The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:27:48 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

As a result of miles driven going up, and all other things remaining
the same such as how safely people drive, the NUMBER of accidents WILL
go up, even thought in actuality, nothing has changed in the safety
sphere.

I agree that the accident RATE is what's important.
Not number of accidents, nor injuries or fatalities.

The first order problem is simply the accident rate.
Any good data that focuses objectively on the accident RATE is good data.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:43:52 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced
the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and
deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?

That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving enforcement
and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the skyrocketing cellphone
ownership figures.

However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing of
drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have to agree,
in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel each other out.

I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet
another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident
rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.

Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same
time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 12:11 AM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:51:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I agree with you, however, have you ever seen anyone playing a musical
instrument while driving?I never have.

Listening to music though, is far different that talking on the phone.
The brain can easily tune out the radio since it is a passive activity.
The phone requires your active participation and concentration. It
has been proven many times.

So using a cell phone should be much more dangerous AND result in a
SIGNIFICANT increase in accidents over the past 20 years as the use of
cell phones has exploded. Yet there isn't the slightest evidence of
that in the accident data.

This is the conundrum.

If cellphones are as dangerous as we think they are, then the accidents
*must* be going up.

But they're not.

So, something is wrong in our logic.


According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher
than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in
years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.

One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.

The problem I see is that the conclusion is absurd. The CLAIM that
the accidents were caused by the cell phones is mostly likely just
happenstance. A cell phone was in use THEREFORE the cell phone MUST
have caused the accident. Well, the brakes were in use too, should we
say the brakes caused the accident? Ditto for the headlights for
nighttime accidents. You know every cop is itching to check the box
or write the comment that "cell phone contributed" because cell phones
are today's demon. It's like how when someone has a single car
accident and they can't come up with a reason they check the box for
"speed related" because... Hey, he must have been going to fast! He
had an accident!!.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:37:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:

On 8/17/2015 10:45 PM, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher
than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in
years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.

One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.

You're talking fatalities, which is even further removed from accidents
than injuries.

Why do you persist in muddling what is so very simple.

You and I believe that cellphone use is distracting enough to cause
accidents, yet, those accidents aren't happening.

What part of that is full of shit?
(Do you have *better* accident statistics?)

If so, show them.



http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/why-more-people-are-dying-on-the-nation-s-roads-507057219572

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/08/17/traffic-deaths-up-sharply-in-first-6-months-of-this-year
On the other hand, a growing number of states are raising speed limits,
and everywhere drivers are distracted by cellphone calls and text
messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter
of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that
includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.

The safety nazis have NEVER seen a year when MORE "safety" wasn't
needed for one reason or another.

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/18/2015 12:07 PM, ceg wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:19:05 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free
vs. hands on cell phone use while driving. All but one test
subject failed their simulator test either by crashing or getting
lost. Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on
August 16.

I saw it. I trust them. I think they take too much pride in their
actual considerable skills and are having too much fun to fudge their
projects.

I haven't seen that episode, but I love the Mythbusters. I agree that
they probably don't "fudge" their data, but, I'm sure the *producers*
choose the most *interesting* data, and not necessarily the most
accurate results.

Still, I don't disbelieve that driving while using a cellphone is
distracting.

I just can't find any data that supports that the accident rate in
the USA is skyrocketing concomitantly with cellphone ownership rates.

So, while many individually contrived experiments easily show distraction,
why is it that there are no combined purely factual reports that
prove it's actually contributing to the accident rate in the USA?


If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?

Perhaps the smarter non-users are getting better at avoiding the
assholes on the phone -- a survival characteristic.

Maybe. But if that were the case, wouldn't there have been an initial
spike in the accident rate, and then a tailing off of that spike as
we learned to avoid cellphone users?

No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist.

I've used my phone twice while driving. Both times I could actually
FEEL my peripheral vision as well as my attention to driving shutting
down. Both times my response was "I'm on my way, see you in a few
minutes." I don't use my phone for anything but messages like that and
really don't understand how people can be constantly chattering.

Wow. I use my cellphone every day, all day while driving. I must make
maybe a half dozen calls alone on my hour-long commute, and, on a long
drive, I'm on the phone almost the entire time. My problem is *power*,
as the phone heats up when GPS and phone calls are simultaneous.

Meanwhile, on long trips, the three kids in the back each have their
phones blaring some game or video (they never seem to find their
headpieces when we leave for long trips).

And, of course, the wife has to have her music playing on her iPod.

Meanwhile, I have had only one accident in my entire life, and that
was when someone rear ended me when I was in college, and it was partly
my fault because I decided to turnright without using a turn signal, but
braked hard for a yellow light (because the road suddenly came up
and I had not realized it was my turn).

That accident was clearly my fault, but the other guy got a ticket,
and when they called me into court, I told them exactly what happened,
and, they STILL upheld the other guy's ticket (which I thought was
kind of odd).

Anyway, I am shocked that you use the phone so little, as I use it
basically 100% of the time when I'm in my car.

What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone,
I'd much rather send email -- which I do from my computer because typing
on a real keyboard is just SOOOO much easier than bumbling along on the
phone's 'keyboard'. There's a cd player in the car, on which I listen
to the radio or audiobooks on trips of half an hour or more -- I've been
working on a Tom Clancy for a couple of years now; you don't have to
remember the plot, you can just pick it up whenever it's handy It's
easier to use the Garmin GPS, especially since reading small print is a
real bitch and I mostly know where I want to go anyway.

So what DO you use yours for? Do you have that many people you want to
talk to? Scary...



--
Cheers, Bev
==================================================
Segal's Law: A man with one watch knows the time.
A man with two is never sure.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:33:14 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
And if cell phone use and texting is so
horrible, why do we allow the police to drive around all day talking
on their radios and typing on their mobile data terminals? Funny how
when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the police state
suddenly it's not important to outlaw it.

I have heard a local cop remark that he found driving a police cruiser
with all it's radios and other distractions to be something of a
frightening experience.

No doubt it is when you are new to the job. Then you learn how to do
it safely, or at least as safe as it can be done. I posted at length
about this somewhere in this thread.

 

[ceg]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:23:31 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

Unfortunately, you can't hike off trail in these mountains without running
into poison oak by the hundreds of yards. It's just part of nature.

Maybe that's why I don't run into anyone texting-while-hiking out here?

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:27:14 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

While I'm not in a position to prove or demonstrate this, I think
you'll find that such "accident" reports are highly opinionated, are
skewed in the direction of smallest settlements, and are rarely
corrected.

I think *some* statistics regarding car accidents *are* skewed,
and, in particular, any statistic that assigns a partial cause
to the fact that a cellphone was in the vehicle.

It's sort of like when they find an empty beer bottle in the
vehicle, they may ascribe it to an "alcohol" related category.

The problem here is that *every* car in the USA (well, almost
every car) has at least one cellphone per person over the age
of about 15.

So, *every* accident can easily be ascribed to the category
of "cellphone" related.

However, if we just look at actual accident numbers, I think those
are very good statistics, because they accidents are easy to
accurately report.

1. Police are required to report them when they are involved,
2. Insurance companies probably report them when a claim is made,
3. Drivers are required to report them in most states, etc.

The other issue is that for every alleged accident caused by someone
"using a cell phone" there may have been 20 million similar "hazardous
events that could have caused an accident" where the driver was using
a cell phone and DIDN'T have an accident.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:26:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

Well, maybe a few:
http://undistracteddrivingadvocacy.net/linked/f2_fatalities.png
Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and
the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However,
I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very
suspicious.

I found the source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951952/
"Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in
texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional
road fatalities yearly in the United States."

I agree with pretty much all you wrote just before this. We simply
don't have the data to sort out the truth. And as a result we have
the paradox. It seems to me too things are true but this is just my
opinion...
1) Cell phone use can be distracting and distractions can cause
accidents.
2) The hysteria of cell phone use is unwarranted. Whatever level of
distraction and accidents result is very little different, in the
totality of actual distractions for all causes, then things were
before cell phones. So more or less, for every cell phone caused
accident there is on less CD changing caused accident. I'm sure it's
not really a 1:1 ratio but it's close enough that the hysteria is
unwarranted.

Beyond that though I think there is a real difference between "using a
cell phone" as in placing or receiving a call and talking AND texting.
Texting simply takes too much mental processing for too long a time to
be safe. And I think some studies point to that difference. I used to
inspect roads and trying to write down on paper, which was similar to
texting, the info I was gathering as I drove down the road was just
way too distracting to be safe. But dictating it into a small
micro-recorder worked just fine and I could keep my eyes on the road
and immediately react if anything popped up. I'd play it back at the
office and make the notes.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/18/2015 11:27 PM, ceg wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:06:49 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

While I dislike driving around people talking on cell phones, I hate
going hiking and have to listen to someone on the phone.

Where I go hiking, I almost never run into people, period.
http://i.imgur.com/CuX9ufu.jpg

But, as Jeff knows, I live in the Santa Cruz mountains, where there are
plenty of off trail ways to get around, since the loggers bulldozed trails
all over the hills a hundred years ago (which I specialize in following).
http://i.imgur.com/26TaZBL.jpg

Most of these logging roads washed out in the ravines about fifty years
ago, and the cliff hangers all fell into the valleys - but they're
still navigable on foot.
http://i.imgur.com/hBbECHG.jpg

So, a lot has to do with *where* you're hiking, since I think I never
once ran into anyone on the trail, in the past five years of weekly
hikes in the hills (we use rope to get across the ravines, so these
aren't hikes for little old ladies).
http://i.imgur.com/eMGpOJo.jpg

Here are some pictures of an easy cross just last week for example.
http://i.imgur.com/RYMSJ0y.jpg

PS: The black splotches on the gloves and clothes is poison oak,
which is called "urushiol", which basically means black lacquer
in Japanese origins. If you don't have black splotches all over
your clothes, then you haven't been in poison oak or ivy.

Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

--
Maggie

 

[Muggles]

On 8/18/2015 11:32 PM, ceg wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:23:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Then why don't you just STFU

Don't stop talking, pls. It's nice to have an INTERESTING discussion.
Thanks!

--
Maggie

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/18/2015 09:32 PM, ceg wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:32:14 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone,

The drive to work is dead time. There's nothing *else* you can do.
You can't read the paper, for instance.
And catching up on the news only takes a few minutes of talk radio.
The traffic is better on the cellphone anyway, than from the radio.
And, your navigation needs aren't all that great on a commute.

So, what you do is "conduct business".

Many people conduct business on the phone.
So, that's what "I" do.

I'd much rather send email -- which I do from my computer because typing
on a real keyboard is just SOOOO much easier than bumbling along on the
phone's 'keyboard'.

I almost never use the phone's keyboard to type anything, since Android
has a decent speech-to-text translator. I wish I could get Android to
*default* to speech-to-text, because I find that I have to hit a tiny
microphone at the bottom of the keyboard in order to put it into
speech-to-text mode.

If I say 'OK Google' I can apparently get something Siri-like. I've
tried "Call Bob", and that indeed calls up the phone and Bob's number,
but I think I have to tap something at that point. I also said "Find
Costco" and ultimately google maps came up. I should really spend some
time playing with it...

There's a cd player in the car, on which I listen
to the radio or audiobooks on trips of half an hour or more -- I've been
working on a Tom Clancy for a couple of years now; you don't have to
remember the plot, you can just pick it up whenever it's handy It's
easier to use the Garmin GPS, especially since reading small print is a
real bitch and I mostly know where I want to go anyway.

I don't like audio books, but I can see that it's useful for whiling away
the time while commuting.

It has to be something that doesn't require too much attention, but it
has to be words. I like music, but I need words to avoid worrying about
shit. When I was riding my motorcycle I spent the first half hour with
the words "...and then a wheel came off..." rolling around in my mind as
I kept trying to tell myself that YES I CHECKED THE WIRES ON THE NUTS
BEFORE WE LEFT...

So what DO you use yours for? Do you have that many people you want to
talk to? Scary...

I use the phone for business use. There are LOTS of people I need to talk
to because I am a program manager. I don't actually do anything; the people
I talk to do all the work. I just nag them to death on the phone.

I'm retired. Long ago (1994, maybe) I was driving my boss' car to a
customer's place on Mountain Street. Little did I know that there were
THREE Mountain Streets in the area. I used his car phone to call him
and chew him out for not telling me which one he meant. He was a really
good boss. Like my other really good boss, he quit 2 years after hiring
me because he had a really bad boss, who then became MY bad boss.

--
Cheers, Bev
=====================================================
"America is at an awkward stage: it is too late to work within the
system, but it is too early to shoot the bastards." -Claire Wolfe

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:53:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

As usual, you have it ass backwards. CEG isn't trying to "prove"
anything, he saying that there is simply no proof for the wild claims
such as "cell phones caused 25% of all accident last year" and other
similar absurd claims without a shred of data to substantiate them.

The people obligated to provide proof are those who claim that cell
phone use has impacted accident rates. There isn't a shred of
evidence for the claim. Because there is NO evidence the
chickenlittles have performed a bunch of "studies" almost all of which
are less the worthless in proving their claim. And as noted, if their
studies and claims were actually correct, the roads ought to be a
bloodbath given the THOUSAND FOLD increase in cell phone use on the
highways. But they aren't a bloodbath, to the contrary the accident
rates change hardly at all and mostly they go down.

I have to agree.

If the studies are even slightly valid, then the accident rate
*has* to go up the more people *use* cellphones.

That the rate isn't going up is the paradox.

The only solutions to the paradox that have been proposed are either
that the rate isn't going up, or that something else is masking the
rate.

The "things" suggested to mask the rate must exactly cancel out
the rate (both in rate and timing) for them to make any logical
sense.

Such "things" suggested, to date, are, as I recall:
1. Drunk driving enforcement exactly canceling out the rates
2. Errors in the rate figures exactly canceling out the rates
3. Safety improvements of vehicles & roadways canceling the rates
4. Safety advantages of cellphones exactly outweighing distractions
5. Cellphone laws themselves preventing cellphone usage
6. Voluntary non-usage of the cellphones that are owned

Did I miss any?

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:36:27 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), 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?

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3

And did you note that they did NOT talk about rates. The amount of
miles people drive varies from year to year. It's very likely that
the miles driven went up because
1) employment and the economy improved slightly
2) the price of gas dropped quite a bit.

As a result of miles driven going up, and all other things remaining
the same such as how safely people drive, the NUMBER of accidents WILL
go up, even thought in actuality, nothing has changed in the safety
sphere.

I've see that same ploy by the safety Nazi's time after time. Whenever
they need a headline they discover that the total number of
accidents/fatalities/spilled hot coffee has increased while completely
ignoring the actual RATEs, which are the ONLY way to even begin to
make meaningful comparisons on these questions.

Whatever will get them the headlines is what the put in their press
release whether it's meaningful or not.

On track to be the worst year since 2007, when fatalities were 45,000, I
think she said. If not that, then 40, 000.

So traffic deaths are up in general because they were down to 35,000 for
quite a few years.

Reason given is low gas prices and more diiving, but you know you're not
getting a complete analysis from top-of-the-hour news. And it still
ruins your prmeise that accidents are not up.



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.

 

[ceg]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

> It didn't take much work.

It will take me a while to go through the links before I
can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where
the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

 

[ceg]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).

Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.

Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your
"scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which
is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth
arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).

Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem
at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your
intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell
everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident
rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous:
"Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers
handheld cell phone use"

This one also may apply to the problem at hand:
"Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"

This one should be directly related, if it contains good data:
"Association between cellular telephone calls and motor
vehicle collisions"

Likewise with this one:
"Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"

Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not):
"The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"

And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year,
this one may contain related data:
"2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"

Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct
information about the paradox. That you don't see that,
and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the
list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you
are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing
anything that affects people's lives.

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same
time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.

That's a key part of the paradox.

The only explanations given, other than there is no net effect
on accident rates, is some preposterous alignment of the stars.

 

[Stormin Mormon]

On 8/18/2015 10:32 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Beyond that though I think there is a real difference between "using a
cell phone" as in placing or receiving a call and talking AND texting.
Texting simply takes too much mental processing for too long a time to
be safe. And I think some studies point to that difference. I used to
inspect roads and trying to write down on paper, which was similar to
texting, the info I was gathering as I drove down the road was just
way too distracting to be safe. But dictating it into a small
micro-recorder worked just fine and I could keep my eyes on the road
and immediately react if anything popped up. I'd play it back at the
office and make the notes.

I'v also tried writing notes for service calls, while
driving. I'm with you, writing takes a LOT of brain
RAM. I've not tried a small recorder, but that should
be considerable safer. I can drive and talk on a CB
or amateur radio and still be focussed on the road.

The one or two times I tried texting (many years ago)
I could feel the lack of concentration on my driving.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

 

[ceg]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple,
that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.

It's sort of like the common misconception of cold weather *causing*
the common cold. While cold weather can't possibly affect the causation
of the common cold, people *do* get sicker in the winter (but it's because
they are indoors more - not because the weather is colder).

So, at least, in that example of the common cold, you can *see* a
correlation of sickness (e.g., "flu season") with the weather (even
though it's a second-order effect).

Yet, with the cellphone common conception, we can't see either a first
order nor a second order effect. That's the paradox.

Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumbshits who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

 

[ceg]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I suggested looking at actual studies many times.
SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said
it just took a simple Google search.

I think you consistently fail to comprehend that the *more*
you show *studies* that purport to indicate the dangers of
cellphone driving, the *LARGER* the paradox looms, since there
is no evidence whatsoever in the governments' own statistics,
of an increased rate of accidents in the USA concomitant with
the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates.

You can't just invalidate the most accurate statistics on the
topic just because you don't like (or understand) the logic.

If all these scare-tactics articles are actually correct, then
the paradox looms larger than ever, because the accident rate
simply has not risen. Period.

So, the *answer* to the conundrum is still open as to why, and
the articles are expected to help answer why - but the articles
can't possibly change the answer on the accident rates (because
that is a fact).

You may as well propose that the sun revolves around the earth,
just because it seems to you that it does.