Jump to content

Talk:Mobile phones and driving safety

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.175.181.251 (talk) at 18:53, 26 June 2010 (→Independent Person butting in). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

'Attention' vs 'Distraction'

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?

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)[reply]

Cell Phone Use While Driving

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)[reply]

Merge

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)[reply]

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

Crashes

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)[reply]

Citation is to be needed

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Cleanup tag

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)[reply]

status in israel

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)[reply]

Major rewrite of article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not good written

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)[reply]

Not good written? Speak for yourself. Famousdog (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Needs pictures

  • Hands-free kit in SAAB 9-5
    Hands-free kit in SAAB 9-5
  • Texting on a keyboard phone
    Texting on a keyboard phone

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)[reply]

Non-driver passengers as bad as a phone?

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)[reply]

UK

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delaware, United States

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)[reply]

What happens with cars that have Iphone integration for music?

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)[reply]

"Raw Data"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Now you're going to try and undo my discussions? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!? Friendsofmary (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"..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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Independent Person butting in

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And why do you think that?Friendsofmary (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety&oldid=370287678"