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-Initiat...es-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.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:10:27 +0000 (UTC), ceg
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-Initiat...es-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."

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

ceg 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."

"ceg" wrote in message ...

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" wrote in message ...



"ceg" wrote in message ...

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.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/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.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky
wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/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.

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-acci...nt/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%

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:35:54 +0000 (UTC), ceg
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-Initiat...rash-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.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen
wrote:

ceg writes:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/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.

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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/ar...tific-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.

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".

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:49:38 +0000 (UTC), ceg
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
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

ceg 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."

ceg writes:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

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

Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Very funny.

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

--
Dan Espen

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

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.

Police and fire do not "type" on their mobile terminals. Most are set
to not allow input while moving. They also do not talk all day on the
radio. Just listen on a scanner and see how often someone actually
talks while moving. It's rare and maybe once per WEEK per officer at
most. Only in hot pursuit will they talk while moving. If there are
two officers in the car, the passenger will do the talking.

There are also other users of mobile data terminals that are exempted
by the Calif Vehicle Code. While the law was written to prevent
people from watching TV while driving, it has been expanded to data
terminals, GPS, computahs, etc. Section 27602:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcmath:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d12/c5/a5/27602

Note that ham radio operators have been exempt. Part of the reason is
that there was no evidence of any significant accidents or fatalities
to hams resulting from talking while moving when the ordinance was
inscribed. There are about 2,000 ham operators in the county. I
think I've met about 1/3 of them. In the last 40 years, I don't know
of any that have died or been injured while driving, much less while
talking on the radio.

So, what's the difference between texting, talking, and ham radio
operation? Ham radio is a simplex operation. You can only talk and
listen, one at a time, and not simultaneously, such as on the
telephone. We seem to be able to handle either the input or output
channel quite easily, but not simultaneously. I've done some crude
testing to see if that's true. When I use a PTT (push to talk
microphone) to make a phone call while moving, there's no problem
because my caller and I are operating simplex. The same operation
done with a handset, in full duplex mode, it highly distracting and
sometimes confusing.

If you want innovation in this area, consider adding a typical mobile
radio microphone to a cell phone, add a loudspeaker, set it up for
simplex, and maybe the mythical accident rate will fall. If not, I
can probably arrange the statistics to demonstrate that it will.

For texting, I had a recent bad experience. I was the passenger in a
car where the driver was getting "notifications" continuously roughly
twice per minute. The phone would make an obnoxious noise when they
arrived. He just couldn't resist the temptation to look at his phone
and see what had just arrived. I mentioned it to him, and was
ignored. There was no interactive texting or chat session, but plenty
of approximately 3 second distractions. That's enough for an
accident. Fortunately, there were none, although I was tempted to
kiss the ground as I exited the vehicle.

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.

Yep. You got it. The smartphone has an accelerometer and can easily
tell when it's moving. Buffer incoming texts and block the keyboard
while the phone is moving. End of problem (until it's hacked).

Apps are already available but it really should be built into the
phone firmwa
https://play.google.com/store/search?q=no%20text%20while%20driving%20app&c=apps




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

ceg writes:

The paradox is that cellphone ownership skyrocketed in the past few years
in the USA, while accidents continued on the *same steady decline* that
they had been on for decades.

Here's a hint:

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

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:14:45 -0500, ceg wrote:



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?

Because there's no end of people who think they should tell others how
to
live their lives. Mandatory wiper laws are an example. I guess there are
still people who think living isn't terminal.
This http://tinyurl.com/qclh5gg leads to the Carpe Diem site.
It talks about a woman who successfully challenged Mississippi's Board
of Cosmetology. They required 18 months of schooling for people who
wanted to braid hair professionally.



--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:58:37 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

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?


Speaking of the UK, they did a study of the influence of speed cameras
(they have a LOT of them) on accidents and it showed that where there
were cameras that statistically the accidents INCREASED. They
attempted to bury the report. It was eventually released but
uniformly ignored by those in power. Further proof, as if more was
needed, that speed cameras are for revenue, not safety.

Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Police and fire do not "type" on their mobile terminals. Most are set
to not allow input while moving. They also do not talk all day on the
radio. Just listen on a scanner and see how often someone actually
talks while moving. It's rare and maybe once per WEEK per officer at
most. Only in hot pursuit will they talk while moving. If there are
two officers in the car, the passenger will do the talking.

Around here, it is routine to see two officers in the car. When they
are not on their way to a call, one officer is driving while the second
officer is typing every license plate he sees into the terminal and
running plates as fast as he can in hopes of finding a car with
outstanding warrants. There is a very distinct division of tasks.
--scott

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Much of this has its basis in theology where wrestling over the
existence of God is an international sport. A more simplistic version
is that you can't prove anything with nothing as evidence.

The corollary also doesn't work whe
"Quantity of evidence is not evidence of quantity".
In other words, just because you have a large pile of numbers, doesn't
mean you can prove a large number of things.

The problem is that the "Fermi Paradox" is the logic sucks.

"The great Enrico Fermi proposed the following paradox. Given
the size of the universe and evidence of intelligent life on
Earth making it non-zero probability for intelligent life
elsewhere, how come have we not been visited by aliens? Where
is everybody?, he asked."

No matter how minute the probability of such life, the size
should bring the probability to 1. (In fact we should have
been visited a high number of times: see the Kolmogorov and
Borel zero-one laws.)

So, what's missing? Well, it's time or rather how many solar
revolutions a civilization can exist without destroying itself or
having some cosmic catastrophe do it for them. The details are worked
out in the Drake Equation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
which computes the probability of two civilizations coming into
contact. If you happen to be a pessimist, and use pessimistic
probabilities, the probability might as well be zero. Inflating the
statistical population to astronomical proportions does nothing to
change the probabilities and certainly will not result in a 100%
chance of an alien encounter.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Per ceg:
Where are all the accidents?

How about under reporting?

How could cell phone-generated accidents get into the system as such?

Guy I used to windsurf with bought the farm a couple of years ago when a
guy in an F-150 drove into him from the back at highway speed (i.e.
50-60 mph).

He was riding on a wide shoulder, bright clear day, no intersections.

I have a hard time imagining that the guy who killed him told the
investigating officer "Yeah, I was just so into this (cell phone
conversation/text message/email) that I drifted on to the shoulder and
drove right into the victim."

Same with the buy who almost got me on the Atlantic City Expressway a
couple years ago: I'm running the right lane, guy in the left lane just
starts drifting into me and I can see him holding something in one hand
and poking his finger at it with the other hand (steering with his
knees?).... I took the shoulder and avoided contact - but if there had
been an accident I would not have expected the other driver to 'fess up.

Same with the guy in a pickup truck that almost nailed me on my bike
several years ago. I was riding on a very large cross-hatched (no
cars) area. I saw him coming - intent on *something* between his
knees... I zigged, he didn't zag and then he drove right through the
space I was occupying... never looked up. If I had woken up dead that
day, I am pretty sure he would have some other explanation than "I was
absorbed in my cell phone".

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

On 16 Aug 2015 20:42:19 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Around here, it is routine to see two officers in the car. When they
are not on their way to a call, one officer is driving while the second
officer is typing every license plate he sees into the terminal and
running plates as fast as he can in hopes of finding a car with
outstanding warrants. There is a very distinct division of tasks.
--scott

Sounds like New Yuck City. You must live in a technically
impoverished area. Even the local fast food restaurants now have
license plate readers. The technology is quite common on the left
coast:
https://www.google.com/search?q=automatic+license+plate+recognition+syste m&tbm=isch
http://www.licenseplatesrecognition.com/how-lpr-works.html
http://www.licenseplaterecognition.com
http://elsag.com/licenseplatereader.htm
http://www.theiacp.org/ALPR
etc... Even cheap security cameras have a headlight blocking featu
http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/License-Plate-Capture-Cameras-s/283.htm

Are you sure the second officer is typing in license plates and not
updating his Facebook page?

"Don't worry about the radios. We can always use Twitter for
dispatch"
(Don't ask me who said that).

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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

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

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

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

On 8/16/2015 7:10 PM, Muggles wrote:


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


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.

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

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

Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Do you remember the Fermi Paradox?

No, I don't.

As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption
before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over
lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some
"signal" (or evidence) from them.

Enrico Fermi said that? Because it's not true. Until humans on earth
invented radio, less than 200 years ago, there were no signals from us.

And none of our radio waves have reached places 200 light years away or
more even now.

Plus there are animals living in the woods and rivers and oceans and on
mountains and underground that people who never go to those places never
see and only know about because others have told them. If others didn't
tell them, they wouldn't know. If the animals there are sending out
signals, they are short distance signals and they don't reach me.

That evidence didn't exist.
Hence the paradox.

It's the same concept here.

1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting
this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).

Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics
on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!

If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing*
more accidents?

That's the paradox.

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:49:38 +0000 (UTC), ceg
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.

You've missed the point. All those things you raise may well be true
but they were just as true before there were cell phones. The mix of
truth and lies in accident reports goes on but one key thing continues
and that is that virtually ALL significant accidents, certainly those
society might want to concern itself with, are REPORTED and go into
the statistics of HOW MANY accidents. Yeah, the listed causes might
be lies or honest mistakes but the NUMBERS are reported consistently
year after year after year. And its the NUMBERS of accidents ceg is
talking about as the data set, not the CAUSE that's listed. So we
know that the NUMBER of accidents, rate actually, the normalized
number, has steadily been going down down down.

Yet there are people claiming that a NEW and HORRIBLY DANGEROUS CAUSE
of accidents has been unleashed into the driving world, the Cell
Phone. We can't argue with the fact that over the past two decades
MILIIONS AND MILLLIONS of cell phones wound up in the hands of and
used by drivers, that's just a fact. But if all those cell phones are
REALLY this horribly DANGERIOUS ACCIDENT CAUSING instrument, WHERE ARE
THE ACCIDENTS????