The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/16/2015 9:59 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?

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%

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:57:15 -0500, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:

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

There is no reason to think that because a driver was using a cell
phone that the cell phone caused the accident. They accident may well
have happened no matter what the driver was doing. Undoubtedly some
accidents are the result of distraction with cell phones being one of
MANY things that distract drivers. But the mere use of a cell phone
is not proof that the cell phone was the cause anymore then the mere
presence of a radio turned up loud is proof that the radio caused the
accident. 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.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

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

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.

Yeah, now they do it hands free. So now that people can't see it they
no longer have that bug up their butt over it. Distracted driving has
always been a cause, all that's changed is what it is that's
distracting the drivers. 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.

Then there's the "familiarity" issue. ANYTHING that's new is going to
be somewhat distracting. When I first started using a two way radio
in a moving car it was very distracting - which channel did the call
come in on? got to push which button before replying? Need to turn
up (or down) the volume... Where's that list of call numbers versus
names so I can look up Joe's call sign and on and on. Very
distracting at first. Then you learn it and it's second nature. If
"things are going on" you simply don't answer the radio or cell phone
and if you are on it (radio or phone) you get off it when the outside
inputs pick up. Yeah, it's not perfect but we didn't outlaw radios
and passengers, we didn't outlaw two way radios, we didn't outlaw CDs,
we didn't make eating in a car illegal, but cell phones OH THEY ARE
THE DEVIL!!!!! Note, I'm not addressing Texting... that's not a
'distraction', it is literally a separate task from driving and I
would expect properly done research would show it's in a whole
different class of hazards from talking on a phone. But that's just
an expectation.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:49:17 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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%.

And unlike the explosion of cell phone use, there has been no
explosion of *Safety Innovation X* that massively reshaped teh driving
environment. To the contrary, the "easy" innovations were long ago
made and what's done today is nibbling around the edges looking for
anything that will shave even a small percent off the accident
statistics.

Looking here

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html

I calculated % increase year over year. From roughly 1986 to 1996
there was a 50% year over year increase in cell phone ownership. Was
there anything comparable in accident rate increases? Of course not.
The paradox remains

 

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 5:47 PM, ceg wrote:

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).

I don't think it's a given that it would increase the accident rate
because as people have gotten used to the technology, they've adjusted
how they use it, as in, hands free devices and blue tooth technology
built into cars that make the tech no more distracting than turning on a
radio or playing music.

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

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

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?

Lost within the data, I imagine.

--
Maggie

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:12:35 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

The Fermi Paradox is about "absence of evidence for extraterrestrial
intelligence".

This "cellphone paradox" is similar in that there seems to be
an absence of evidence of actual accident rates going up.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:52:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I don't disagree.

The absence of evidence of cellphone use causing accidents is
not evidence of absence.

I don't disagree.

Yet, it's still a paradox because common wisdom would
dictate that accidents *must* be going up (but they're
not).

Hence the paradox.

 

[ceg]

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.

 

[ceg]

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

OMG! Do you really trust the government to do anything correctly? I
wish I had your confidence and less personal experience. I'll spare
you another anecdote illustrating the problem at the city level.

You'll note that I *asked* for better data, but nobody (yet) has
provided better accident statistics than what the government shows.

One person provided a statistic from the UK which showed that
cellphone *use* was extremely low in UK drivers, but nothing more
than that has been provided.

I'm not afraid of data. But nobody seems to have better data than
what I found.

One person noted that the accidents in a few years didn't go down
(they were flat), but nobody can show reliable data yet that the
accidents are going up.

So, the paradox remains.

 

[ceg]

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

Ok, think about it. You've just crashed your car into an immovable
object while texting. You're still conscious and on an adrenalin
high. The police are on their way and the last thing you need is for
them to find your smartphone on the floor of the vehicle.

This scenario is already well accounted for.

It would show up in the total accident statistic.

So we already accounted for this scenario before we even started
this thread as it's counted in the government statistics already.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:05:33 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Am I the only one that sees a non-sequitur in that statement?

I'm thinking it's somewhere in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

But I'm haven't drunk enough coffee lately to find it.

I asked for *better* statistics, but, so far, nobody has shown
any.

I'm not afraid of data.

But, what I found is apparently the best we have for total
accidents, year over year, in the USA.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:17:06 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

> cell phone ownership IS NOT EQUAL TO cell phone usage while driving

You'll notice that I have been very careful to distinguish
between the two words:
1. Ownership, and,
2. Usage.

The *assumption* is that greater ownership means greater usage, but,
someone already posted a UK statistic which refutes that fact.

That statistic, as I recall, was something like only 1.5% of the
population were dumbshits that drove while using the cellphone.

So, it may just be that the dumbshits who cause accidents are dumbshits
who cause accidents no matter what. If it isn't a cellphone, it would
be something else.

At least that explanation would solve the paradox.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:21:02 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Because there's no end of people who think they should tell others how
to live their lives

I can't disagree with you.

I remember once, a few years ago, when they enacted the cellphone
law here in California, that I was in a parking lot, on my
cellphone with it held to my ear (before I had the bluetooth
setup).

Some guy vehemently yelled out his window as he drove by me,
while I was stationary, in the parking lot, clearly angry that
I was using the cellphone in the parking lot.

I felt like telling him that the law he screamed out doesn't
apply to stationary cars in a parking lot (just like stop signs
don't apply in private property parking lots), but, the entire
argument would have been lost on the dumbshit.

The net is that there are *plenty* of dumbshits out there who
think that *you* should do what *they* do; and that's the
tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers were so
worried about.

It's partly why we have an electoral college, by the way (along
with States' rights versus Federal rights being also a factor).

So, I agree. Perhaps cellphone laws are just merely a way for the
dumbshits to control everyone around them.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:36:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> that speed cameras are for revenue, not safety.

Here in the USA, most of those stoplight cameras are the same.

Some company offers to put up everything for free, and to
handle all the work, and they all get a cut of the revenue.

It's a scam everywhere, I guess.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:59:26 -0500, Sam E wrote:

That's true. There's also the tendency to imagine you're where the
person you're talking to is. With the phone, that's not in your vehicle
and it takes too long to shift attention.

However, if all this is true, that cellphone use *causes* accidents,
then the paradox is why haven't the accidents gone vastly up concomitant
with the increase in cellphone ownership in the USA?

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:49:38 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Most people lie on accident reports to avoid potential complications
with insurance payments. For example, few will admit that it was
their fault when the traffic policeman is standing there just waiting
for a confession and to deliver an expensive ticket.

Anecdote time. While going to medical skool, a doctor friend worked
in the coroners office of a large city. Like all large cities, the
coroners office had a steady stream of deadbeats, bums, winos, and
homeless that arrived without the benefit of medical attention and
records. Not wanting to spend the money on an autopsy and a medical
examiner, they quietly guessed at the cause of death with fairly good
accuracy. However, after a few embarrassing mistakes, that was deemed
unacceptable. Causes unknown were also not a viable option. So, they
inscribed "heart failure" on all such cases, which was certainly true,
but not necessarily the cause of death. That actually worked well for
a few years, until someone ran statistics on what appeared to be a
heart disease epidemic centered in this large city. The city now
requires either an attending physician report or a mandatory autopsy.

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.

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

Right. Big numbers are more accurate.

The theory is that given a sufficiently large number of independent
studies, the errors will be equally distributed on both sides of a
desired result, and therefore cancel. That has worked well for global
warming predictions. Unfortunately, the studies have to be
independent to qualify and does not work at reducing the distribution
in a single study.

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.

OMG! Do you really trust the government to do anything correctly? I
wish I had your confidence and less personal experience. I'll spare
you another anecdote illustrating the problem at the city level.

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

Ok, think about it. You've just crashed your car into an immovable
object while texting. You're still conscious and on an adrenalin
high. The police are on their way and the last thing you need is for
them to find your smartphone on the floor of the vehicle. So, you
make a phone call to your wife telling her you'll be late for dinner
and by the way, you've decided to buy her a new car. The police walk
up, ask you a few questions, and notice you talking on the cell phone.
If you're cooperative, nothing happens. If you're a total jerk, the
mention the cell phone in their report, and you get nailed for
possibly talking/texting while driving. You're screwed if they
confiscate the phone for forensic analysis or request a call record
from you provider.

In short, the statisics are where they want them. If there's a
political or financial benefit to showing huge numbers of talk/text
driving accidents, they will magically appear. If they thing that
nobody really cares about the numbers, you will have a difficult time
finding them. If the numbers accumulate some academic interest, you
will see the same wrong information repeated endlessly in statistical
surveys and college dissertations. Everyone lies, but that's ok
because nobody listens. Incidentally, 87.3% of all statistics are
fabricated for the occasion.

--
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 19:34:59 -0400, Hang Up and Drive wrote:

Here you go, found some accidents for you:

Cell phone use is now estimated to be involved in 26 percent
of all motor vehicle crashes – up from the previous year
http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSC-releases-latest-injury-and-fatality-statistics-and-trends-.aspx
http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-studies.aspx

This is good information.
It makes the paradox even worse!

Let's gloss over the word "involved", and assume, in good faith,
that the statistics you provided are reliable.

Notice the *huge* numbers.

If one quarter of all accidents are *caused* by cellphone use,
then accidents should go up (roughly) by at least a quarter.

(Note that I equated "involved" with "caused", which may be too
loose an interpretation. Perhaps "involved" simply means that the
phone was in the car, in which case, the entire statistic is meaningless
in the USA - so I have to give it *some* meaning!).

One quarter is a *huge* number by the way, given the number of accidents in
the USA every year.

So, where are all these accidents that you're talking about?
They don't exist.

Either that, or they would have happened anyway (which is what one
person said) simply because dumbshits are behind the wheel.

In fact, the *only* reliable conclusion we can make is that the dumbshits
will have accidents no matter what, with or without cellphones.

At least if we *assume* that, then the accident statistics make sense,
and the paradox is answered.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:54:36 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

And then there is the Canadian study that equated driving while talking
on a cell phone with some level of alcohol intoxication....

Do you see that anything that "proves* cellphone use while driving
is so dangerous just makes the entire paradox worse?

Clearly the accidents don't exist.
Clearly many of us feel (including me) that cellphone use contributes
to the accident rate.

But, if we can't find *any* increase in the accident rate, even if
we feel strongly that cellphone use should be contributing to the
accident rate, what does that tell us?

Do you see how your post just contributes to the paradox?
It makes the paradox even worse.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:54:36 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> How about under reporting?

I doubt accident rates are under reported only for the period
where cellphone ownership went from zero to 100% in the USA, and
then, magically, accident rates went back to proper reporting.

It's too convenient.

The answer isn't going to be *that* simple.

 

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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.

It's true, playing music can be pretty distracting. It isn't normally,
but sometimes it can be.

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

Well, around here, driving drunkly was common and normal behaviour for
a large segment of the population thirty years ago, and now it isn't.
Perhaps as a hazard it has disappeared and been replaced with texting
while driving instead.

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.

This is true, because there is very little actual data. So an intelligent
discussion is pretty much impossible.
--scott


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