The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:16:27 -0700, John Robertson wrote:

Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same
idiots who drive while distracted.

This is almost certainly true, but that doesn't change that there are
only four possible solutions to the paradox, none of which does anyone
like.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:39:25 +0100, MJC wrote:

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.

Look at the declining accident rates, which have been steady decade after
decade after decade.

The innovation you speak of is one of the four possible solutions to the
paradox, but, it *requires* that the "innovations" *exactly* cancel out
the admittedly skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers, and, worse, that
these innovations exactly tailed off at the exact moment that cellphone
ownership in the USA approached 100%.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:23:59 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I think his beef doesn't involve #2 or #3 above. I think what he's
saying is if cell phones are causing accidents, then why is the number
of total accidents staying about the same?

That's pretty close, except it's even worse than that.
The accident rate has been steadily decreasing, year after year after
year, with or without cellphone ownership.

The paradox is that we all *assume* the accidents are going up; but they
are not.

So, something is *wrong* with our assumptions.

Either:
1. Something is *exactly* canceling the skyrocketing accident rate, or,
2. The accident rate isn't skyrocketing (in fact, it's going down).

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:20:42 -0400, Buck wrote:

> Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.

No no no. The *phone* has to be *attached* to the seatbelt!

(True story: California law. It's not handheld, if it's *attached* to
something!).

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:33:38 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

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...)

So you fully agree with the paradox then.

We both agree that distraction is going to *cause* accidents.

The only problem with that assumption is that the accidents don't exist.

Hence, the paradox.

It wouldn't be a paradox if we thought that cellphone use did not cause
accidents; it's only a paradox because we *believe* that cellphone use
while driving causes accidents.

But the accidents just don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:38:06 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote:

QUOTE:
In 2014, 1.5 per cent of car drivers in England were observed using a
hand-held mobile phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per
cent of car drivers in England observed using a hand-held mobile phone
in 2009 and is not a statistically significant change.
UNQUOTE.

I only mention the USA accident *rate* because we have *reliable* numbers
for the USA, both prior and during the skyrocketing cellphone ownership
rates in the USA.

Do we have reliable accident rate figures for the UK to see if the
cellphone paradox applies to the UK as much as it does to the USA?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:58:42 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I don't think that's true and I believe studies have shown it. Here is a
simple example of why. When the person is in the car, and all of a
sudden you're at a dangerous intersection or someone is stepping out in
the street, they can see it. The can also see that your attention has
shifted. When you're on the phone they are immune to any of that and
don't know what's going on, so they keep talking.

But don't you see that this comment, which I don't disagree with, just
makes the paradox WORSE?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:58:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Wouldn't you agree that the statistics showing distracted driving would
include numbers related to driving while using a cell phone? Therefore,
how would it be determined which stats were legitimately due to being
distracted. Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.

The cellphone paradox takes all that into account automatically.

The statistics for overall accidents in the USA should include
*everyone*, whether or not they own or use a cellphone.

Since we presume cellphone ownership has skyrocketed, and we presume a
certain number of those cellphone owners are using the phone while
driving, then we *presume* that overall accident rates would go up.

But, overall accident rates are not going up.
In fact, they're going down at just about the same rate as they were
(year to year) before cellphones were invented.

So that's the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:57:15 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

It's not a "paradox." And why do you say that accidents caused by cell
phone use can't be found? The are plenty in the news.
Besides, unsurprisingly, they are under reported.
http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-
crash-data.aspx

You're a smart guy.

Think about what you just said.

Then, compare what you said to the reliable accident-rate figures in the
USA, compiled for decades.

What you just said was that you agree that somehow, magically, all the
accidents that are caused by cellphone use aren't reported in the total
statistics, all teh while being reporting in your specific statistics.

In fact, you state, they're underreported, in the individual statistics,
all the while being wholly absent in the total statistics.

So, what you said, just reaffirms the paradox.
You just don't realize it yet.

REQUEST: Someone please explain the paradox to Vic Smith, whom I know to
be a good thinker, as he just reaffirmed the paradox without even knowing
that he did so.

 

[Buck]

On 8/16/2015 2:10 AM, ceg 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?

Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.

 

[Gareth Magennis]

"ceg" wrote in message news:mqp9gf$92t$2@news.mixmin.net...

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.





In the UK, according to a government survey,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-2014.pdf


QUOTE:
In 2014, 1.5 per cent of
car drivers in England
were observed using a hand-held mobile
phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per cent of car drivers in
England observed using
a hand-held mobile phone in 2009 and is not a statistically significant
change.
UNQUOTE.




Gareth.

 

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

Not if the vast majority of cell phoen users have sense enough not to
text and drive. Then the remainder will have accidents some of the
time while texting and accident rates will go up a little because of
that. But the difference between this and dui accidents versus other
accidents is that many accidents are just accidents and harder to
prevent. But people can decide in advance not to drink and drive, or
text and drive, or talk on the phone and drive, so those acts merit
extra attention, extra prevention, and extra punishment, whether they
cause an accident or not. .

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.

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

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

Why is that a paradox?

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.

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,

**which I'm pretty much opposed to, especially since it was done by the
feds, the reason was the oil crisis, and the shortage of oil is over.

Hence, the paradox.
Where are all the accidents?

See my first paragraph above.

 

[Gareth Magennis]

In the UK, according to a government survey,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-2014.pdf


QUOTE:
In 2014, 1.5 per cent of
car drivers in England
were observed using a hand-held mobile
phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per cent of car drivers in
England observed using
a hand-held mobile phone in 2009 and is not a statistically significant
change.
UNQUOTE.








And on page 27 of the 2009 report is a graph showing a very similar figure
in 2003 (when UK legislation banning such phone use was introduced)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8899/seat-belt-phone-usage.pdf



Gareth.

 

[Scott Dorsey]

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

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.

It's hard to get good data, though, when there are just so many different
inputs into the system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Vic Smith]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:

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...)

When I see the possibility of a dangerous situation is about to
develop, my ears turn off the conversation.
Sometimes I say "shut up."
I never use a cell phone while driving.

 

[Dan Espen]

ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> writes:

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.

If Jeff is data based, and you still disagree, what are you?
Sounds like by calling Jeff data based, you are defending your
approach which seems to be conjecture based.

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.

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.

--
Dan Espen

 

[John Robertson]

On 08/16/2015 6:59 AM, ceg wrote:

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?

Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same
idiots who drive while distracted. Distracted driving can be caused by
conversation, something you hear on the radio, a leaf blowing by, or a
smudge on the windshield - drivers who are easily distracted may well be
the same ones who have accidents whether or not they are using a cell phone.

So, the idiots will kill themselves (and other innocents) off at the
same rate regardless of the source of distraction.

I can't wait for driverless cars so the distracted idiots no longer are
driving and can do what they like while their car takes them from A to B.

The roads will then be much safer for those of us who actually LIKE
driving - motorcyclists, sports car owners, etc. - and our attention is
on the road not on the distractions.

John :-#)#



--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[Fred McKenzie]

In article <mqp9gf$92t$2@news.mixmin.net>,
ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

You do have a point. But consider that merely talking on the phone is
no different than talking to a passenger in the vehicle, except when you
talk with your hands! Accident rates getting lower over time may be the
result of people driving with fewer passengers.

I rarely use my cellphone, but do have a GPS and Ham Radio riding with
me. Both can be as distracting as texting. Lets just say I've been
extremely lucky.

Fred

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:11:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'd only agree with the idea that *some* cell phone usage while driving
may be distracting enough to cause an accident, so there would then be
another subset of statistics defining different usages of a cell phone.
From that point it might be determined how much cell phone usage had to
do with distracted driving which would make the overall percentage even
smaller widening the gap between accidents related to cell phone use and
all accidents.

I have to agree with you, as would everyone else, that *most* cellphone
usage while driving does *not* contribute to accidents.

However, most of us feel (including me) that cellphone usage, overall,
should *increase* the accident rate (since cellphone *ownership* is
almost 100% in the USA for people of driving age).

The paradox looms even taller if cellphone usage is as distracting as the
studies show (i.e., at the level of drunk driving).

So, the more strenuous we make the argument that cellphone use is
distractingly dangerous, the *larger* the paradox looms to slap us in the
face.

Where are these accidents?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:25:35 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

I just said it is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
Put even more simply, accident "statistics" are far from perfect. Hardly
a "paradox."

Overall accident statistics for the USA are very reliable, since they are
reported by police, insurance companies, and by individuals.

The numbers are high enough, and consistent enough, to make the error
only a very small percentage.

You won't get *better* data that the census bureau data on accidents in
the USA by state - and none are showing what we'd expect.

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?