Paul M. Cook wrote
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.

Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that
texting while driving is absolutely guaranteed to
be harder to do than driving without texting at all.

Occam's razor

Is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

tells us that the simplest answer is the best
answer until/unless we know otherwise.

Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort.

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

BULL**** when its obvious that texting while driving
is much harder to do than driving without texting.

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,

They obviously are happening to get a hospital admission.

and, if the accidents are happening,

No if about it.

then they'd have to prove they are worse for
us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack.

Wrong on both counts. Nothing unlikely about it.

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.

More accidents, actually.

We don't need to look further for second-order issues,

Corse we do when trying to decide if texting while driving
produces more accidents that are serious enough to result
in hospitalisation.

but, since the study could find no first-order indications,

Another lie.

those greater accidents would likely result
in greater numbers of hospital visits.

We aren't talking about hospital VISITS, we are
talking about HOSPITALIZATION if the original
paper has been accurately reported.

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

Even sillier than you usually manage. Nothing
blind about it and no shooting at all either.

But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether
there is a ban on texting while driving won't 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?????

It looks like they could find accidents but the rate of those
that required HOSPITALIZATION, didnt vary between the
states that ban texting and those that didnt, if chris has
summarised the paper accurately.

Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said,
but, 'cmon, they can't even find the accidents,

Thats a lie.

let alone prove they're worse.

And so is that. The rate of hospitalization proves that
they are worse in the states that dont ban texting.

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,

They can.

but they can find hospital visits?

Hospitalization, not hospital visits. That may well be because
the data on HOSPITALIZATION is much more reliable than the
data on accidents, no matter how minor that dont even get
reported to anyone.

Something stinks in the data.

That doesnt.

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,

I didnt say that.

but,
3. Causes same number of accidents, which

Or that. They JUST said that there is no variation
on that between the states which ban texting
while driving those that dont if chris has
reported what the paper says accurately.

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.

You dont know that either.

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

Not if that data is much more reliable and it likely is.

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.

You dont know that either.

Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE
conclusion that they would have wanted to prove,

But they may not have reliable data on all accidents, particularly
those that aren't bad enough to get reported to anyone because
the driver just swerves all over the road etc and doesnt actually
hit any other car or any stationary object.

so, that it wasn't proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study.

But may be an unavoidable consequence of the lack of
anything like as good data on the total accident rate.