On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:35:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:44:31 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski 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.

Simulator testing, which of course you reject, has shown
that cell phone use while driving does cause accidents.
It's also obvious to me, from personal experience of using
a phone, that I know I'm distracted and my concentration
is affected. Like almost everyone else, except possibly you,
I regularly see people slowing down for no reason, weaving
into my lane, weaving into the gutter and they are doing it
while using a cell phone. The comparison with brakes and
headlights is ridiculous.

If you are like "everyone else" you are just showing confirmation
bias. You ignore people who are weaving a little who DON'T have a
cell phone but if you see someone with a cell phone and they weave
even a tiny amount its confirmation that the cell phone is an
instrument of the devil. So tell me, are the ONLY people who ever
slow down, or who weave, or who do anything else you don't like ALWAYS
using cell phones?

Of course not. But after observing their abnormal driving behavior
when you're passing them and see them looking down
at their phone, it's pretty obvious to most of us here that's the
reason those particular people are weaving, slowing down, driving
improperly, etc. That cell phones usage isn't the cause of all
erratic driving doesn't mean it's not a significant source of erratic
driving.



And tell me, how many people are out there who ARE
using cell phones but are NOT weaving, NOT slowing, etc. You have no
data, no data at all,

The data is apparently in the various studies. I'm not squawking PARADOX, PARADOX, you and your butt buddy CEG are. You two are the making the
claim that there is a paradox, it's up to you to show that the data
is wrong. So, it's actually you two who have no data to support *your*
claim.

Anything else I can help you with today?

You are wrong as usual. It is not up to us to explain or prove the
cause of the paradox. To the contrary, CEG simply stated that there
was a paradox and asked if anyone could explain it. So far the best
anyone has come up with is their opinion that "cell phones are
dangerous but not dangerous enough to affect the accident rates enough
to notice." That could be so but if it is it means all the chicken
littles yelling the sky is falling are full of crap. And if we are
going to go down that path of opinion due to lack of data we can just
as easily go down the path of claiming cell phones prevent as many or
more accidents as they cause because it relieves people of being
distracted by looking at maps as they drive thru LA at 80 mph and
instead just get directions from their cell phone either from a GPS
app or someone on the other end directing them. Or that lives have
been saved because people cut short a trip they started (and thereby
avoid an accident they would have had later in the trip) because
someone called them halfway there on their cell and told them they no
longer needed to make the trip.