|
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:52:04 -0700, Jeff
Liebermann wrote: 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 The thing is that probabilty on a yes or no question is only valuable for betting parlors and insurance brokers, which are really the same thing. One may thing the probability is very high, because there are so many places life could be, but if there is no life beyond the earth, it doesn't matter what the probability WAS. It is partly tied up with theology, iiuc, in that some believers in God want to believe that this earth is his only creation. I don't know why they would think that either. Another problem, IMO, is that scientists, as reported by the news, seem to think life could only be water based, and seem to discount places without water. . I know water has advantages, but it's not the only possibility. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no life anywhere else. There are cerrtainly lots of places beyond earth with no life, so why not more. OTOH, if there is life, I see no special reason they would have a radio transmitter. Until I got a cell phone, I didn't have one. 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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:05:33 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote: 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. No non-sequitur. The statistics ARE reliable as a year to year measure. That an individual report may have errors is unquestionably true. But the only number of significance is simply the NUMBER of REPROTED accidents, not the accuracy of the little details of the reports. If Officer Odie is dyslexic and instead of Hwy 52 MP 429 he puts Hwy 25 MP 249 the report will be off by perhaps hundreds of miles but that ACCIDENT occurred and it is included as part of the Total number of accidents that go into the rate. Unless you want to make an argument that there is some systemic problem where the same accidents are getting reported multiple times for almost every jurisdiction in a state or that the dog is eating the reports before they are filed I don't see any reason to challenge the basic accident rates as accurate enough for this discussion. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:25:35 +0000 (UTC), 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. 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)? I've elaborated on that very question earlier in this thread. The short version is that most of the 'studies' are crap designed to prove cell phones are dangerous thru a variety of nonsensical study protocols. You want to prove pianos are dangerous? Do a study where one person puts their head under the upraised and held in place by the stick "hood" of the piano then simulate a magnitude 6 earthquake. You'll find pianos to be quite dangerous. 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". |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
|
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:21:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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. 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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:10:23 -0500, ceg wrote:
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents? The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not. Hence, the paradox. Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox. Where are all the accidents? They don't seem to exist. At least not in the United States. Not by the federal government's own accident figures. 1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...atalities.html 2. Motor Vehicle Accidents€”Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009 http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf 3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas €” United States, 2009 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths, but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data. Such is the cellphone paradox. Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free vs. hands on cell phone use while driving. All but one test subject failed their simulator test either by crashing or getting lost. Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on August 16. -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:01:29 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote: 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? From my standpoint, there are essentially no new accidents. One distraction has replaced another. It's even possible that people who in the past would have fallen asleep did not today because they were on their cell phone and that engagement kept them awake. But no one knows.... How do you quantify and categorize accidents that didn't happen? |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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% And if everyone had DRL's accidents would be reduced another 30%. And if everyone had ABS another 25%. And if everyone had drivers Ed, another 10%. And if tire laws were more stringent we could reduce accidents another 15% and if every state had mandatory inspections another 10%. By the time we get done with all our "improvements" we won't need to manufacture new cars, the accident rate will be negative and new cars will be spontaneously popping out of the road. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, 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. But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that (unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as driving drunkly"? What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being more easily distracted while driving? -- Maggie |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:58:30 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote: 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. From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood. But lets talk in terms of something more visible. If the same ratio is applied to those truck tires that fly apart, if in 1985 you saw a truck tire fly apart once in a YEAR, in 2010 you would be seeing over 2 of them fly apart EVERY DAY. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html 1985 340,213 1986 681,825 1987 1,230,855 1988 2,069,441 1989 3,508,944 1990 5,283,055 1991 7,557,148 1992 11,032,753 1993 16,009,461 1994 24,134,421 1995 33,758,661 1996 44,042,992 1997 55,312,293 1998 69,209,321 1999 86,047,003 2000 109,478,031 2001 128,374,512 2002 140,766,842 2003 158,721,981 2004 182,140,362 2005 207,896,198 2006 233,000,000 2008 262,700,000 2009 276,610,580 2010 300,520,098 |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:14:45 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote: 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? That's easy. 1) the world is full of control freaks that live for ways to make other people toe the line (usually arbitrarily drawn) whether those other people need to or not. 2) Gvt wants as many laws as it can possibly have regardless of need. That is clear by the fact that they add thousands of laws while at the same time eliminating virtually no law no matter how antiquated and inapplicable it is to modern society. You see it in the newsgroups all the time. Someone "thinks" X is bad and wants to make it illegal. They have ZERO data showing it's bad but they are sure it is and that's all they need to criminalize it. These same moronic nanny's are the same kind of people who love to get elected to home owners associations and gvt. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:21:02 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote: 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. Gee, 18 months hardly seems like enough.... |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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 he 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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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 dumb****s that drove while using the cellphone. So, it may just be that the dumb****s who cause accidents are dumb****s 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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
wrote: On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:10:23 -0500, ceg wrote: The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents? The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else "should" be happening. But it's not. Hence, the paradox. Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox. Where are all the accidents? They don't seem to exist. At least not in the United States. Not by the federal government's own accident figures. 1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...atalities.html 2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009 http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf 3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths, but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data. Such is the cellphone paradox. Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free vs. hands on cell phone use while driving. All but one test subject failed their simulator test either by crashing or getting lost. Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on August 16. This one ?? http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...ving-minimyth/ It's like all the other ridiculously done "tests" of cell phone distraction. They literally FORCE someone to remain talking on the phone while at the same time telling them to do this or that. Normal people don't try and parallel park while on a phone being asked to listen to a nonsense sentence and immediately repeat it back to them while also trying to parallel park with their free hand. I found one supposedly real world study that found new drivers were distracted by cell phones, not really a surprise as they are distracted by everything as the study confirmed. The study found that experienced drivers were not affected by talking on the phone but said they were affected by dialing them but didn't say how much. The fact that talking on the phone didn't cause them problems was not what they expected of course and the article goes to some pains to point out that it is at odds with "other studies". Yeah, because the other studies are the dumb ones like Myth busters did. The bottom line is driving is a skill and like any skill you get better with experience. And with experience you can use a cell phone with no more hazard then any number of other things people do in their cars. But the powers that be are determined to demonize cell phone use and I think the main reason is because you can SEE other people using cell phones and that just ****es them off. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distract...lking-less-so/ |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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 dumb****. The net is that there are *plenty* of dumb****s 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 dumb****s to control everyone around them. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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? |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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-release...d-trends-.aspx http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiat...h-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 dumb****s are behind the wheel. In fact, the *only* reliable conclusion we can make is that the dumb****s 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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. :) |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:50:21 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
No, there is a LOT of data. And contrary to the theorizing of the alarmists, there is no REAL WORLD evidence that the literal explosion of cell phone use has caused even a blip in accident rates. A few anecdotes of 'I saw Santa on his cell phone and he drove his sleigh right into the side of the chimney" don't prove that cell phones are some special case of distraction that should be outlawed while we still allow the carrying of chatty passengers, the eating of food, the application of lipstick, and the fiddling with CDs and MP3 players. I can't disagree with anything you said. Even though I feel, in my heart, that cellphone use *must* be (somehow) causing accidents, I can't find *any* evidence of it actually happening in the USA government statistics on overall accident rates in the USA. I see plenty of horrible anecdotes, but, they only make the paradox worse. If cellphone use is so bad, where are the accidents? |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:46:35 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I've elaborated on that very question earlier in this thread. The short version is that most of the 'studies' are crap designed to prove cell phones are dangerous thru a variety of nonsensical study protocols. You want to prove pianos are dangerous? Do a study where one person puts their head under the upraised and held in place by the stick "hood" of the piano then simulate a magnitude 6 earthquake. You'll find pianos to be quite dangerous. I have to believe you. The *one* statistic I would believe is overall accidents. All the rest seem to be fabricated with an agenda in mind. The funny thing is that they make the paradox even worse. I can't be the only person to notice this though. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:03:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:
What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being more easily distracted while driving? This was brought up before as a possible solution to the paradox. Basically, what it says is that dumb****s will have accidents no matter what. So, before cellphones existed, a certain percentage of dumb****s had a certain (presumably large) percentage of the accidents. And, after cellphone ownership skyrocketed, those same dumb****s (or their direct descendents) *still* have a certain large percentage of the accidents. At least that dumb****-are-dumb****s explanation solves the paradox. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
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. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
I don't see any reason to challenge the basic accident rates as accurate enough for this discussion. To be clear, I agree that the basic accident rates, as compiled by the government, are probably as reliable as any data we'll ever get. If someone has *better* accident rate data for the USA, I'd be perfectly happy for them to quote it though. What we're looking for is an obvious huge jump in the accident rate concomitant with the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates. That we can find no such correlation makes the paradox. Where are all the accidents? |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:31:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote: 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???? Ok, you're assuming a constant RATE of distracted driving accidents as in some number of accidents for some number of cell phone users. I can accept that because there has been no significant technical or behavior modifications to the instrument that might reduce this rate. In theory, hands free driving should reduce accidents, but the few numbers I've seen don't show any change. I ran into the cell phone as the demonic root of all evil when giving talks on the connection between cell phone use and cancers of the brain and CNS. I produced a long term graph of new cases of brain and CNS cancers versus time: http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg Between 1975 and 2011, cell phone use went up dramatically. If there were a connection, there should have been a corresponding increase in brain/CNS cancer incidence. There isn't. Actually, there's a downward trend caused by the introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) diagnostics, which provided much earlier diagnosis of new tumors. That shows up in the peak, where more tumors were found earlier, and a subsequent drop to normal levels, after the early diagnosis cases became the norm. What "ceg" seems to want is a similar graph of automobile accidents and distracted driving accidents, that can be analyzed in a similar manner. I've offered several reasons why this data will probably be inaccurate and possible biased by those doing the collecting. I know that I can produce such data and graphs, but I'm lazy, it's too much work, and it's too hot. Well, maybe a few: http://undistracteddrivingadvocacy.net/linked/f2_fatalities.png Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However, I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very suspicious. Here's one that shows a drop in the fatality rate per mile and cell phone use. I read the text and I'm not sure what this is suppose to demonstrate: http://www.bhspi.org/photos/BHPSI_NHTSA_fars1961-081b.gif Here's an interesting article on juggling the traffic statistics: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data Again, the number of fatalities per mile are dropping but since there's no proven cause, it could as well be from improved medical response than from improved vehicle safety technology. And so on. Most of what I'm finding is little better than the above garbage. Also, there's another problem. Distracted driving tends to come from a self-selected statistical population. The only drivers that are being asked if they were texting are those involved in an accident. Unless the accident investigator likes to guess, the driver will probably be interviewed at the hospital and asked if they were using a cell phone while driving. The answer is predictably no. It's much the same with statistics involving bicycle helmets and bicycle accidents. Those choosing to answer have a vested interest in the result and will therefore tend to answer that of course they were wearing a helmet and it must have been lost or stolen at the scene. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:26:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote: Well, maybe a few: http://undistracteddrivingadvocacy.net/linked/f2_fatalities.png Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However, I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very suspicious. I found the source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951952/ "Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional road fatalities yearly in the United States." -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On 8/16/2015 9:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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. I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or even play a radio while they drive. -- Maggie |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On 8/16/2015 11:10 PM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:03:11 -0500, Muggles wrote: What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being more easily distracted while driving? This was brought up before as a possible solution to the paradox. Basically, what it says is that dumb****s will have accidents no matter what. So, before cellphones existed, a certain percentage of dumb****s had a certain (presumably large) percentage of the accidents. And, after cellphone ownership skyrocketed, those same dumb****s (or their direct descendents) *still* have a certain large percentage of the accidents. At least that dumb****-are-dumb****s explanation solves the paradox. Sounds good to me. -- Maggie |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
"ceg" wrote in message ... 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. Well it may not be a sound logic to assume that 1.5% is a "small" number. Stand at the side of a motorway and count 100 cars passing. It won't take long. These statistics simply show that 1.5 of those passing cars contains a driver on the phone, and that this number has not increased since 2003. That sounds like a significant problem to me though. Gareth. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:39:20 -0500, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, "Dean Hoffman" wrote: This one ?? http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/my...ving-minimyth/ This one: http://tinyurl.com/pmsoyyc I think part of the test showed people did fairly well traveling down the highway. Driving in the city was where they were failing. It's like all the other ridiculously done "tests" of cell phone distraction. They literally FORCE someone to remain talking on the phone while at the same time telling them to do this or that. Normal people don't try and parallel park while on a phone being asked to listen to a nonsense sentence and immediately repeat it back to them while also trying to parallel park with their free hand. I found one supposedly real world study that found new drivers were distracted by cell phones, not really a surprise as they are distracted by everything as the study confirmed. The study found that experienced drivers were not affected by talking on the phone but said they were affected by dialing them but didn't say how much. The fact that talking on the phone didn't cause them problems was not what they expected of course and the article goes to some pains to point out that it is at odds with "other studies". Yeah, because the other studies are the dumb ones like Myth busters did. The bottom line is driving is a skill and like any skill you get better with experience. And with experience you can use a cell phone with no more hazard then any number of other things people do in their cars. But the powers that be are determined to demonize cell phone use and I think the main reason is because you can SEE other people using cell phones and that just ****es them off. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distract...lking-less-so/ -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
On 8/16/2015 11:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, ceg wrote: But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that (unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as driving drunkly"? What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being more easily distracted while driving? Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me, the reallity is that much of the time when I'm driving, my mind is on other things. One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck. I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling. But, I have developed more skill at paying attention to the road. -- .. Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .. www.lds.org .. .. |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
Per Ashton Crusher:
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. I have heard a local cop remark that he found driving a police cruiser with all it's radios and other distractions to be something of a frightening experience. -- Pete Cresswell |
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
Per John Robertson:
Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same idiots who drive while distracted. Distracted driving can be caused by conversation, something you hear on the radio, a leaf blowing by, or a smudge on the windshield - drivers who are easily distracted may well be the same ones who have accidents whether or not they are using a cell phone. So, the idiots will kill themselves (and other innocents) off at the same rate regardless of the source of distraction. I would not agree. A cell phone conversation is fundamentally different from a CB conversation (which was not alluded to), talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio. The difference is that there is no unspoken agreement that driving comes first. i.e. the person on the other end of the conversation has no expectation of anything but the partner's 100% involvement. -- Pete Cresswell |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter