On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:49:17 +0000 (UTC), ceg
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