Very funny, guys. We get it. The Truth About Cars takes you to task for your shoddy “investigative” report into the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA). You respond with an editorial called “The Truth About Cars and Cellphones.” Inside joke or not, we stand by our condemnation. First, conflating cell phone use with other distractions—excoriating drivers who “juggle hot coffee and a Mc-whatever or attend to personal grooming in the rearview mirror”—is both lazy AND stupid. Second, repeating your dubious charges—that the NHTSA bent to political pressure instead of faithfully discharging its duties—does not make them so. And third, semantics are the second-to-last refuge of a scoundrel. To wit:
What we want to know is: Since when did trying to save lives constitute lobbying?
The NHTSA has an approved protocol for commissioning research, analyzing the results, updating members of the safety community (including the relevant state authorities), making recommendations for corrective action (when needed) and creating automotive safety legislation. I would say that subverting that system—which is exactly what the Times is suggesting should have occurred—constitutes lobbying (in the negative sense).
Is it the NHTSA’s place to “advise” states to amend or create driving laws before the federal agency has conclusive evidence that any such amendment or new law is A) warranted and B) effective? Lest we forget, ALL states have laws against dangerous driving or driving while distracted. The NHTSA was not preventing any state from creating a new law OR enforcing existing laws. It was investigating the dangers of driving while yakking on the cell—as it does many risk factors—in a methodical manner.
Six years later, the Transportation Department advises drivers to avoid cellphones except in emergencies. But far too many Americans now consider phoning while driving to be standard behavior. The department estimates that roughly 12 percent of drivers are on the phone at any given time — twice the estimate of its own researchers when their effort to document the risks was rebuffed.
Hyperbole, lax reporting, bias, innuendo and a cheap shot at TTAC. Nice work, guys.
I agree with most topics here, but cell phone use while driving isn’t one of them.
Only 12% of drivers are talking on cellphones? In my admittedly unscientific sample more like one-third are talking on the phone. I see two things on many drivers, cell phone to the ear with one hand and white knuckles of the other hand firmly gripping the steering wheel.
One of the “conclusions’ of this study was that even with bluetooth features (no holding of the phone) the driver was distracted by the conversation.
Does this mean no conversations with live passengers physically in the car?
Hey Robert,
You gotta recognize the back handed compliment the NYT just paid you. When you’re influential enough that the NYT feels it has to respond to TTACs position and comments, you’re pretty damn influential.
Kudo’s for slamming them for the cheap shot, but I think if you spend a little more time on it, you could write a FAR more effective rebuttal. And I’d LOVE to read it… :)
Hyperbole, lax reporting, bias, innuendo and a cheap shot at TTAC.
Doesn’t that pretty well describe the MSM nowadays? (Well, maybe except for the cheap shot at TTAC. Those aren’t part of the standard package yet.)
You struck a nerve, Robert, and they responded like they do.
The Gray Hag would have been better off ignoring TTAC. All publicity is good publicity.
The bad part of it is that the editorial doesn’t mention the site directly so the average NYT reader won’t make the “Truth About Cars” connection, nor would they even be aware TTAC exists.
Hell, of those few people still reading the NY times, I’m not too sure if they would be aware that cars exist other than taxicabs and limousines…let alone TTAC.
The bad part of it is that the editorial doesn’t mention the site directly so the average NYT reader won’t make the “Truth About Cars” connection, nor would they even be aware TTAC exists.
Well, TTAC is certainly not entitled to free publicity in the NYT, but at the same time such inside jokes only serve to chip away at what’s left of the Times’ integrity. Bad move, you old blue-haired bitch.
Does this mean no conversations with live passengers physically in the car?
Actually no, because passengers assist the driver in identifying dangers. Furthermore, cellphone conversations are more distracting because the attention of the driver is focused on a distant interlocutor, who needs constant reassurance that the driver is listening.
I thought the NYT’s feature with varied participants was pretty good.
The TTAC article that started this was valid in it’s criticisms. It also had better eye candy than any NYT story.
Hopefully applying lipstick while driving will still be legal for hotties.
“The Old Gray Hag” just blew you a kiss :)
This site and its kind are the new media. Watching NYT and their ilk flail away while the new media eats their lunch is just damn funny.
Without the follow-up study recommended back in 2003, the truth may never be known. A study needs to be designed specifically to pull the data out that you want, which is: does cell phone use result in a statistically significant change in accidents and fatalities, for better or for worse?
I’m in a line of work where the conclusions of the small, preliminary studies are sometimes completely contradicted when the results of well-designed mega-trials involving tens of thousands of subjects over several years are available. The 2003 data is indeed small and preliminary. Could that be the case with cell-phone use? Yes, but retrospective data isn’t always sufficient for proof, i.e. citing the continued decline in fatality rates.
On the flip side, the experimental data involving complex tasks and distraction look very, very bad for driving while on the phone. One example was a concert pianist who had memorized a tune asked to play it while reading from a book and having a phone conversation. The music got pretty f*cked up. The analogy is that experienced drivers don’t have extra brainpower to do something physical that’s rote, yet carry on an activity requiring constant conscious input.
As whole shebang is a public safety issue, best to err on the side of caution until better data is available, if it ever does. Any emerging countries want to experiment?
As usual, Mike Luckovich pens it succinctly.
Interesting stuff. The NYT op-ed makes two points:
That information — including estimates that cellphoning drivers caused 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002 — was finally pried loose this week by a freedom of information lawsuit.
and
The department estimates that roughly 12 percent of drivers are on the phone at any given time
According to NHTSA, there were 43,005 fatalities during 2002.
Assuming that the 955 and 12% figures are correct, that must lead one to reach these conclusions:
-There were 42,050 fatalities that didn’t involve phones. That’s 97.8% of the total…
-…which leads us to 88% of the non-phoning population causing almost 98% of the fatalities, while the phone users who comprise 12% of the population cause only 2.2% of the fatalities.
Funny how that combination of factoids would make it appear that driving with a phone is a benefit to safety, as phone users crash less than the norm. Usually, something that causes a lower rate of deaths would be considered to be a benefit.
Or to put it another way, had the phone users stopped using their phones and crashed at the same rate as had everyone else, we would have had an additional 4,800 deaths during 2002, an 11% increase in fatalities. Phones saved 13 lives a day!
Here’s your reason to get an iPhone — it’s for the children! And buy Apple stock, as we’ll be passing a safety law requiring everybody to have one.
That comet was on the phone when it slammed into Jupiter
Agree with others: it’s a big deal to get recognized by the NYT, although a shame not to get named.
Any publicity is good publicity (paraphrased)
–former Boston Mayor James Michael Curley
That comet was on the phone when it slammed into Jupiter
Well, in the 5th Element, the Evil Comet DID talk on the phone with Gary Oldman.
My problem with all this is on a more fundamental level.
The underlying suggestion is that we need laws to prevent something that MIGHT be a problem, or if we grant that it is a problem MIGHT be a significant problem.
I don’t want a government making law on the basis of everything that might happen now and again and might have some consequences.
You can’t idiot-proof the world. Stop trying and leave me alone.
Pch101-> The department estimates that roughly 12 percent of drivers are on the phone at any given time
Probably a larger percentage of the populations talks on the phone while driving, 12% of drivers just happen to do it simultaneously at any given time.
Pch101 said:
…which leads us to 88% of the non-phoning population causing almost 98% of the fatalities, while the phone users who comprise 12% of the population cause only 2.2% of the fatalities.
If we assume the above 12% is the percentage of people who talk on the phone totally, and not at any given moment:
Fatalities / percent of drivers,
on the phone: 955/2,2%=434,09 42.050/97,8=429,959. This indicates that per percent of drivers, the ones on the phone still cause more accidents than the ones not on the phone, even thought he total number is a pretty small percentage. Which is logical since phones are not the primary cause for accidents. The difference is quite small actually… Of course that is assuming that i didn’t get my math backwards, which is entirely possible.
RF, I personally agree, NYT could have done a better job reporting this story.
Lokkii, I agree, we don’t need more laws.
Here is a link to an article with examples from some brain researchers about multitasking.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090722/ANA08/907229974/1260&AssignSessionID=173361146609818
Please read it, draw your own conclusions, and drive safely.
Of course that is assuming that i didn’t get my math backwards, which is entirely possible.
You did err with this; your formula doesn’t tie to anything. If x = the total number of road deaths, 955 = .022x and 42050 = .978x, with x = 43005.
The non-phone group has 7.33 times more members than does the phone group (.88n vs. 12n). Yet the non-phone group killed off 44 times more people than did the phoners. That makes driving without a phone sound awfully dangerous, as odd as that may be.
RF.
And other TTAC voices…
What?
I am totally confused right now about the philosophy of this sight.
First, what is the point of this story?
Safety?
Really?
Look, this is the TTACars, not TTASafety.
Of ALL the dangers of cell phone use, is it any more dangerous than motorcycle riding?
If there is any attempt at affirmative, forgetaboutit..
How many cyclist die every year in my county alone every year is horrible
Is cell phone use any more dangerous than red light running?
Well, excuse me but this sight has been ranting about this very madness it seems for months now.
Is cell phone use more dangerous than drinking and driving?
Hell no!
So WHY aren’t we shouting from our TTAC rooftop that cops should be outside every bar catching the obvious????
Why?
Because its ridiculous.
Its as ridiculous as it is to attempt to ban cell phone use.
Life is dangerous.
But instead of dumbing down our world, PLEASE rant about punishment for those that commit crimes.
Punish those that cause accidents, for any reason.
This hurts my pride in this sight.
+1 Pch101
Ha ha. Clever analysis of the numbers.
Nah, someone at TTAC has a fetish about pictures of pretty girls driving while using their cellphones. They’re just using the NHTSA story to sneak one in on us.
Pch101 said:
You did err with this; your formula doesn’t tie to anything.
I figured as much. Oh well, at least i had an interesting last five minutes of a quiet day at work trying to figure it out..
Oh well, at least i had an interesting last five minutes of a quiet day at work trying to figure it out
I’m glad that this subject could bring joy to somebody’s day…
What I find particularly irritating about this story is that the writer of the op-ed obviously didn’t spend a few minutes crunching the numbers. To the conspiracy seekers, the implication is clear — if NHTSA did kill the report for political reasons, it would be because they wouldn’t have wanted numbers that showed phone users to be safer than the norm. It would be tough for states to justify all of these new laws if numbers like these came to light.
I don’t know how many people noticed, but Maureen Dowds column in the NYT yesterday was also a big “Oh my God” whine fest about cell phone drivers. Let’s see… That makes three articles about cellphones and driving in the last, what, two or three days for the NYT. Hmmm, I wonder if they have an agenda…
Also, isn’t it sweet when you get to browse thru all reader responses to an article and select only those that agree with your position to post like the NYT and other Pravda subsidiaries do on their “editorial” pages?
Just imagine what the “general consensus” here at TTAC would look like if RF selectively posted only those comments he personally liked.
That right there is why the old media is dying (Thank deitycause of your choice) and the new media, that allows a truly free flow of opinions, is thriving.
The correlation between driving and phone use (and other distractions) is already in, including the Salt Lake City study (which eliminates the false argument that USA drivers are somehow different to other humans).
Driving and cell phone use is dangerous and stupid. It’s been proven to cause a slow down in responses equivalent to being drunk with a 0.08 BAC level. In Australia, that’s license lost territory for BAC.
You owe it to me, my family, and you and your family to do the right thing. This is not about rights, it’s about doing something that has a non-zero risk as best you can, and that means put the damn cell phone away.
Get in the car, STFU, and drive. We’re an driving enthusiast web site, not a cell phone enthusiast web site. If we’re going to do Baruthian things, let’s do them as well as we can.
Andrew
(who got busted in 2003 for this and got 5 demerit points)
Banning cell phones while driving is like banning all holders of a driver’s license from ever drinking beer. Leave it to the MSM to champion such a cause, when it is fashionable and helps sell newspapers.
Hell, of those few people still reading the NY times, I’m not too sure if they would be aware that cars exist other than taxicabs and limousines…let alone TTAC.…
Don’t be so sure…When I read that story on the way to work this morning I knew exactly what was going on. RF, take it as a compliment. If the NY Post picked it up, well, that would be meaningless…
If you are controlling two tons of metal going at a relatively high speed you should have complete focus. If the call is that important, pull over.
Enjoy the drive.
Or to put it another way, had the phone users stopped using their phones and crashed at the same rate as had everyone else, we would have had an additional 4,800 deaths during 2002, an 11% increase in fatalities. Phones saved 13 lives a day!
Here’s your reason to get an iPhone — it’s for the children! And buy Apple stock, as we’ll be passing a safety law requiring everybody to have one.
Wow, I didn’t take you to be one for hillbilly math. They seem to have done a statistical analysis which approximates ~1000 additional deaths due to cell phones.
That italicized word is quote important. In general I think it’s safe to assume folks who can calculate reasonably complex correlations can remember to try to isolate factors.
In fact, that last part is the reason why you and photog02 keep confusing a broad trend tied to many factors as necessarily correlated to any individual one.
What we want to know is: Since when did trying to save lives constitute lobbying?
Trying to mock this statement is kind of ironic since the money here is with the mobile industry, and lobbying is money.
agenthex
At no point did The Times suggest that the NHTSA had been influenced in any way, shape or form, by the cell phone industry. In fact, in the article that “inspired” their coverage, in Mother Jones, the magazine inserted a disclaimer clarifying that fact.
If you are controlling two tons of metal going at a relatively high speed you should have complete focus. If the call is that important, pull over.
Can’t argue with that, but making it law is a slippery slope. What about changing the radio station, talking to a passenger, or picking one’s nose? All are distractions.
It used to be that “driving with due care and attention” was enough intrusion by Big Brother, and IMO it still is.
They seem to have done a statistical analysis which approximates ~1000 additional deaths due to cell phones.
I quoted the NYT directly: “That information — including estimates that cellphoning drivers caused 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002 — was finally pried loose this week by a freedom of information lawsuit.”
So no, you’re misquoting them. They are specifically attributing 955 deaths to phone usage.
Which means by implication that they are attributing all of the other automotive deaths to other causes. In that case, that means that 42,050 people died in that same year for other reasons.
The phone user base is 12% of the driving pool. That 12% killed 955. That forces us to conclude that the remaining 88% killed 42,050. The non-phone users kill people off at a rate six times above that of the phone users. Sounds like somebody needs to call his mother on the way home from work.
If you are controlling two tons of metal going at a relatively high speed you should have complete focus.
Perhaps that’s the point — control isn’t the solution, it’s the problem. Because drivers who are fully in control make bad decisions, and it’s human error — making bad choices — that kills people.
Distraction, when it leads to better alternatives, may actually something of a positive because it distracts us from being the dumbasses who we would choose to be if we were fully in control. The phone using driver drives at a slower pace, and makes less effort to pass other drivers or otherwise assert his dominance in the driving world. It may be the driving equivalent of giving a pacifier to a crying baby.
Aircraft engineers have figured out that the human element is the problem. They have automated as much of the flying process as is possible to date, and would probably like to automate more if they could figure out how to do it. Computers are apparently less dumb than us.
Pch101
Simply awesome.
Thanks for being a clear voice in the wilderness of emotion.
So no, you’re misquoting them. They are specifically attributing 955 deaths to phone usage.
I’m not “quoting” them at all. That is how standard stat studies are done because most researchers, unlike members of the general public apparently, are not morons around logic.
What would generally be done is establish a control level of accident rates, and compare the differing rate (eg. cell users) to the base level to come up with accidents caused by the differentiating factor.
When they say 955 fatalities (and 240k accidents), they did not research every single accident evers and find the 955 already occurred instances of the 12% special people who can apparently only die/kill from cell phone accidents as your logic necessarily implies. It’s an estimate based on the aggregate stats.
The only reason it would be different is if they’re purposely using misleading methodology, in which case why believe ANY of it since they could’ve just made ALL the numbers up, too.
—
At no point did The Times suggest that the NHTSA had been influenced in any way, shape or form, by the cell phone industry.
That’s not what I was inferring. Apparently people accused the “do gooders” in this case of “lobbying”. I just found it to be ironic that said people didn’t notice that the “lobby” with real money in this case is the mobile industry with the opposing agenda.
It’s an estimate based on the aggregate stats.
Thanks for the lengthy strawman tangent, but everyone understood that it was an estimate.
You’re still denying the point that they are attributing 2% of the fatalities to this evil 12% of the population. This suggests that people do an absolutely outstanding job of killing each without telephones in use at the time.
All of this indicates that phone risk is not as bad as the alternative risk that the average person would otherwise assume were it not for the telephone. In the real world, the issue isn’t phone risk vs. no risk, but of phone risk vs. some different kind of risk. As it turns out, that different risk may actually be worse than the phone.
Thanks for the lengthy strawman tangent, but everyone understood that it was an estimate.
The problem is that I just summarized the approach that is taken to arrive at such estimates, and you can’t seem to understand that the assumptions taken in this process are NECESSARILY different that the ones you use, thus the mockery of your hillbilly maths and logic.
They are NOT saying that a discrete 10% of drivers are responsible for a discrete 2% of deaths. In fact in order to make such a conclusion they would literary more or less have to assume what you claim I mocked you for.
Try using the same tobacco analogy I put forth here: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorial-between-the-lines-nhtsa-hung-out-to-dry-by-nyt/#comment-1514744
Suppose a study says cigs are “directly” responsible for 1000 deaths a year (and 240k misc afflictions,lol) in some population with 50000 deaths total, and 10% of people smoke. Not unreasonable numbers. Do you really think they’re saying it’s safer to smoke so you’re not within the apparently more death-prone 90%?
I know it’s slightly subtle logic, but it’s within most people’s grasp. Give it a shot, I won’t ruin the process of discovery.
This kind of reminds of the missing dollar problem, except similar “paradoxes”, misconceptions really, are common in stats.
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.missing.dollar.html
This episode would also somewhat boost my argument that people should not be trusted to make correct risk judgments for factors that don’t always give immediate feedback in the other thread. :)
They are NOT saying that a discrete 10% of drivers are responsible for a discrete 2% of deaths.
Actually, they **are** saying that. I know that you’d like to misquote the NYT article because you’re not pleased by the implications of its content, but I shall quote it yet again, verbatim:
including estimates that cellphoning drivers caused 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents in 2002
This statement specifically attributes N Number of Fatalities to Primary Cause X. This methodology is commonplace in highway fatality studies — an estimated N1 number of fatalities will be attributed to DUI, N2 number of fatalities will be attributed to excess speed, etc., etc.
Unfortunately, the NYT failed to put that statement into context. It probably didn’t occur to the average reader that there were another 42,000 deaths in that same year, and I can only assume that the author didn’t want the readers to have an appropriate basis of comparison because their argument starts to look very weak once it does.
Try using the same tobacco analogy I put forth here
That’s a terrible analogy that reflects a complete failure to understand the issue.
I’ll state it one last time — the driver who stops using his phone does not hang up his Motorola for a life of chastity and fantastic driving. Rather, he will replace his phone habit with something else.
It may well be that the something else in question ends up being worse. Since we already have naturalistic studies that show phone users are slower and less assertive when driving, perhaps the phones end up giving wannabe race car drivers something safer to do. Not safe, mind you, just safer than what they would do otherwise.
Actually, they **are** saying that. I know that you’d like to misquote the NYT article because you’re not pleased by the implications of its content, but I shall quote it yet again, verbatim:
Are you really arguing the semantics some NYT writer chooses to use is reflective of the methodology of stat based studies? So essentially you’re saying he understood an abnormal deviation from stat control principles in such a study and purposely worded his statement to reflect this, right?
BTW, where did the missing dollar go? It sounds so convincing, so why is it wrong? Similarly, how are the non-chatters _exclusively_ responsible for ALL the non-cell accidents?
Finally, even outside of the serious conflation of different interpretation of data above, did you think about uniformity of risk through a drive? If not, why did you assume this by using straight arithmetic operations. I mean, you already have no idea about which assumptions you’re making so perhaps it’s a bit early to stubbornly insist they are the correct ones.
—
It probably didn’t occur to the average reader that there were another 42,000 deaths in that same year, and I can only assume that the author didn’t want the readers to have an appropriate basis of comparison because their argument starts to look very weak once it does.
Are you expecting the same standard for stuff like tobacco? Every article for similar things needs to include a statement of how many people total die each year? Same for cures for diseases? It’s not worth it because it doesn’t solve the entire problem? ~240k accidents not big enough a number? Or just not enough fatalities?
—
That’s a terrible analogy that reflects a complete failure to understand the issue.
I’ll state it one last time — the driver who stops using his phone does not hang up his Motorola for a life of chastity and fantastic driving. Rather, he will replace his phone habit with something else.
Where is the evidence for this? The whole point of these studies is to replace hypotheticals with measurables, so perhaps if the whole study were in the public realm, people can see whether or not it’s accurately reflective.
Furthermore, same thing logic can be said about anything, including tobacco. So did those ex-smokers find something else, like crack, to get addicted to again? Maybe some did, maybe not, but just supposing they did is not necessarily accurate.
Most likely they just quit doing it once they realized the risks and it was inconvenient enough and that’s it.
Are you really arguing the semantics some NYT writer chooses to use is reflective of the methodology of stat based studies?
No, I’m using my English literacy skills to point out that you are wrong, yet again. You confuse your stubbornness and wishful thinking with accuracy and an understanding of how traffic studies are written and the problems for which they tend to solve.
Where is the evidence for this?
As I’ve already shown you (I know that you don’t read links that don’t match your prejudices, but try and give it a shot every once in awhile), there are naturalistic studies that show drivers tend to slow down, make fewer lane changes, and keep a stable distance from a lead car when on the phone. They drive differently when using the phone than when not.
Now, they would certainly be safer drivers if they drove in that more conservative, defensive fashion at all times. If they did, they’d be better drivers while off the phone then when on it, and you’d have a point.
However, they don’t do that. They replace the defensive style used when on the phone with higher speeds, more lane changes and more speed variance. Even the naturalistic studies from the phone=DUI guy at the University of Utah document this change in driving style.
You want your cake and eat it, too, but you can’t have it. Take away the phone, and the driver will respond in whatever way suits him. Again, given the data, it seems as if many drivers have habits that are much worse than phone usage to which they revert when not chatting away on the cell. I’m sure that some drivers probably improve, but across the pool, they can’t offset those who show no improvement or become worse.
No, I’m using my English literacy skills to point out that you are wrong, yet again.
Why don’t you answer the question? Are you assuming the statement in the NYT, made by some journalist, is actually indicative of abnormal study methodology, instead of just passing along some number he saw? I hope everyone realizes the implication of this question.
—
You confuse your stubbornness and wishful thinking with accuracy and an understanding of how traffic studies are written and the problems for which they tend to solve.
I summarized my understanding of stat studies above. There needs to be a control stat, and there is a differing factor. This is an stat study focusing on cell use, AFAICT. So why don’t you explain how it’s done in this “special” case such that the reported difference number is not _in_addition_ to a control presumably without mobiles.
—
As I’ve already shown you (I know that you don’t read links that don’t match your prejudices, but try and give it a shot every once in awhile), there are naturalistic studies that show drivers tend to slow down, make fewer lane changes, and keep a stable distance from a lead car when on the phone.
So? How do you think it effects the stats above? I mean, I guess you built your neat little causal theory around it, but how does it matter to a study that concentrates on largely non-causal numbers except for the end decorrelation? Do you even know what that means? It’s ok if you don’t because I can explain it in further depth.
—
Again, given the data, it seems as if many drivers have habits that are much worse than phone usage to which they revert when not chatting away on the cell.
Why do you keep repeating this as if it’s a matter of simple arithmetic to assume all non-cell fatalities can only be attributed to non-chatters? Why didn’t you answer the tobacco example above?
Folks, don’t just read the NYT story. Read the existing studies that PROVE that cell phone use whilst driving is about the most stupid thing you can do after being sloppy drunk.
These peer reviewed and statistically correct studies already prove that drivers:
a) Are more distracted when they do distracting things such as cell phone use (talking or even simply listening), interacting with passengers, dealing with ICE and GPS systems, applying make up or reading the paper. This is a no brainer. If you’re doing something else, you’re not driving.
b) these distractions cause the drivers to steer erratically and have very little lane control, which can be fatal on two way roads, and highly dangerous on dual carriage way highways and freeways.
c) cell phone drivers in particular are often completely unaware of how fast they are driving, and often drive at dangerously lower speeds than ambient traffic.
d) There are zero differences in distraction levels whether its handheld or hands free or built into the ICE, cell phone calls distract all drivers, no matter how competent. Humans are not wired to do kinesthetic and non-kinesthetic tasks at the same time (we’ve never really had an evolutionary need to be). So a study in Sweden or Australia is equally applicable if you have 46 chromosomes like the rest of us.
The NHTSA should not consider the how politically unhappy their masters will be just because a bunch of folks, including the B&B here will be pissed off when it’s banned, which I am plainly stunned at. We’re not 13 and angry when our favorite video game is taken away from us any more. Grow up folks!
All of us B&B here at TTAC bitch and moan about Jack’s driving and well, anyone who drives us crazy on the roads, but we don’t complain about cell phone drivers? These idiots piss me off. They drive slow. They don’t indicate. They cut me off regularly and seem genuinely surprised to see me when I honk my horn or flash my lights. You have to pass them carefully because they’re all over several lanes. They stop millimeters from your bumper because they can’t pay enough attention to road gaps and have to brake suddenly and yet they still don’t stop yapping. These are the worst of the worst drivers, and we support their continued existence? Kill yourselves now!
If being a meek doormat is the NHTSA’s raison d’etre, we’d not have better designs (like collapsable steering columns and steering wheel bezels designed seemingly to spear you), seat belts, head rest regulations, BAC laws, ABS, airbags and ESC become mandatory. The NYT’s story angle escoriating the NHSTA for not doing it’s job, and we’re harping on about political correctness (i.e. take away your damn phones)? Get real! Let’s sack the folks who decided on avoiding the hard questions and get that study done pronto.
If it turns out (as it will) that phones and driving are incompatible, let’s make that not happen. Cell phone towers can detect when phones move. Let’s block cell phones moving faster than 5 km/h from making or receiving calls, SMS and data. I’d rather not take police time away from other duties when there’s a sure fire technical fix available when politicians get a back bone.
I don’t care how much you like chatting away on the phone. There is no conversation that is worth killing or maiming even one person. Put it in the trunk like I do, or pull over and take the call on the shoulder (if it’s safe / allowed – otherwise, like 20 years ago, wait until you get to your destination). It’s not that hard.
Andrew
vanderaj
Before PCH101 starts to wear you down, I’d like to point out that the ends do not justify the means. The NY Times is free to make a case that cell phone use whilst driving is a bad, bad thing. BUT they should NOT run roughshod over the reputations of the people at the NHTSA to do it.
The meat of this story: the idea that the NTSA suppressed/failed to commission important safety data for political reasons. The NYT article based on this “fact” is a hatchet job. It does not substantiate this accusation with anything approaching journalistic integrity.
I am not holding TTAC up as a paragon of such. But we’re a blog. They are, in theory, the “newspaper of record.” With their infinitely greater resources, The Gray Lady should have been able to present the “evidence” in a more thoughtful and (dare I say it) balanced way.
Of course, there is no “here” here. Which means the story shouldn’t have run in the first place.
Why don’t you answer the question?
You mean the question of why you seem incapable of reading the NYT and understanding what it’s saying?
I can’t answer that, as I really have no clue why you seem unable to comprehend what the NYT op-ed is saying, and why you would continually insist on misinterpreting it, despite the plain use of the language. All I can do is point out your mistake, but frankly, I’ve pointed it out enough that I need not do it again.
I guess you built your neat little causal theory around it
I don’t have a causal theory. What I do have are (a) real world crash data and (b) naturalistic studies that show fairly consistently that drivers change their driving style off vs. on the phone.
These things make it clear that simulator and lab data don’t come close to matching the real world. I’m willing to live with that. If the data told the opposite story, I’d be on your side of the fence, but the phones=DUI meme is clearly bogus and meant for popular consumption, so I reject it.
Why didn’t you answer the tobacco example above?
Because it was a lousy example. Seriously, it really sucked. You need to do better. But since you won’t do better — hey, I know you — you should just stop.
The NY Times is free to make a case that cell phone use whilst driving is a bad, bad thing. BUT they should NOT run roughshod over the reputations of the people at the NHTSA to do it.
What’s funny is that if you look at the NYT’s alleged smoking gun, it’s not even a smoking gun. http://documents.nytimes.com/documents-from-the-u-s-department-of-transportation-s-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration#p=1
This is not a report or a study, it’s just a summation of then-existing research on the subject. All of the studies that are referenced in it are readily available in the public domain. It’s obviously meant to be used as an internal working document, so that anyone who is doing research has a quick reference manual. It’s fairly evident that whoever at the NYT is leading the finger pointing brigade doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
You mean the question of why you seem incapable of reading the NYT and understanding what it’s saying?
I’m very disappointed in your logical ability. Here’s what is going on with that sentence:
The reporter makes a statement, something about ~1000 fatalities. You take it to mean A: this number is an exclusive limit for drivers using a cell phone, and that the reporter to be very specific in his language to distinguish this. I take this to mean B: a number to be non-exclusive and specifically attributable to cell use (in the mathematical stat sense), consistent with how stats are done, and the reporter has no idea which of the two subtly but critically different interpretations he really meant. This is an important distinction because I hope I’ve shown clearly enough that interpretation B would invalidate your arithmetic attempts above.
In order for you to be correct, that he meaningfully choose his words to convey A, he must have understood both A and B and the distinction. I would place the probability of this at about 0, and find a pure semantic analysis of someone relatively clueless quite hilarious.
—
While that was a bit of fun, the evidence that you are totally wrong is contained in the report. If you go to page 248 of 266, you can see where the number comes from. They are calculating it with a risk factor of 1.38 and duration of 6%. This is a calculation that is by definition “in addition” to, as I’ve specified above in my stat study summary. While it’s not specified, it’s very likely this RR is from either the somewhat cryptic naturalistic study mention in 243 of 266, or something similar.
This risk factor, as they have clear noted, is lower than a ~4 from lab studies, and consistent with you repeating yourself as if that’s the only point that matters.
—
Now let’s examine the road of logical inconsistency you’ve tried to take us on with the misinterpretation of what that fatality count means. Your computation shows cell user are _safer_ than the control population. This would by definition mean a RR of <1.0 in the very method they use to come up with ~1k, which is clearly NOT the case, and I hope I don’t have to show 1.38 > 1.0. You realize the error in hillbilly math and logic now?
Again, I’ve tried to illustrate this with the tobacco example by pointing out what “in addition” means. Also, the missing dollar is meant to illustrate the risks of mixing in a slightly different model/accounting of data. I usually hope people find their own error because discovery leads to a more lasting impression, and it’s unfortunate I have to spell everything out.
Notice that every point I have made in the thread above even before looking at this report was prescient and absolutely correct.
The Gray Lady should have been able to present the “evidence” in a more thoughtful and (dare I say it) balanced way.
Look at what was reported:
Dr. Jeffrey Runge, then the head of the highway safety agency, said he grudgingly decided not to publish the Mineta letter and policy recommendation because of larger political considerations.
At the time, Congress had warned the agency not to use its research to lobby states. Dr. Runge said transit officials told him he could jeopardize billions of dollars of its financing if Congress perceived the agency had crossed the line into lobbying.
The fate of the research was discussed during a high-level meeting at the transportation secretary’s office. The meeting included Dr. Runge, several staff members with the highway safety agency and John Flaherty, Mr. Mineta’s chief of staff.
Mr. Flaherty recalls that the group decided not to publish the research because the data was too inconclusive.
—
Looks fairly reasonable to me. Runge and Flaherty get their perspective in. Newspapers reporting sciency things inaccurately is nothing new. I mean, I often even see reports of AGW being caste in doubt because some staff decides to “report” on the latest fake “study”.
PCH must be unduly influencing you, robert, with high expectations like reporters must understand somewhat subtle differences in math models.
Taken out of context, it is. Perfectly reasonable. Now read the lede. Or the editorial that followed.
This quote shows that THERE IS NO STORY.
So what part of it is unreasonable? Top guy feels he was getting hampered politically, goes to paper, paper prints his somewhat interesting story, remembering to call other side which also gives their statement (I’m sure they were free to discuss at longer length if they felt it was to their advantage).
Of course, they sensationalize a bit as these things often are. Is that new to you?
This quote shows that THERE IS NO STORY.
I believe the purpose of a paper is to report what happened, so that its reader may learn of something interesting they didn’t know before:
He recalled that Dr. Runge “indicated that the data was incomplete and there was going to be more research coming.”
He recalled summing up his position as, the agency “should make a decision as to whether they wanted to wait for more data.”
But Dr. Runge recalled feeling that the issue was dire and needed public attention. “I really wanted to send a letter to governors telling them not to give a pass to hands-free laws,” said Dr. Runge, whose staff spent months preparing a binder of materials for their presentation.
His broader goal, he said, was to educate people about the dangers of distracted driving. “Based on the research, there was a possibility of this becoming a really big problem,” he said.
But “my advisers upstairs said we should not poke a finger in the eye of the appropriations committee,” he recalled.
He said Mr. Flaherty asked him, “Do we have enough evidence right now to not create enemies among all the stakeholders?”
Those stakeholders, Dr. Runge said, were the House Appropriations Committee and groups that might influence it, notably voters who multitask while driving and, to a much smaller degree, the cellphone industry.
—
This seems fairly interesting. They also got points of view from other people. Seems like they did a reasonable amount of homework.
Again, a “story” is not necessarily a conclusive proof of something, its purpose is to draw a narrative as the reporter could best understand it.
You take it to mean A: this number is an exclusive limit for drivers using a cell phone, and that the reporter to be very specific in his language to distinguish this. I take this to mean B: a number to be non-exclusive and specifically attributable to cell use (in the mathematical stat sense), consistent with how stats are done, and the reporter has no idea which of the two subtly but critically different interpretations he really meant.
You still don’t get it, and I’m sure that 100 more posts won’t help, so this will be my last with respect to your comments.
One thing about aggregate automotive fatality data is that the population data is very accurate. Which is to say that there are not very many secret automotive fatalities that aren’t discovered and investigated. So we begin these studies with a very accurate idea of how many total deaths there were.
We also know something about causation, because virtually every fatal accident is investigated. The whole point behind an accident report is to determine cause and apportion fault. This will be less accurate because the dead don’t speak and not all facts can come to light even during an investigation, but the individual incidents that comprise the population are all investigated individually and the data collection is reasonably thorough.
Hence, our intrepid phone researcher investi-guesstimators begin by knowing (a) the population and (b) the alleged factors of causation. What they don’t necessarily know from those reports is how many had causations that were phone related, because that data is hard to get reliably. (The total fatals number is obviously much more reliable.) Hence, their need to estimate the totals related to the phone sub-category.
The researchers know with virtually complete certainty that there were 43,000+/- fatals that year — again, it isn’t a secret, given the nature of the data. They used whatever assumptions that they had to figure out how many might be due to phones. They came up with about 1,000.
That leaves no other conclusion — the remaining 42,000 were not estimated to be phone-related. The researchers were solving for the phone factor, and the number that they got was 1,000.
Now apply the other figures, and we’re left with 12% of the population doing 2% of the killing, and 88% of the population doing the remaining 98%. Absolutely no other way to look at it.
You can squirm all you like, but that’s what the data is saying. And apparently, being the slackers that they are, those darned phone users aren’t killing their fair share of people. I’m sure that if they were killing more than their fair share that you’d be jumping all over it, but sadly for you, they are underperformers by a wide margin.
So you have a big logical problem to wrestle with. Good luck with your struggle, because I’m not going to assist you with it anymore beyond this.
They used whatever assumptions that they had to figure out how many might be due to phones.
They probably measure this in the “naturalistic” studies the deniers keep referring to. It’s kind of funny they think the NHTSA is on one “side” of this issue, when their report seem to use pretty fair numbers, the best available at that time.
—
Now apply the other figures, and we’re left with 12% of the population doing 2% of the killing, and 88% of the population doing the remaining 98%. Absolutely no other way to look at it.
Just because you lack the facilities to understand how math and statistics work doesn’t mean the rest of world is sharing the same fate.
The logical error here is that using their model, the “remaining 98%” also contains contributions from the “12%” (should be around 12%), but because of way they calculate the diff, only the “2%” is considered to be added on by cell usage.
Note I put the percentages in quotes, because you are continuing to make the less serious, but still persistent mistake of using 12% when the estimate above uses a 6% usage assumption as I noted above.
I would encourage anyone else confused by this to really think patiently about the missing dollar “paradox” above. It’s a perfect illustration of a similar problem, but only uses simple integers instead of stat models. Coming to terms to with different ways numbers are used is greatly beneficial in modern society. Numbers are not just things you can interchange at will, they have different meanings even in slight different context.
PS. Since I guess we can’t exactly count on pch101 to fess up to his error, I’ll put the sheer magnitude of it out there.
If we assume the numbers he uses, in transitioning from the risk factor model to the model in his head, the total fatalities attributable to the “12%” talkers should be about 14% instead of 2%, or about 7 times off. This would be considered quite egregious.
In other words, if we are to phrase it the way pch does, the sentence should read:
Now apply the other figures, and we’re left with 12% of the population doing 14% of the killing, and 88% of the population doing the remaining 86%.
(Note that the “14%” would not be a precise value because of other correlation factors involved, which I guess would be part of the reason why pch101-head’s hillbilly model is not used for such purposes)