On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:24:41 +0000, chris wrote:

They found a 7% difference which given the amount of data
they had was strong enough to be explained by the presence
or not a texting ban.

Being a logical thinker, & assuming that this *was* a scientifically
done study (i.e., not biased for a pre-determined result), then I
must tend to believe that which they found is true (especially if
it is later repeated in further studies by other disinterested parties).

It's interesting that they couldn't find *accidents* though, because
I am sure they would have *loved* to report greater numbers or rates
of accidents.

They can't (and I already had known that from the raw data itself).

Digging deeper than the raw data, all they could find that was related
was worse hospitalizations.

Odd.
Very odd.

Must make sense somehow though - if the study was truly scientifically
performed. That's certainly a third order issue ...
1. Accidents are first order
2. Hospitalizations are second order
3. Severity of hospitalizations is third order.

But what do *you* make of that non-intuitive 3rd-order conclusion?

I might tend to think along with line of Rod Speed's assessment that
the accidents don't exist in any greater numbers, but, those that
did exist (and which would have happened with or without the devices
in use), are, perhaps worse in severity?