that evidence-based crap strikes again

[acroyear]

Study: No crash reductions after cell phone bans - wtop.com:

Do bans on held-held cell phones reduce the number of crashes that occur? New research finds collisions are not declining in jurisdictions where bans are in effect.

"The laws aren't reducing crashes, even though we know that such laws have reduced hand-held phone use, and several studies have established that phoning while driving increases crash risk," says Adrian Lund, president of both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute.

The Highway Loss Data Institute study compared insurance claims before and after bans went into effect in four jurisdictions -- D.C., New York, Connecticut and California. The study finds claim rates steady with neighboring jurisdictions.

"The new findings don't match what we already know about the risk of phoning and texting while driving," Lund says.

"If crash risk increases with phone use and fewer drivers use phones where it's illegal to do so, we would expect to see a decrease in crashes. But we aren't seeing it, nor do we see collision claim increases before the phone bans took effect. This is surprising, too, given what we know about the growing use of cell phones and the risk of phoning while driving. We're currently gathering data to figure out this mismatch."

The research does have some limitations. It looks at all collision claims and does not identify whether drivers were using cell phones when their crashes occurred.

I admire skepticism, but I get the impression that Lund is going to continue to "look for more" until he gets one study that supports him and then never look again in spite of the weight of multiple studies.

The real evidence shows that human nature simply is unchanged: distracted driving is the #1 cause of non-alcohol-related accidents, and humans will get distracted by just about anything.  Ban something and they'll just have an accident by being distracted by something else.  Until you do a study that actually looks at the causes of accidents, the study is mostly meaningless.

Potentially in Lund's favor is this simple fact: there is little evidence that cell phone bans have actually stopped or reduced the usage of cell phones while driving.

Comments

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

The bans are pretty much all re handheld vs handsfree.

Whether or not you're /holding/ the phone when you get into an argument with your girlfriend whilst driving probably doesn't make a lot of difference.

I'll admit to passing a lot of time in the car on the phone. Random chatty 'hi how are ya lets babble about nothingness' conversations. Ones where I don't have to pay a hell of a lot of attention. Same sorts of conversations as when I need to chat to do a lot of iterations of something boring on the computer.

"I can't have this conversation while driving" is something that needs to get more attention. Which conversations? The ones with number crunching. The important negotiations. The emotional conversations. A friend had his gf try to redefine their relationship while he was driving down the highway and she knew he was. Not Cool.

[fiona64.livejournal.com]

Yeah, when the CA cell phone ban went into effect, I said "How about if we ban eating whilst driving, or driving with kids in the car?" I suspect the latter is far worse in terms of distraction than any other factor.