Larry :
I'm not sure which hair you're trying to split here. The abstract
states "The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four
times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used
...".
Of course, correlation is not the same thing as cause and effect, but in
this case it seems _very_ suggestive.
However, I agree that Tim's statement wasn't quite accurate. They
actually examined cell phone users who had had wrecks, to see if there
was a correlation between phone usage and having an accident. This
neatly ducks a whole bunch of side issues (for instance : Are cell phone
owners just lousy drivers ?)
Randall
Larry Hoy wrote:
> Tim Mullen wrote :
> >Any way, they examined drivers involved in wrecks and determined how many
>were using the cell phone at the time of the wreck.
>
> Tim, I don't think that's what it said. Or at least that is not what I read
>in the abstract.
>
> http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0336/0007/0453.asp
>
> The study refers to calls made CLOSE to the time of the wreck (your word), it
>does not say they were talking on the phone at the
> time of the wreck. I believe the conclusion is that people who use cell
>phones are more likely to be involved in wrecks than those
> that do not use cell phones. That does not indicate talking on the phone is
>the cause.
>
> It also makes no conclusion as to who was at fault in the wreck.
>
> Larry Hoy
|