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.

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.

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".

On 16 Aug 2015 19:54:01 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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

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.

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.

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/

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

"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.

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/

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
..
..

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

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