Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

In article >,
Pat Wilson > wrote:

> Likewise with the so-called 'common sense' attitudes that cellphones
> *must* be causing accidents. They are not. Clearly they are not.
> Otherwise, accident statistics would be going up.

This is a really foolish non sequitur. Otherwise nothing! There could
be independent factors at work bringing down the accident rate. Think
of it like this: A strong man pulls a lever one way, a couple of
little kids the other way. It can still goes the strong man's way if a
few other tiny kids help each other.

--
dorayme

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 04:30:29 +0000 (UTC), Jessie Williams
> wrote:

>Pat Wilson > wrote:
>
>> Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that
>> higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater
>> performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones
>> must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of
>> accidents.
>
>How about the "common sense" that a 36-month battery is somehow
>magically better than a 24-month battery?

The warranty is better...

In article >, Pat Wilson
> wrote:

> > with older cars, there may be performance issues and/or knocking if you
> > use lower octane gas than what is recommended for the vehicle.
> >
> > with newer cars, the engine can automatically adjust the timing
> > regardless of what type of gas you use, and the fact that it does
> > adjust the timing at all means the octane does make a difference.
>
> We could argue the octane details (which I will in a separate reply
> to your post above) but my point was that so-called 'common sense'
> dictates, to many people, that the higher-octane gas give the car
> more power than the lower octane gas.

depends on the car. an econobox won't. a sports car probably will.

> Those people point to all the commercials showing a tiger running
> across the screen for higher-octane fuels. They also point to the
> fact that high-compression engines use high-octane fuels. Some
> even point to the fact that jet engines use REALLY HIGH octane
> fuels, as their 'common sense' indicator that higher octane gas
> means higher performance.

jet fuel is different, but avgas is higher octane.

> They even point to the price difference, just as they claim that
> Techron cleans better. All this seems to be 'common sense' to them,
> but, as you will see in the next post, it's all basically untrue
> (with the devil being in the details).

techron is actually very good but every gas has similar additives.

> So, what some consider the common sense attitude that the higher
> octane fuel costs more and is used in high-performance vehicles,
> well then, common sense (for them) dictates that it *must* be
> (somehow) *better* for their car. It's not.

depends on the car. some cars do not run well on low octane gas,
notably older cars.

anything made in the past 10-20 years does not care since the ecu can
adjust engine timing.

> Likewise with the so-called 'common sense' attitudes that cellphones
> *must* be causing accidents. They are not. Clearly they are not.
> Otherwise, accident statistics would be going up.

exactly.

> Anyway, I'll cover the octane stuff you mentioned separately.

ok

In article >, Pat Wilson
> wrote:

> > it depends on the car.
>
> True. More specifically, it depends most on the engine design, and,
> more importantly, it depends a LOT on the compression ratio of the engine,
> but also on the timing, temperature, design load, valve timing, spark
> plug heat range, atmospheric pressure, humidity, etc.
>
> Summarized, some cars are *designed* to use higher octane fuels,
> while most cars are not designed for high octane fuels.
>
> Therefore, if your car is *designed* for the higher octane fuels, then
> you will likely get lower performance (mostly due to retarded timing) on
> lower-than-designed octane fuels. However, it really depends on how you drive
> and whether the knock sensors are retarding the timing or not.
>
> Even if your engine is designed for higher-octane fuels, if the knock
> sensors are not retarding the timing, then you'll get no decrease
> in performance (AFAIK); but if the knock sensors *are* retarding the
> timing, then you likely *will* have a decrease in peak performance.
>
> In short, if the car is not designed for the high octane fuel (and
> if it's running to spec), then there can't possibly be any increase
> in performance with the higher-than-designed octane rated fuel.

true.

that's why i said it depends on the car.

> > with older cars, there may be performance issues and/or knocking if you
> > use lower octane gas than what is recommended for the vehicle.
>
> This is true - but it's not the point. My point was that *higher*
> than recommended octane ratings provide no value.

higher than what's recommended does not, but the problem is that some
people think that any high octane fuel is a waste.

in some cars, it might be, but in others they are not. as i said, it
depends.

> It *is* true, especially in the case of the older cars you speak of,
> which may not have knock sensors, that *lower* than designed for
> octane ratings could easily be bad for the engine.
>
> For example, if the engine is so old that it doesn't even have
> piezoelectric knock sensors, then putting lower-than-recommended octane
> rated fuels in can allow knocking to occur, which is really hard on
> pistons, valves, rings, and journals.

exactly.

> The only caveat to putting the recommended octane fuel in any
> engine is that these older cars *may* have carbon deposits on the
> piston head so thick that the compression ratio is affected, or,
> they may have non-working EGR systems such that the cylinders
> have more oxygen in them than expected, or they may have non-working
> cooling systems which make the engine hotter, etc.
>
> But, assuming the engine is working to spec, putting *higher*
> than recommended octane rated fuels can't possibly increase
> performance.

right. it depends what the recommended fuel is.

> Yet, "common sense" tells a lot of people that this is not the
> case. Of course, they're wrong. But the same people say that
> "common sense" tells them that cellphones use is causing accidents!
>
> > with newer cars, the engine can automatically adjust the timing
> > regardless of what type of gas you use, and the fact that it does
> > adjust the timing at all means the octane does make a difference.
>
> True. (I already explained this above.)
>

In article >, Jessie Williams
> wrote:

> > Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that
> > higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater
> > performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones
> > must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of
> > accidents.
>
> How about the "common sense" that a 36-month battery is somehow
> magically better than a 24-month battery?

the warranty is. the battery might be. sometimes the batteries with
longer warranties do have better specs. other times it's just a higher
price for the longer warranty.

Bill Vanek > wrote:

>>How about the "common sense" that a 36-month battery is somehow
>>magically better than a 24-month battery?
>
> The warranty is better...



Well, to be clear, the warranty may or may not be better,
but, it certainly lasts for a longer period of time.

nospam > wrote:

> the warranty is. the battery might be. sometimes the batteries with
> longer warranties do have better specs. other times it's just a higher
> price for the longer warranty.

Many people, who subscribe to the "common sense" of phones causing
accidents at the same time buy things by variables that they understand,
instead of by variables that they don't understand (such as cold cranking amps
in the case of a battery).

Anyone can understand the TIME PERIOD of a warranty, even those who
subscribe to the notion that cell phone use causes accidents.

When challenged, they use "common sense" as their arguments.
At least, they did so in this thread.

dorayme > wrote:

> This is a really foolish non sequitur. Otherwise nothing! There could
> be independent factors at work bringing down the accident rate. Think
> of it like this: A strong man pulls a lever one way, a couple of
> little kids the other way. It can still goes the strong man's way if a
> few other tiny kids help each other.

If cell phones were causing accidents, and since cell phone ownwership
is nearly ubiquitous in the US, then there must be a vast increase of
accidents, roughly at the same rate as ownership increased.

Now, what you say is true, which is that there are other factors at
work - but then - tell me what those hugely influential other factors
are that not only exactly cancel out the presumed increased accident
rate of cellphone owners - but - goes so far as to bring that down
to negative values.

That is, the factors you are presuming to exist, must be so great
as to more than cancel out the cell phone ownership values.

As seems to be the case, those arguing for cell phone laws have
no data to back them up, while those arguing for the uselessness
of the cell phone laws are the only ones providing data.

nospam wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:12:09 -0400:

> jet fuel is different, but avgas is higher octane.

True. Jet fuel is, I believe, basically kerosene, which, if measured on an
octane scale, would have a VERY VERY HIGH resistance to knocking as
compared to gasoline.

But the point is that "common sense" doesn't work, yet, those proposing
that common sense says cell phones cause accidents are just as likely
here to be proposing that "common sense" dictates that the common cold
is caused by cold or rainy weather itself.

People see tons of commercials of kids sniffling in yellow raincoats
while it's raining outside, and parents being told that cold weather
causes the common cold - so they rush out - using their plethora of
"common sense" - so they rush out and buy "cold medicines".

Common sense tell them that the common cold is *caused* by cold
weather when, in fact, the common cold has nothing per se to do with
cold weather.

Same thing here with the common sense attitude that cell phones
cause accidents.

nospam wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:12:09 -0400:

> techron is actually very good but every gas has similar additives.

Exactly!

Polyetheramine and similar surfactants are in all gasolines sold
in the United States.

Yet, those who scream "common sense" might think that Techron,
somehow magically keeps their engine functionally and
meaningfully "cleaner" than other fuels would.