The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

Where are all the accidents?

They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm

If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths,
but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist
but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it
is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

 

[Mike Duffy]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg wrote:

> ... cellphone ... accidents don't seem to exist

Probably 'cause cars are safer, people don't drive drunk as much, etc.

If you identify accidents caused soly by cellphone use, I'm sure the
statistics would show none before cell phones were invented.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

>Where are all the accidents?

<http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html>
<http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html>

<https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html>
"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused
by texting and driving."

etc...
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Good grief, you make a claim, then disprove it yourself.

I'm providing a balanced view since the paradox exists.
One would *assume* accidents would go up; but they're going down.
That's the paradox.

This is from the first link you provided. Click on your link and there
is a listing for "distracted driving":
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1109.pdf

Unfortunately, as much as you and I would love reliable statistics on
"distracted driving", they do not exist.

You have to read *how* those statistics were generated, and, if/when you
do, you will discount them instantly. The current method of generating
those statistics makes that particular set nearly worthless.

Yet, total accidents (not injuries, not fatalities - but accidents) are
easy to compile. Trivially easy.

Accidents must be going up if distracted driving is really causing
accidents.

But, accidents in the USA are steadily going down all the while the
cellphone ownership is going up.

Hence, the paradox.

It shows that in 2009, there were 4900 fatal accidents involving
distracted driving, 450,000 accidents involving injury, etc.
So, obviously distracted driving is causing accidents and cell phones
are included as part of that category.

We are talking "accidents", not fatalities nor injuries.
Accidents are NOT going up.
Cellphone ownership is going up.

If what you and I believe is true, then if cellphone ownership is going
up, then cellphone usage while driving is *probably* going up, yet, if
distracted driving causes accidents (which we believe it does), WHERE ARE
THE ACCIDENTS?

Hence the paradox.

If your point is that then numbers don't add up, don't make sense, then
show us the conflicting data. And I'm sure it wouldn't take much
googling to find studies and a lot of evidence that cell phone usage is
a major source of distracted driving and accidents.

The data is clear.
During the entire time cellphone ownership has been going up in the USA,
accidents have been going down.

You and I know of all the studies comparing driving while texting to
drunk driving - yet - we can't find a single *reliable* set of statistics
that shows anything other than total accidents going steadily *down* in
the USA.

That's why it's the cellphone paradox.
Where are the accidents?

 

[ceg]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/
cell-phone-statistics.html
"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
texting and driving."

Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
very data-based person.

Here's the paradox.

1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents.
2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA.
3. But, accidents have not.

That's the paradox.

A. We can *assume* that driving while using cellphones has gone up.
B. We can also *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous.
C. Unfortunately, distracted driving statistics are atrociously
inaccurate.

Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
*extremely reliable*.

So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox.
a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA,
b. All the while *accidents* have been going down.

Hence, the paradox.
Where are all the accidents?

 

[Roger Blake]

On 2015-08-16, Buck <buck@kepler.452b> wrote:
> Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.

Any distraction is potentially dangerous. I've seen a driver run
through a red light because she was so intently yakking it up
with one of the other passengers in the car. (Women drivers...)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:10:23 -0500, ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

Where are all the accidents?

They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

Some snipped.

So how is cell phone ownership determined? How many are laying in
drawers or
in landfills? Heck, I have three working models. I've probably thrown
away three
or four. No one can rightfully accuse me of being tech savvy. I buy
used ones and use
them until they quit working.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:05:56 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

You really haven't provided anything, nor have you made it clear what
your beef is. You claimed that cell phone distracted accidents don't
exist in the data. Your own data shows numbers for distracted driving.
The cell phone accidents are in there, yet you keep asking "Where are
they?

Look at the three assumptions, for example.

1. Let's say that you and I agree, for arguments sake, that cellphone use
*does* cause accidents.

2. Furthermore, let's say we both can point to study after study after
study that concludes the same thing (effects of drunk driving and all the
comparisons apply here).

3. Even further, let's say we actually *believe* the highly flawed
distracted-driving statistics <====== you'll see this just makes the
paradox worse!

Ok. So both you and I and everyone else agrees that distracted driving
due to cellphone uses *causes* accidents.

So what's the problem?

The paradox is that the TOTAL NUMBER of accidents isn't going up in the
slightest. They're going down in the USA. Year after year after year
after year after year, they're all going down!

How can that be if all (or even any) of our 3 assumptions were true?

Don't you see the paradox?
The accidents that are *caused* by distracted driving are missing in the
total statistics. They only show up in the (probably flawed) studies.

That's the paradox.
The accidents don't seem to exist in the total.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:50:56 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

So how is cell phone ownership determined? How many are laying in
drawers or in landfills? Heck, I have three working models. I've
probably thrown away three or four. No one can rightfully accuse me of
being tech savvy. I buy used ones and use them until they quit working.

That's a different question, but it's quite apropos.
It's actually not "ownership" that matters so much as "use" while driving.
But, we all know that it's terribly difficult to get *reliable*
statistics of cellphone use while driving.

a. How do we know the cellphone found in an accident was used while the
accident occurred?
b. How do we know it was the driver using it?

That's why the statistics on distracted-driving-caused accidents are
useless (or almost useless) to help us resolve the paradox.

We all feel that cellphone use while driving *should* be a contributor to
the accidents, but the accidents aren't there. That's the paradox.

We can only assume one of two things, neither of which are we willing to
assume:
1. Nobody is using their cellphones while driving, or,
2. Cellphone use while driving isn't causing accidents at any appreciable
level.

No other options are available to us, given the reliable data on total
accidents, year over year over year.

Hence the paradox.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:42:28 +0100, Rowan Pope wrote:

Three reasons off the top of my head...

1. Do you really believe government statistics are accurate? (Think
unemployment statistics)

2. Facing a potential lawsuit, how many drivers would actually admit to
"texting while driving"?

3. People are liars. If you don't believe it, turn on the election
coverage.
Americas's finest are just getting warmed up. May the best liar
win!

I actually do believe the government statistics on TOTAL ACCIDENTS
because in most states, accidents are reportable (in California, for
example, if it's more than seven hundred dollars for the entire accident,
then *both* parties must report it). And, as you know, seven hundred
dollars is nothing in a car accident, so, most are reported.

Plus, insurance companies are very good about reporting accidents, which
people are very good about reporting to them when they need to make a
claim (which we can presume at least one party to the accident would
make).

So are police pretty good about reporting accidents that they are called
in on to report upon.

What I don't believe is anyone's statistics on CELLPHONE USE while
driving, simply because (as you noted) all of us know the inherent
problem with compiling that specific statistic accurately.

However, the paradox remains whether or not we believe those (probably
highly flawed) statistics on cellphone *use* while driving. In fact, the
paradox GETS WORSE if we include these (probably highly flawed)
statistics on cellphone use.

Do you see the paradox?

If it's so very bad to use the cellphone while driving (which most of us
believe is the case, including me), then WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS?

They don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
must act based on assumptions.

Do you see that if we actually *believe* the cellphone driving
statistics, that only makes the paradox (far) *WORSE* (not better!)?

Let's say we believe that cellphone use is distracting.
Let's say we believe distracted driving is dangerous.
Let's even say it's as dangerous as driving drunkly.

If that's the case, then there should be MORE accidents, not fewer
accidents, year over year, as cellphone ownership rose steadily.

But, we see the exact opposite.
Total accident figures (which are reliable numbers) are going down.

So, whether or not we believe that cellphone use while driving causes
accidents, the paradox remains.

It's just MORE of a paradox if we believe (as I do) that cellphone use
*causes* accidents.

The reason is that the accidents simply don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
*extremely reliable*.

Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Do you remember the Fermi Paradox?
As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption
before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over
lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some
"signal" (or evidence) from them.

That evidence didn't exist.
Hence the paradox.

It's the same concept here.

1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting
this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).

Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics
on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!

If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing*
more accidents?

That's the paradox.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
number of miles increased at least that much.

What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

There is no need to add second-order issues such as injuries or
fatalities to the equation because the *accident* is what matters.

We all know that nothing is simple, but, accident statistics in the USA
are reliable, and pretty simple to compile (most states have a reporting
requirement, for example).

Injuries and fatalities add a second (third and forth) order of confusion
to the mix, and yet, they add no value whatsoever because the paradox is
looking for *accidents*, not fatalities.

If people want to look at fatalities, and to ignore accidents, then we
can conclude that cellphones actually *save* lives because they get help
quickly, and they allow GPS routing to the hospital, and they allow
Google Traffic to route traffic away from the accident, etc.

So, why would you want to confuse a simple issue with fatalities and
injuries when the only result would be confusion and the lack of any
clarity if we did?

Keeping it simple and reliable:
1. We all believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
2. We all believe that distracted driving can cause accidents, and,
3. We all know cellphone ownership has shot off the charts in the past
few year, so,

The paradox is:
Q: Where are the accidents?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

There have been studies that show just talking on a cell phone is almost
as bad as texting, which is why it's illegal here now.
I know when I'm on the cell phone I'm partially distracted and can sense
it.

Do you see that this argument only makes the paradox even worse?

Doesn't anyone see that?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

We know C because there are plenty of accidents, probably the majority,
where the person is not going to admit to being distracted, what they
were really doing, for obvious reasons.

Don't you see that the argument you make (which I fully believe) only
makes the paradox worse?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Actually highway deaths have been on the decline going back to the 50s.

First off, we're not talking fatalities.

We're talking accidents.

And, while I agree that accidents have been going down for a long time
(due to a host of unrelated factors) fatalities are affected by an even
larger host of unrelated factors. (In fact, cellphone use can make
fatalities fewer in quite a few ways but I don't want to go there.)

It's complex enough just to stick with accidents, which are going down,
let alone fatalities (which are also going down).

The simple fact is:
1. We believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
2. We believe distractions cause accidents, yet,
3. We can't find those accidents anywhere.

That's the paradox.
Where are they?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:49:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Presumably things like modern safety features in vehicles and the
massive push against drunk driving (which 40 years ago was considered
acceptable behaviour around here) have dramatically reduced the number
of accidents, at the same time that cellphone use has increased it.

This is the *only* logical argument to date that satisfies the paradox.

The question is whether or not it's true, since the *rates* of accident
decline appear to be unaffected by the rates of cellphone ownership.

So, what is the corresponding "safety feature" that *exactly* matched the
skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers in the USA?

NOTE: This is why rec.autos.tech was initially added.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:49:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's hard to get good data, though, when there are just so many
different inputs into the system.

The accident data for the USA is as reliable as any data you'll ever get,
particularly because the police report it, the insurance companies report
it, and in many states (such as mine), both individuals involved in even
a minor accident are required to report it.

 

[MJC]

In article <mqq05m$lfc$1@news.mixmin.net>, curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com
says...

Accidents must be going up if distracted driving is really causing
accidents.

Simple logic: that's only the case if there are no innovations
(including improved behaviour) that compensate by decreasing accidents.
E.g. say, ABS. But I know little about driving habits in the USA or
changes in car equipment. I know that one of the counter-arguments to
compulsory seat-belt wearing is that drivers are supposed to feel more
invincible with their belt on. I have no idea if this has really been
tested, or if it could be.

Mike.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

That's not a paradox. A paradox would be "observed".
Since we _measured_ the impact of using a cell phone while driving, we
passed laws banning the practice and have embarked on an education
campaign to limit the use of cell phones while driving.

I know that anecdotes are not data, but I remember seeing lots of
drivers yakking away while driving. In the last few years,
not so much.

The paradox is that cellphone ownership skyrocketed in the past few years
in the USA, while accidents continued on the *same steady decline* that
they had been on for decades.

If cellphone use causes accidents, there are only these ways this could
happen.

1. Something else skyrocketed in the opposite direction exactly canceling
out the cellphone-use-related accidents (starting and finishing at the
exact same time periods), or,

2. Total accident figures in the USA suddenly became flawed only during
the exact period of skyrocketing cellphone ownership increases, or,

3. Nobody is *using* the cellphone while driving in the USA, or,

4. Cellphone use has no appreciable effect on accident rates in the USA.

Any one of those four would solve the paradox.
But, which of the four is it?