Responses

Download PDFPDF

Longer term effects of New York State’s law on drivers’ handheld cell phone use
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: Handheld vs Handsfree

    Dear Editor

    The study of the effects of using a mobile phone while driving may reveal interesting socioeconomic and traffic data, and may be perfectly worthwhile as a scientific pursuit.[1] Using this data as a basis for legislation, however, is a bad idea. Common sense tells us that doing anything while driving, be it talking on the phone, applying makeup, operating the radio, or carrying on a conversation wit...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Author's reply
    • Anne T McCartt, Highway Safety Research
    • Other Contributors:
      • Lori L. Geary

    Dear Editor

    Regarding the eLetter by McCartt and Geary.[1]

    Our study had the specific, stated objective of determining whether New York’s ban on drivers’ use of hand-held phones led to short-term and long-term changes in the use rates of hand-held phones while driving. Our intent was not to assess the relative safety effects of hands-free versus handheld devices. In the discussion, we note that any subs...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Handheld vs Handsfree

    Dear Editor

    McCartt and Geary in their recent article in IP [1] have glossed over the problem with banning hand held phones in that there is now a large body of evidence showing that there is no safety benefit to be gained from hands free devices ie they are both dangerous. The problem with outlawing handheld but allowing handsfree phones is the implicit message that handsfree is somehow safer. The problem was rec...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.