Study shows no fewer crashes in NY, despite cell phone ban

[rd_kent]

Syracuse (WSYR-TV) - It appears New York roads are no safer than those in states that don't ban use of hand held cell phones. A new Highway Loss Data Institute study finds no reductions in crashes after these laws take effect.


http://www.9wsyr.com/news/local/story/Study-shows-no-fewer-crashes-in-NY-despite-cell/c9GhDpNoUkeh8pFN9igbdw.cspx

-----------


Now, is this because using a cell phone wile driving is NOT dangerous, or because people IGNORED the ban and police were unable to enforce it?

Methinks it's the latter....

[dems_rightnow]

1. I'd agree with you

HUGE noncompliance.

[Sanity Claws]

2. Yes, huge noncompliance

I see drivers on the phone all the time.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The study used observers to record usage rates.

Their data did not depend on theoretical compliance, it measured it.

[cabluedem]

36. I hold mine up to my ear like I am resting my head. Never distracts me from driving but I dont chat.

away for a long time either. If the cops and truckers can do it so can I. Period.

[Fumesucker]

6. But I doubt the noncompliance rate is 100%..

Even a 75% non compliance rate should show up in improved crash statistics..

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Even worse: despite reduction in observed usage, no reduction in accidents.

The people who ran the study are as perplexed as everyone else. We've all seen driving while yakking disasters. This study produced a result as odd is of the subject were "Study shows drunk driving as safe as driving sober".

The only explanation they could come up with, other than 'perhaps we were wrong' was 'perhaps everyone is now using hands free devices'. They are going to have to go find some other data.

[MindPilot]

9. Yes, while people who can't talk and drive at the same time

may be extraordinarily irritating, apparently they are not actually causing accidents.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Or the same people drive into stuff regardless of their yakking.

The study has done a stump the nannies on the statists. I suspect it will be ignored and the bans will continue.

[MindPilot]

24. I think that's it.

They just happened to be on the phone when they ignored the stop sign.

[cabluedem]

38. Thr bans make money and are used as PC for a stop and search by police. No way the bans will stop nt

[bigwillq]

5. It's very difficult to enforce it.

Especially in bigger cities more prone to crime.

[justabob]

7. methinks you are correct

Makes me wonder if They will now repeal the law, saying cellphones aren't a problem - based on the fact that accidents haven't decreased. That seems to be the way things work these days. Sigh.

[MindPilot]

8. well, well, well

who could have seen THAT coming?

Wonder if they will have to rescind all those convictions and refund all those fines?

[pipi_k]

10. I think it's because of #2 also

How the hell are cops supposed to see a cellphone held below dashboard level?

And people know that.

[Shell Beau]

12. I can only guess that people are still talking and texting away while driving.

[MorningGlow]

13. Maybe the talking-while-driving stats have gone down, while

the texting-while-driving stats have gone UP. :shrug:

Noncompliance is huge. Hell, I've even seen a state trooper talking on a cell phone while driving!

[Shell Beau]

17. Does that law apply to law enforcement?

The cell phone ban hasn't gone into effect here, so I really haven't a clue. It seems I remember someone saying that law didn't apply to the law enforcement, but I could so be making that up. Stranger things have surely happened!!

:hi:

[MorningGlow]

19. Ach, you're right!

3. Subdivision two of this section shall not apply to (a) the use of a mobile telephone for the sole purpose of communicating with any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an emergency response operator; a hospital, physician's office or health clinic; an ambulance company or corps; a fire department, district or company; or a police department, (b) any of the following persons while in the performance of their official duties: a police officer or peace officer; a member of a fire department, district or company; or the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in section one hundred one of this chapter, or (c) the use of a hands-free mobile telephone.

But how do we KNOOOOWWWW he wasn't calling his wife to find out what he should bring home for dinner? Hmmm? :D

:hi:

[Shell Beau]

20. I guarantee you he was doing just that!!

;)

[MindPilot]

23. In California, no

I don't know about the law in other states, but in California, the following are specifically excluded from the ban: law enforcement, any "first responder", tow truck drivers, any truck that is not a pickup, any farm implement or vehicle, and up until this month SCHOOL BUS drivers!

This is my whole problem with this law, it is either dangerous or it is not. It can't be dangerous in a passenger car and not dangerous in a semi.

[Arctic Dave]

14. Non enforcement. Just about every cop on patrol has a phone to their ear.

Why would they bust someone else doing it.

[Shell Beau]

21. As it was stated above, the law doesn't apply to law enforcement.

I think anyway! :)

[Arctic Dave]

26. That means all cops are having accidents. It is the only answer. :D

[aquart]

15. It's because talking on non-held phones is just as distracting.

[RedCappedBandit]

28. You are correct

It is talking to somebody who isn't in your presence that is distracting, not holding something in your hand.

[frebrd]

16. It isn't a matter of what you're doing with your hands........

it's what you're doing with your brain that distracts you! Hand-held or hands-free really doesn't matter. Even listening to talk radio can be distracting - people who listen to it are usually heavily invested in, and attentive to, what's being said.

I can't understand why people don't see this. It seems self-evident to me.

Edited for spelling.

[MindPilot]

18. Here is the summary from the actual report

Insurance collision loss experience does not indicate a decrease in crash risk when hand-held cellphone laws are enacted.
Crashes in this bulletin included all collision claims reported to HLDI, whereas ideally crashes would have been
restricted to claims involving driving while using hand-held cellphones. This information is not known to HLDI, nor to
the insurance companies that supply data to HLDI, and is a clear limitation of the analysis. However, prior estimates of
the effects of cellphone use on crash risk were so large, and reductions in observed hand-held cellphone use following
the laws were so substantial, that reductions even in aggregate crashes would be expected after enactment of hand-held
cellphone laws.

Data presented in this bulletin indicate that, during a time of large growth in the purchase of cellphones and in the use
of these phones, collision claim rates either were flat or already decreasing before enactment of the laws. Claim frequencies
for control states without laws also were declining and generally continued to trend in the same way as claim
frequencies for the study states after the laws. There is no evidence that bans on hand-held cellphone use by drivers has
affected these trends in collision claims.
http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/pdf/HLDI_Cellphone_Bulletin_Dec09.pdf

[Tesha]

22. What the study probably proved is that it's the cognitive load of BEING ON THE PHONE...

...and not the fact that you're holding it in your hands that so vastly
raises the risk associated with driving while yakking. There are quite
a few studies that already have proven this point.

Tesha

[MindPilot]

25. The study shows there is no correlation between cell phones and crashes

Even as cell phone usage was increasing, accident rates were already either flat or trending down before the laws were enacted.

The bottom line is that talking on the phone has no aggregate effect on accident rates.

[Tesha]

33. No, the study didn't prove that. It proved that banning hand-helds had no statistically-significant

effect. And plenty of other studies have already confirmed impairment
associated with talking on the phone while driving, whether hand-held
or not.

Tesha

[MindPilot]

34. Not quite.

Yes, studies have shown that talking on a cell phone does cause impairment. What this study shows is that does not translate into higher accident rates. Before laws were enacted--as cell phone usage was increasing--accident rates were already flat or trending downward.

If the impairment was as severe as the studies had shown, one would expect a corresponding spike in accident rates as cell phone usage increased. That didn't happen.

[H2O Man]

27. People ignore the ban.

There is no enforcement, with the possible exception of post-accident charges.

[MindPilot]

30. I'll take that into consideration.

I owe the State of California $142 for the last time I got caught driving while cellular. I'll be sure to remind them the law is not being enforced.

[Libertas1776]

29. Oh forget about it...

in NY, there is nothing but A-holes driving around aimlessly gabbing on their phones and cutting you off the road or worse.

[Shell Beau]

31. I have to say that while I was in NY and riding in a cab, that was

probably the freakiest time on the road I have had. SCARY.

[Roon]

35. I was fresh out of training of driving 18-wheelers and got sent to NY NY

my first run..talk about scary!! That is all I heard about in school and in training,how fucked it is to drive in that city.

[Shell Beau]

37. I would have cried, and I don't cry too much, but that would have

done me in.

[GrantDem]

32. I agree...

That was the first observation I made when I heard about this study.