“You are 4-times more likely to have an accident if you use your mobile whilst driving”




… as can be seen by considering insurance sector statistics for first approximation could be taken to label 1/8th drivers by age, occupation, mileage, history for their association with x7 higher accident rate. This means half of all accidents are associated with people whose attributes probably also predispose them to high usage of mobiles for personal and commercial purposes, reflected of course in target emphasis of product advertising.

Mobile usage going pro rata with accident incidence alone in fact suffices to account for the “4 times” cited in the coercion campaign that ironically centres on Classic FM whose audience must be almost devoid of mobile-maniacs judging from its advertising vacuum for such products. Correspondingly, mobile usage for 7/8th drivers incurs negligible additional accident risk so the campaign is indeed not just coercive claptrap but all the more for concentrating its promotion on an innocent but susceptible majority ~ a psychological strategy that would no doubt be deemed “undesirable” by the ASA were their people not so strongly allied by correctness culture / career consolidation to the perpetrators themselves!

For those who like to see symbolic stuff: let p, q, r respectively be expectations for low accident incidence, low mobile use, safer group membership and take primes to distinguish their accident-prone counterparts, so above statements translate into p’=7p, r=7r’ or pr+p’r’=2pr and, with q’=7q, prq+p’r’q’= 4*(2pr)q ~ whence the “4-tmes” asserted and inferred above. This result arises because mobiles provide a meaningful marker for the high-risk group or rather have been presumed to do so for the purpose of making the point but one which is most probably a deal nearer the truth than the advertised assertion.

A comparable deconstruction can be created against coercive correctness claims that speed traps catalyse improved road safety, showing rather that they predispose to victimising the substantially harmless majority rather than selectively sampling the high-risk people rightly targeted by the insurance sector using statistically sound hindsight! Because the substantially low-risk group (as labelled by insurers on the basis of real data) is so much bigger than the high-risk one, only a small fractional contribution from them (1/7th, eg as occasional offenders caught unawares on unfamiliar roads) is needed to exceed the numbers of those labelled high-risk by the insurers. Who amongst even the self-righteous enforcers can honestly claim that they don’t offend even at this low-level incidence?

So that’s the distinction then ~ intensity of mobile usage is very probably a reliable marker for risk but speed traps almost certainly penalise unselectively across the whole population. If their proponents cared about “honesty, truth and decency” they would publish statistics conceding the lack of correlation between categories of trap offenders and insurers’ own ground-truth figures. There is no doubt they are largely uncorrelated as testified by the vigorous vocal backlash from otherwise invariably silent Middle-Englanders who have been rudely criminalized courtesy of the coercive correctness cowboys!

In sum, more meaningless manipulative messages from a motley mob whose daft deliverables to date have most notably included the disappearing Dome debacle, the Y2K Armageddon that never was, bus lanes with <1% utilisation for fear of retribution conveyed via covert cameras or overpaid plods soon to be supplemented by GPS drones eavesdropping everyone everywhere whilst armies of anonymous apparatchiks know everything about everyone but nothing about anything, all escaping remonstration because the gullible GB public nowadays only knows all about soaps but never sees the suds for what they are ~ Orwellian pulpers ensuring that topical vox pop centres on the virtualities of that East End Square so as to stop well short of the realities that Westminster politicians pompously purport to portray. We are inundated with inspirational initiatives, often as not asserted to be internationally envied, but they are seldom properly probed even by pious press pundits for the wafer-thin waffle that often as not conceals an Emporial emptiness.