TexasCHLforum.com

Fun with numbers;

Over the past few years the number of cell phone suscribers has increased dramtaically; while the rate of fatal car wrecks declined; therefore, cell phone usage has resulted in DECREASED fatal car crashes.


Key Annual Statistics for the USA

(source; Bureau of transportation statistics)




2001............... 2002................. 2003...............................2004
Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (the 'VMT rate')
1.51................. 1.51 ................1.48..................................1.46

Fatalities per 100,000 Population (the 'per capita' rate)
14.80................. 14.94 ...............14.75..............................14.52

Fatalities per 10,000 Registered Vehicles
19.07.................. 19.06............... 18.58..............................18.00

Skiprr wrote: I'm in the thick of Houston commuter traffic for about two hours each day, and I can absolutely positively guarantee that 90% of the people driving unsafely are on a cell phone...pretty easy to spot since we have no hands-free law. Oh, and 7% more are simply aggressive idiots; 1% may actually be intoxicated; and 2% are, in all likelihood, certifiably clueless from birth.

I disagree with your numbers. I think the actual number of intoxicated drives is higher than 1%... Closer to 10% from what I've been told. I know the clueless percentage is low

It's all a load of bull....

Here is the definitive answer:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... ewlaws.htm

I pulled this off of the DPS website.

Alert to the Public:

False information has been circulating regarding new traffic laws.
There are no new traffic laws going into effect in July. More specifically, there are no new laws going into effect in July related to cell phones, seat belts or carpooling. No cell phone bills were passed this Legislative session. (This misinformation started as the result of an inaccurate e-mail and incorrect information on various Web sites.)

DPS has not compiled a list of new traffic laws going into effect in September at this time.

just had to share this.

on the way home from work in the HOV lane going south on 45 Friday evening I saw something that made me do a double-take.

Guy was on a huge Harley weaving all over his lane and had a cell phone tucked between his shoulder and his cocked head.

I thought to myself, "good lord, i've seen it all."

txinvestigator wrote:Fun with numbers;

Over the past few years the number of cell phone suscribers has increased dramtaically; while the rate of fatal car wrecks declined; therefore, cell phone usage has resulted in DECREASED fatal car crashes.


Key Annual Statistics for the USA

(source; Bureau of transportation statistics)




2001............... 2002................. 2003...............................2004
Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (the 'VMT rate')
1.51................. 1.51 ................1.48..................................1.46

Fatalities per 100,000 Population (the 'per capita' rate)
14.80................. 14.94 ...............14.75..............................14.52

Fatalities per 10,000 Registered Vehicles
19.07.................. 19.06............... 18.58..............................18.00

Ehhh.. Yeah but.

Cars are safer. Airbags are more prevalent (and required in newer vehicles at time of manufacture). More side airbags and improvements in other vehicle safety technology, such as anti-lock brakes, stability control, etc), have resulted in a decline in fatalities. Cell phone usage/ownership has nothing to do with the statistics/numbers that you've quoted, therefore your data is flawed and unfortunately incomplete as presented.

Yeah, there are more phones and there have been less fatalities in traffic accidents, but I doubt they are tied together.

Fender benders that cause minor injuries... yeah, I could buy that one influences the other, but fatalities? No. Not buying it. One does not equal/cause the other.

Click-It or Ticket is National. You could use these statistics to state that Click-It or Ticket is working. THAT I would buy, since use of seatbelts has been shown to decrease injuries/death.

Cell phones though? Naw. Classic example of skewed statistics.

Sorry Txinvestigator.

Kat <--hates stats, but got the concepts her prof pounded into her skull this year.

Sidhepro wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Fun with numbers;

Over the past few years the number of cell phone suscribers has increased dramtaically; while the rate of fatal car wrecks declined; therefore, cell phone usage has resulted in DECREASED fatal car crashes.


Key Annual Statistics for the USA

(source; Bureau of transportation statistics)




2001............... 2002................. 2003...............................2004
Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled (the 'VMT rate')
1.51................. 1.51 ................1.48..................................1.46

Fatalities per 100,000 Population (the 'per capita' rate)
14.80................. 14.94 ...............14.75..............................14.52

Fatalities per 10,000 Registered Vehicles
19.07.................. 19.06............... 18.58..............................18.00

Ehhh.. Yeah but.

Cars are safer. Airbags are more prevalent (and required in newer vehicles at time of manufacture). More side airbags and improvements in other vehicle safety technology, such as anti-lock brakes, stability control, etc), have resulted in a decline in fatalities. Cell phone usage/ownership has nothing to do with the statistics/numbers that you've quoted, therefore your data is flawed and unfortunately incomplete as presented.

Yeah, there are more phones and there have been less fatalities in traffic accidents, but I doubt they are tied together.

Fender benders that cause minor injuries... yeah, I could buy that one influences the other, but fatalities? No. Not buying it. One does not equal/cause the other.

Click-It or Ticket is National. You could use these statistics to state that Click-It or Ticket is working. THAT I would buy, since use of seatbelts has been shown to decrease injuries/death.

Cell phones though? Naw. Classic example of skewed statistics.

Sorry Txinvestigator.

Kat <--hates stats, but got the concepts her prof pounded into her skull this year.

Thats why I started with "fun with numbers".

I dont have any hard numbers or fact sheets to back up the following statements. They are just how I feel.

I believe in this day and age you are more likely to be taken out by a person talking on a cell phone than you are a drunk driver.

It the randomness and slow moves that a drunk driver makes that lets you spot them almost immediately. Where as a cell phone user will just change lanes out of no where cause they are not pay attention. This has happened to me more than one riding my motorcycle. Motorcycles are hard enough to see but when you put an additional blind spot in the hands of a driver they become even hard to see.

The ones that get under my skin the most though are the ones that look at you like its your fault that they almost hit you.

tex45acp wrote:It's all a load of bull....

Here is the definitive answer:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... ewlaws.htm

I pulled this off of the DPS website.

Alert to the Public:

False information has been circulating regarding new traffic laws.
There are no new traffic laws going into effect in July. More specifically, there are no new laws going into effect in July related to cell phones, seat belts or carpooling. No cell phone bills were passed this Legislative session. (This misinformation started as the result of an inaccurate e-mail and incorrect information on various Web sites.)

DPS has not compiled a list of new traffic laws going into effect in September at this time.

This is the definitive post of this thread...Even though I respect the discussion so far, and everyone's concern about the fines, and other issues involved with all of this...

Everything is basically false about these "supposed" traffic laws and potential fines...

But I do agree, hand-free is the way to go if you want to, not that you have to...

I used to have a signature line that said this:

"I'm a hands-free cell phone user, and my middle name is Weaver!"

Don't forget that!

Or,

"911 is voice activated! Keep your hands where I can see them!"

Wildscar wrote:I dont have any hard numbers or fact sheets to back up the following statements. They are just how I feel.

I believe in this day and age you are more likely to be taken out by a person talking on a cell phone than you are a drunk driver.

So, you don't try to correct someone who "feels" that when ordinary citizens carry guns, there will be more shootings, more deaths, blood in the streets, etc.?

KBCraig wrote:

Wildscar wrote:I dont have any hard numbers or fact sheets to back up the following statements. They are just how I feel.

I believe in this day and age you are more likely to be taken out by a person talking on a cell phone than you are a drunk driver.

So, you don't try to correct someone who "feels" that when ordinary citizens carry guns, there will be more shootings, more deaths, blood in the streets, etc.?

I appreciate the effort to make this gun related, but I've really been hoping this thread will just die on its own without a moderator needing to lock it. Ahem.

hoax. see http://www.chron.com

Yep. Lock her up. Nuff said AFAIC.