The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

On 2015-08-16, Buck > wrote:
> Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.

Any distraction is potentially dangerous. I've seen a driver run
through a red light because she was so intently yakking it up
with one of the other passengers in the car. (Women drivers...)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the UK, according to a government survey,
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rveys-2014.pdf


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








And on page 27 of the 2009 report is a graph showing a very similar figure
in 2003 (when UK legislation banning such phone use was introduced)

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...hone-usage.pdf



Gareth.

ceg > wrote:
>So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox.
>a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA,
>b. All the while *accidents* have been going down.
>
>Hence, the paradox.
>Where are all the accidents?

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

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

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> wrote:

>On 2015-08-16, Buck > wrote:
>> Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.
>
>Any distraction is potentially dangerous. I've seen a driver run
>through a red light because she was so intently yakking it up
>with one of the other passengers in the car. (Women drivers...)

When I see the possibility of a dangerous situation is about to
develop, my ears turn off the conversation.
Sometimes I say "shut up."
I never use a cell phone while driving.

ceg > writes:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/cell-phone/
> cell-phone-statistics.html>
>> "1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
>> texting and driving."
>
> Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
> very data-based person.

If Jeff is data based, and you still disagree, what are you?
Sounds like by calling Jeff data based, you are defending your
approach which seems to be conjecture based.

> Here's the paradox.
>
> 1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents.
> 2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA.
> 3. But, accidents have not.
>
> That's the paradox.

That's not a paradox. A paradox would be "observed".
Since we _measured_ the impact of using a cell phone while
driving, we passed laws banning the practice and have embarked
on an education campaign to limit the use of cell phones while
driving.

I know that anecdotes are not data, but I remember seeing lots
of drivers yakking away while driving. In the last few years,
not so much.

--
Dan Espen

On 08/16/2015 6:59 AM, ceg wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/cell-phone/
> cell-phone-statistics.html>
>> "1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
>> texting and driving."
>
> Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
> very data-based person.
>
> Here's the paradox.
>
> 1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents.
> 2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA.
> 3. But, accidents have not.
>
> That's the paradox.
>
> A. We can *assume* that driving while using cellphones has gone up.
> B. We can also *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous.
> C. Unfortunately, distracted driving statistics are atrociously
> inaccurate.
>
> Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
> *extremely reliable*.
>
> So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox.
> a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA,
> b. All the while *accidents* have been going down.
>
> Hence, the paradox.
> Where are all the accidents?
>

Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same
idiots who drive while distracted. Distracted driving can be caused by
conversation, something you hear on the radio, a leaf blowing by, or a
smudge on the windshield - drivers who are easily distracted may well be
the same ones who have accidents whether or not they are using a cell phone.

So, the idiots will kill themselves (and other innocents) off at the
same rate regardless of the source of distraction.

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

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

John :-#)#



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

In article >,
ceg > wrote:

> Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.
>
> Where are all the accidents?
>
> They don't seem to exist.
> At least not in the United States.
> Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

You do have a point. But consider that merely talking on the phone is
no different than talking to a passenger in the vehicle, except when you
talk with your hands! Accident rates getting lower over time may be the
result of people driving with fewer passengers.

I rarely use my cellphone, but do have a GPS and Ham Radio riding with
me. Both can be as distracting as texting. Lets just say I've been
extremely lucky.

Fred

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?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:05:56 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> You really haven't provided anything, nor have you made it clear what
> your beef is. You claimed that cell phone distracted accidents don't
> exist in the data. Your own data shows numbers for distracted driving.
> The cell phone accidents are in there, yet you keep asking "Where are
> they?

Look at the three assumptions, for example.

1. Let's say that you and I agree, for arguments sake, that cellphone use
*does* cause accidents.

2. Furthermore, let's say we both can point to study after study after
study that concludes the same thing (effects of drunk driving and all the
comparisons apply here).

3. Even further, let's say we actually *believe* the highly flawed
distracted-driving statistics <====== you'll see this just makes the
paradox worse!

Ok. So both you and I and everyone else agrees that distracted driving
due to cellphone uses *causes* accidents.

So what's the problem?

The paradox is that the TOTAL NUMBER of accidents isn't going up in the
slightest. They're going down in the USA. Year after year after year
after year after year, they're all going down!

How can that be if all (or even any) of our 3 assumptions were true?

Don't you see the paradox?
The accidents that are *caused* by distracted driving are missing in the
total statistics. They only show up in the (probably flawed) studies.

That's the paradox.
The accidents don't seem to exist in the total.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:50:56 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

> So how is cell phone ownership determined? How many are laying in
> drawers or in landfills? Heck, I have three working models. I've
> probably thrown away three or four. No one can rightfully accuse me of
> being tech savvy. I buy used ones and use them until they quit working.

That's a different question, but it's quite apropos.
It's actually not "ownership" that matters so much as "use" while driving.
But, we all know that it's terribly difficult to get *reliable*
statistics of cellphone use while driving.

a. How do we know the cellphone found in an accident was used while the
accident occurred?
b. How do we know it was the driver using it?

That's why the statistics on distracted-driving-caused accidents are
useless (or almost useless) to help us resolve the paradox.

We all feel that cellphone use while driving *should* be a contributor to
the accidents, but the accidents aren't there. That's the paradox.

We can only assume one of two things, neither of which are we willing to
assume:
1. Nobody is using their cellphones while driving, or,
2. Cellphone use while driving isn't causing accidents at any appreciable
level.

No other options are available to us, given the reliable data on total
accidents, year over year over year.

Hence the paradox.