guilty of texting and driving. I try to wait until I hit a stop light, but it doesn't always happen that way. Nowadays cell phones have the voice text. So I've been using that. It works pretty well....though it totally censors me.

I'm serious, you cannot cuss. It censors it out.

Originally posted by Utsukushii
I'm serious, you cannot cuss. It censors it out.

and you pay for this feature?

no it came on the phone

Originally posted by inimalist
and you pay for this feature?

No, actually Android (which has the feature he is referring to) is completely free, so he's not paying for it.

werd, my berd

so i was driving today, and eating Wendy's and I almost died.

as I previously mentioned, driving and texting i do all the time, completely safely.

So driving and texting is safer than eating and driving.

Originally posted by truejedi
so i was driving today, and eating Wendy's and I almost died.

as I previously mentioned, driving and texting i do all the time, completely safely.

So driving and texting is safer than eating and driving.

Q.E.D.

There is curretly a law pending in Nevada, where I live, that would make it illegal to both text and talk on a cell phone while driving. It is expected to pass, I hope it does.

Indeed. Texting during driving should be made illegal. It diverts your attention while driving. I've seen a lot of comments that make claims like,

"well, here's this other activity that is just as detracting that's legal."

But that doesn't mean texting should be legal just because another activity is also dangerous. At best it means those other activities might need to be made illegal.

way to always want MORE laws... I personally prefer to sign over fewer of my personal liberties rather than more, but that's just me.

Originally posted by truejedi
way to always want MORE laws... I personally prefer to sign over fewer of my personal liberties rather than more, but that's just me.

Yes, the right to endanger other people's live is central to all modern rights based concepts of liberty!

Seriously.

Never really understood that.

Originally posted by inimalist
not really

studies consistently find it has nothing to do with your hands, but the allocation of attention over multiple zones/sensory modalities that is problematic while driving. hands free phones are just as dangerous as cell phones when you drive.

sure, you might argue that someone can just "stop dictating when they need to drive", but you could say the same about texting proper (whereas, phone use has another person sort of demanding your attention). The real risk is that your attention will be so divided that you wont realize you now need to focus on driving, and that is not addressed at all by speaking to text.

I quite clearly indicated what the difference was, already.


We are literally talking about 8 times more likely to get into a wreck versus 4 times more likely. Dropping it back to the "distracted by talking" rather than taking your eyes of the road. We could bring it back to something more safe. That was my point.



If you want to talk about attention, I could make a really good case for bad behaving children being far worse than texting or talking.


Originally posted by inimalist
standard deviation from what?

you are reporting means... which mean is this one standardly different from? the average number of accidents caused by things? that seems like a meaningless stat...

Wah? No. facepalm

Go back and read the OP.


The SD would be the SD for the number of wrecks, period. In order to blame 28% of accidents on texting, we would have to see a rise in wrecks that mirrors the amount of texting while driving. In order for 28% to actually be "real", we'd have to see that in the total number of wrecks. 28%, alone, is such a giant increase over the year to year fluctations that it would be easily seen. It's just not in the numbers. Something is "missing" in order for the 28% number to actually work.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, I get where you are coming from, didn't really think of that...

I'd still go with CI's of mode, but thats like a taste thing... or, well, I guess it actually depends on how the data would be distributed anyways, if it were ~normal, mean would be fine, but I can't imagine that would be the case...

Mode would also work quite nicely if you segmented the speeds into tiers. The mode of the top 25%, mode of the two middles, mode of the lowest. Median would also work, fine, for those groups, too.


I like "average" because it balances out the outliers.




An even better number would be the amount of people that speed 5 mph over or more. That number would approach 100%, I think.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
There is curretly a law pending in Nevada, where I live, that would make it illegal to both text and talk on a cell phone while driving. It is expected to pass, I hope it does.

Despite what I've said in this thread, I think a law like that would be just fine. I want to see more laws passed to prevent people from harming others. That includes alcohol and drug use. Texting while at home or walking? Mostly okay. Texting while driving? Not okay.

I am dead serious when I say that molesting your companion while driving is much more dangerous than anything I've covered. Even I am not an expert at doing that without swerving, yet.

Shut up and drive, people.

No, but really, here in California there is a law prohibitting talking on the cellphone while driving, except when using a hands free system. So I don't see many people texting while driving. I see plenty eating/putting on makeup/shaving/cutting their hair/putting on their clothes/taking a shower while driving, though.

Originally posted by BackFire
Shut up and drive, people.

thumbsup

I have received um.... molestation... from a willing female while driving, and to be honest, that was safer than the eating and driving thing.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I quite clearly indicated what the difference was, already.


We are literally talking about 8 times more likely to get into a wreck versus 4 times more likely. Dropping it back to the "distracted by talking" rather than taking your eyes of the road. We could bring it back to something more safe. That was my point.

I sort of addressed that here:



so ya, I'm not surprised that the voice activated one is less dangerous, and in fact, because there is no person on the other end demanding attention, is probably safer than cell phones.

The point that it is attention, rather than the voice activated stuff or hands free, that is responsible for the crashes is not refuted by this. In fact, we see, as the technology allows for a more fluid distribution of top down attention over the environment, the risk of a crash reduces, whereas in the case of cell phones, moving from a normal model to hands free does nothing.

But yes, it could be safer. I don't think "communicating while operating a multi ton vehicle at speeds the human brain is barely able to percieve properly" is a right in the first place, so I have no objection to people being asked to not do it while they drive, even if it only saved one person, or even simply offered the opportunity for a person not to be killed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to talk about attention, I could make a really good case for bad behaving children being far worse than texting or talking.

this is a non-sequitor unless you are proposing that children or any form of distraction be banned from the car. Telling people to pull over when they text is hardly as much a violation of personal freedom as telling them they can't travel with their children would be.

also a strawman because I don't think anyone has said texting is the most distracting thing for a driver. The reason you can't get rid of other things, like for instance, the sun shining directly in your eyes, is the pragmatics or, as mentioned above, ethics of it, not that obnoxious children are exempt from any principle here.

further, yes, and that would support the "attentional" versus "voice" theory here, because you are attending to something else. However, studies tend to find that passangers in the car are aware enough of what is going on to at least not be tarribly botherson when the driver needs to be attentive. Obviously, children much less so, but kids aren't all stupid.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wah? No. facepalm

Go back and read the OP.

The SD would be the SD for the number of wrecks, period.

which two means are you contrasting? or is it ANOVA?


Originally posted by dadudemon
In order to blame 28% of accidents on texting, we would have to see a rise in wrecks that mirrors the amount of texting while driving. In order for 28% to actually be "real", we'd have to see that in the total number of wrecks. 28%, alone, is such a giant increase over the year to year fluctations that it would be easily seen. It's just not in the numbers. Something is "missing" in order for the 28% number to actually work.

I can't imagine there is any disparity at all...

there are a host of reasons we can get into, but the central premise, that gross total crashes must go up for any cause for those crashes to account for a larger proportion of crashes, is false. If texting caused the same amount of deaths each year, and the total number of crashes went down, by definition, texting would account for a greater proportion of the crashes...

I read over what you said a couple of times, so I appologize if I got that wrong...

though, just to throw it out there, a much easier explanation is that any time a cell phone is involved in a crash, it is now ruled a "texting" crash, the same way anyone who smokes that gets cancer is ruled to have died because of smoking (ie, greater correlation than actual causation), mixed with the increase in a generation of tech savy drivers, and the simple fact that the cops probably pay more attention to the issue than they did 3-4 years ago, to me, seems to explain the problem nicely...

Originally posted by truejedi
I have received um.... molestation... from a willing female while driving, and to be honest, that was safer than the eating and driving thing.

she wasn't well practiced

Originally posted by inimalist
I sort of addressed that here:

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, you might argue that someone can just "stop dictating when they need to drive", but you could say the same about texting proper (whereas, phone use has another person sort of demanding your attention).



fixed

Just get a voice activated bluetooth and be done with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, actually Android (which has the feature he is referring to) is completely free, so he's not paying for it.



.....i'm a she

0.o

Originally posted by Utsukushii
.....i'm a she

My bad.