Skip to main content

The best lying headlines of the week: eating while driving more dangerous than driving drunk


Eating While Driving Significantly Increases Chances Of A Car Accident, Experts Say


Except that the article from CBS Los Angeles beneath this headline does not say anything of the sort.

Only one person is quoted in the article who says eating while driving is unsafe (so forget the plural), and--guess what?--he's not an expert.

He's a California Highway Patrolman who admits that eating while driving isn't illegal but that he's used a variety of dodges to get around the law to charge people anyway.

But don't let that stop you, pseudo-journalists.  Then WTOP picks up the story today, including this sentence: 
Experts tell CBS Los Angeles that eating while driving increases your chance of a car accident by 80 percent.
Except that if you click through the link (which I left in the sentence for your convenience) you go back to the original CBS story, and--guess what?--there is no such quote in the first story.  The California Highway Patrolman (who is apparently both expert and experts) NEVER says in the story that eating while driving will increase your chances of an accident by 80%.

This particular tempest seems to trace back to a University of Leeds study in 2012 that purportedly found that drinking a soda while driving was more dangerous than driving drunk.

And if you finally (it took me twenty minutes, and I'm good at this stuff) work your way back through all the hand-wringing articles about unsafe we all are because we drink a soda while we drive, you will discover the following useful pieces of information about the Leeds study:

1.  It was financed by an insurance company.

2.  No road tests were actually used in the survey, only driving simulators.

3.  Only ten drivers were actually tested, each in about 4-5 different travel conditions (urban, rural, etc.)

4.  Each test lasted four minutes.  This means that the entire study consumed all of about 200 minutes of observed driving time on simulators.

5.  The study was actually meant to determine the issues surrounding one-handed driving for any reason, not specifically eating.

In other words, the study is pretty much garbage.  It even condemned using a finger to punch in a new radio station.

But it has become oh-so-influential garbage.

That's why it pays to click through the links.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is how they make education policy. No lie.
kavips said…
Economic policy
Health Policy,
Insurance Regulatory policy.
Food Safety policy.
etc....
NCSDad said…
It is frightening how we can ignore the science. Doing other things w hile driving increases the chance for a mishap. Doing them more often, or with diminished capacity makes it worse. We can try to legislate around each capability and each distraction or ... hold people accountable for the accidents they cause and thereby encompass all the variables.
Anonymous said…
IT is SHOCKING how little you know about statistics. But I guess n one ever accused a libertarian of being intelligent at any aspect of life.
@Anon

Great charge (completely without specifics).

Thanks for playing.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?