On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:50:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents.

Like *all* arguments for restrictions on cellphone use while driving,
they *require* additional *highly unproven* assumptions.

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest answer is the best
answer until/unless we know otherwise.

The simplest answer is that they could find absolutely zero
increase in accidents, period.

However, I do agree, that the data stinks because of other
issues (like who cares about hospital visits if the accidents
aren't happening in the first place, and, if the accidents
are happening, then they'd have to prove they are worse for
us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack.

There certainly is with the claim that gas prices
have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes.

I have to agree with you there. Lower prices would mean greater
miles, which should mean greater accidents. We don't need to
look further for second-order issues, but, since the study could
find no first-order indications, those greater accidents would
likely result in greater numbers of hospital visits.

But, without the accidents, they're just shooting blind.

But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether
there is a ban on texting while driving wont have any effect
on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident.

Good point. I was trying to figure out *why* they couldn't
find accidents, yet, they found more hospital visits?????

Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said, but, 'cmon,
they can't even find the accidents, let alone prove they're
worse.


That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no
one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident.

OK. I understand that single-vehicle accidents would be in
a minority.

But, then, how come they can't find accidents, but they
can find hospital visits?

Something stinks in the data.

Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is.

I understand your point, which is this, in effect:
1. Cell phone use
2. Causes not more accidents, but,
3. Causes same number of accidents, which
4. Are more serious.

While I agree *that* would account for the data, seems to me
that it's pretty clear that the *rate* of accidents didn't
change.

But, it seems *fishy* that the hospital visits did change.

A more important criticism of the study is that
no relationship was found with gas prices which
is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic
volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious
accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly
involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to
accept.

Yes. I agree. Gas prices lowering should increase miles
driven which should increase accidents period.

Something is fishy in this data, but, one takeaway that
was unintended, I'm sure, is that the accident rate
itself certainly didn't increase or decrease.

Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE conclusion
that they would have wanted to prove, so, that it wasn't
proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study.