>>>>>>>>>>>>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 find it quite amazing that you haven't admitted you were wrong. As I said to your soul brother, would it kill you to admit you were wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>>I admit I'm wrong quite often. But in this case, what was I wrong about? I posted a link with some interesting stats.It is clear in my post that I quoted some of the article (I even used "snippet" and used italics). Those are NOT my words or my claims. They come from the article. I don't read any statement or claim I made other than dumb is dumb regardless of age. This is why I stop reading and responding to your messages -- you seldom make sense now.
>>>>>
>>>>>Seriously Mike, are you drinking again?
>>>>
>>>>That is the easiest evasion in the world. You were mistaken on this point.
>>>
>>>I can only take your word on that and you've lied before and then admitted so on the UT yourself. Still, you didn't answer my question. What was I wrong about? You accused me of not admitting I was wrong, but I have no idea what you are talking about. That's what makes me question your drinking. If you were not, then GREAT. It's not evasion. I really have no idea what you are talking about. If you accuse me, please be specific. If I was wrong about something, I will gladly admit it.
>>
>>Lying was too strong a word. Mistaken about the facts of fatality rates while phoning or texting while driving would have been a better phrase.
>>
>>Probably the biggest group of offenders are long haul truckers, who are professional drivers. They are explicitly forbidden from doing so but do so with impunity. Their accident rate is stratospheric. f = ma.Truck drivers say it takes them 5 minutes to pull off the road, make a call, and merge back into traffic. Which I'm sure is true. They say they need to stay in steady contact with the dispatch office on an iPad-like device mounted on the dash. I am not being judgmental -- time is money in the deregulated truck driving business -- I'm just saying it's dangerous. When I'm driving on the highway I stay as far away from the big rigs as I can.
>
>Can you please point me to the message where I wrote fatality rates while phoning or texting or posted my view on it?

You cited ticket rates, not fatality rates, in the message you started this thread with. My bad.

You're like the Viet Cong. You incite things, then hop over the border into Laos.