>>>>>>>http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/01/28/article/most_nc_texting_charges_come_from_drivers_over_25
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>SNIPPET:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Teenagers aren't the only ones to blame for erratic driving tied to cell phones. Most of the motorists ticketed under North Carolina's new texting ban are actually over the age of 25, and some are over the age of 60.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>More than 1,200 drivers in North Carolina have been charged with texting-while-driving since the law went into effect in December 2009. Here's a look at the number of motorists charged, broken down by age group:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * 16-25: 612 tickets
>>>>>>> * 26-35: 379 tickets
>>>>>>> * 36-45: 192 tickets
>>>>>>> * 46-55: 59 tickets
>>>>>>> * 56-65: 15 tickets
>>>>>>> * 66-75: 2 tickets
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Most? Almost half the charges have been issued against 16-25 year olds (612 vs. 647 for all other age groups). That is greatly disproportionate to their percentage of licensed drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Its a meaningless statistic (as most are). How many people in each group routinely text anyway. How many people in each group are stopped by the police.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think police are more likely to pull young people anyway. Young people are more likely to text etc.
>>>>
>>>>I don't see why it's meaningless. I have seen the statistics on accident rates when the driver is talking on a cell phone or (worse) texting while driving and they sure seem meaningful to me. IIRC you are seven times more likely to get in an accident while talking on the phone, and the rate while texting is much higher than that. Statistically one is less dangerous driving drunk than doing either of those things. An increasing number of juristictions have outlawed one or both, but those laws are still widely flaunted.
>>>
>>>I'm talking about the age distribution being significant. TC loves popping out these stats and like most stats they are a meaningless set of numbers assembled to prove a point or give a paper a thin excuse for an article.
>>
>>Loves popping out these stats :o) When I don't provide links and stats, I am hit with not supporting my comments with facts. When I provide them, I'm hit with providing too many links... :o) Can't win.
>>
>>Actually, in this case, it's more because there is a common belief here (maybe not in England I guess) that it is teens texting and driving. The article just shows that dumb is dumb and there are just as many adults out there doing stupid stuff... the local and national media always focuses on teens and texting while driving.
>>
>>(Updated to fix typo and add comment for clarity)
>>
>>:o) 2nd Update: I know how you love the Daily Mail (and links) so here is a link about some really terrifying news:
>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351066/Will-chocolate-drought-World-s-supply-sustainable-cocoa-run-2014.html
>
>I love the Daily Mail. Finally you have managed to offend me :-)
>
>I do like it actually but only ironically :-)

It reminds me of a paper on stands here called The Enquirer. :o)