The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:22:34 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

What you cited is what you would expect to find by any group that makes
their living off "safety". They are going to be looking for ANYTHING
that would expand their empire and control over others.

This is exactly what I'd say also.

The more we try to prove that cellphone use while driving is dangerous,
the more the cellphone paradox looms to slap us in the face.

Where are the accidents?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:20:57 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

All we have data on are accidents..... we have no data at all on
accidents that didn't happen but would have under other circumstances.
And the data we do have aren't enough to tell us about what caused all
the accidents there were. This is what I mean by there being so many
different inputs.

Yes. All we have that is reliable is the data on *all* accidents, state
by state, and those are going down, year after year.

There isn't even a blip for the years that cellphones were starting to be
used. It's the same declining accident rate (give or take a few) with no
visible effect from cellphone use.

Hence the paradox.

I believe that if a huge number (essentially 100% of the drivers in the
USA) *own* a cellphone, then a certain percentage of those people will be
*using* that cellphone while driving, and a certain percentage of those
users will be *distracted* enough to cause accidents.

Since the numbers are so huge, and the numbers of accidents are so
constant, you'd expect a huge increase in the number of accidents, or, if
not huge, at least discernible.

But there is no increase.
Accidents are steadily going down.

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

 

[Oren]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>
wrote:

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.

Given your past anecdotes, kill filing others in AHR for being off
topic, why are you here? Is a cell phone paradox off topic or have you
changed your position for home repair!?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:36:10 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Distracted driving has always been a cause, all that's changed is what
it is that's distracting the drivers.

This, at least, solves the paradox.

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?

That always struck me as interesting also. How come it's safe for them,
but not for the rest of us (who they are merely a population of).

Funny how when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the
police state suddenly it's not important to outlaw it.

As an aside, the government rarely abides by its own rules
(but that's OT).

 

[Vic Smith]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:35:54 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

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

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
may have gone down another 10% or 20%

That may very well be the case, but taking a look at the numbers, the
accidents seem to be *steadily* decreasing.

It would be nice though, to see two reliable charts plotted on top of
each other.

1. Total accidents in the USA from the 50s to now, versus,
2. Total cellphone ownership in the USA over those same years.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 8:59 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?

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.

--
Maggie

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:04:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Also, I strongly question most of the studies that purport to show how
cell phones "distract' people. They usually put a person in a
simulator, tell them they MUST talk on a cell phone, and then when THEY
know it's the most inopportune time for a 'surprise' they flash a cow on
the road ahead and the simulating driver hits it. They ignore that in
the REAL world, most drivers are not simply stuck on their cell phone
completely ignoring everything around them as if in a trance waiting for
a guy in the back seat to hit the button for EMERGENCY at the worst
possible moment.

I agree with you that the studies that show distracted driving to be
tremendously dangerous *must* be flawed, for a bunch of reasons, but, one
of them is that it just makes the paradox *worse*!

Let's assume, for a moment, that driving while distracted by cellphone
use *is* as dangerous as the studies show.

Well then, the spike in accidents, as you noted, should at least be
*visible* (it should actually be tremendously visible!).

But it's not.
Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:44:04 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

On the other hand, I know people that are educated, that should know
better, that just yack away on totally non-essential calls while driving
along.

That's my wife in the car with me, even before cellphones existed.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:42:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

As I and others have said, it could be that other causes of accidents eg
drunk driving, have been going DOWN. We know the number of deaths due to
drunk driving have been cut by half. It's reasonable to assume that
there are also a lot more non-fatal accidents that have also been
eliminated. It could be changes in what gets reported and what
doesn't. Were the standards of reporting, the methods the same in all
states, over all those years? It seems the census folks have concerns
about something there, with the warning about year to year comparisons.

It could be a *lot* of things, I agree.
Hence the paradox.

I think nobody would disclaim that the cellphone ownership in the USA is
close to 100% of the drivers (it would be nice to have that statistic,
but, it must have skyrocketed in the past 10 years).

Also, nobody would say that cellphone use while driving makes you a
*better* driver.

Most of us (including me) would assume that cellphone use is yet another
distraction, so, it should make us *worse* drivers.

But, then, why don't the overall accident statistics show that?

Can it be that the declining number drunk driving accidents you speak of
*exactly* cancel out the precipitously inclining cellphone distracted
driving accidents?

It could happen. It might even be what *is* happening.
But it seems a bit too convenient to accept, without further proof.

The paradox (whether we like it or not) exists.

There is no precipitous spike in accident rates in the USA over the same
time period that cellphone ownership has grown precipitously.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:50:10 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote:

The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone
ownership" does not actually mean that more people are using
their phones whilst driving.

After all, everyone has one now, surely.

In the USA, I would agree that almost every driver has one, and, in fact,
there are usually as many cellphones in the vehicle as there are kids and
adults over the age of about middle school.

In fact, with tablets and cameras and gps devices also abounding, the
number of "distracting" electronic devices probably exceeds the number of
occupants in the car, such that we can consider 100% to be a somewhat
conservative number (counted as the number of devices per vehicle).

So, it's no wonder that, after almost every accident that the police
investigate, they can confidently check the convenient box for "was a
cellphone found in the vehicle?".

So, what you're saying is that only a small percentage of people who
*own* the cellphones are actually *using* them while driving.

If this is the case, then that might solve the paradox.

Q: Where are the accidents?
A: They don't exist
Q: Why not?
A: Because only a small percentage of people are dumb enough to cause an
accident by using their cellphone while driving.

But, if that is true (and it might be), then why bother with a *law* if
people are *already* so very responsible such that 98.5% of them wouldn't
think of using their cellphone while driving?

That then becomes the second paradox?

PARADOX 2: If 98.5% of the drivers are already such responsible users of
cellphones, then why the need for the laws that penalize cellphone use
while driving?

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:59:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Church street for one. It runs in back of my house. Young lady killed
when she went into a Ford F-150. Or don't you consider a death as an
accident?

Besides making the paradox even worse, the problem with anecdotes is that
they are not reliable statistics.

Anecdotes are cherry picked examples, which, of course, every politician knows
is a cheap way to get their mathematically challenged populace to believe
anything.

So, any and all anecdotal evidence that is not backed up by the reliable
statistics just makes the paradox far worse!

There was a Scientific American blog on Dr. Oz, regarding how he used the
cheap anecdotal trick to "prove" this or that, all the while simply
cherry picking unscientifically.

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

Anyway, if we *accept* your anecdotal evidence as reliable, then that just
means that we're even *deeper into the paradox*, since the reliable statistics
don't even come close to supporting your anecdotal evidence.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:

> I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.

If that is the case, that cellphone usage is *not* distracting, then,
instantly, that would *solve* the paradox.

But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
driving drunkly"?

The *new* paradox looms - which is - if cellphone use isn't distracting,
then why do "studies show" that it *is* distracting (as drunk driving)?

Nothing makes sense in all these arguments.
There is very little intelligent discussion.

So, maybe the solution to the paradox is, as you said, "it really
doesn't matter" whether someone is using the phone while driving,
or not, with respect to accident rates in the USA???

But that flies against "common wisdom".

 

[Vic Smith]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:10:27 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

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."

 

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 2:07 PM, ceg wrote:

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.

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.

IOW, I more or less agree with you, but for more specific reasons.

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?

--
Maggie

 

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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.

Reliable but not very complete. How many accidents were caused by
distracted driving? How many were not caused by distracted driving?
How many accidents would have happened if cars didn't have ABS? How
many additional accidents happened only because cars had ABS? How
many accidents would have been avoided if drivers had been able to
see past the enlarged rear pillars on newer cars?

All we have data on are accidents..... we have no data at all on accidents
that didn't happen but would have under other circumstances. And the data
we do have aren't enough to tell us about what caused all the accidents
there were. This is what I mean by there being so many different inputs.
--scott



--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[Gareth Magennis]

"ceg" wrote in message news:mqqmgt$140$20@news.mixmin.net...

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?



Are you not missing the point?

The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone ownership"
does not actually mean that more people are using their phones whilst
driving.

After all, everyone has one now, surely.


Gareth.

 

[Gareth Magennis]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message news:5I6Ax.386730$z21.2628@fx18.am4...



"ceg" wrote in message news:mqqmgt$140$20@news.mixmin.net...

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?



Are you not missing the point?

The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone ownership"
does not actually mean that more people are using their phones whilst
driving.

After all, everyone has one now, surely.


Gareth.






Oops, I think we actually might be agreeing here.

My bad.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

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.

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?

I have been posting (not here but in other newsgroups) that same
question for several years and no one can answer it but they ALWAYS
attack me for asking it. What you have stated is the $64K question
.... if cell phone use is as bad as driving drunk, etc, etc, and if
cell phone use has gone from essentially zero percent of drivers in
1985 to at least 50% of drivers in 2015, WHERE ARE ALL THE
ACCIDENTS????

The closest thing to an answer I get is "well, if people didn't have
cell phones the rate of accidents would have dropped much more then it
has. But that's not realistic. There are simply too many people using
cell phones to think that if it was the problem the alarmist portray
it would not have caused a spike in accident statistics that was
noticeable.

Also, I strongly question most of the studies that purport to show how
cell phones "distract' people. They usually put a person in a
simulator, tell them they MUST talk on a cell phone, and then when
THEY know it's the most inopportune time for a 'surprise' they flash a
cow on the road ahead and the simulating driver hits it. They ignore
that in the REAL world, most drivers are not simply stuck on their
cell phone completely ignoring everything around them as if in a
trance waiting for a guy in the back seat to hit the button for
EMERGENCY at the worst possible moment.

They also have no good idea whether cell phone use has simply replaced
prior distractions. It may well be that the person on the cell phone
who IS distracted is the same person who 15 years ago would have been
fiddling with their CDs and CD player trying to select a new CD to
play, or would have been fiddling with the radio looking for a better
music station, etc and would have been equally distracted and would
have been equally adding to the accident statistics.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

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. .

Then radios in cars should be illegal and the drivers compartment
should be enclosed and soundproof so they can't interact with
passengers.