Originally Posted by
vnx205
I think you may have considered this possibility earlier, but I wonder whether the reason there is no significant difference between states with and without a ban may be that there is no significant difference between mobile phone usage regardless of the ban.
Which, if true, is another reason for considering it is a bad law. Any law that is generally ignored serves no useful purpose, and brings the law in general into disrepute!
If I were simply to go on the basis of what I see, I would not have realised that NSW had a ban on the use of phones. I see them being used so often that as a casual observer I could be forgiven for thinking that it was legal.
I won't argue that one!
Unless of course US drivers are more law abiding than a lot of Australian drivers appear to be.
My experience suggests that they may be, but only slightly, and my experience is only in a couple of states.
A possible reason why the prevalence of phone usage created a rise in the accident statistics may be that phone usage by itself may in fact have led to a very small increase in accidents but that increase has been effectively balanced by a combination of other things that have been responsible for a marginal improvement.
Which contradicts the claim that phone use represents a 28% increase in the accident probability.
I have no evidence to support any of this; it is pure speculation. As you have said on numerous occasions, many accidents have a multiplicity of causes and it is rarely possible to confidently attribute an accident to a single cause. So apart from a few things like seat belts and RBT, it is hard to be sure of the harm or benefits of one factor.