Mobile phone drivers 'not linked' to accident figures – apparently anyway.
You can’t even say whether the rate of increase in mobile phone use after 9pm is mirrored among drivers as well as non-drivers.
So you didn’t understand the significance of this statement:
Prof Saurabh Bhargava from Carnegie and Dr Vikram Pathania from the LSE found that while there was an increase in callers using multiple phone masts after 9pm, there was no corresponding increase in the number of road accidents.Posted 4 years agogeetee1972Member
Er, no, that’s not what the data ‘proves’. The only valid conclusion you can draw from the data is that the rate of RTAs at 9pm in the evening is not correlated with the more mobile phone calls being made at that time. You can’t even say whether the rate of increase in mobile phone use after 9pm is mirrored among drivers as well as non-drivers.
But of course the twunts who still insist on making calls while driving will see this as vindication.Posted 4 years agocrankboyMember
Where in the states was the data drawn from they go for the time period when calls are free so one can assume that a lot of calls were made this could lead to cell towers being swamped so calls moving to a more distant free tower . Also no evidence it’s drivers not passengers on the phone . Also post 9pm quiet roads less visual distraction counter balances the negative of making the call ” more research is needed ”Posted 4 years agopolyMember
gt72 – I am sure some of the ‘moving phones’ were trains or coaches or passengers but (1) this is the US – “nobody” uses mass transportation after 9pm! in fact when I have used public transport in the US it appeared much less likely that people used their phones than in the UK. (2) my experience in the US is “everyone” uses their phone whilst driving with none of the ’embarrassment’ you might get here. I’m not sure but it may not be illegal in some/all states. (3) you would therefore assume that at least SOME of the moving phone calls would be drivers – and expect if the phone causes accidents that there would be some correlation.
It is surprising though that a period of increased phone use even amongst travellers doesn’t result in increased accidents.
Of course there are fewer children, pedestrians and cyclists around after 9pm. The roads are quieter, and of course US ‘highways’ are big open and straight and the risk factor of using a phone there may not transfer to a twisty back street. My own opinion is that “short” calls are worse than long ones too: once a call has a rhythm and the recipient understands you are driving some of the distraction may be reduced. This may mean that the logic of waiting for the ‘free’ call period is wrong.
The anecdotal evidence above would suggest (perhaps logically) that texting / emailing / surfing is possibly even worse than talking on the phone.
Footflaps – it was calls only not data / text etc.Posted 4 years agouser-removedMember
footflaps – Member
I wonder if they separated out data connections vs phone calls, eg smartphone satnav use would show up as multiple phone mast use.
As above – the satnav function relies on gps satellites rather than data (but that said, my satnav app demanded the right to collect info from every facet of my life, so I guess it may well be accessing data).Posted 4 years agomaccruiskeenSubscriber
As above – the satnav function relies on gps satellites rather than data
Not always, not all smart phone Satnav apps use preloaded maps, so apps like waze, google maps , apple maps etc are using satellite to determine position but are using a data connection for the mapping info.Posted 4 years ago
As above – the satnav function relies on gps satellites rather than data (but that said, my satnav app demanded the right to collect info from every facet of my life, so I guess it may well be accessing data).
Depends on the app, I just use Google maps as a satnav, so it’s downloading the maps in the fly as your drive around.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Mobile phone drivers 'not linked' to accident figures – apparently anyway.’ is closed to new replies.