Local newspaper websites are almost a byword for ill-informed comment, recently this little exchange tickled my funny bone when a discussion on the numbers Lothian and Borders police were catching per day (14) using mobiles while driving turned into a regular commenter's rant about nanny-stateism and the inherent safety of mobile use.

* * *

.alternative (high octane) fuel head
"... there is NO scientific evidence that suggests mobile phone use when driving results in a reduced ability, let alone a danger. Of course it is possible to use a mobile phone in such a way that one's driving becomes dangerous... in the same way that it is possible to have a row with your wife in such a way that you driving becomes dangerous."

.scientistbyday
"You missed these (and about 89,000 other) examples of scientific evidence:
Strayer DL, Drewes FA (2007). Cell-Phone-Induced Driver Distraction, Current Directions in Psychological Science 16: 128-131; Rakauskus, Gugerty, Ward (2004). Effects of naturalistic cell phone conversations on driving performance. Journal of Safety Research, Volume 35, Issue 4, 2004, 453-464.; Dula, Martin, Fox, Leonard (2010). Differing types of cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 43, Issue 1, 187-193."

.alternative (high octane) fuel head
"That isn't evidence. It's waffle.
FACT: Millions of people do it every day and as each day goes by, more people do it. This has been going on for the last 10 years or so.
FACT: The accident rate on our roads has not significantly increased over the last 10 years or so.
NULL HYPOTHESIS EXAMINATION: Given two factors, A and B, which could be related, if A increases significantly over a period to a very high level, whilst B does not significantly change, then B is not related to A.
CONCLUSION: Using a phone when driving does not lead to a significant number of crashes. Therefore, using a phone when driving cannot be classified as being "dangerous"."

.scientistbyday
"Did you bother to actually look at any of the papers I cited? Or maybe follow up your own question with a little of your own research and analysis?"

.alternative (high octane) fuel head
" I'm not going to waste my time reading rubbish. The papers you cite are in exactly in the same league as all the drivel that is written about global warming, climate change and passive smoking. I've seen those kinds of papers before and I used to bother reading them until I discovered that essentially none of them are correct scientifically. In the past I have read papers on road safety attempting to justify the latest batch of motoring related propaganda and frankly a bigger load of assumptions, glossing over and leaps of faith you could not imagine. The clue is that the conclusion is written in the abstract. In other words, they have already made their minds up about something before they've even ironed their white coat. I deal in facts. Hard facts which are commonly known and link them using sound scientific principles, together with a large helping of common sense and logic. They do not come from my imagination. I stated two facts above. If you wish to try to prove them wrong then feel free. Also if you wish to challenge my reasoning, feel free."

.scientistbyday
"Wow. Just . . . wow. Projecting much? Scientific illiteracy on parade. Look up Dunning-Kruger. Here's a clue. An abstract isn't written in advance of the paper. It's a brief summary of a piece of scientific work, not the opening paragraph in a story. An abstract MUST include its conclusion. That's good writing, not a spoiler, or a reflection of a preconceived conclusion. It's ok if you're not a scientist. But you do look silly when you try to sound like one."

.the end