[Jason Dunn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4367482...crashes-report/

"Driving distractions, primarily by cellphones and other electronic devices, are associated with up to 25 percent of U.S. car crashes, according to a report released on Thursday. The study by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), a nonprofit group that works to improve traffic safety, assessed research from more than 350 scientific papers published since 2000."

This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but no matter how good of a driver you are, the second that anything - a cell phone, the radio, reaching for a cup of coffee, etc. - takes you eyes off the road, you're dramatically increasing the risk of having an accident. Texting and overall cell phone use is just the latest trend in a problem that has occurred since the invention of the automobile...though I'd guess that back in the Ford Model T days, with no radio to fiddle with, GPS to check, or phone to answer, there were a lot less accidents due to distracted driving. Topping out at 45 Mph also helped!

[Jason Dunn]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4367482...crashes-report/

"Driving distractions, primarily by cellphones and other electronic devices, are associated with up to 25 percent of U.S. car crashes, according to a report released on Thursday. The study by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), a nonprofit group that works to improve traffic safety, assessed research from more than 350 scientific papers published since 2000."

This shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, but no matter how good of a driver you are, the second that anything - a cell phone, the radio, reaching for a cup of coffee, etc. - takes you eyes off the road, you're dramatically increasing the risk of having an accident. Texting and overall cell phone use is just the latest trend in a problem that has occurred since the invention of the automobile...though I'd guess that back in the Ford Model T days, with no radio to fiddle with, GPS to check, or phone to answer, there were a lot less accidents due to distracted driving. Topping out at 45 Mph also helped!

[Sven Johannsen]

And yet, it appears that the overall safety is going up. "The number of deaths – and deaths relative to the total population – have declined over the last two decades. From 1979 to 2005, the number of deaths per year decreased 14.97% while the number of deaths per capita decreased by 35.46%. Traffic fatalities in 2009 were the lowest in 60 years."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_U.S._by_year)

Note that the period covers a substantial amount of time where distractions were pretty much limited to futzing with the Radio/8Track. Of course the article is about just crashes, and the statistics are of fatalities, but that is the great thing about statistics. Properly misintepreted, you can make them say whatever you like.

[drsql]

Then I would believe this. Even up a solid part of the 25% would make some sense. And then places where gadget usage is prohibited ought to go down some strong part of 25%, since at least a solid percentage of people do somewhat follow the law

[Brad Adrian]

Originally Posted by Sven Johannsen

...but that is the great thing about statistics. Properly misintepreted, you can make them say whatever you like.

As an experienced statistician, I resent that statement! Everybody knows that 90 percent of the time, 40 percent of all statistics are true!

Actually, I'm not too surprised at this latest finding about gadgets, either, especially if it reflects "self-reported" reasons for accidents.

In the end, though, I wonder if it doesn't all come down to something like this:

Era	Explanation for Accident (as provided to law enforcement)	REAL Reason for Accident
1920s	"A deer ran in front of me."	"I was drunk."
1940s	"I was tuning the radio."	"I was drunk."
1960s	"I was changing the 8-track."	"I was drunk."
1970s	"The cassette got stuck."	"I was drunk."
1990s	"I was changing the CD."	"I was drunk."
2000s	"I was reaching for my phone."	"I was drunk."
2010s	"I was entering an address into my GPS."	"I was drunk."

[Sven Johannsen]

So, Brad, there was an old Mafia Don whose accountant had had an unfortunate accident, and he was interviewing for a replacement. He called in a mathematician and asked, what's 2+2. The mathematician replied 4, without hesitation, and was sent away. The next potential was a scientist and when asked what's two and two, he replied that it made no sense without units. It depended, 2 of what added to two of what. He was dismissed. The last applicant was a statistician. The Don asked what was two and two, to which the statistician responded, 'what would you like it to be?' He was hired.

[Brad Adrian]

...and I'm STILL employed to this day!