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.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

Where are all the accidents?

http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html
http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html
"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused
by texting and driving."

etc...
--
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 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?

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. .

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.

How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
must act based on assumptions.

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

Why is that a paradox?

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.

I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
number of miles increased at least that much.

What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

**which I'm pretty much opposed to, especially since it was done by the
feds, the reason was the oil crisis, and the shortage of oil is over.

Hence, the paradox.
Where are all the accidents?

See my first paragraph above.

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

How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
must act based on assumptions.

Do you see that if we actually *believe* the cellphone driving
statistics, that only makes the paradox (far) *WORSE* (not better!)?

Let's say we believe that cellphone use is distracting.
Let's say we believe distracted driving is dangerous.
Let's even say it's as dangerous as driving drunkly.

If that's the case, then there should be MORE accidents, not fewer
accidents, year over year, as cellphone ownership rose steadily.

But, we see the exact opposite.
Total accident figures (which are reliable numbers) are going down.

So, whether or not we believe that cellphone use while driving causes
accidents, the paradox remains.

It's just MORE of a paradox if we believe (as I do) that cellphone use
*causes* accidents.

The reason is that the accidents simply don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

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?
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.

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.

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 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

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 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
number of miles increased at least that much.

What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

There is no need to add second-order issues such as injuries or
fatalities to the equation because the *accident* is what matters.

We all know that nothing is simple, but, accident statistics in the USA
are reliable, and pretty simple to compile (most states have a reporting
requirement, for example).

Injuries and fatalities add a second (third and forth) order of confusion
to the mix, and yet, they add no value whatsoever because the paradox is
looking for *accidents*, not fatalities.

If people want to look at fatalities, and to ignore accidents, then we
can conclude that cellphones actually *save* lives because they get help
quickly, and they allow GPS routing to the hospital, and they allow
Google Traffic to route traffic away from the accident, etc.

So, why would you want to confuse a simple issue with fatalities and
injuries when the only result would be confusion and the lack of any
clarity if we did?

Keeping it simple and reliable:
1. We all believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
2. We all believe that distracted driving can cause accidents, and,
3. We all know cellphone ownership has shot off the charts in the past
few year, so,

The paradox is:
Q: Where are the accidents?

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.

ceg wrote:
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?

Presumably things like modern safety features in vehicles and the massive
push against drunk driving (which 40 years ago was considered acceptable
behaviour around here) have dramatically reduced the number of accidents,
at the same time that cellphone use has increased it.

It's hard to get good data, though, when there are just so many different
inputs into the system.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:49:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Presumably things like modern safety features in vehicles and the
massive push against drunk driving (which 40 years ago was considered
acceptable behaviour around here) have dramatically reduced the number
of accidents, at the same time that cellphone use has increased it.

This is the *only* logical argument to date that satisfies the paradox.

The question is whether or not it's true, since the *rates* of accident
decline appear to be unaffected by the rates of cellphone ownership.

So, what is the corresponding "safety feature" that *exactly* matched the
skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers in the USA?

NOTE: This is why rec.autos.tech was initially added.

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.

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 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.

--
Dan Espen

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

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.

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.

If cellphone use causes accidents, there are only these ways this could
happen.

1. Something else skyrocketed in the opposite direction exactly canceling
out the cellphone-use-related accidents (starting and finishing at the
exact same time periods), or,

2. Total accident figures in the USA suddenly became flawed only during
the exact period of skyrocketing cellphone ownership increases, or,

3. Nobody is *using* the cellphone while driving in the USA, or,

4. Cellphone use has no appreciable effect on accident rates in the USA.

Any one of those four would solve the paradox.
But, which of the four is it?

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 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen
wrote:

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.

Given your past anecdotes, kill filing others in AHR for being off
topic, why are you here? Is a cell phone paradox off topic or have you
changed your position for home repair!?

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 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 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

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

On 08/16/2015 6:59 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?


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 can't wait for driverless cars so the distracted idiots no longer are
driving and can do what they like while their car takes them from A to B.

The roads will then be much safer for those of us who actually LIKE
driving - motorcyclists, sports car owners, etc. - and our attention is
on the road not on the distractions.

John :-#)#



--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:16:27 -0700, John Robertson wrote:

Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same
idiots who drive while distracted.

This is almost certainly true, but that doesn't change that there are
only four possible solutions to the paradox, none of which does anyone
like.

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

On 8/16/2015 8:59 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?


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.

--
Maggie

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.

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?

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

Per Muggles:
Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.

Understood that there may be people out there carrying on cell phone
conversations who I do not notice, but I still have to wonder why is it
so often obvious that somebody is talking on a phone even before one
overtakes them and confirms it?

- Varying speed for no apparent reason

- Cruising the left lane below lane speed

- Wandering back-and-forth across lines....

Seems like a virtual definition of "Distracted" and all seem to me tb
highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily
basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday
it was 4.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 8/17/2015 8:49 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.

Understood that there may be people out there carrying on cell phone
conversations who I do not notice, but I still have to wonder why is it
so often obvious that somebody is talking on a phone even before one
overtakes them and confirms it?

- Varying speed for no apparent reason

- Cruising the left lane below lane speed

- Wandering back-and-forth across lines....

Seems like a virtual definition of "Distracted" and all seem to me tb
highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily
basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday
it was 4.


I've seen the same thing, too, but it also seems everyone is more aware
of it, too. I steer clear of drivers like that, and it isn't just the
people who are on their phones while driving. There are some nuts on
the roads who like to drive fast and aggressive that scare me just as much.

--
Maggie

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg wrote:

... cellphone ... accidents don't seem to exist

Probably 'cause cars are safer, people don't drive drunk as much, etc.

If you identify accidents caused soly by cellphone use, I'm sure the
statistics would show none before cell phones were invented.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

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.

Some snipped.

So how is cell phone ownership determined? How many are laying in
drawers or
in landfills? Heck, I have three working models. I've probably thrown
away three
or four. No one can rightfully accuse me of being tech savvy. I buy
used ones and use
them until they quit working.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/