1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

California's cell-phone ban for drivers pays big safety dividends

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, Mar 8, 2012.

  1. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Yes, because something that happens at a rate of almost 24 times more than people dying due using cell phones -- according to California own DMV there were 2,300 and some change fatalities due to drunk driving last year - is comparing apples to oranges.

    And I'd suggest again, given the numbers, the amount of money, time, energy and everything else spent on trying to make cell phone usage in a car a crime is not nearly close to worth it given the actual numbers.

    But hey, it is our government - resources are unlimited!!!

    This is a better paragraph, however, from that story which tells you how many times they had to rework the study in order for it to say what they needed it to say.....

    "Two previous studies, one by the nonprofit RAND Corp. and another by an affiliate of the insurance institute, found no overall reduction in vehicle crashes after the cellphone law took effect. The university said its study is the first to look specifically at collisions involving cellphone use...."

    LOL

    Hey, third time is a charm.....

    LOL
     
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Which was just exactly what?
     
  3. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Oh, wait, here is a study that says exactly the opposite - of course, those who want to continue the hysteria are questioning the motives of it.

    So let's see - if it shows the data we want to believe it is gospel but if it shows data we don't want to believe or suggests our mass hysteria is ridiculous, well it is skewed and biased..... ::)

    http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr012910.html
     
  4. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    1) It is from the insurance industry. It's lobbying. It isn't research. You can say every study is skewed and biased and dismiss it all, but some have clear motivations to be so and some don't.

    2) The study focused on the month preceding and the month following the ban -- pretty short time frame for habits to change. Also, I recall California beginning with a grace period (no tickets/fines) so people may not have been as conscious of it.

    3) It doesn't say anything about the reduction in deaths. I presume you agree that reducing death on the roads is a good thing. But I guess I can't be sure.
     
  5. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Your lifesaving steals my freedom!
     
  6. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Every research think tank has motivations, particularly ones like Cal-Berkley which are full of a bunch of liberal pinkos who hate freedom and capitalism. The fact that you are so quick to point out the motivations of people who conduct research that doesn't line up with what you believe tells me you aren't really searching for the truth.

    The study isn't claiming "47 percent reductions" as if there is some great reduction when in reality, we're talking about going from 100 down to 53, which, in the grand scheme of things is such a small, small percentage of actual drivers it is not even close to the problem we're told it is.
     
  7. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    We could extrapolate from the data that if these laws were enacted across the nation, it would save hundreds of lives every year. At a cost of zero dollars.

    The angry-man-angry-about-everything bit is a tired Internet act. Find a new one.
     
  8. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    Or, we could extrapolate that there are other reasons 47 less people were killed and that spike, is just that, a spike and therefore, like drunk driving fatalities have despite all of the laws against that, will begin to increase again.

    And I'm not angry about anything - angry people create a federal case out of every thing that happens to them.

    I love life, I just wish the whiny ass fuckers who have nothing better to do than complain about everything would let me live it as I choose.
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Ask the 53 more people from the previous year about that. Oh, wait....
     
  10. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    You don't have the right to take someone's life over a text message.
     
  11. SpeedTchr

    SpeedTchr Well-Known Member

    ...or a hamburger... or putting on makeup...or turning around to swat your kid...or changing the station on the radio....or picking a song on your iPod...

    Just enforce the damn distracted driving laws and be done with it.
     
  12. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    So we're supposed to pretend it's OK? It's not OK. And if you defend it, you have no respect for other people's lives.

    Just the same as if you got behind the wheel after demolishing a 12-pack.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page