The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

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."

Well Jeff, you've provided the answer to the question,
WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS?
Now convince them it's not a "paradox."

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

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




This from the UK Government survey
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rveys-2014.pdf


The
mobile phone survey
was carried out across 60 sites in England within
four different areas (South East, Manchester, Newcastle/Durham and Norfolk)
and 30 sites in Scotland.

For the
mobile phone survey
, a mixture of sites with
stationary and free flowing traffic were used.

Roadside observation methods were used to collect the data with teams of
staff visiting each
site. For the
mobile phone survey
, observations were made of drivers of cars, vans, taxis,
lorries, buses, minibuses and coaches.

At moving sites, observations were made of the gender and
mobile phone use of the driver, but due to the speed of the passing vehicles
it was not possible to
assess the age of drivers. Details of all the variables collected at the
stationary and moving sites
can be found in the methodology note.
Surveys took place in both morning (07:30 to 12:00) and afternoon sessions
(13:30 to 18:00)
with a half hour observation period every hour in each session. Sites were
surveyed in half day
sessions
1
(either the morning or afternoon sessions). A number of sites were
re-surveyed at the
weekend so differences in mobile phone use or seat belt use between weekdays
and weekends
could be assessed. There are a number of limitations to the data collection
method which are
outlined in the methodology note.



In 2014, 1.6 per cent of
drivers in England and Scotland
were observed using a hand-
held mobile phone whilst driving. The majority of these drivers were using a
phone in their
hand
rather than holding it to their
ear
; 1.1 per cent of drivers in England and Scotland were
observed holding a phone in their hand compared with 0.5 per cent observed
holding the phone
to their ear. This suggests that most mobile phone usage whilst driving was
for the purposes of
sending or receiving a text or using social media rather than making a call.





Gareth.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
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.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 6:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Where did you get that information? I've seen people talking to their
radio's, singing with their music, and otherwise interacting with the
controls. That would seem to be distracting to me don't you think??


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?

Sure, there are different levels of distraction, but a persons brain is
still engaged with interacting with something besides the road and their
car.


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


Yes, and again, it's still wrong.

In your opinion, but not everyone agrees with that assessment. I can
understand both sides of the discussion, tho.


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.


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 wonder how accurate those simulations are because people behave
differently when they know they're being tested.

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.


I've seen those things happen too, but I wonder why I don't hear about
more accidents. It might just be that everyone is more aware of the use
of cell phones so we're all paying more attention to the people who get
distracted while driving.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
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.


I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue
tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was
hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the
phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device
and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call
while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call
them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it
rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 8:53 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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.


geeesh! That would scare me to see that! One day I saw a woman putting
on mascara while driving.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 8:54 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
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....


:D

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 8:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Yes, you can compare them because they all have various levels of
distraction involved when participating in each task.


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.



--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 10:08 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.



q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time? I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
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.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Can one text through BT?

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 12:59 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 8:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Yes, you can compare them because they all have various levels of
distraction involved when participating in each task.


Some things are more distracting than others. Of course, there are
those people who mistakenly believe they can multi task and refuse to
understand that it's the conversation, not the phone, that's the
problem. Haven't you ever driven behind someone talking on the phone who
cannot drive a constant speed?

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
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.


I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue
tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was
hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the
phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device
and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call
while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call
them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it
rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back.

Studies seem to indicate its the conversation, not the phone, that
creates the biggest distraction. IOW, hands free does not make the
conversation less distracting.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 1:35 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
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.


I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue
tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was
hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the
phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device
and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call
while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call
them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it
rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back.

Studies seem to indicate its the conversation, not the phone, that
creates the biggest distraction. IOW, hands free does not make the
conversation less distracting.

This is an interesting place to get information. At the bottom is a
link to a multitude of studies.

http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiat...the-brain.aspx

Additionally, there is much information about the myth of multi tasking.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 1:25 PM, John S wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:39 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
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.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Can one text through BT?

I think some phones allow voice texting, but I think it'd be more
trouble than it's worth.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and whatever they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! : )

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 11:28:21 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
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.


IDK where you drive, but I see plenty of people driving 65mph
on cell phones. And rush hour traffic here, eg the Garden State
Parkway, is mostly 65mph too, with occasional slow downs to 35 -45mph
with plenty of opportunity for serious accidents. If people have
a reason to talk, I think they talk. They don't decide to talk
just when traffic is only moving 25mph. And rush hour traffic,
with occasional slow downs or even stopped cars, would seem to
present just as many opportunities for a wreck as would open
highway where you can maintain a constant speed.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 1:48:52 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
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.

Where did you get that information? I've seen people talking to their
radio's, singing with their music, and otherwise interacting with the
controls. That would seem to be distracting to me don't you think??


Of course you see people talking to their radio. But try looking
around on those days when they let you leave the mental institution
and see what you see then. But then maybe they don't let you out.
That could explain a lot.





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?

Sure, there are different levels of distraction, but a persons brain is
still engaged with interacting with something besides the road and their
car.


Irrelevant because the level of distraction matters.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 2:44:18 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


I think some phones allow voice texting, but I think it'd be more
trouble than it's worth.

--
Maggie

I think you're more trouble than you're worth too.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:03:13 -0500, Muggles wrote:

q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time?

I have no opinion on the matter. Well, maybe a small one. I've seen
women successfully juggling three or more children at one time with
little obvious difficulty. I presume that skill could also be applied
to driving. I can only handle one screaming brat at a time, and not
very well at that. If true, the difference should appear in the
distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex.
I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find
anything that provides this information.

I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My
marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell
phones.

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 1:48 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and whatever they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! : )

Do you think there's more a problem with younger people than older
people when it comes to using cell phones while driving?

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 2:04 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 2:44:18 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:


I think some phones allow voice texting, but I think it'd be more
trouble than it's worth.

--
Maggie

I think you're more trouble than you're worth too.


Who shot a burr up your saddle?

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 2:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:03:13 -0500, Muggles wrote:

q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time?

I have no opinion on the matter. Well, maybe a small one. I've seen
women successfully juggling three or more children at one time with
little obvious difficulty. I presume that skill could also be applied
to driving. I can only handle one screaming brat at a time, and not
very well at that. If true, the difference should appear in the
distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex.
I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find
anything that provides this information.

It would be interesting to see what sort of results you find. I'd guess
that men would have more difficulty multitasking than women. The results
might also trickle through to the level of difficulty each would have
using a cell phone while driving.

I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My
marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell
phones.


ahh OK.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 12:19 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 1:48 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and whatever they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! : )

Do you think there's more a problem with younger people than older
people when it comes to using cell phones while driving?

Ahhh, that's an interesting question!

[Please bear in mind that I don't "own" a cell phone]

On the one hand, I think younger people are more likely to
be engaged by/with a cell phone. The "instant gratification"
aspect (e.g., I don't answer the land line; let it take a message
and I'll check on it sometime later that day -- "it can wait").
I think most of them would consider a ringing cell phone in
their purse/pocket tantamount to an "itch" on the tip of
the nose while your hands are otherwise "unavailable" (to
scratch it). I.e., almost *impossible* to ignore!

And, IME, young people tend to be more engaged socially (even
if they never *do* anything "in person"; they are more integrated
with a larger number of individuals/groups). As one gets older,
the pool of people that we're (IME) willing to spend much
time "frittering away" shrinks. We're more likely to *see*
each other if we want to enjoy each other's company.

[We also tend to have more responsibilities and less "free time"
to fritter away on trivialities]

OTOH, I think "older people" (relative term, eh? : ) tend to
not be as comfortable with the technology. Certainly less
willing to "waste" much time sorting out all the things that
*could* be done, potentially ("Which button do I press to make
a call? How do I hang up??") I know very few "older people"
who will sit down and try to impress me with the laundry list
of "features" that their phone supports.

So, the less familiarity might translate into greater *distraction*
(per event) among older folks; more effort required to get the
phone to do what you expect a TELEPHONE to be able to do!

OToOH, older people seem to be more inclined to pull over to
the side of the road to make a call. I will often see cars
parked nearby and wonder why they are sitting there. Only
to discover they are on the phone, talking. Keep in mind,
this is a residential area, there is no "back exit" from the
neighborhood and there's only another block or two of homes
*beyond* this one!

Translation: they thought it wise to pull over *now* instead
of "two blocks hence". By contrast, I suspect most "kids"
would just jabber away as they drove those last few blocks.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

Per SeaNymph:
Haven't you ever driven behind someone talking on the phone who
cannot drive a constant speed?

Or even stay in the lane?
--
Pete Cresswell

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....
--
Pete Cresswell

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

Per Ashton Crusher:
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.

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

The official anti-tobacco spiel is all about cancer and other negative
health effects... but I have to think that 90% of the people who got
onboard with banning cigarette smoking in the workplace just wanted
relief from the stink. I certainly did.... could care less if somebody
chooses to addict them selves and ruin their health... I just wanted the
stink to go away.

With cell phones: Ok, the official talk is all about safety and that may
or may not be all well and good... but I for one can get behind the idea
of a ban just so I don't have to cope with people yakking on the phone
while they wander back-and-forth over the line and back up traffic by
cruising the hammer lane.
--
Pete Cresswell

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific
thing or things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam
presentation), and the browse mode when I'm in a store where I never
know what I'll find -- 99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo
-- I have a list, but I have to go up/down each aisle to find stuff and
I generally find stuff that I should have put on the list.

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco
and I despise shopping for clothes.

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the
car as 'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the
phone I'll turn it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

--
Cheers, Bev
MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMS
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

Sully Sullenberger can obviously talk, text, surf and drive an A320 safely down the Hudson blindfolded.

The rest of you numbnutz, HANG UP AND DRIVE! You ain't got Sulleys skills.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation), and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me *into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I
despise shopping for clothes.

I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide"
what to wear, "today".

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the car as
'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the phone I'll turn
it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 2:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:19 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 1:48 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 10:39 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Many people seem to be OVERLY "visually oriented". I.e., almost
*needing* to look at the phone while talking. As if it allows
them to figure out what to say next.

Others use the phone as a visual "distraction" -- dividing their
time between the conversation and whatever they find so
fascinating about the little electronic "pacifier". (the
*primary* task -- e.g., driving a car -- places a distant
THIRD in terms of *interest*! : )

Do you think there's more a problem with younger people than older
people when it comes to using cell phones while driving?

Ahhh, that's an interesting question!

[Please bear in mind that I don't "own" a cell phone]

On the one hand, I think younger people are more likely to
be engaged by/with a cell phone. The "instant gratification"
aspect (e.g., I don't answer the land line; let it take a message
and I'll check on it sometime later that day -- "it can wait").
I think most of them would consider a ringing cell phone in
their purse/pocket tantamount to an "itch" on the tip of
the nose while your hands are otherwise "unavailable" (to
scratch it). I.e., almost *impossible* to ignore!

And, IME, young people tend to be more engaged socially (even
if they never *do* anything "in person"; they are more integrated
with a larger number of individuals/groups). As one gets older,
the pool of people that we're (IME) willing to spend much
time "frittering away" shrinks. We're more likely to *see*
each other if we want to enjoy each other's company.

[We also tend to have more responsibilities and less "free time"
to fritter away on trivialities]

OTOH, I think "older people" (relative term, eh? : ) tend to
not be as comfortable with the technology. Certainly less
willing to "waste" much time sorting out all the things that
*could* be done, potentially ("Which button do I press to make
a call? How do I hang up??") I know very few "older people"
who will sit down and try to impress me with the laundry list
of "features" that their phone supports.

So, the less familiarity might translate into greater *distraction*
(per event) among older folks; more effort required to get the
phone to do what you expect a TELEPHONE to be able to do!

OToOH, older people seem to be more inclined to pull over to
the side of the road to make a call. I will often see cars
parked nearby and wonder why they are sitting there. Only
to discover they are on the phone, talking. Keep in mind,
this is a residential area, there is no "back exit" from the
neighborhood and there's only another block or two of homes
*beyond* this one!

Translation: they thought it wise to pull over *now* instead
of "two blocks hence". By contrast, I suspect most "kids"
would just jabber away as they drove those last few blocks.


Interesting observations, there.

All my kids are cell phone + text savvy and mostly communicate via text,
so if I want to stay in touch, I text them.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....


LOL! yeah! We like to look.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!


I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific
thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation),
and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but
I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I
should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me
*into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the
HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

When I go to Ace Hardware with my husband, I wonder around by myself
looking at things, then eventually track him down somewhere in the
hardware section looking for odd screws or bolts. I've learned a lot
just by doing both over and over and over again every time he wants to
go to Ace hardware. Now, I can find things for my own projects! HA!


[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

I go in the back yard and there are garden hoses connected to other
hoses going in various directions.

"What's this hose for?"
He says, "I need to water blah blah blah."
"Why can't you use the main hose for that?
He says, "I don't want to mess with dragging it all the way over HERE!"

Ohhhhhh Kayyyyyyyyy!


--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 12:11 AM, ceg wrote:
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.


According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher
than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in
years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.

One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to
the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time
spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library).
It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with
something crossed of The List.

There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive
clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll
come back with a month's worth of whatever!

Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item
that was forgotten on today's trip!

[A friend claims "Plumbing takes three trips" (TmReg); I've learned that
she is basically correct. There's always one little fitting that
you discover you need *after* you've come back from your FIRST trip.
And, something else that you think of -- or manage to BREAK -- after
your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of
trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough
to hope for *one*]

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/16/2015 10:51 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:21:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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


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


I agree with you, however, have you ever seen anyone playing a musical
instrument while driving?I never have.

Listening to music though, is far different that talking on the phone.
The brain can easily tune out the radio since it is a passive activity.
The phone requires your active participation and concentration. It
has been proven many times.

So using a cell phone should be much more dangerous AND result in a
SIGNIFICANT increase in accidents over the past 20 years as the use of
cell phones has exploded. Yet there isn't the slightest evidence of
that in the accident data.




so says you and ceg. NBC new said different tonight.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, 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.


The problem arises when people from the second category think they are
in the first.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 2:48 PM, Muggles wrote:

Interesting observations, there.

All my kids are cell phone + text savvy and mostly communicate via text,
so if I want to stay in touch, I text them.

Do you do it the *instant* your phone chirps at you? While driving?
Or, do you assume it can wait a minute/hour and reply later -- when
it is more convenient/safe? If it's a text AND the sort of thing
that you can *immediately* formulate an answer (i.e., doesn't require
conferring with your SO or "thinking about it"), then is it really
*that* urgent?

We're frequently out front chatting with neighbors. Their kids are
now out of the house (permanently?). While talking, invariably
"his" (or "hers") phone will chirp. They'll ignore it as they are
engaged in a conversation. After *two* rings, it will stop. Then
hers (or his) will chirp. Again, two rings later, that stops.
THEN, the land line in the house starts to ring.

We all *know* its one of the kids -- impatient, needing instant
gratification. Their question ("what are you guys having for supper?"
or something equally earth-shattering) just DEMANDS an immediate
reply. Or, so *they* would think!

[I wonder what they would do if mom & dad were in the sack and
didn't reply for an hour or so?? "Where WERE you guys?? I've been
calling and calling..." "We were working on another CHILD..."]

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
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.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

Have you considered that cell usage and texting might be causing FEWER accidents? My reasons:
1. Talking or texting keeps the driver awake--less likely to fall asleep and have a collision.
2. Knowing that talking or texting is a distraction, drivers consciously pay more attention to the road.
3. The increased alertness resulting from texting could last for minutes, or even hours after the texting has stopped.

Of course there will be a few accidents caused by the driver momentarily not looking at the road but, overall, the rate may be lower among texters. A meaningful statistic would show the rate of accidents per 1,000 who text often or sometimes vs. per 1,000 who never text.