Talk:Mobile phones and driving safety

Active discussions
WikiProject Transport (Rated Start-class)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

'Attention' vs 'Distraction'Edit

It seems to me that "attention" or "attentional load" would be a more meaningful term to use than "distration" which is used throughout. I'm not in the frame of mind for a major rewrite though, I have other things to do. Perhaps recent contributors might consider? ah bon

Some sort of universal ban on "attentional overload" activities at intersections seems appropriate. The worst offense is to talk (and/or just listen) while turning left across oncoming traffic. From my observations, drivers who try to do this, often fail to check cross traffic from the right--even once. This article needs more information--and citing of studies regarding unsafe operation during increased attentional loads. [Maybe, the FAA has something--they ban all cockpit (personal and social) conversations below 10,000 ft MSL] Stephen Lord at the University of New South Wales has done considerable research on reaction times--but on the specialized group, pertaining to falls in the elderly. 207.178.98.26 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cell Phone Use While DrivingEdit

I agree with this article and believe that using cell phones in a car while driving is dangerous, you lose your focus and cause trouble. Most times the bad drivers are people speaking on the phone while driving. If you need to talk on the phone—like if you get lost or can’t find some place you need to be at—have another person in the car talk for you. By no means, should you use your cell phone for friendly chats while driving in the car.

I agree that talking to a passenger while driving has the possibility of being as dangerous as using a cell phone. However, unlike a cell phone, there aren't distactions like if the phone cuts out for a split second and you ahve to make the person repeat what they say, you have both hands on the wheel(as with a hands free device), and you don't have the distaction of looking for your cellphone if you drop it. Most improtantly, however, you have an extra set of eyes watching the road, and your passenger can warn you of something if you aren't paying attention. if your talking on a phone, that's taken away. Vandalism destroyer (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MergeEdit

I merged this with Cell phones and driving because this page has the most information already on it. Hope everybody is happy with the results. There might be some repetition of studies that I have missed, but i need to do some work now! Famousdog 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nunquam Dormio 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

CrashesEdit

Drivers in the Czech Republic, France, and the Netherlands may use cell phones but can be fined if they are involved in crashes while using such a device.

Is this a specific thing in law? In New Zealand, as I suspect in many countries, you can of course be fine or charged for careless, dangerous or reckless driving (or similar offences in other countries) for your involvement in an accident. Obviously if have an accident because you were talking on a mobile phone you will usually be fined and/or charged as appropriate. However there is nothing specific related to mobile phone use while driving. If there is nothing specific in these countries either, I wonder if they should be removed and a general statement about how people may be fined and/or charged under general laws if they are at fault (at least partially) in an accident due to mobile phone use. Nil Einne 13:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation is to be neededEdit

When making a claim, the article should cite references to support it.

On the first paragraph "Several studies have shown that motorists have a much higher risk of collisions and losing control of the vehicle while talking on the mobile telephone simultaneously with driving, even when using "hands-free" systems."

I have no doubt about correlation between road accidents with hand-held system. However, I believe that with the hands-free system, the effect will be dramatically reduced. If the author doesn't agree, then make the claim with sound references to conveince readers.

If the hands-free system is not safe enough, it will equall saying that drivers are not allowed to talk on their move. So far, I have not seen any regulations which ban driver's talking when driving. If the author try to raise the issue of the problems from other aspects, such as the other safety contributions from road designs, dirver's driving behavior, traffic signal controll etc, then make the claim conditional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

The above comment is wrong on several points and now out-of-date regarding citations. The "talking while driving" comment has been addressed - there are good reasons why talkiing to somebody who is in the car with you is NOT dangerous, while talking to somebody who isn't present IS. The passenger can look out for other dangers, can regulate their conversation according to the situation, while somebody on the other end of a phone line cannot. This effects hands-free systems as well as handheld. Famousdog 13:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tagEdit

I don't understand why there is a cleanup tag on this page. The article seems reasonably tidy and consice to me. If nobody objects, I'd like to remove it. Famousdog 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

status in israelEdit

Israeli law does not prohibit usage of phone while driving - given that it's not hand held (earphone or handsfree kits are OK). 99.232.203.75 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite of articleEdit

I just rewrote the first part of this article. I've been digging up all the studies I could find on this issue, and everything I added is well referenced. I think this is a big step in the right direction. (The previous version referenced Mythbusters, for crying out loud.)

To Do - for me, although help is appreciated:

  • Rewrite the introduction. I'm having a brain fart on how to make it a better summary of the article.
  • Incorporate some of the other simulation studies
  • Finish the Other Studies section; what I have there now is just a placeholder
  • Hands-Free:
    • Remove unnecessary refs (to news reports vice studies) and replace with good ones
    • Trim down to only verifiable statements

I haven't even looked at the legislation section; that may need a little love, too. Aron.Foster (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And if someone could double check me on all the links and refs, I'd be most appreciative. Aron.Foster (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. Couple of comments. The 'illegalization' section just seems to repeat what's in 'legislation' in a different way... and 'illegalization' is a horrible word! Famousdog (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my spelling and NPOV mistakes. I'll try and pay more attention when I'm writing. I agree; the illegalization list isn't needed. When I reached that part I was going to take the opportunity to verify what's in the Legislation section before I deleted it. I'll probably get to it within a week or two, unless you want to do the work for me. ;) Aron.Foster (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, my rewrite of the Increased Risk section is complete. I think what was there before was far below Wikipedia standards, and what I've added is a big step in the right direction. I read a lot of studies, and what's in the article now is, I think, a good summary of the different types and conclusions those studies have reached. I am a little concerned about Dr. David Strayer, since his job (as he describes it on his university webpage here) is to prove that using cell phones is dangerous while driving (WP:NPOV). But, from what I've read, his science seems pretty legit and he's been open to peer review - that's why I included his studies in the page. Aron.Foster (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


In regards to Beksters' addition on 6 Jan, the paper was cited as saying that other studies "concluded that cell phones produce a four-fold increase in relative crash risk." In the report, the other studies are Redelmeier and Tibshirani 1997—a Canadian Case-Crossover study already referenced—and Strayer's 2003 Simulation Study, also already referenced. Also note the last line of Beksters' study's abstract: "None of the additional analyses produces evidence for a positive link between cellular use and vehicle crashes", counter to the point Beksters was attempting to make with the study. As for including this study elsewhere in the page,

Using a double difference estimator which uses the era prior to price switching [of discounted night/weekend calls] as a control...

I (or someone else) could make a new section on this type of study, but I'm not sure if it would add to the article or just add clutter. Community thoughts? Aron.Foster (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Again, to-do list for me; help is appreciated:

  • Find some better studies on texting/driving
  • Include some discussion on why not to ban phones/driving, taking into account WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE
  • Clean the legislation section
    • Put the list of countries into an easy to read list
      • If the Legislation section grows enough, consider putting the list of countries in a wikitable aligned to the right, with the prose on the left
    • Add to the discussion of laws, including effectiveness of legislation, different fines, etc.

Aron.Foster (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not good writtenEdit

There is criticism that tells that it is not at all dangerous driving and tanking, if you are driving at a highway, it will only keep the driver awake. Why are there no critisicm included in this article? Wikipeia should express both sides of a subjetc. Oggedogge (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not good written? Speak for yourself. Famousdog (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I too was concerned that we didn't have enough in this article about "driving and tanking". Oggedogge, please link to a study that says what you claim and I'll make sure it gets its deserved attention in the article. Or, you know, you could add it yourself. Aron.Foster (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "driving and tanking"? I tried googling the term and got nothing. If you mean "driving and talking" then this is addressed in the article already. Talking to a passenger is not as distracting as having a mobile phone conversation because they can see when the situation requires the driver's attention and can keep quiet (talking to a passenger is also probably safer thanks to the extra pair of eyes!). Famousdog (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, bad joke at the expense of Oggedogge. "Driving and talking" was (I thought) obviously intended, but in the original post Oggedogge instead complains about "driving and tanking". Aron.Foster (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs picturesEdit

Some possibilities I've found in the common's above, but if anyone has a better picture of a hands-free device that's what we really need. Bluetooth, corded, perhaps multiple devices in one picture. Aron.Foster (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-driver passengers as bad as a phone?Edit

The argument about passengers being able to regulate their conversation with the perceived level of danger only properly applies to passengers who are experienced drivers. Certainly my experience is that non-drivers will blithely keep talking even as a situation escalates into something very dangerous, and where you need to be quiet and concentrate...

Driver/Non-driver isn't the critical point. Some people that drive are completely oblivious when not driving, and some non-drivers are quite aware. It is equally important that the driver be assertive, and aware, enough to hush the conversation when needed. There are always risks and distractions in driving. The debate is about what risks and distractions are unreasonable and controlable. The studies seem to indicate that talking on the phone is an unreasonable and controlable risk. But there is still debate on both of these points. Highway vs City driving, logically, seems to present different risks, but are there any studies on that point? The article seems balanced to me. Is there debate on that?

Stephenlegh (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

UKEdit

In the UK, they'll confiscate your car, toss you in jail for crying out loud. So IF you go there, leave the cell at home. I have Googled this matter as well.65.173.104.138 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, since 27 February 2007 the financial penalty for improper use of a mobile phone while driving in the UK has been £60, with the possibility, at the discretion of the magistrates, of an endorsement of the driving license with three penalty points. Employers may also be prosecuted and fined for allowing staff to make or receive calls while driving. But in one notable case a successful prosecution ensued when a driver moved a mobile phone, which was completely switched off, from the dashboard of his vehicle to his pocket, i.e. no conversation took place at any time. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Delaware, United StatesEdit

Legislation has been proposed to ban hand-held cell phone usage while driving in Delaware: House Bill 298. This is not a passed law in Delaware yet. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What happens with cars that have Iphone integration for music?Edit

Some cars have iPhone integration ports to use the iPhone as an MP3 player. So my question is if a police officer sees an "offender" whom they assume to be "surfing the Internet" or "texting" but instead the person is changing a song on their iPhone could law enforcement still bust persons not actually breaking the law? It would be nice to make clear which laws are enforceable just for holding a device in your hands while driving MP3, mobile phone etc. or which laws are just about committing an actual task on the device e.g. surfing internet or texting. CaribDigita (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Raw Data"Edit

I removed the "Raw Data" section twice and I invited discussion here before it was re-introduced. As it has been added again, for a third time, I would invite other editor(s) to remove it for (at least) one or more of the following reasons:

  • Although the component data are from WP:RS, the actual source is a blog page, which is not. Even if the actual source is ignored, unless a more reliable source could be found, the tabulation as it stands might be considered WP:OR.
  • The data merely show that the number of fatal automobile crashes have decreased while the number of mobile phone subscribers have increased, It says nothing, and can say nothing about mobile phone usage while driving, or whether or not the two sets of data are causally linked in any way.
  • There is no explanation that the data are for USA only; in fact there is no explanation of what the data may or may not show at all.
  • The new section is not integrated in any way with the existing article.

Any other views? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For all those reasons, I tried to integrate it better and give the data some context ("raw" data is meaningless presented in isolation and that blogger is an idiot for thinking that just showing numbers is a good enough argument). I am disappointed to see this POV still being pushed. Famousdog (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, a good enough argument for what? Subscribers have increased and deaths have decreased - these two statistics say nothing about mobile phone use in cars whatsoever, without some rather important assumptions being made. The data may be wholly reliable, but I think they belong in the articles about mobile phonses and car accidents respectively, not here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, a good enough argument for what? - My point exactly, hence my pointing out those assumptions and other possible explanations in the text. Famousdog (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you read every one of the fatally flawed studies on the subject and noted that all of the data on this subject is NOT census based? When I first came to this page it read like a legislators wet dream with study after study concluding that driving while talking on cell phone exponentially increased your chances of being in an accident. To spite the fact that the real 'raw data' (which IS supported by census information) completely contradicts these claims. I spent a month reading and researching data and a few pro-cell-phone-ban-ers just came in and deleted it at some point so now to keep the page fair (as there is no header for criticisms or FREAKIN' REALITY!) I keep re-posting the 'raw data' ... but I'll stop on two conditions: 1) Don't you ever call me an idiot again ... and 2) You included a criticisms section that points out how the 'raw data' contradicts the findings of said studies.Friendsofmary (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
PS - Just because David L Strayer does a study why do you automatically assume it is more reliable than an independent blog posting? Have you looked into the people who's studies are posted here? Almost every single one of David L Strayer's studies display a clear and obvious bias ... so why are these "studies" treated like gospel and blog postings with WP:RS don't deserve a mention? Do you really just accept the results of these studies at face value without asking things like "Why DOES David L Strayer's study say drivers are 4 times more likely to get in an accident on a cell phone while the 'raw data' shows otherwise?" ... Now do you see why it's important to have the 'raw data' represented. Friendsofmary (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not "an idiot", Martinevans123 is - who said that? It's just that your "raw data" proves nothing. Strayer's work is perfectly reliable. But I have no particular agenda. And I don't think Wikipedia really appreciates blackmail. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
So by your logic I should remove everything on the page that 'proves nothing'? The page would be blank. Friendsofmary (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Your data says nothing about the use of mobile phones in cars. Most people believe that the studies by Strayer, and others, support certain given hypotheses. If I presented data for the past 20 years which showed a reliable upward trend in dog ownership and another upward trend in life expectancy would that prove that owning a dog makes you live longer? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No. But it would call into question any statements or "studies" that said if you own a dog your life expectancy is only 1/4 that of non-dog owners. BTW, I didn't say the 'raw data' "proved" anything. However it is certainly relative to the subject matter. Friendsofmary (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Glad you didn't. I think you mean relevant. But the only relevance I can see is that the two separate trends cited have been presented in one table. How many of those new subscribers are old enough to drive a car? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant relative. In your previous post I think you meant 'ultimatum' not 'blackmail'. Now focus on the actual issue. ... Does it matter how many of the cell phone subscribers are old enough to drive? Did you not notice how grossly contrasted the data was? Even if more than 50% of the cell subscribers are under age it still calls to question the statements of the studies you've left stay on the page. Let me put it to you this way ... the 'Increased Rick' section is all about the SAAQ study. Why? It doesn't PROVE anything. All it proves is that more people "OWN" a cell phone not that cell phones increased or influenced the crash rate data in any way. But that study is supposed to "prove" there's an "increased risk"? Explain that to me. Friendsofmary (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I meant blackmail. You seem to have an issue with the SAAQ study. I'm sorry, but I don't agree that ".. the 'Increased Rick' section is all about the SAAQ study." If you feel sufficiently strongly about the limitations of the SAAQ "study", you could introduce your raw data there as a counter-argument. But I think that other editors may object that your data are being misused and constitute WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I came here to discuss the inclusion of the 'raw data' but that doesn't seem to be what is happening. You keep speculating and assuming while more or less telling me that I'm speculating and assuming. So here's one more chance ... tell me why the 'raw data' is so unimportant, irrelevant, or misleading that it should not be included here but be sure your arguments don't apply to the "studies" that are currently included on the page. To be clear; I am not asking for your permission to included this information on the page. I am asking you to 'prove' why it should not be included. Friendsofmary (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of the studies quoted are carefully designed, with an experimental hypothesis, independant and dependant variables, objective measures, data collection under controlled conditions and statistical analysis of results from which conclusions may be drawn. Taken in isolation, such studies may not "prove" anything conclusively, but when taken together they add weight to an understanding of what happens when people use mobile phones while driving. Your data, although they may be perfectly reliable, are simply national trends being presented together fortuitously. They provide no contribution to an understanding of what happens when people use mobile phones while driving. You don't need permission to add anything, but you do need agreement with other editors that what you add is relevant. (And I think that the lead image needs some kind of caption, at least, so why remove it altogether?) Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
You have clearly not read these studies objectively (if at all or in their entirety). Not this matters, but most of the studies quoted are carefully designed to prove a preconceived notion and it is clear this is the case by the wording as well as the manor in which these studies are conducted. One study you have posted is nothing more than a study on studies! When I read the actually study months ago I thought my brain was going to explode! But the real world 'raw data' (which I should remind you is presented as JUST THAT; 'raw data') doesn't live up to your standard for what people interested in this topic might find informative?! If you and/or others feel it need to be expanded upon because it's too 'fortuitous' ... then by all means ... expand upon it ... but don't simply remove it and act as though it is useless information. Friendsofmary (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I have read several of the papers cited, but not all. I have certainly read those that I have added as refs. My brain did not explode, as far as I know. Meta-studies are useful summaries of the conclusions which may be drawn from a large number of individual studies. But it's not really possible to "expand" the raw data you have provided. What could be made explicit, though, are all those questions that surround it - how much of it is estimated, what "subscriber" actually means, whether switching between networks adds to the total number, what is the demographic background of subscribers (especially age), what are the car driving habits of the subsrcibers, what are the contributions of improved car safety measures, what is the effect of changes in driving legislation, what is the demograogic pattern of fatalites,. etc., etc. But the main problem is that there is nothing which defiitilely links these two data streams apart from your assertion that they are linked. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

Right, Friendsofmary: Sorry I inadvertently called you an idiot, but since you are adamant that this encyclopedia article (which is crucially not a scholarly journal article or the like) cites data from your own blog you are both acting like an idiot, and displaying a clear conflict of interest in the matter of whether your blog should be cited here. Secondly, raw data presented out of context can allow you to draw any manner of conclusions. The conclusion that you are drawing (cell phone use has gone up while fatal crashes have decreased therefore cell phone use cannot cause crashes) is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("this occurs after that, therefore that causes this"). Look it up and get back to me. You could say that the increase in cell phone use had caused less people to drive, resulting in fewer crashes. Or the design of safer vehicles has caused more people to buy mobile phones so they can use them while they drive. And so on... As I say in my condensed, encylopedic summary of your data, other factors could be at play that simply presenting the raw data disguises. Finally, don't edit my comments please. Famousdog (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Not even sure it counts as post hoc ergo propter hoc, since the data, although time series ordered, are presented as if they are simultaneous trends. 1 could have caused 2, 2 could have caused 1, or (more likely) both 1 and 2 have been caused, independantly, by other, possibly numerous, unexplained factors. (Plus there's no demographic population baseline). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Famousdog - I have drawn NO conclusion. YOU are the one making the assumption of what the data implies. It's data, presented as data (period!). Also, the data is NOT from my blog, it from the census bureau, F.A.R.S., etc. Why the two of you can't understand how the number of cell phone subscriptions and the number of car accidents is relative to a page entitled "Mobile phones and Driving Safety" is completely beyond me!? The real problem is you want this issue with thousands of variables spelled out for you in black-and-white and that just isn't possible. Almost EVERY study on the subject is a guesstimate, the 'raw data' can be interpreted in various ways because the census data on how many car accidents have been the direct result of someone talking on a cell phone has never been collected, the media often treats this subject with sensationalism leading people to believe there are cell phone related crashes of epidemic proportion, thus legislation gets drafted and passed because people are to busy, lazy, or stupid to investigate the matter before voting on it. This 'raw data' merely puts things in perspective (period) It makes no claims as to WHY the numbers are what they are, but they are the best reputable, real-world, numbers that I could find on the subject and IMO they really should be the starting point for anyone who wants to get to the bottom of the matter. As for you telling me this data can not be expanded upon ... can you say; CONTRADICTION?! One of the first things you asked was 'How many of those new subscribers are old enough to drive a car?' go find out, and then add it. I'm sure there are many variables like this that YOU CAN find legitimate numbers for. YES, you will eventually get to a point where you won't be able to prove a negative (i think? ... I say that because I'm hard pressed to come up with an example. While you can't answer; "How many drunk driving accidents DIDN'T happen in 2007" you can probably find data that shows the number of Drunk Driving accidents from year to year.) While I'm sure it impossible to find data for EVERY variable it would certainly be more helpfully than, and less easily dismissed than the studies on, and related to, the subject. For example; The studies on cognitive function that imply the brain can't focus on two things at once, but any thinking person who's seen anyone play the drums would know that even if these studies are correct in some form it is clearly not as debilitating as they would have you believe. Anyway ... I've done as you've requested. I've come here and discussed the issue with you. While it seems no matter what I say you will continue to make up reasons why this data should not be presented, call me names, etc. ... I'm done wasting my time. You can keep deleting the information and I'll just keep putting it back up. If you want to call the Wiki police, I certainly welcome you to do so, and maybe they will have a better way to explain to you why this data should stay Friendsofmary (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Now you're going to try and undo my discussions? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!? Friendsofmary (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
"..the brain can't focus on two things at once." ?? Driving a car is really not like playing the drums. But by all means try using a mobile phone while you're playing the drums and see what happens. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC) - Ummmm ... It would be a lot like singing and playing the drums. AND AGAIN YOU'RE NOT DISCUSSING ANYTHING RELEVANT! All you want to TRY and do is prove me wrong on ANYTHING and that is not a discussion. Friendsofmary (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm discussing Dual Task Interfence and I'm suggesting that mobile phone use while driving is very unlike singing while drumming, and even less like mobile phone use while drumming. But you seem to be disputing this. Evenso, I am suggesting that in all of three sets of activities, one might expect to see patterns of task disruption. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent Person butting inEdit

I have come across this lively discussion completely by accident. I have had no involvement in the discussion or the article up until now and no-one has invited me here. Can I suggest that it is time to cool it? Constantly reverting each other and shouting is not going to get consensus between the three of you. Also, Friendsofmary, please don't alter other people's talkpage comments. This is against the Wikipedia policy of civility.

If all three of you are willing to participate in informal mediation and wish me to facilitate, I am happy to to do so. The discussions will only be about the content of the article. An alternative is to seek a Request for comment. Please let me know what you want to do on my talk page and we can take it from there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You may. however, I'm already not getting a warm fuzzy feeling as you've felt the need to scold me for editing the talkpage of people who feel it is OK to resort to name calling during a discussion. Also, you should realize this is a sensitive subject that costs U.S. citizens millions of dollars in tickets and fines. While I'm not really the conspiracy theory type, I can see why some less than honest people might not apperciate the information I've posted. I'm not really sure where I'm going with all this ... so let me summarize it by simply saying; I'm leery. Friendsofmary (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Beeswaxcandle, for your kind offer of informal mediation over the "raw data" issue. I certainly agree that it would be best to cool the tone and pace of the "discussion". Informal mediation, or even a RfC, would certainly be fine by me, although I think it may involve wider issues than just reaching consensus between the three editors who have been involved so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer Beeswaxcandle, but I don't see any need for mediation or RfC. Friendsofmary has repeatedly made a most unencyclopedic edit to this article. It has now been reverted by (at least) two separate editors. If Friendsofmary just want to publicise the numbers (as they say above), then the data from the table are summarised (with context) in the text of the article in an encyclopedic fashion. No need for tables of raw data. If Friendsofmary is unhappy with the way in which this data have been summarised in the text, perhaps s/he could make changes to it instead of just reproducing the raw data table? Famousdog (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. So it seems I'm the only one to be mediated, Beeswaxcandle?! Any other ideas? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Mediation only works if all the parties to the discussion are prepared to participate. I make it 1 Yes, 1 No, and 1 Not Sure. This means that my proposal of informal mediation won't work.
My only idea at this point is to suggest a compromise on the article. I know that compromises don't result in satisfaction for anyone, particularly not for people who are equally passionate about the subject. Please at least recognise that you are all passionate about this particular subject.
My proposed compromise is to reorganise the article. The Raw Data section being the first thing after the Contents is a bit "in ya face" and needs some interpretation to make sense of what it's showing. I feel that, as a reader, I need some more introductory material before launching into the "Increased Risk" section. Could the flow of the article be: Lead paragraph (as it is now reads just fine), Contents, "Introduction", a section of data with interpretation, "Increased Risk", and "Legislation". I have to say the "Legislation" section is a bit boggling with all those flags - are they needed? Also, would it better as a wikitable rather than the list it is at the moment?
Now, I'm not saying that the exact data that is currently there is necessarily the best. I know that here in New Zealand, many cell-phone users have more than one subscription - particularly if their workplace is paying for one. Also, many subscribers are not drivers. Is there data available on the number of drivers? Maybe the number of valid driver's licences would be a reasonable proxy. I guess I'm asking if there is the possibility of improving on the data table?
These suggestions are all just that - suggestions. I won't be upset if between you you decide that any of this is not the way forward for this article, but I hope that some progress can be made. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Beeswakcandle, thank you in any case, for trying to help. It seems you have some good ideas for reorganising the article some of which have nothing to do with the table of "raw data". but I agree that it certainly should not be where it is. Your comments about why the data might be as they are, seem very sensible, I cannot agree, however, that the table of data, as it stands, adds anything useful to this article. I would wholeheartedly support replacing it with useful data, if any exists. But I think the onus is on the contributor of that data to improve it, replace it, or withdraw it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Friendsofmary is clearly not dropping this, so how about we go ahead with mediation? Martinevans123 and I have stated that we are willing to go ahead. Balls in your court, Friendsofmary. In the meantime, enough with the reverting. Your table of raw data is a clear breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see note 3), WP:NOTTEXTBOOK (note 5), WP:NOTDIR (note 7) and WP:NOT#OR (note 1, note 3 possibly also applies). When are you going to get the message that a lengthy table of data does not belong in an encyclopedia??? Especially not at the top of the page and without discussion. In the meantime, mediate away Beeswaxcandle! Famousdog (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Why you would like to keep people ignorant is beyond me. You can tell me WHAT Wikipedia is by definition but what it really IS; is a popular source of information. I have information and it IS relevant! If you don't want it at the very top of the page then move it down some but I won't let you delete it or let it get lost in a sea of gibberish.71.175.181.251 (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ignorant is a relative term. It has to be relevant information. No, not "a sea gibberish", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I read through this discussion, I tend to agree with Friendsofmary that there is a curious stampede to ban cell phone use while driving. Many of the studies which purport to prove the dangers seem flawed to me. However the "Raw data" section as it appears in the article proves nothing and is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article in its present form. What we need are peer-reviewed studies that analyze and critique some of the studies presented. Meanwhile the raw data smacks of original research. It does not belong in the article as currently presented. Sunray (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war in progress over this. I've removed the "Raw data" section. Please note that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Friendsofmary/71.175.181.251, please do not add it again until there is consensus to do so. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
@Sunray: Who are you? (I’ll need to see some I.D.) Why do you think this is original research? Is it because I gave the data from reliable sources a title? A few things on "Consensus" ... 1) the consensus page doesn't say "Delete the information and then talk about it for a few weeks and then once you hash things out go ahead and re-post it" so it’s going back up until we reach said "Consensus" ... 2) Remember when the world was flat? ... 3) I'm not here to win a popularity contest. I'm a rational thinking person who has debated way too many uninformed people on this subject and I cannot in good conscious simply allow personal freedoms to be violated in the name of biased science and a “sea of gibberish” because Famousdog and Martinevans are in consensus. This is not some childish attempt to just piss you off, this is me fighting back with one of the few tools available to those of us who wish to do something other than sit home and complain about how screwed up the world is. Friendsofmary (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to discuss the data first and then add what everyone agrees, otherwise you may find that the issue is passed to an admin and you may then receive an edit ban. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
And why do you think that?Friendsofmary (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Because that's what tends to happen in situations like these. Can you explain why simply adding these two data sets in the same table shows any proof that they are related to each other or that they relevant to this artice (see discussion above). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle offered to mediate our discussions (this thread), but you declined. Three other editurs have asked you to discuss BEFORE reposting the table, but you have refused. So I think you may find yourslf with some kind of edit restriction, imposed by an administrator, if you persist. Had you thought of posting the table on this talk page so that it can be discussed? Thanks. 08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Who am I? An editor, just like you. But I've been around awhile and I have a fairly good grasp of WP policy. Briefly, regarding WP:NOR: You need a source that has researched matters pertinent to the article and reports on that research, otherwise it is not a reliable source. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Simply publishing census data is no good. The source would have to use the data to illustrate something about cell phones and driving safety. You speak about mediation. One of the first prerequisites to dispute resolution is to make sure that the participants understand one another. Would you be able to show me that you understand what I've just said? Regarding consensus: Three editors have indicated that the material is not appropriate for the article in its current form. One (you) argues that point. WP:CON mandates that we discuss it here. In the meantime you do not have consensus to add that material. Sunray (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
@Martinevans123 - Why do you keep asking me the same question? For the LAST TIME; The page is titled "Mobile phones and driving safety". *I* didn't name it that. Do you understand that *I* didn't say that mobile phones had anything to do with driving safety? But it is what it is, and as a result I posted data that is relevant to mobile phones and also data that is relevant to driving safety together in one table on a page called "Mobile phones and driving safety".
@08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC) - You're just making stuff up now. I agreed to mediation by Beeswaxcandle only adding that I was leery.
@Sunray & The rest of ya' - You said "You need a source that has researched matters pertinent to the article and reports on that research, otherwise it is not a reliable source" ... to which I say; Ummmm ok? So undisputed data from 3 reliable sources with no editorializing and presented in raw form doesn't constitute a reliable source because the hour it took to find and gather it together wasn't funded by the government to fit the narrative of Ray Lahood and the News Media? Do you understand how petty you're being!? I understand what you're saying but it is a bastardization of opinion and interpretation of various policy and rules of Wikipedia. NONE OF YOU have shown me one REMOTELY GOOD REASON why this data should not be on the page. You just complain about where it is on the page, and then don't move it. You obviously have a problem that the TITLE (and ONLY the title) points to my blog but rather than remove that reference you just delete the whole table. You accuse me of "implying things" and don't concede when I point out that I have implied nothing! You make pointless irrelevant arguments and don't concede when I finally succumb and point out that you actually CAN play drums and talk on a cell phone. Last but not least ... I have no way of knowing that you aren't all one person under many aliases which is easy to conclude since all of you only seem to care about imposing your will rather than DO ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE!71.175.181.251 (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You continually miss the point. You need a reliable source that says what you want to say about cell phones and driving. Simply presenting a table of "raw data" proves nothing, and, as I have said, violates WP:NOR. This has been explained many times by different editors in different ways. You have not made a case for including this data and there is no consensus to do so. So, it must remain out of the article. Sorry. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No, YOU continually miss the point.
  • What am I trying to say?
  • What did I say?
  • Does the Raw data come from reliable sources?
  • What section of WP:NOR do you feel this information violates?
  • Is the information inaccurate? If so; How?
  • Is the information misleading? If so; How?
  • Is the list excessively long in comparison to other pages on Wikipedia that contain lists?
  • Do you feel this information is of interest to persons researching this topic? If so; which parts? If not; Why?
  • Do you have ANY SUGGESTIONS on how to include this information in its entirety other than its current form?
71.175.181.251 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The section of WP:NOR that applies is WP:SYN. You should also consider WP:BURDEN. The information you want to add is interesting, but, I repeat, you must find a source that interprets it. Failing that, is is OR and cannot be included. Sunray (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not answering the bulk of my questions. While I admit the information sits on a razors edge of WP:SYN I disagree that it violates it, and simply removing or rewording the title would remedy your problem. I guess you know better than I do because you say you do. Congratulations ... I can only deal with so many people who prioritize policy above all else for so long; I quit. You Win? http://www.google.com/search?q=cell+phone+ban&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=BuJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ni&source=univ&tbs=nws:1&tbo=u&ei=6H8mTLz4PJLolAec4ui0Dw&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQsQQwAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.181.251 (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought that most of your questions would be answered by those two excerpts of policy. Many of us who enjoy editing here have learned that the policies provide guidance that allows Wikipedia to become the best encyclopedia on earth. They also help us sort out disagreements. It is too bad that you thought this was about winning and losing. I think it is about learning. As I said, I think you may have a point. It is a shame that you don't want to stick around and work collaboratively on making this a better article. But you see we have to have some groundrules. If you come back and get those two policy references under your belt, you may find it a worthwhile experience. Sunray (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been sitting this out because I'm just amazed at the nonsense Friendsofmary has been spouting and haven't trusted myself not to say so repeatedly. But how about I attempt to answer his/her questions? What am I trying to say?/What did I say? On the surface you are not saying anything, but your table implies a relationship where one may not exist. Does the Raw data come from reliable sources? Data is from reliable sources, synthesis of this reliable data is from a blog, which I would regard as unreliable because it indulges in synthesis of potentially unconnected datasets. What section of WP:NOR do you feel this information violates? The Synthesis of published material that advances a position rule, for one. Just because this blogger violated that rule before you did doesn't mean you can profess ignorance. Is the information inaccurate? If so; How? I have no reason to believe that the data is not accurate, but spuriously connecting two truths does not necessarily make a third truth. Is the information misleading? If so; How? It sure as hell is misleading. It imples that there is a causal relationship (or lack of, in this case). Is the list excessively long in comparison to other pages on Wikipedia that contain lists? It's not a list. Its a table of data meant to imply a relationship. Length of list is not necessarily a problem here. Do you feel this information is of interest to persons researching this topic? If so; which parts? All information is useful, but it is now up to qualified researchers to establish what the relationship is. Do you have ANY SUGGESTIONS on how to include this information in its entirety other than its current form? Yes, as a brief note at most (i.e. the way I edited it down and added qualifying remarks).
Finally, Friendsofmary, how about this? The average size of a mobile phone in the period under discussion has decreased by 10%, while fatal accidents have also decreased. Therefore, smaller mobile phones result in less fatal crashes. (I'm sure I could find stats on mobile phone size to back this up, but frankly can't be arsed BECAUSE THIS IS A DELIBERATELY STUPID ARGUMENT). You are wrong about "being on the razors edge of synthesis" - you step waaaaaaay over it. I come back to the principle of correlation does not imply causation and similarly, lack of correlation does not imply lack of causation. Famousdog (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You people are dead wrong and I reverted it. The argument is that cell phone use while driving causes accidents. The raw data section you keep wanting to hide (no doubt for your own big government agendas) shows that a more than 1,200% increase in the availability of cell phones did not lead to a corresponding increase in accidents. That's why Famousdog's analogy fails, the argument is not the SIZE of the cell phone causes accidents, but the mere use of it. Hence, more phones should lead to more use which should lead to more accidents. Whether you like the correlation/causation or not, the data is very useful in counter-balancing all the biased studies this article discusses. Right now, this article is VERY biased towards the "dangers" of using a cell phone while driving. This data flies in the face of that, and some of you want to hide it. Shame on the lot of you. --66.0.248.74 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The raw data section "shows" nothing. If you think the article is unbalanced please add data which provides scientific support for the contrary arguments. The data you keep insisting on adding isn't very useful at all, it's very useless. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Martinevans123 and everyone else, this raw data doesn't belong in the article. If it's important enough, it'll appear somewhere in a reliable source, so we don't have to draw out own conclusions. Dayewalker (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so now we're all Men in black working on a covert government operation to hide THE TRUTH from the public. Stop playing the underdog and assume good faith please. I'm just interested in the psychological evidence (which is overwhelmingly against mobile use while driving) and as a scientist I find presenting tables of spuriously correlated/uncorrelated data, and "allowing" people unaware of / unschooled in / dismissive of the scientific method to draw their own conclusions from it, manipulative, deceitful and ignorant. Shame on you. You argue that the claim is that use of mobile phones causes accidents whilst ownership of mobile phones has increased and accidents haven't. However, ownership is not use in the same what that phone size is not use. The psychological literature has directly tested usage whilst driving. You are arguing that it is invalidated by presenting a table of mobile phone ownership. If you can't see the problem with your own logic then I refer you back up this thread to where I have repeatedly said that many other factors could explain the discrepancy between these two datasets while the psychological evidence that mobile use impairs driving is still true. For example: many of these new owners of mobiles will be under driving age, so will not contribute to accident stats (I'm sure there are stats on the decreasing age of the average mobile user to back this up). Or how about this: Whilst mobile ownership has increased, the use of mobiles while at the wheel has decreased, or users' strategies for juggling phones have changed, or drivers are more aware of the issue of distraction and drive more carefully ... etc ... that means the accident stats have remained constant. Both of these possibilites would explain the data in your precious f*cking table, whilst accepting the validity of the psychological evidence for driver distraction. Ball's in your court, Anonymous User. Famousdog (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Also agree with Martinevans123/et al. But more important than Dayewalker's comment that the data will appear in a reliable source, an analysis of the data will. WP:SECONDARY warns against suggesting interpretations of data. What possible use is there of a data table unless someone is trying to interpret the data to mean something? If there's meaning to be found, we can cite a reliable source that interprets it. Raw data with no conclusions or analysis stated or implied doesn't seem the role of an encyclopedia, and stating it as such risks accidental bias merely by its selection/collection/organization. If there is a reliable external source that has collected all this information, just link to it in External Links. The material itself is out of scope, but a statement that data are being collected or that researchers are studying corrlations in the data seems viable--the data collecting rather than the data itself. DMacks (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The usefulness of the raw data section is obvious, as is the objection of the people who keep deleting it. It directly contradicts the "studies" that claim cell use increases accidents. It gives the reader something to think about. If, as the studies say, you are more likely to be in a wreck because you are using a cell phone, then we should expect to see an increase in accidents with an increase in cell usage. Since that did not occur, despite a 1,200% increase in cell phone usage, it follows that there is something wrong with the studies. THAT is the usefulness of the Raw Data section. I strongly suspect that those who are against the inclusion of this data have an axe to grind on this issue. --Theadversary (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Theadversary, I repeat: ownership is not use. Statistics on ownership do not contradict the evidence that use impairs driving. Ownership may have gone up, while use at the wheel has gone down which would explain the static crash statistics. How many ways can I say this? Famousdog (talk) 08:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is my first WP post, under full disclosure I just set up an account to weigh in. My intent is to shed more research-based light on this "raw data" issue. I work professionally on communicating the science of many traffic safety issues including distracted driving and cell phones. No correlation can be made between total number of crashes and fatalities and cell phone subscriptions or cell phone use for additional reasons than those already discussed here. To address using subscriptions for raw data: Cell phone subscription numbers don't represent the number of drivers using cell phones. Not everyone with a subscription is of driving age and not everyone with a subscription uses their phones while driving. Furthermore, a single person can have multiple subscriptions and phones, even on different wireless networks, for work and personal use. Prevalence and exposure of cell phone use while driving is a more relevant measure. However there are vast differences in crash risk between talking and texting, and we know each year texting rises dramatically. Cell phone use behavior while driving is a fast-changing behavior while all of our available statistics are lagging indicators from previous years. NHTSA has estimated the number of drivers talking or manually manipulating cell phones at any given daylight moment in 2008 to be approx 11%. Even that estimate has limitations as discussed in the source of this info, NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts "Driver Electronic Use in 2008." Updated prevalence numbers for 2009 may likely be shared in September. As editors have noted, MANY factors affect the overall crash rate data. Studies published this summer have tried to analyze this (UMTRI & NHTSA), but not in regards to cell phone use, they are trying to gain understanding of the recent dramatic drop in crashes in 2008 and likely 2009 as well. Certainly high gas prices in 2008 could have been a major factor and economic recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s resulted in significant traffic safety fatality reductions during recession years. We see this trend again for 2008, as expected. The overall vehicle fleet is gaining from vehicle engineering advances as people replace old vehicles with newer ones with better safety features -- air bags, stability control, etc. Roadway engineering is showing benefits. Policies such as graduated driver licensing are reducing crashes and primary seat belt laws and enforcement are reducing fatalities. Thus there can be no correlation made between any raw data for any traffic safety issue. Furthermore, the data on contributing factors to distracted driving crashes, from police crash reports, is highly suspect as even NHTSA publicly cautions in its reports. Many states do not even collect data on cell phone use on crash reports. Many drivers in crashes will not admit to using cell phones. However I caution that the lack of data does not mean that a problem does not exist. It merely means that not all crash factors have easy ways to track. (to refer to a similar situation, people get cancer, for some cancers there's much debate about causation but that doesn't mean that people don't get cancer) Advocacy groups have built lists of thousands of people killed in cell phone-related crashes. This "data" is coming from the family members left behind, and the at-fault driver admissions that do not show in police reports and thus do not show in the data. I have not referred to any publication that I was involved with here, to be fair and impartial. In closing, NHTSA and UMTRI and others have recently tried to analyze and summarize the impact of various factors on the total national crash and fatality rates. This research has been recently published this summer (NHTSA published a study just a few weeks ago) but I don't see these referred to in this discussion yet. Even the best trained minds and the most rigorous existing methods cannot possibly tease out how each individual crash factor contributes to reduction in crashes. Indeed most crashes are multi-factorial -- eg, teen driver with intermediate license speeding while not wearing seat belt, alcohol-impaired driver speeding while driving through red light, cell phone-distracted driver rear-ends vehicle in front of him as the vehicles enter construction zone and a whole train of vehicles are slowing quickly, etc. Number.one.aries (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that very informative and measured contribution. You seem to know what you're on about! Please help us out with any factual or conceptual errors in the article. Famousdog (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawthorne EffectEdit

Hey, everyone. I did a lot of work on this page a few years ago and am very happy to see what's been done since then. The professionalism and competence of Wikipeida editors continue to impress me. I added a sentence that I fear may be controversial, so I'm posting this here to hopefully head off a reversion and hopefully reach a consensus without an editing war. I try hard for NPOV, but Strayer's simulation studies have never set well with me. The [| Masters thesis] of a Virginia Tech student was based on Strayer's work, and he mentions that the Hawthorne effect may have skewed the results. I think that this is a legitimate criticism that applies to all simulation studies on the issue, and added a sentence saying so. There may be benefit to adding a sentence to the drunk driving comparison section, which is also based on Strayer's work, but I'm not sure it fits well there.Aron.Foster (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to read the Masters thesis, but I see that you have put "it may be impacted.. ". It's not clear to me, however, what you mean by "it". Which way is the Hawthorne effect expected to work in this case - do people try to "drive" better or do they try to "talk" better? Is there a differental effect on the different tasks in dual-task studies in general? It might be worth you spelling out how you think the Hawthorne Effect skews the results. Do we know Strayer's own views on that possible effect? Are there any ways to mitigate? In my own experience David Strayer is very communicative and might well tell you if you asked him. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hm. I meant "it" to refer to the studies, but I can see how that may be unclear. I've reworded, and as always am amiable to other's rewording to increase clarity. The linked thesis suggests that the hawthorne effect would cause subjects to drive better, but after watching [| videos] of the study I'm of the opinion that there's a legitimate risk of the hawthorne effect on the amount of talking and the subject's focus on talking, too. In the case of only what the thesis suggests, drivers would be better during both experiment and control simulations, overestimating the relative risk of cell phones: for the sake of argument, assume driving without a phone has a 1% risk of crash and with a phone has a 2% risk (actual RR = 2); the simulation study with the hawthorne effect might have a 0.5% risk of crash without a phone and 1.5% risk with (simulation RR = 3). Add to that the potential for subjects to focus more of their attention on talking due to the hawthorne effect, and I think there's a legitimate concern that simulation studies overestimate the RR of mobile phones while driving. Of course, that borders on original research, but at least one academic paper has expressed concern about the hawthorne effect and simulation studies on mobile phones and driving safety.
I don't know Dr. Strayer's views on the subject, and I'm curious how we could ask him and then incorporate what he says into the page and still have WP:V. And if we do cite him, is he WP:NPOV, considering that part of his job is to prove the increased risk of crashing while using a mobile phone is significant? To quote his webpage: "Our mission is to make our roads safer by reducing driver distraction", not to provide an accurate estimate of the risks of distractions.Aron.Foster (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's a bold mission statement, isn't it. I would have expected Prof Strayer to perhaps have a view on whether or not the Hawthorne Effect could have any effect on results, not necessarily on the direction. But he might have considered it fully and taken steps to mimimise any effect. I don't think your suggestions constitute WP:OR since they are pure conjecture. So I think you'll either have to take the suggestion in the Masters Thesis at face value. or else leave it out - unless any data are presented to support the claim (even then, this is not a peer-reviewed study). But what do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Hawthorne Effect is interesting, but for me a big factor is the learning curve. I was already a competent driver when I got my first cellphone in the 90's. At first there were some awkward moments driving and talking at the same time. But eventually I learned to do it in a manner that I considered safe. While it is illegal in my state to talk and drive, I still do it, like most of us do and risk getting the fine and an accident. Texting is another animal entirely.

Obviously there is increased risk involved in doing anything else besides completely focusing on your driving. But what is an acceptable level of risk in making DOT determinations? Every speed zone law on every road is a risk verses quality of public life decision. I like the statistics quoted in this article, but I am not sophisticated enough to follow the voodoo adjustments they did to them. I wonder how they compare to other risk factors? Driver's age, Barely legal tire tread, speeding, following too close, vehicle size, going through the drive through and eating as I drive... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.113.243 (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that the discussion here is about whether or not including this Masters study and/or mention of the Hawthorn Effect would benefit this article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of a captionEdit

How do I put a caption underneath the picture (for example: "A driver placing a call")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.76.252 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Rule to BlockEdit

Some or all of this article from the Washington Post seems to be everywhere (including my local paper). It states that "Drivers won’t be able to text, browse, tweet or dial on factory-installed devices if auto manufacturers follow new federal guidelines to disable the gadgets while the wheels are rolling..." and that "The new federal guidelines, published Thursday in the Federal Register [emphasis not in original] and subject to a 60-day period of public comment, recommend that manufacturers make it impossible for drivers to perform many functions while a vehicle is in motion, including: to send or look at text messages; browse the Internet; tweet or use social media such as Facebook; enter information in navigation systems; enter 10-digit phone numbers; or receive any type of text information of more than 30 characters unrelated to driving."

First, if this is accurate, it propbably belongs in this article even while the rule gets finalized. The problem is that I can't find ANYTHING in the Federal Register that mentions it. LaHood's pet "Distracted Driving" section on the DOT site doesn't even mention it. I came here hoping an editor would have given details or a <REF> in the article. Does anyone have info on this? Kevin/Last1in (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I can add no more to your sources. But I am amazed that the automobile lobby in the US would allow this to happen. What would happen with Ford's "SYNC" and "MyFord Touch" systems etc and the GM equivalents? Such definitive legislation is not even on the agenda in UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Maps too?Edit

Does this law include using the phone for maps? Using the radio, finding buttons for windshield wipers, lights, gas tank, heaters, A/C, there are so many things that cause accidents, death. Add List of phobias and/or just Driving phobia & fear of being a pedestrian, bicycle riding with too many cars, etc? Hillmon7500 (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sleep-deprived drivingEdit

What about adding a link to Sleep-deprived driving? Hillmon7500 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Mobile phones and driving safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Mobile phones and driving safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mobile phones and driving safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions of This ArticleEdit

After reading this article " Mobile phones and driving safety ", the author show a lot of important evidences that why mobil phones effect your safety when you are driving. Also the article shows the detail datas of the danger of texting when you were driving. It's a really convince article to me, because of all the detail the author has. But the problem is, where are these data and details comes from. It doesn't have any references and sources. So, thats the problem that this article has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.96.5 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mobile phones and driving safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Be aware of american vs european logicEdit

The problem in this field is that american logic has taken over and replaced european thinking, and most people are not even aware of it. Europeans had all that was necessary for professional-quality mobile use, like car kits, external antennas, hands-free facilities, voice-activated diallers etc, and we lost it with the advent of 3G/UMTS early in this millenium, probably due to bad american influence seeking to dominate everything, thereby dumbing it down and disimproving it, while claiming it had got 'better then ever before'. More at http://pro-mobile-internet.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.217.54 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

merge sectionEdit

I cut the information about United States state-by-state laws to merge into Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States, which has much more detail, per the merge proposal tag on this page. I think it makes sense to have the article Restrictions on cell phone use while driving in the United States include all of the specific detail about each state's restrictions, since they vary quite a bit, while this article is more general. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Mobile phones and driving safety" page.