Interesting facts that give insight to the answer to the question in the
subject line are at this Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association
site:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#

This is a verbatim quote:
"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could expect to
see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the last decade. In fact,
the reverse is true."

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#
"Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW
roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal
hand-held mobile phone use."

Two caveats:
- We need to know what they mean by "related", and,
- We need to explore what they mean by "illegal" cellphone use.

You'll note that they say about Australia the same things I've been saying
about the USA, which is:
"Almost all Australian drivers now own a mobile phone, but the road
fatality reduction has continued despite the exponential increase in mobile
phone ownership over the last two decades. "

They do point out an interesting quirk of the statistics, which I hadn't
thought about, but which makes sense at face value:
"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of a
fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both legally
or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."

There is one other interesting statistic:
"A recent analysis of 340 serious casualty crashes in Victoria and NSW
between 2000 and 2011, using data gleaned from forensic examination of
crash scenes and anonymous interviews with drivers has found that in 0.9
per cent of crashes the driver was *using* a mobile phone."

Caveat:
- Using a cellphone does not mean the accident was caused by using it!

They summarize the situation in Australia as:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...tatistics-Cont
"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can
result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile
phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 06:04:19 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#
"Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW
roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal
hand-held mobile phone use."

Ooops. I posted too quickly and didn't check all my words (but all the
quotes were accurate).

NSW is only New South Wales, which is only a small part of Australia!

So ... The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of New South Wales
crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use:

Mea culpa.

Here seems to be one answer to the question of what the article meant by
"illegal cellphone use" in Australia:

"In Australia it¢s illegal in all states and territories to use a
hand-held mobile phone at all when driving, or when your car is stopped but
not parked. It¢s also illegal to use a hands-free system if it causes you
to lose proper control of the car. L and P1 drivers are not permitted to
use any hands-free system at all."

http://acornrentals.com.au/blog/what...e-phone-users/

Algeria Horan wrote

Interesting facts that give insight to the answer
to the question in the subject line are at this Australian
Mobile Telecommunications Association site:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#

Just another of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.

This is a verbatim quote:
"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then
we could expect to see a dramatic increase in traffic
accidents in the last decade. In fact, the reverse is true."

Because traffic accidents have decreased dramatically
at the same time for other reasons, ****wit troll.

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian
crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use:

And that number can only be plucked straight
from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell.

http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#
"Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes
each year on NSW roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all
crashes were related to illegal hand-held mobile phone use."

And that number can only be plucked straight
from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell.

Two caveats:
- We need to know what they mean by "related", and,

Nope, that is obvious.

- We need to explore what they mean by "illegal" cellphone use.

Nope, it is completely trivial to check what is illegal with cellphone use.

You'll note that they say about Australia the
same things I've been saying about the USA,

Because they are just as ****ing brain dead as you are.

which is:
"Almost all Australian drivers now own a mobile phone,

But many of them arent actually stupid enough to use them illegally while
driving.

but the road fatality reduction has continued despite the exponential
increase in mobile phone ownership over the last two decades. "

Because the reduction in road fatalitys has been so dramatic that
it swamps any effect that illegal cellphone usage has had, ****wit.

They do point out an interesting quirk of
the statistics, which I hadn't thought about,

Because you have always been a terminal ****wit who has
never been able to manage even the most basic concepts.

but which makes sense at face value:

Only to a terminal ****wit such as yourself.

"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of
a fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both
legally or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."

Only a terminal ****wit would actually try running that line.

There is one other interesting statistic:

Wrong, as always.

"A recent analysis of 340 serious casualty crashes in Victoria and NSW
between 2000 and 2011, using data gleaned from forensic examination
of crash scenes and anonymous interviews with drivers has found that
in 0.9 per cent of crashes the driver was *using* a mobile phone."

All that shows is that most arent actually stupid enough to do that while
driving.

Caveat:
- Using a cellphone does not mean the accident was caused by using it!

Duh.

They summarize the situation in Australia as:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...tatistics-Cont
"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can
result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile
phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."

It in fact indicates nothing of the sort. ALL it indicates is that the
fataly rate keeps dropping very dramatically due to various factors
that everyone has rubbed your stupid nose in, and that has swamped
any effect the use of mobile phones while driving by terminal ****wits
such as yourself continue to do.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:34:51 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Because traffic accidents have decreased dramatically
at the same time for other reasons, ****wit troll.

Yes, we've heard your fantastic fabrications before...

You've already many times intimated that mathematically clever aliens have
exactly negated the astoundingly huge number of accidents that your model
predicts, exactly matching not only the date that cellphone ownership
started to rise, but also exactly matching the exact very steep tangential
rise, and even precisely adjusting their clever negating effects by forming
a plateau at exactly the point where cellphone ownership reached 100%.

They are indeed clever those aliens you suggest who manipulated the record,
such that there isn't ANYTHING whatsoever in the accident record which
shows any effect whatsoever.

Mind you, your clever aliens still have our damn bomber and we want it
back!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Because traffic accidents have decreased dramatically
at the same time for other reasons, ****wit troll.

Yes, we've heard your fantastic fabrications before...

Just how many of you are there between those ears, ****wit troll ?

Not a single fabrication from anyone by you, ****wit troll.

reams of your desperate attempts to bull**** and lie your
way out of your predicament that any 2 year old could
leave for dead flushed where they belong, ****wit troll

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:18:21 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Not a single fabrication from anyone by you, ****wit troll.

Rod,
I'm gonna assume you are an adult, and speak to you like an adult would.

I show the facts, as you can read them yourself.
You say that the facts are distorted by some unknown force or forces.

We both realize that this "can" happen, just as a WWII bomber "can" be on
the moon.

But it's almost impossible "to" happen.
So for you to constantly insist that it *did* happen, is, in essence, a
fantastic fabrication.

You don't prove it. You just say it.
You may as well continue to argue that the WWII Bomber is still on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

Do you supply any proof of your fantastic assertion?
Nope.

How am I going to prove to you that a WWII bomber is NOT on the moon?
I can't.

And that's exactly what you rely your *entire* rebuttal upon.

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Not a single fabrication from anyone but you, ****wit troll.

reams of your pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs

I show the facts,

That is a bare faced like with that **** being discussed.

Not a single fact was shown at all, you silly little pathological liar.

You say that the facts are distorted by some unknown force or forces.

More of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll.

What I ACTUALLY said was that the fatality rate keeps dropping significantly
due to a variety of factors like better roads, particularly with fully
divided
freeways, and due to much better cars that make accident survival much more
likely and that that is what swamps any increase in fatalitys due to the few
fools like you actually stupid enough to use their phones while driving.

all the rest of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for trolling flushed
where it belongs

Algeria Horan wrote:

Interesting facts that give insight to the answer to the question in the
subject line are at this Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association
site:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#

This is a verbatim quote:
"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could expect to
see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the last decade. In fact,
the reverse is true."

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont#
"Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW
roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal
hand-held mobile phone use."

Two caveats:
- We need to know what they mean by "related", and,
- We need to explore what they mean by "illegal" cellphone use.

You'll note that they say about Australia the same things I've been saying
about the USA, which is:
"Almost all Australian drivers now own a mobile phone, but the road
fatality reduction has continued despite the exponential increase in mobile
phone ownership over the last two decades. "

They do point out an interesting quirk of the statistics, which I hadn't
thought about, but which makes sense at face value:
"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of a
fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both legally
or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."

There is one other interesting statistic:
"A recent analysis of 340 serious casualty crashes in Victoria and NSW
between 2000 and 2011, using data gleaned from forensic examination of
crash scenes and anonymous interviews with drivers has found that in 0.9
per cent of crashes the driver was *using* a mobile phone."

Caveat:
- Using a cellphone does not mean the accident was caused by using it!

They summarize the situation in Australia as:
http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...tatistics-Cont
"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can
result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile
phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."

I'm sure you posted all this to make a point. What is it?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:56:59 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

I'm sure you posted all this to make a point. What is it?

While most people only care about fantasy, I only care about facts.

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger, which means that
cellphones are just another distraction added to an already long list of
(more distracting) distractions.

Says so right he
"NHTSA Distracted Driving 2014 Summary of Statistical Findings"
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812260

The result of adding yet another distraction to an already long list of
distractions is not even measurable in the real world!

Fact is the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently at
about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while driving (with
visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

That means, even though millions of miles have been driven in the USA with
the user looking directly at cellphones (texting) or talking on a cellphone,
the accident rate in both Australia and in the United States has not been
affected one bit by the utter explosion of cellphone use in both countries.

Says so in the OP, and says so right here for the USA:
http://www2.census.gov/library/publi...es/12s1109.xls
More of the same can be found he https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#

Fact is, anyone who _thinks_ cellphones "cause" accidents, probably also
believes that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

Per Algeria Horan:
Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.
--
Pete Cresswell

In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

they have the same understanding as anyone else would, and cb radio is
not always mobile either.

"hi, i'm driving, but wanted to call you about..."

plus, the driver can always toss the phone on the seat at any time, for
any reason, if traffic conditions demand it (or even if they don't).

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

then you aren't looking very hard.

nospam wrote:
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

they have the same understanding as anyone else would, and cb radio is
not always mobile either.

"hi, i'm driving, but wanted to call you about..."

plus, the driver can always toss the phone on the seat at any time, for
any reason, if traffic conditions demand it (or even if they don't).

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

then you aren't looking very hard.

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and
sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation to
the detriment of driving .
Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop
using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible user
would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject talking on
the phone?

Per nospam:
then you aren't looking very hard.

But that is part of the point: I am *not* looking for anything.... just
driving along... and that behavior simply jumps out at me.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

... clearly doing something besides driving.

Let me fix that for you: "instead of", not "besides" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:47:34 -0400, tlvp wrote:

... clearly doing something besides driving.

Let me fix that for you: "instead of", not "besides" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

I remind folks of the quotes in the OP...

"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could expect to
see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the last decade. In fact,
the reverse is true."

"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of a
fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both legally
or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."

"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can
result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile
phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."

============
The same is true in the United States, when one looks at *facts*.

"tlvp" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

... clearly doing something besides driving.

Let me fix that for you: "instead of", not "besides" :-) .

Both are fine.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

There are some things where people trust their intuition more than they
trust facts.

I'm never going to change your intuition, unless you yourself, are able to
discuss facts.

We can discuss intuition until the cows come home, and we'd get absolutely
nowhere, since opinions are as common as body parts.

For example, many people have an "opinion" that glass flows in farmhouse
windows such that it's thicker on the bottom. Fact is, nobody on this planet
has ever shown any proof that this happens. Nobody. In fact, it can't
happen. Yet you don't know how many people have the opinion that it does,
simply because they know enough data (it's an amorphous solid, for example),
to be dangerous.

As another example, many people have an "opinion" that you get colds in cold
weather because it's cold. Fact is, nobody on this planet has ever shown any
proof that this happens. Nobody. In fact, it can't happen. Yet you don't
know how many people have the opinion that it does, simply because they know
enough data (there's a flu season, for example, which is in the winter
months), to be dangerous.

As one more example, many people have an "opinion" that their brake-related
vibration is due to their disc brake rotors "warping" (think potato chip).
Fact is, nobody on this planet has ever shown any proof that this happens at
any appreciable rate on close-to-stock street vehicles. Nobody. In fact, it
can't happen. Yet you don't know how many people have the opinion that it
does, simply because they know enough data (disc brake rotors can get red
hot, for example), to be dangerous.

Your intuition is telling you that cellphones are an added distraction, and
I agree with that assessment of your intuition. So neither one of us
disagrees that cellphones *are* "a" distraction.

Your intuition should also tell you that there is an already long list of
distractions that people handle every single day while driving, and that
many accidents were caused by drivers distracted by *those* (non-cellphone
related) distractions in the past, before cellphones ever existed. I would
agree with that also.

The only thing that's "new", is that cellphones came on the scene, but the
accident rate never changed.

So you and I have to look at that fact (keeping Rod Speed's clever aliens
out of the argument if we can).

How does your intuition account for the fact that the accident rate in both
the United States and in Australia shows absolutely zero effects of the
explosion in cellphone ownership in both countries?

Do you simply ignore that inconvenient fact?
Do you explain it away (as Rod Speed does) by saying aliens manipulated the
data?

If cellphone distractions were as bad as your model seems to predict, why
didn't the accident rate change the moment they came on board, and why
didn't the accident rate zoom up at a rate consistent with the number of
cellphones and why even today does the accident rate not show any effect
whatsoever from cellphone use?

How does your intuition handle that inconvenient fact?

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

Fair enough but when it comes to facts, we have to look at the facts.
There are no accidents.

What are you going to do about *that* fact?

NOTE: I'm not talking freak accidents, nor anecdotal accidents - I'm talking
overall accident rates in both Australia and the United States.

The accidents don't exist.

If you and I can't look at *that* fact, then we may as well start discussing
religion instead. Or maybe that WWII Bomber found on the Moon.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

Fair enough. But what you're forgetting is that the accidents don't exist,
yet cellphones are ubiquitous.

That means a lot of things - but one of the things it means is that the
distraction from a cellphone isn't anywhere nearly as dire as many people
would have you believe.

If the distraction *was* as dire as many people would have you believe, then
there would be accidents.

Where are the accidents?

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

I don't think there is a person on this planet who doesn't agree that
cellphones are yet another distraction in a long list of distractions that
US and Australian drivers face every single day.

However, there isn't anyone on this planet who can *find* any chnage in the
accident rate in either Australia or the United States due to the fact that
a huge number of people own cellphones and a given percentage of those
people are using them while driving every single day.

The fact that millions of miles of driving occur while people are looking at
cellphones *should* change the accident rate.

But it does not.
What does that tell you?

NOTE: Rod Speed is gonna bring up those mathematically clever aliens who
exactly and precisely hid the huge number of accidents that are caused by
people using cellphones from the overall real world record.

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

There are some things where people trust their intuition more than they
trust facts.

Nothing to do with intuition, it’s a FACT that when the person you
are talking to can see when you are about to run into something
or run over a little kid, they are MUCH more likely to warn you
about that instead of just rabitting on like the person on the
other end of the phone conversation will do because they
can't see what is going on outside the ****ing car.

I'm never going to change your intuition,

Nothing whatever to do with intuition.

unless you yourself, are able to discuss facts.

You wouldn’t know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse.

We can discuss intuition until the cows come home, and we'd get
absolutely nowhere, since opinions are as common as body parts.

That isnt an opinion, it’s a fact.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

Algeria Horan wrote

the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently
at about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while
driving (with visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident statistics,
because so few are actually stupid enough to do that, and even a
terminal ****wit such as yourself should have noticed that even if
say half of those who are that stupid do have an accident as a result
of that terminal stupidity, that would be swamped by the significant
reduction in the accident and fatality rate due to much better roads
with fully divided freeways and much better design of cars with
seat belts, air bags, anti lock braking etc etc etc.

reams of your broken record pathetic excuse for
trolling and bare faced lies flushed where it belongs

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:22:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently
at about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while
driving (with visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident statistics,

This is the first adult-like thing you've said in this thread, so I will
respond in like manner.

If we assume that the annual studies by the NHTSA are correct, then we have
to assume that 5% and 2% of all miles driven in the United States are done
while actually holding the phone and texting on it, respectively.

It would be interesting to break that number down by miles driven, so if
someone has a number for the number of miles driven by the approximately 275
million cars in the United States, that would be useful data.

The lack of accidents is the elephant in the room which has to be accounted
for, and mathematically clever aliens are too amorphous for us to rely on
them to give us that answer.

Since 95% of the time people are NOT holding cellphones while they're
driving and 98% of the time they're not texting, the lack of accidents due
to cellphone causing them _could_ be due to the fact that so few people
actually _use_ them while driving.

NOTE: The NHTSA annual statistic does not count people using the cellphone
without headgear and without actually holding it in their hands, so, we can
assume that 7% is greater if we want to include all people _using_ the
cellphone (e.g., via bluetooth speakersets).

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently
at about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while
driving (with visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident
statistics,

This is the first adult-like thing you've said in this thread,

More of your bare faced lies.

so I will respond in like manner.

You just went for more lies and pathetic excuse for trolling.

If we assume that the annual studies by the NHTSA are correct,

Mad assumption given that it is only collected from a subset of
vehicles STOPPED at lights etc. That will grossly over estimate the
percentage of those who actually are that stupid WHEN DRIVING.

then we have to assume that 5% and 2% of all miles driven

They have no idea what so ever about miles driven. ALL
they do is count actual vehicles STOPPED at the lights etc.

in the United States are done while actually
holding the phone and texting on it, respectively.

And is completely useless with texting. Plenty might well text
when STOPPED at the lights who are not actually stupid enough
to do that while actually driving with the car in motion at speed.

It would be interesting to break that number down by miles driven,

Not even possible to do that.

so if someone has a number for the number of miles
driven by the approximately 275 million cars in the
United States, that would be useful data.

But not even possible to get that data.

The lack of accidents

There is no lack of accidents. And even if those figures
were accurate and they clearly cannot be since they
were collected about cars STOPPED AT LIGHTS ETC,
if say 10% of those stupid fools actually had an accident
as a result, even you should be able to work that that
is **** all accidents caused by the use of a cellphone.

is the elephant in the room

There is no elephant and no room either.

which has to be accounted for,

Not when we have seen a dramatic reduction in
driving fatalitys due to better roads and better cars
and when accidents don’t all get reported anymore.

reams of your lying trolling flushed where it belongs

Since 95% of the time people are NOT holding cellphones
while they're driving and 98% of the time they're not texting,

You have no idea what the numbers are when
actually driving at speed except that they are absolutely
guaranteed to be lower than when stopped at the lights etc.

the lack of accidents due to cellphone causing them _could_ be
due to the fact that so few people actually _use_ them while driving.

Of course they are both that and the safer roads and cars.

NOTE: The NHTSA annual statistic does not count people using
the cellphone without headgear and without actually holding it
in their hands, so, we can assume that 7% is greater if we want to
include all people _using_ the cellphone (e.g., via bluetooth
speakersets).

You cant even assume that given that those completely useless stats are
ONLY THOSE USING THEIR PHONE WHEN STOPPED AT THE LIGHTS ETC.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:54:43 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:

people using the cellphone
without headgear and without actually holding it in their hands

How would folks text on a cellphone "without actually holding it in their
hands", eh? And with what, "holding it in their hands", would they control
the steering wheel? Earth to A,H., earth to A.H., come in, please ... :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:22:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident statistics,
because so few are actually stupid enough to do that

Yet the state of California makes over 10 billion dollars alone over ten
years, just from the single cellphone use ticket (nominally $20 for a first
offense, which is the lowest fine in the entire country of the states that
have the laws).

New Jersey makes half of what California makes.

Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket! (==== that's crazy!)

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident
statistics, because so few are actually stupid enough to do that

Yet the state of California makes over 10 billion dollars
alone over ten years, just from the single cellphone use
ticket (nominally $20 for a first offense, which is the lowest
fine in the entire country of the states that have the laws).

Yes, that is indeed **** all, as I said.

New Jersey makes half of what California makes.

Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket!

BULL****.

(==== that's crazy!)

Not as crazy as you.

After serious thinking Algeria Horan wrote :

[...]

Fact is, anyone who _thinks_ cellphones "cause" accidents, probably also
believes that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

No wonder it crashed, the pilot was probably on his cellphone and
didn't notice the air-speed had dropped to zero.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:28:05 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Fact is, anyone who _thinks_ cellphones "cause" accidents, probably also
believes that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

No wonder it crashed, the pilot was probably on his cellphone and
didn't notice the air-speed had dropped to zero.



Aviate ... navigate ... communicate.

Algeria Horan wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:56:59 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

I'm sure you posted all this to make a point. What is it?

While most people only care about fantasy, I only care about facts.

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger, which means that
cellphones are just another distraction added to an already long list of
(more distracting) distractions.

Says so right he
"NHTSA Distracted Driving 2014 Summary of Statistical Findings"
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812260

The result of adding yet another distraction to an already long list of
distractions is not even measurable in the real world!

Fact is the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently at
about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while driving (with
visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

That means, even though millions of miles have been driven in the USA with
the user looking directly at cellphones (texting) or talking on a cellphone,
the accident rate in both Australia and in the United States has not been
affected one bit by the utter explosion of cellphone use in both countries.

Says so in the OP, and says so right here for the USA:
http://www2.census.gov/library/publi...es/12s1109.xls
More of the same can be found he https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#

I asked for the point of your previous post but instead you just
repeat your "facts". What is your conclusion? Why did you bother to
recite your facts?

Fact is, anyone who _thinks_ cellphones "cause" accidents, probably also
believes that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based
sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying,
and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.

Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between
cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

Algeria Horan wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based
sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying,
and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.

Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between
cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of
Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by
the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are blue in the
face if you like, it stays a bare face lie, you silly little pathological
liar.

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was
to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references,
so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

You haven't produced even one that shows that there isnt.

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey
to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here,

Nope, a very obvious one, that you are a bare
faced pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

if you want to understand what I'm saying,

Nothing to understand with your **** except that you are
a bare faced pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to
conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their
intuition.

Says he after doing just that with the statistics on what
happens with drivers STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS etc.

Those who look at facts

None of the **** you cited does anything of the sort with relevant facts.

have never found any meaningful relationship between cellphone use

THERE ARE NO FACTS ON THE USE OF CELLPHONES WHEN DRIVING AT SPEED.

and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

Because they had no FACTS ON THE USE OF CELLPHONES WHEN DRIVING AT SPEED.

Algeria Horan wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

Your WWII Bomber is not sophistry, it is obvious nonsense. How could
it be the used in the same sentence as "reason" or forestall _any_
response?

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based
sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying,
and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.

Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between
cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

In your original post you posted the "fact" that cell phone use was a
distraction and distractions can cause accidents. You even produced
some research that confirms it. Now you seem to be arguing that it is
safe for you to apply your lipstick while driving because no one has
found any meaningful relationship between applying lipstick and
accidents. You have even managed to exclude, as evidence, any
accidents in which the application of lipstick and the accident
happened at the same time.

Per Algeria Horan:
The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine
whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.

It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would
own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of
which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

Am I missing something?
--
Pete Cresswell

In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine
whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.

It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would
own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of
which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known.

Am I missing something?

no.

On 10/15/2016 12:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine
whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.

It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would
own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of
which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known.

Am I missing something?

no.


Actually, determining the approximate time of the crash should be possible:
note the phone's present location in the telco's records and then work
backwards to determine when it stopped moving -- the crash happened
sometime after the last recorded movement. Not precise but it is a better
guess than none at all.

In article , John McGaw
wrote:

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of
which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known.

Am I missing something?

no.

Actually, determining the approximate time of the crash should be possible:
note the phone's present location in the telco's records and then work
backwards to determine when it stopped moving -- the crash happened
sometime after the last recorded movement. Not precise but it is a better
guess than none at all.

not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise,
particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites.

also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone
was not the cause.

it's also possible that a *passenger* was using the driver's phone so
that the driver would not be distracted, which means even if the phone
was in use at the exact time of the crash, it wasn't a factor.

On 10/15/2016 3:08 PM, nospam wrote:


not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise,
particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites.

also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone
was not the cause.

Maybe. If you were arguing with your wife and hung up 30 seconds ago
good chance you are still distracted.


it's also possible that a *passenger* was using the driver's phone so
that the driver would not be distracted, which means even if the phone
was in use at the exact time of the crash, it wasn't a factor.


Possible, but if the person on the other end tell the police the call
ended mid sentence . . .

A young lady was killed on the street behind me. She crashed head on
mid text. That was an easy one.

PeteCresswell wrote
Algeria Horan wrote

The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of
Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics
determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.

Its not that hard with voice calls, bit harder with SMS, particularly
if they are preparing the first one and haven't sent it yet.

It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would
own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.

Sure, but that isnt the only way to know that.

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident....

Yes and that isnt that hard to do. And to do it the other way in this
country.
The authoritys do know what phone SIMs you have unless you go out of your
way to get an anonymous one which is rather harder to do in this country.

all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

Fraid not.

Am I missing something?

Yep.

On 10/15/2016 08:50 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Algeria Horan:
The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine
whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.

It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would
own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of
which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

Am I missing something?

The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time.
Is that generic or just me?


--
Cheers, Bev
Always carry a length of fiber-optic cable in your pocket. Should
you be shipwrecked and find yourself stranded on a desert island,
bury the cable in the sand. A few hours later, a guy driving a
backhoe will be along to dig it up. Ask him to rescue you.

"The Real Bev" wrote in message
...
On 10/15/2016 08:50 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Algeria Horan:
The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are
"related" to illegal cellphone use:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine
whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.

It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would
own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.

That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining
it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database,
and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of
which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.

Am I missing something?

The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is
that generic

No, iphones have both the time and date of calls and texts.

or just me?

Obviously others that use your model phone get the same result.