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 14:44:04 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 5:05:39 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

All I can tell you is that from personal experience, when I'm
talking on a cell phone while driving, I feel that I am distracted
a lot. And distracted a lot more than I am from the radio, which
isn't distracting at all, and significantly more than from conversation
with someone in the car. I've always tried to avoid it as much as
possible, to keep calls short, etc. On the other hand, I know people
that are educated, that should know better, that just yack away on
totally non-essential calls while driving along.


You never change the radio station? You never look at the thing to
adjust it? As the link I posted to the real world study showed,
talking on the cell phone wasn't distracting but things like dialing
it were, just as doing other things in the car is distracting....
looking for your sunglasses, looking for a pen, looking for change for
the toll booth. Most of us wait till its safe to do distracting
stuff, we don't try and tune the radio while we are making a sharp
turn or putting the brakes on because of the guy who just pulled in
front of us. Unfortunately, most of the "studies" purposely force the
participants to engage with the cell phone at the same time as
something is happening that requires their attention. The purposely
force the participants to be unsafe and then conclude what they did
was unsafe because of the cell phone when in fact it was only unsafe
because they were forced to do what they would not have otherwise
done.

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 17:41:38 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 7:08:22 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:42:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

As I and others have said, it could be that other causes of accidents eg
drunk driving, have been going DOWN. We know the number of deaths due to
drunk driving have been cut by half. It's reasonable to assume that
there are also a lot more non-fatal accidents that have also been
eliminated. It could be changes in what gets reported and what
doesn't. Were the standards of reporting, the methods the same in all
states, over all those years? It seems the census folks have concerns
about something there, with the warning about year to year comparisons.

It could be a *lot* of things, I agree.
Hence the paradox.


Nice edit job, where you ignored where I showed you that you're
continued statement that accidents have been going down for years
is wrong and also where the census bureau folks that you cite say
that trying to compare data from year to year "should be done with caution".

Looks like you're not interested in the actual facts, just repeating
the alleged "paradox"

Here is what I posted again:

For someone so concerned about what's going on, seems you haven't really
spent much time looking at the data yourself, even though you dumped
the unanalyzed, raw data links on us. From your very first link:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

In 1995 there were 10.7 mil accidents, in 2009 there were 10.8 mil.
That isn't going down, down, down.

They also state:

"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

Which may explain why with the number mostly steady at about 10.7 mil
from 1995 to 2009, there is a one time huge jump up to 13.4 mil in 2000.
In other words, given that disclaimer, we really don't know the accuracy
of the data set.


So you not understand the concept of "rate"??

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.

One statement you'll never hear at the scene of an accident:

"Yes officer, it's my fault. I was busy texting when I blew thru the red light."

And since no sane person would admit that their cell phone use caused an accident, how would you ever get accurate statistics?

On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 8:36:20 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 3:55:34 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 4:50:14 PM UTC-4, Gareth Magennis wrote:
"ceg" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:38:06 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote:

QUOTE:
In 2014, 1.5 per cent of car drivers in England were observed using a
hand-held mobile phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per
cent of car drivers in England observed using a hand-held mobile phone
in 2009 and is not a statistically significant change.
UNQUOTE.

I only mention the USA accident *rate* because we have *reliable* numbers
for the USA, both prior and during the skyrocketing cellphone ownership
rates in the USA.

Do we have reliable accident rate figures for the UK to see if the
cellphone paradox applies to the UK as much as it does to the USA?



Are you not missing the point?

The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone ownership"
does not actually mean that more people are using their phones whilst
driving.

After all, everyone has one now, surely.


Gareth.


IDK what the experience in the UK has been. But I do think
everyone here would agree that in the USA, since the introduction
of cell phones, there has been a large increase in the number
of people using them in cars. So much so, that many states have
made it illegal, including here and I still see plenty of people
doing it. So, I think that premise that CEG's reasoning is
based on is valid.

Since it's illegal in many states drive text and talk , people are going to "LIE" about the cause of an accident unless the police confiscate all cell phones after an accident and examine them and the driver's cell phone records. Statistics are only valid based on the accuracy of the data. Think global warming. 8-)

[8~{} Uncle Text Monster

But CEG isn't relying on the cause of the accident being correctly
reported or reported at all. His beef is that the *total* number
of accidents hasn't gone up sharply. He did make that clear in his
posts. But some of what he says is not true, even by the links he
provided. From 1995 to 2006, (the last year that data is available
that I saw), accidents actually barely ticked *up* from like 10.7 mil
to 10.8 mil, so it wasn' going down. And other forces like the campaign
against drunk driving, has brought down accidents caused by that,
explaining at least part of it.

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 8:42:23 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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

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


Around here the police cars have cameras that automatically scan
the license plates of cars they pass, doing that function. Also,
all cars passing through the bridges and tunnels at NYC are similarly
run against a big database in the sky.

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 11:27:18 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:


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.

You keep ignoring the direct evidence, from the link to the data
that you provided. This is what the data report says:

"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

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 Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:08:01 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You never change the radio station? You never look at the thing to
adjust it?

My car has pushbuttons on the steering wheel to change stations,
so I don't have to even take my eyes off the road. And even in
older cars that didn't have that, I don't feel anywhere as near
distracted by the radio. You're ignoring that the radio is a
one way device. I'm not engaged in a constant back and forth
flow of information. And I don't need to capture every word, to
pay close attention like I do with a person on the other end of a phone
call. If I just instantly stop engaging with the radio, nothing
happens. We are not accustomed to suddenly dropping a call.


As the link I posted to the real world study showed,
talking on the cell phone wasn't distracting but things like dialing
it were, just as doing other things in the car is distracting....
looking for your sunglasses, looking for a pen, looking for change for
the toll booth.

Sure, those things occur, but they are typically over in just a
few seconds. Phone calls go on for an order of magnitude longer.


Most of us wait till its safe to do distracting
stuff, we don't try and tune the radio while we are making a sharp
turn or putting the brakes on because of the guy who just pulled in
front of us.

Some of us do, yes. But even if you do, with a radio, if you're
fiddling with the stations, and suddenly the traffic situation
changes, you can just stop doing it. When you have your boss,
a customer, or even just a friend on the phone, it's far less likely
you're going to suddenly drop the phone, stop talking, etc.



Unfortunately, most of the "studies" purposely force the
participants to engage with the cell phone at the same time as
something is happening that requires their attention. The purposely
force the participants to be unsafe and then conclude what they did
was unsafe because of the cell phone when in fact it was only unsafe
because they were forced to do what they would not have otherwise
done.

I think it's still a comparison that has merit because of the
above examples. You can't predict when some other driver is going
to suddenly pull out, some child is going to enter the street,
someone is going to drift into your lane, etc.

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:08:29 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
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.

Unbelievable comparison. Earthquakes are rare events, people
sticking their heads in pianos are rare events. People driving
while talking on a cell phone or texting are not rare. Neither
are sudden changes in driving conditions, eg someone opening a
door on a parked car, stepping into traffic, stopping in traffic,
etc. TAHT is what the simulations have worked with, not some
totally bizarre, one in a billion event. There are plenty of
stories of accidents and fatalities where cell phone usage was
involved. Can you show us one of your piano accidents?

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:10:09 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:41:38 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 7:08:22 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:42:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

As I and others have said, it could be that other causes of accidents eg
drunk driving, have been going DOWN. We know the number of deaths due to
drunk driving have been cut by half. It's reasonable to assume that
there are also a lot more non-fatal accidents that have also been
eliminated. It could be changes in what gets reported and what
doesn't. Were the standards of reporting, the methods the same in all
states, over all those years? It seems the census folks have concerns
about something there, with the warning about year to year comparisons.

It could be a *lot* of things, I agree.
Hence the paradox.


Nice edit job, where you ignored where I showed you that you're
continued statement that accidents have been going down for years
is wrong and also where the census bureau folks that you cite say
that trying to compare data from year to year "should be done with caution".

Looks like you're not interested in the actual facts, just repeating
the alleged "paradox"

Here is what I posted again:

For someone so concerned about what's going on, seems you haven't really
spent much time looking at the data yourself, even though you dumped
the unanalyzed, raw data links on us. From your very first link:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

In 1995 there were 10.7 mil accidents, in 2009 there were 10.8 mil.
That isn't going down, down, down.

They also state:

"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

Which may explain why with the number mostly steady at about 10.7 mil
from 1995 to 2009, there is a one time huge jump up to 13.4 mil in 2000.
In other words, given that disclaimer, we really don't know the accuracy
of the data set.


So you not understand the concept of "rate"??

I understand the concept that CEG has not once stated the
word "rate". At least if he has, I haven't seen it.
He just keeps saying that the "total number of
accidents" has gone down, down, down. The data set he
provided is in raw accident numbers. And also that CEG, the
one driving this issue, clearly hasn't presented a case to
show what his best data is. Why should we all have to analyze
everything, instead of him?

Oh, and then there is this gem, right from CEG's own source
of data:

" Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

Yet here he is, doing exactly that, making year to year comparisons
and refusing to even acknowledge this striking disclaimer. He just
keeps claiming that the data has to be accurate. And also the fact
that drunk driving has been cut in half has been pointed out to him
many times now too, which surely has resulted in less accidents from
that source. That too just goes ignored. He likes to just keep
saying paradox, paradox, paradox.

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:15:45 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
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.


"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

There from your own data source, talking about the accident numbers,
is your reason.

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 11:12:35 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 7:34 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 7:10:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


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


I think you're lost in space again. Listening to music doesn't
require your concentration, you're paying attention to every word,
so you can understand what the person on the phone is saying.
It also doesn't require typing in numbers, looking up numbers
in directories, responding because it's suddenly ringing and it
may be your boss, texting, etc.


What about talking to passengers in a car? If listening to music isn't
considered to be a distraction, then talking to passengers wouldn't be
considered to be a distraction, either, correct?

Wrong, for obvious reasons. A typical person is not nearly as
engaged with listening to music as they are with a conversation
with a person.



Or, some may say all
of those things are distractions, so then why would talking on a
cellphone be any more or less a distraction than the others things I listed?


You can't understand that there can be different levels of distraction?
You're as distracted when you're listening to music on a radio as you
are when you're talking to your boss or a customer on a cell phone?



My comment said, "I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing
music might be."


Yes, and again, it's still wrong.



Many people have adapted to multitasking. Driving in an act of
multitasking all by itself.

Any distraction is only significant if the one dealing with the
distraction is not adept at multitasking, or they've added some sort of
impairment to their ability to pay attention.

--
Maggie

Tests, simulations have shown that most people do have problems when
talking on cell phones and that it's a source of accidents. Hell,
unless you're blind you'd see it yourself. I regularly see people
in cars on the highway, where the car is starting to weave, drift
into my lane, or the gutter, slow down for no reason, etc. When I
look closely, most of the time they are screwing around with a cell phone.

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

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

Per Muggles:
Many people have adapted to multitasking.

I have to agree with that.

Used to vanpool to work and therefore had the luxury of studying other
drivers.

Every so often I would see a guy reading a news paper while driving in
50-60 mph traffic. Not just stealing furtive glances... I mean
*reading* that sucker.

I have no clue how somebody does that and survives, but I've seen it
firsthand. I guess some people's brains just work better than most
peoples' in that situation.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Muggles:
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.

Bingo!... I think we have an answer....
--
Pete Cresswell

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 9:36:22 AM UTC-4, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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

That was the tree that I was barking up too. You can't compare
being engaged in a phone conversation with listening to the radio,
reaching for change for a toll, or even talking to a passenger in
the car. We have some learned behavior that you can't just drop
a phone call mid sentence. Reaching for the radio, change, etc,
you can just stop it, no consequences, no once else involved.
With a passenger, you can also stop talking, and
also it's very likely the passenger is going to see why you did
that, eg someone just pulled out into the road, a kid on a bicycle
is wandering on the edge of the road, etc. The passenger will
likely stop talking too. And then there is the added factor that
looking up a person's #, dialing a cell phone, texting, is way
beyond just talking or listening.

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), 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?

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3

On track to be the worst year since 2007, when fatalities were 45,000, I
think she said. If not that, then 40, 000.

So traffic deaths are up in general because they were down to 35,000 for
quite a few years.

Reason given is low gas prices and more diiving, but you know you're not
getting a complete analysis from top-of-the-hour news. And it still
ruins your prmeise that accidents are not up.



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 23:54:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:

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.

Sorta. Different people can do varying number of things at the same
time. (For a few, that number is zero). When I'm talking on a ham
radio in the car, I can only do two things simultaneously. I
sometimes announce that:
"Talk, Think, Drive... pick any two"
I tend to favor Talk and Drive. The usual result is that thinking and
therefore the quality of my discourse suffer greatly. With a cell
phone conversation, I need to both talk and think, leaving driving as
the lesser priority. However, with ham radio, little or no thought is
involved because I mentally rehearse what I'm going to say in advance.

I've only seen someone do 3 things at once, once. I was once at a ham
convention and watched someone simultaneously copy high speed Morse
code in his head, engage in a PSK-31 keyboard to keyboard exchange,
and talk to me at the same time. I was impressed, but I must say that
he was also well practiced. I suppose if someone offered classes in
reactive driving responses while texting or talking, it might improve
the situation.


--
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 Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:46:26 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

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.

One such study simply counted the number of people that drove by with
BlueGoof headsets screwed into their ear and simply assumed that if
they were wearing the headset, they must be talking while driving. A
few of my friends wear theirs almost full time, because they don't
want to fumble for the headset while moving.

My guess(tm) is that the number of cellphone using drivers, in heavy
traffic, is much higher. From cell phone provider logs and
statistical summaries, it's known that cell phone use tends to follow
traffic congestion patterns with peaks during the rush hour. I can
see the increased "hash" in the 850/1900 MHz bands on my service
monitor during rush hour. (My office is near a major freeway
exchange). The assumption is that most of the calls come from drivers
either on the freeways, or the nearby roads, both of what are
typically barely moving. I wanted to do a time lapse video showing
the effect, but my IFR-1500 currently has a very sick power supply.

The problem is that in heavy traffic (rush hour), the traffic isn't
moving very fast. The opportunity to do some real damage or produce a
fatality is quite limited. At worst, a minor rear-end fender bender.
The fatalities seem to be more on the open highways, uncrowded
streets, and intersections, where traffic is light and moving at
considerable speed. Counting cars in such situation will probably
yield considerably less than the claimed 1.5% simply because there far
fewer automobiles. Therefore, I would guess(tm) that the 1.5% is an
average between congested traffic with high cell phone use, and light
traffic with light cell phone use.

If someone counted distracted cell phone drivers that are driving fast
enough to do some real damage (e.g. 25 mph), methinks the percentages
will be very low. Yet those are the ones that are going to kill
innocent people or themselves.

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