On 6/20/2010 4:44 PM, Stu wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:32:19 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2010 12:21 PM, Stu wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:53:03 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But statistically they aren't any safer than yammering into a phone that
>>>> you hold to your ear.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Where's the stats? I find that very hard to believe.
>>
>> Here are a few sources:
>>
>> <http://www.lps.uci.edu/SSHonors/HFES2006.pdf>
> Quote from web page" The purpose of this research was to provide a
> direct comparison of the driving performance of a cell phone driver
> and a drunk driver in a controlled laboratory setting. "
>
> Not from actually vehicle crashes where cell phones were used, but
> from a laboratory setting.
>
>> <http://www.distracteddriving.ca/english/documents/FrancoisBellavance_001.pdf>
> Quote from web page "The analysis of the responses to the
> questionnaire showed that compared to non-users, cell phone users are
> more exposed to collision: they drive more often as part of their
> work; they drive more kilometres per year; they drive more often after
> 8 pm; they manipulate more often the radio, CD or tapes; they have
> higher education levels."
>
> So these people in the study were on the road much more than average
> drivers, hence they were more prone to accidents because of the
> extended road use. Was it the cell phones or the much larger chance of
> accident by road time?
>
> Lets be serious here for a minute, you can find facts to prove almost
> anything. If these stats are looked at carefully, they can be skewed
> to prove anything.

So address the rest of them.