The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

Where are all the accidents?

They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm

If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths,
but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist
but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it
is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Where are all the accidents?

<http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/facts-and-statistics.html>
<http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html>

<https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html>
"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused
by texting and driving."

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

[Mike Duffy]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg wrote:

> ... cellphone ... accidents don't seem to exist

Probably 'cause cars are safer, people don't drive drunk as much, etc.

If you identify accidents caused soly by cellphone use, I'm sure the
statistics would show none before cell phones were invented.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Good grief, you make a claim, then disprove it yourself.

I'm providing a balanced view since the paradox exists.
One would *assume* accidents would go up; but they're going down.
That's the paradox.

> This is from the first link you provided. Click on your link and there
> is a listing for "distracted driving":
> http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1109.pdf

Unfortunately, as much as you and I would love reliable statistics on
"distracted driving", they do not exist.

You have to read *how* those statistics were generated, and, if/when you
do, you will discount them instantly. The current method of generating
those statistics makes that particular set nearly worthless.

Yet, total accidents (not injuries, not fatalities - but accidents) are
easy to compile. Trivially easy.

Accidents must be going up if distracted driving is really causing
accidents.

But, accidents in the USA are steadily going down all the while the
cellphone ownership is going up.

Hence, the paradox.

> It shows that in 2009, there were 4900 fatal accidents involving
> distracted driving, 450,000 accidents involving injury, etc.
> So, obviously distracted driving is causing accidents and cell phones
> are included as part of that category.

We are talking "accidents", not fatalities nor injuries.
Accidents are NOT going up.
Cellphone ownership is going up.

If what you and I believe is true, then if cellphone ownership is going
up, then cellphone usage while driving is *probably* going up, yet, if
distracted driving causes accidents (which we believe it does), WHERE ARE
THE ACCIDENTS?

Hence the paradox.

> If your point is that then numbers don't add up, don't make sense, then
> show us the conflicting data. And I'm sure it wouldn't take much
> googling to find studies and a lot of evidence that cell phone usage is
> a major source of distracted driving and accidents.

The data is clear.
During the entire time cellphone ownership has been going up in the USA,
accidents have been going down.

You and I know of all the studies comparing driving while texting to
drunk driving - yet - we can't find a single *reliable* set of statistics
that shows anything other than total accidents going steadily *down* in
the USA.

That's why it's the cellphone paradox.
Where are the accidents?

[Dean Hoffman]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:10:23 -0500, ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
>
> The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
> that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
> else
> "should" be happening. But it's not.
>
> Hence, the paradox.
>
> Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.
>
> Where are all the accidents?
>
> They don't seem to exist.
> At least not in the United States.
> Not by the federal government's own accident figures.
>

Some snipped.

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.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[ceg]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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.

[MJC]

In article <mqq05m$lfc$1...@news.mixmin.net>, curt.gul...@gmail.com
says...

>
> Accidents must be going up if distracted driving is really causing
> accidents.

Simple logic: that's only the case if there are no innovations
(including improved behaviour) that compensate by decreasing accidents.
E.g. say, ABS. But I know little about driving habits in the USA or
changes in car equipment. I know that one of the counter-arguments to
compulsory seat-belt wearing is that drivers are supposed to feel more
invincible with their belt on. I have no idea if this has really been
tested, or if it could be.

Mike.

[Buck]

On 8/16/2015 2:10 AM, ceg wrote:
> The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
>
> The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
> that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
> "should" be happening. But it's not.
>
> Hence, the paradox.
>
> Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.
>
> Where are all the accidents?
>

Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.

[Gareth Magennis]

"ceg" wrote in message news:mqp9gf$92t$2...@news.mixmin.net...

In the UK, according to a government survey,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-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.




Gareth.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg

<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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.

Not if the vast majority of cell phoen users have sense enough not to
text and drive. Then the remainder will have accidents some of the
time while texting and accident rates will go up a little because of
that. But the difference between this and dui accidents versus other
accidents is that many accidents are just accidents and harder to
prevent. But people can decide in advance not to drink and drive, or
text and drive, or talk on the phone and drive, so those acts merit
extra attention, extra prevention, and extra punishment, whether they
cause an accident or not. .

>
>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.

How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
must act based on assumptions.

>Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
>*extremely reliable*.

Why is that a paradox?

>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.

I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
number of miles increased at least that much.

What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

**which I'm pretty much opposed to, especially since it was done by the
feds, the reason was the oil crisis, and the shortage of oil is over.

>Hence, the paradox.
>Where are all the accidents?

See my first paragraph above.

[Roger Blake]

On 2015-08-16, Buck <bu...@kepler.452b> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gareth Magennis]

In the UK, according to a government survey,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-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/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8899/seat-belt-phone-usage.pdf



Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> 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."

[Vic Smith]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2015-08-16, Buck <bu...@kepler.452b> 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.

[Dan Espen]

ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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

[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 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."

[Fred McKenzie]

In article <mqp9gf$92t$2...@news.mixmin.net>,

ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> 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

[ceg]

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.

[ceg]

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.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:42:28 +0100, Rowan Pope wrote:

> Three reasons off the top of my head...
>
> 1. Do you really believe government statistics are accurate? (Think
> unemployment statistics)
>
> 2. Facing a potential lawsuit, how many drivers would actually admit to
> "texting while driving"?
>
> 3. People are liars. If you don't believe it, turn on the election
> coverage.
> Americas's finest are just getting warmed up. May the best liar
> win!

I actually do believe the government statistics on TOTAL ACCIDENTS
because in most states, accidents are reportable (in California, for
example, if it's more than seven hundred dollars for the entire accident,
then *both* parties must report it). And, as you know, seven hundred
dollars is nothing in a car accident, so, most are reported.

Plus, insurance companies are very good about reporting accidents, which
people are very good about reporting to them when they need to make a
claim (which we can presume at least one party to the accident would
make).

So are police pretty good about reporting accidents that they are called
in on to report upon.

What I don't believe is anyone's statistics on CELLPHONE USE while
driving, simply because (as you noted) all of us know the inherent
problem with compiling that specific statistic accurately.

However, the paradox remains whether or not we believe those (probably
highly flawed) statistics on cellphone *use* while driving. In fact, the
paradox GETS WORSE if we include these (probably highly flawed)
statistics on cellphone use.

Do you see the paradox?

If it's so very bad to use the cellphone while driving (which most of us
believe is the case, including me), then WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS?

They don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

> How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we
> must act based on assumptions.

Do you see that if we actually *believe* the cellphone driving
statistics, that only makes the paradox (far) *WORSE* (not better!)?

Let's say we believe that cellphone use is distracting.
Let's say we believe distracted driving is dangerous.
Let's even say it's as dangerous as driving drunkly.

If that's the case, then there should be MORE accidents, not fewer
accidents, year over year, as cellphone ownership rose steadily.

But, we see the exact opposite.
Total accident figures (which are reliable numbers) are going down.

So, whether or not we believe that cellphone use while driving causes
accidents, the paradox remains.

It's just MORE of a paradox if we believe (as I do) that cellphone use
*causes* accidents.

The reason is that the accidents simply don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

>>Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
>>*extremely reliable*.
>
> Why is that a paradox?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Do you remember the Fermi Paradox?
As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption
before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over
lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some
"signal" (or evidence) from them.

That evidence didn't exist.
Hence the paradox.

It's the same concept here.

1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting
this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).

Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics
on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!

If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing*
more accidents?

That's the paradox.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:

> I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long
> time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes,
> crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some
> things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number
> of people driving increased with the increase in population and the
> number of miles increased at least that much.
>
> What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but
> accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the
> correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than
> accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents,

There is no need to add second-order issues such as injuries or
fatalities to the equation because the *accident* is what matters.

We all know that nothing is simple, but, accident statistics in the USA
are reliable, and pretty simple to compile (most states have a reporting
requirement, for example).

Injuries and fatalities add a second (third and forth) order of confusion
to the mix, and yet, they add no value whatsoever because the paradox is
looking for *accidents*, not fatalities.

If people want to look at fatalities, and to ignore accidents, then we
can conclude that cellphones actually *save* lives because they get help
quickly, and they allow GPS routing to the hospital, and they allow
Google Traffic to route traffic away from the accident, etc.

So, why would you want to confuse a simple issue with fatalities and
injuries when the only result would be confusion and the lack of any
clarity if we did?

Keeping it simple and reliable:
1. We all believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
2. We all believe that distracted driving can cause accidents, and,
3. We all know cellphone ownership has shot off the charts in the past
few year, so,

The paradox is:
Q: Where are the accidents?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> There have been studies that show just talking on a cell phone is almost
> as bad as texting, which is why it's illegal here now.
> I know when I'm on the cell phone I'm partially distracted and can sense
> it.

Do you see that this argument only makes the paradox even worse?

Doesn't anyone see that?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> We know C because there are plenty of accidents, probably the majority,
> where the person is not going to admit to being distracted, what they
> were really doing, for obvious reasons.

Don't you see that the argument you make (which I fully believe) only
makes the paradox worse?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Actually highway deaths have been on the decline going back to the 50s.

First off, we're not talking fatalities.

We're talking accidents.

And, while I agree that accidents have been going down for a long time
(due to a host of unrelated factors) fatalities are affected by an even
larger host of unrelated factors. (In fact, cellphone use can make
fatalities fewer in quite a few ways but I don't want to go there.)

It's complex enough just to stick with accidents, which are going down,
let alone fatalities (which are also going down).

The simple fact is:
1. We believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
2. We believe distractions cause accidents, yet,
3. We can't find those accidents anywhere.

That's the paradox.
Where are they?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:49:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> 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.

This is the *only* logical argument to date that satisfies the paradox.

The question is whether or not it's true, since the *rates* of accident
decline appear to be unaffected by the rates of cellphone ownership.

So, what is the corresponding "safety feature" that *exactly* matched the
skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers in the USA?

NOTE: This is why rec.autos.tech was initially added.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:49:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> It's hard to get good data, though, when there are just so many
> different inputs into the system.

The accident data for the USA is as reliable as any data you'll ever get,
particularly because the police report it, the insurance companies report
it, and in many states (such as mine), both individuals involved in even
a minor accident are required to report it.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

> 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.

The paradox is that cellphone ownership skyrocketed in the past few years
in the USA, while accidents continued on the *same steady decline* that
they had been on for decades.

If cellphone use causes accidents, there are only these ways this could
happen.

1. Something else skyrocketed in the opposite direction exactly canceling
out the cellphone-use-related accidents (starting and finishing at the
exact same time periods), or,

2. Total accident figures in the USA suddenly became flawed only during
the exact period of skyrocketing cellphone ownership increases, or,

3. Nobody is *using* the cellphone while driving in the USA, or,

4. Cellphone use has no appreciable effect on accident rates in the USA.

Any one of those four would solve the paradox.
But, which of the four is it?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:16:27 -0700, John Robertson wrote:

> Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same
> idiots who drive while distracted.

This is almost certainly true, but that doesn't change that there are
only four possible solutions to the paradox, none of which does anyone
like.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:39:25 +0100, MJC wrote:

> Simple logic: that's only the case if there are no innovations
> (including improved behaviour) that compensate by decreasing accidents.
> E.g. say, ABS. But I know little about driving habits in the USA or
> changes in car equipment. I know that one of the counter-arguments to
> compulsory seat-belt wearing is that drivers are supposed to feel more
> invincible with their belt on. I have no idea if this has really been
> tested, or if it could be.

Look at the declining accident rates, which have been steady decade after
decade after decade.

The innovation you speak of is one of the four possible solutions to the
paradox, but, it *requires* that the "innovations" *exactly* cancel out
the admittedly skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers, and, worse, that
these innovations exactly tailed off at the exact moment that cellphone
ownership in the USA approached 100%.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:23:59 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> I think his beef doesn't involve #2 or #3 above. I think what he's
> saying is if cell phones are causing accidents, then why is the number
> of total accidents staying about the same?

That's pretty close, except it's even worse than that.
The accident rate has been steadily decreasing, year after year after
year, with or without cellphone ownership.

The paradox is that we all *assume* the accidents are going up; but they
are not.

So, something is *wrong* with our assumptions.

Either:
1. Something is *exactly* canceling the skyrocketing accident rate, or,
2. The accident rate isn't skyrocketing (in fact, it's going down).

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:20:42 -0400, Buck wrote:

> Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt.

No no no. The *phone* has to be *attached* to the seatbelt!

(True story: California law. It's not handheld, if it's *attached* to
something!).

:)

[Oren]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>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.

Given your past anecdotes, kill filing others in AHR for being off
topic, why are you here? Is a cell phone paradox off topic or have you
changed your position for home repair!?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:33:38 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> 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...)

So you fully agree with the paradox then.

We both agree that distraction is going to *cause* accidents.

The only problem with that assumption is that the accidents don't exist.

Hence, the paradox.

It wouldn't be a paradox if we thought that cellphone use did not cause
accidents; it's only a paradox because we *believe* that cellphone use
while driving causes accidents.

But the accidents just don't exist.
Hence the paradox.

[Vic Smith]

It's not a "paradox." And why do you say that accidents caused by
cell phone use can't be found? The are plenty in the news.
Besides, unsurprisingly, they are under reported.
http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-crash-data.aspx

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 8:59 AM, ceg wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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?
>

Wouldn't you agree that the statistics showing distracted driving would
include numbers related to driving while using a cell phone? Therefore,
how would it be determined which stats were legitimately due to being
distracted. Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.

--
Maggie

[ceg]

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

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

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

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

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:58:42 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> I don't think that's true and I believe studies have shown it. Here is a
> simple example of why. When the person is in the car, and all of a
> sudden you're at a dangerous intersection or someone is stepping out in
> the street, they can see it. The can also see that your attention has
> shifted. When you're on the phone they are immune to any of that and
> don't know what's going on, so they keep talking.

But don't you see that this comment, which I don't disagree with, just
makes the paradox WORSE?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:58:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

> Wouldn't you agree that the statistics showing distracted driving would
> include numbers related to driving while using a cell phone? Therefore,
> how would it be determined which stats were legitimately due to being
> distracted. Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
> person is also distracted.

The cellphone paradox takes all that into account automatically.

The statistics for overall accidents in the USA should include
*everyone*, whether or not they own or use a cellphone.

Since we presume cellphone ownership has skyrocketed, and we presume a
certain number of those cellphone owners are using the phone while
driving, then we *presume* that overall accident rates would go up.

But, overall accident rates are not going up.
In fact, they're going down at just about the same rate as they were
(year to year) before cellphones were invented.

So that's the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:57:15 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

> It's not a "paradox." And why do you say that accidents caused by cell
> phone use can't be found? The are plenty in the news.
> Besides, unsurprisingly, they are under reported.
> http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/priorities-cell-phone-
crash-data.aspx

You're a smart guy.

Think about what you just said.

Then, compare what you said to the reliable accident-rate figures in the
USA, compiled for decades.

What you just said was that you agree that somehow, magically, all the
accidents that are caused by cellphone use aren't reported in the total
statistics, all teh while being reporting in your specific statistics.

In fact, you state, they're underreported, in the individual statistics,
all the while being wholly absent in the total statistics.

So, what you said, just reaffirms the paradox.
You just don't realize it yet.

REQUEST: Someone please explain the paradox to Vic Smith, whom I know to
be a good thinker, as he just reaffirmed the paradox without even knowing
that he did so.

[Vic Smith]

I just said it is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
Put even more simply, accident "statistics" are far from perfect.
Hardly a "paradox."

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 2:07 PM, ceg wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:58:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't you agree that the statistics showing distracted driving would
>> include numbers related to driving while using a cell phone? Therefore,
>> how would it be determined which stats were legitimately due to being
>> distracted. Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
>> person is also distracted.
>
> The cellphone paradox takes all that into account automatically.
>
> The statistics for overall accidents in the USA should include
> *everyone*, whether or not they own or use a cellphone.
>
> Since we presume cellphone ownership has skyrocketed, and we presume a
> certain number of those cellphone owners are using the phone while
> driving, then we *presume* that overall accident rates would go up.

I'd only agree with the idea that *some* cell phone usage while driving
may be distracting enough to cause an accident, so there would then be
another subset of statistics defining different usages of a cell phone.
From that point it might be determined how much cell phone usage had to
do with distracted driving which would make the overall percentage even
smaller widening the gap between accidents related to cell phone use and
all accidents.

IOW, I more or less agree with you, but for more specific reasons.

> But, overall accident rates are not going up.
> In fact, they're going down at just about the same rate as they were
> (year to year) before cellphones were invented.
>
> So that's the paradox.
> Where are the accidents?
>

--
Maggie

[Scott Dorsey]

Reliable but not very complete. How many accidents were caused by
distracted driving? How many were not caused by distracted driving?
How many accidents would have happened if cars didn't have ABS? How
many additional accidents happened only because cars had ABS? How
many accidents would have been avoided if drivers had been able to
see past the enlarged rear pillars on newer cars?

All we have data on are accidents..... we have no data at all on accidents
that didn't happen but would have under other circumstances. And the data
we do have aren't enough to tell us about what caused all the accidents
there were. This is what I mean by there being so many different inputs.
--scott



--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Gareth Magennis]

"ceg" wrote in message news:mqqmgt$140$2...@news.mixmin.net...

Are you not missing the point?

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

After all, everyone has one now, surely.


Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message news:5I6Ax.386730$z21....@fx18.am4...

Oops, I think we actually might be agreeing here.

My bad.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/16/2015 9:59 AM, ceg wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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?
>

What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
may have gone down another 10% or 20%

[Ashton Crusher]

I have been posting (not here but in other newsgroups) that same
question for several years and no one can answer it but they ALWAYS
attack me for asking it. What you have stated is the $64K question
... if cell phone use is as bad as driving drunk, etc, etc, and if
cell phone use has gone from essentially zero percent of drivers in
1985 to at least 50% of drivers in 2015, WHERE ARE ALL THE
ACCIDENTS????

The closest thing to an answer I get is "well, if people didn't have
cell phones the rate of accidents would have dropped much more then it
has. But that's not realistic. There are simply too many people using
cell phones to think that if it was the problem the alarmist portray
it would not have caused a spike in accident statistics that was
noticeable.

Also, I strongly question most of the studies that purport to show how
cell phones "distract' people. They usually put a person in a
simulator, tell them they MUST talk on a cell phone, and then when
THEY know it's the most inopportune time for a 'surprise' they flash a
cow on the road ahead and the simulating driver hits it. They ignore
that in the REAL world, most drivers are not simply stuck on their
cell phone completely ignoring everything around them as if in a
trance waiting for a guy in the back seat to hit the button for
EMERGENCY at the worst possible moment.

They also have no good idea whether cell phone use has simply replaced
prior distractions. It may well be that the person on the cell phone
who IS distracted is the same person who 15 years ago would have been
fiddling with their CDs and CD player trying to select a new CD to
play, or would have been fiddling with the radio looking for a better
music station, etc and would have been equally distracted and would
have been equally adding to the accident statistics.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg

><curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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.
>

>Not if the vast majority of cell phoen users have sense enough not to
>text and drive. Then the remainder will have accidents some of the
>time while texting and accident rates will go up a little because of
>that. But the difference between this and dui accidents versus other
>accidents is that many accidents are just accidents and harder to
>prevent. But people can decide in advance not to drink and drive, or
>text and drive, or talk on the phone and drive, so those acts merit
>extra attention, extra prevention, and extra punishment, whether they
>cause an accident or not. .
>>

Then radios in cars should be illegal and the drivers compartment
should be enclosed and soundproof so they can't interact with
passengers.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:57:15 -0500, Vic Smith

There is no reason to think that because a driver was using a cell
phone that the cell phone caused the accident. They accident may well
have happened no matter what the driver was doing. Undoubtedly some
accidents are the result of distraction with cell phones being one of
MANY things that distract drivers. But the mere use of a cell phone
is not proof that the cell phone was the cause anymore then the mere
presence of a radio turned up loud is proof that the radio caused the
accident. What you cited is what you would expect to find by any
group that makes their living off "safety". They are going to be
looking for ANYTHING that would expand their empire and control over
others.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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.

Yeah, now they do it hands free. So now that people can't see it they
no longer have that bug up their butt over it. Distracted driving has
always been a cause, all that's changed is what it is that's
distracting the drivers. And if cell phone use and texting is so
horrible, why do we allow the police to drive around all day talking
on their radios and typing on their mobile data terminals? Funny how
when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the police state
suddenly it's not important to outlaw it.

Then there's the "familiarity" issue. ANYTHING that's new is going to
be somewhat distracting. When I first started using a two way radio
in a moving car it was very distracting - which channel did the call
come in on? got to push which button before replying? Need to turn
up (or down) the volume... Where's that list of call numbers versus
names so I can look up Joe's call sign and on and on. Very
distracting at first. Then you learn it and it's second nature. If
"things are going on" you simply don't answer the radio or cell phone
and if you are on it (radio or phone) you get off it when the outside
inputs pick up. Yeah, it's not perfect but we didn't outlaw radios
and passengers, we didn't outlaw two way radios, we didn't outlaw CDs,
we didn't make eating in a car illegal, but cell phones OH THEY ARE
THE DEVIL!!!!! Note, I'm not addressing Texting... that's not a
'distraction', it is literally a separate task from driving and I
would expect properly done research would show it's in a whole
different class of hazards from talking on a phone. But that's just
an expectation.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:11:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:

> I'd only agree with the idea that *some* cell phone usage while driving
> may be distracting enough to cause an accident, so there would then be
> another subset of statistics defining different usages of a cell phone.
> From that point it might be determined how much cell phone usage had to
> do with distracted driving which would make the overall percentage even
> smaller widening the gap between accidents related to cell phone use and
> all accidents.

I have to agree with you, as would everyone else, that *most* cellphone
usage while driving does *not* contribute to accidents.

However, most of us feel (including me) that cellphone usage, overall,
should *increase* the accident rate (since cellphone *ownership* is
almost 100% in the USA for people of driving age).

The paradox looms even taller if cellphone usage is as distracting as the
studies show (i.e., at the level of drunk driving).

So, the more strenuous we make the argument that cellphone use is
distractingly dangerous, the *larger* the paradox looms to slap us in the
face.

Where are these accidents?

[Ashton Crusher]

And unlike the explosion of cell phone use, there has been no
explosion of *Safety Innovation X* that massively reshaped teh driving
environment. To the contrary, the "easy" innovations were long ago
made and what's done today is nibbling around the edges looking for
anything that will shave even a small percent off the accident
statistics.

Looking here

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html

I calculated % increase year over year. From roughly 1986 to 1996
there was a 50% year over year increase in cell phone ownership. Was
there anything comparable in accident rate increases? Of course not.
The paradox remains

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:25:35 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:

> I just said it is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.
> Put even more simply, accident "statistics" are far from perfect. Hardly
> a "paradox."

Overall accident statistics for the USA are very reliable, since they are
reported by police, insurance companies, and by individuals.

The numbers are high enough, and consistent enough, to make the error
only a very small percentage.

You won't get *better* data that the census bureau data on accidents in
the USA by state - and none are showing what we'd expect.

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:22:34 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> What you cited is what you would expect to find by any group that makes
> their living off "safety". They are going to be looking for ANYTHING
> that would expand their empire and control over others.

This is exactly what I'd say also.

The more we try to prove that cellphone use while driving is dangerous,
the more the cellphone paradox looms to slap us in the face.

Where are the accidents?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:20:57 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> All we have data on are accidents..... we have no data at all on
> accidents that didn't happen but would have under other circumstances.
> And the data we do have aren't enough to tell us about what caused all
> the accidents there were. This is what I mean by there being so many
> different inputs.

Yes. All we have that is reliable is the data on *all* accidents, state
by state, and those are going down, year after year.

There isn't even a blip for the years that cellphones were starting to be
used. It's the same declining accident rate (give or take a few) with no
visible effect from cellphone use.

Hence the paradox.

I believe that if a huge number (essentially 100% of the drivers in the
USA) *own* a cellphone, then a certain percentage of those people will be
*using* that cellphone while driving, and a certain percentage of those
users will be *distracted* enough to cause accidents.

Since the numbers are so huge, and the numbers of accidents are so
constant, you'd expect a huge increase in the number of accidents, or, if
not huge, at least discernible.

But there is no increase.
Accidents are steadily going down.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:36:10 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Distracted driving has always been a cause, all that's changed is what
> it is that's distracting the drivers.

This, at least, solves the paradox.

> And if cell phone use and texting
> is so horrible, why do we allow the police to drive around all day
> talking on their radios and typing on their mobile data terminals?

That always struck me as interesting also. How come it's safe for them,
but not for the rest of us (who they are merely a population of).

> Funny how when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the
> police state suddenly it's not important to outlaw it.

As an aside, the government rarely abides by its own rules
(but that's OT).

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
> Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
> may have gone down another 10% or 20%

That may very well be the case, but taking a look at the numbers, the
accidents seem to be *steadily* decreasing.

It would be nice though, to see two reliable charts plotted on top of
each other.

1. Total accidents in the USA from the 50s to now, versus,
2. Total cellphone ownership in the USA over those same years.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:04:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

> Also, I strongly question most of the studies that purport to show how
> cell phones "distract' people. They usually put a person in a
> simulator, tell them they MUST talk on a cell phone, and then when THEY
> know it's the most inopportune time for a 'surprise' they flash a cow on
> the road ahead and the simulating driver hits it. They ignore that in
> the REAL world, most drivers are not simply stuck on their cell phone
> completely ignoring everything around them as if in a trance waiting for
> a guy in the back seat to hit the button for EMERGENCY at the worst
> possible moment.

I agree with you that the studies that show distracted driving to be
tremendously dangerous *must* be flawed, for a bunch of reasons, but, one
of them is that it just makes the paradox *worse*!

Let's assume, for a moment, that driving while distracted by cellphone
use *is* as dangerous as the studies show.

Well then, the spike in accidents, as you noted, should at least be
*visible* (it should actually be tremendously visible!).

But it's not.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:44:04 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> On the other hand, I know people that are educated, that should know
> better, that just yack away on totally non-essential calls while driving
> along.

That's my wife in the car with me, even before cellphones existed. :)

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:42:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

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

I think nobody would disclaim that the cellphone ownership in the USA is
close to 100% of the drivers (it would be nice to have that statistic,
but, it must have skyrocketed in the past 10 years).

Also, nobody would say that cellphone use while driving makes you a
*better* driver.

Most of us (including me) would assume that cellphone use is yet another
distraction, so, it should make us *worse* drivers.

But, then, why don't the overall accident statistics show that?

Can it be that the declining number drunk driving accidents you speak of
*exactly* cancel out the precipitously inclining cellphone distracted
driving accidents?

It could happen. It might even be what *is* happening.
But it seems a bit too convenient to accept, without further proof.

The paradox (whether we like it or not) exists.

There is no precipitous spike in accident rates in the USA over the same
time period that cellphone ownership has grown precipitously.

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 5:47 PM, ceg wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:11:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:
>
>> I'd only agree with the idea that *some* cell phone usage while driving
>> may be distracting enough to cause an accident, so there would then be
>> another subset of statistics defining different usages of a cell phone.
>> From that point it might be determined how much cell phone usage had to
>> do with distracted driving which would make the overall percentage even
>> smaller widening the gap between accidents related to cell phone use and
>> all accidents.
>
> I have to agree with you, as would everyone else, that *most* cellphone
> usage while driving does *not* contribute to accidents.
> However, most of us feel (including me) that cellphone usage, overall,
> should *increase* the accident rate (since cellphone *ownership* is
> almost 100% in the USA for people of driving age).

I don't think it's a given that it would increase the accident rate
because as people have gotten used to the technology, they've adjusted
how they use it, as in, hands free devices and blue tooth technology
built into cars that make the tech no more distracting than turning on a
radio or playing music.

> The paradox looms even taller if cellphone usage is as distracting as the
> studies show (i.e., at the level of drunk driving).

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

> So, the more strenuous we make the argument that cellphone use is
> distractingly dangerous, the *larger* the paradox looms to slap us in the
> face.
>
> Where are these accidents?
>

Lost within the data, I imagine.

--
Maggie

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:50:10 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote:

> The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone
> ownership" does not actually mean that more people are using
> their phones whilst driving.
>
> After all, everyone has one now, surely.

In the USA, I would agree that almost every driver has one, and, in fact,
there are usually as many cellphones in the vehicle as there are kids and
adults over the age of about middle school.

In fact, with tablets and cameras and gps devices also abounding, the
number of "distracting" electronic devices probably exceeds the number of
occupants in the car, such that we can consider 100% to be a somewhat
conservative number (counted as the number of devices per vehicle).

So, it's no wonder that, after almost every accident that the police
investigate, they can confidently check the convenient box for "was a
cellphone found in the vehicle?".

So, what you're saying is that only a small percentage of people who
*own* the cellphones are actually *using* them while driving.

If this is the case, then that might solve the paradox.

Q: Where are the accidents?
A: They don't exist
Q: Why not?
A: Because only a small percentage of people are dumb enough to cause an
accident by using their cellphone while driving.

But, if that is true (and it might be), then why bother with a *law* if
people are *already* so very responsible such that 98.5% of them wouldn't
think of using their cellphone while driving?

That then becomes the second paradox?

PARADOX 2: If 98.5% of the drivers are already such responsible users of
cellphones, then why the need for the laws that penalize cellphone use
while driving?

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:59:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Church street for one. It runs in back of my house. Young lady killed
> when she went into a Ford F-150. Or don't you consider a death as an
> accident?

Besides making the paradox even worse, the problem with anecdotes is that
they are not reliable statistics.

Anecdotes are cherry picked examples, which, of course, every politician knows
is a cheap way to get their mathematically challenged populace to believe
anything.

So, any and all anecdotal evidence that is not backed up by the reliable
statistics just makes the paradox far worse!

There was a Scientific American blog on Dr. Oz, regarding how he used the
cheap anecdotal trick to "prove" this or that, all the while simply
cherry picking unscientifically.

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

Anyway, if we *accept* your anecdotal evidence as reliable, then that just
means that we're even *deeper into the paradox*, since the reliable statistics
don't even come close to supporting your anecdotal evidence.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:

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

If that is the case, that cellphone usage is *not* distracting, then,
instantly, that would *solve* the paradox.

But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
driving drunkly"?

The *new* paradox looms - which is - if cellphone use isn't distracting,
then why do "studies show" that it *is* distracting (as drunk driving)?

Nothing makes sense in all these arguments.
There is very little intelligent discussion.

So, maybe the solution to the paradox is, as you said, "it really
doesn't matter" whether someone is using the phone while driving,
or not, with respect to accident rates in the USA???

But that flies against "common wisdom".

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:49:38 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Overall accident statistics for the USA are very reliable, since they are
>reported by police, insurance companies, and by individuals.

Most people lie on accident reports to avoid potential complications
with insurance payments. For example, few will admit that it was
their fault when the traffic policeman is standing there just waiting
for a confession and to deliver an expensive ticket.

Anecdote time. While going to medical skool, a doctor friend worked
in the coroners office of a large city. Like all large cities, the
coroners office had a steady stream of deadbeats, bums, winos, and
homeless that arrived without the benefit of medical attention and
records. Not wanting to spend the money on an autopsy and a medical
examiner, they quietly guessed at the cause of death with fairly good
accuracy. However, after a few embarrassing mistakes, that was deemed
unacceptable. Causes unknown were also not a viable option. So, they
inscribed "heart failure" on all such cases, which was certainly true,
but not necessarily the cause of death. That actually worked well for
a few years, until someone ran statistics on what appeared to be a
heart disease epidemic centered in this large city. The city now
requires either an attending physician report or a mandatory autopsy.

While I'm not in a position to prove or demonstrate this, I think
you'll find that such "accident" reports are highly opinionated, are
skewed in the direction of smallest settlements, and are rarely
corrected.

>The numbers are high enough, and consistent enough, to make the error
>only a very small percentage.

Right. Big numbers are more accurate.

The theory is that given a sufficiently large number of independent
studies, the errors will be equally distributed on both sides of a
desired result, and therefore cancel. That has worked well for global
warming predictions. Unfortunately, the studies have to be
independent to qualify and does not work at reducing the distribution
in a single study.

>You won't get *better* data that the census bureau data on accidents in
>the USA by state - and none are showing what we'd expect.

OMG! Do you really trust the government to do anything correctly? I
wish I had your confidence and less personal experience. I'll spare
you another anecdote illustrating the problem at the city level.

>Hence the paradox.
>Where are the accidents?

Ok, think about it. You've just crashed your car into an immovable
object while texting. You're still conscious and on an adrenalin
high. The police are on their way and the last thing you need is for
them to find your smartphone on the floor of the vehicle. So, you
make a phone call to your wife telling her you'll be late for dinner
and by the way, you've decided to buy her a new car. The police walk
up, ask you a few questions, and notice you talking on the cell phone.
If you're cooperative, nothing happens. If you're a total jerk, the
mention the cell phone in their report, and you get nailed for
possibly talking/texting while driving. You're screwed if they
confiscate the phone for forensic analysis or request a call record
from you provider.

In short, the statisics are where they want them. If there's a
political or financial benefit to showing huge numbers of talk/text
driving accidents, they will magically appear. If they thing that
nobody really cares about the numbers, you will have a difficult time
finding them. If the numbers accumulate some academic interest, you
will see the same wrong information repeated endlessly in statistical
surveys and college dissertations. Everyone lies, but that's ok
because nobody listens. Incidentally, 87.3% of all statistics are
fabricated for the occasion.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:
>
>> I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.
>
>If that is the case, that cellphone usage is *not* distracting, then,
>instantly, that would *solve* the paradox.

It's true, playing music can be pretty distracting. It isn't normally,
but sometimes it can be.

>But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
>(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
>driving drunkly"?

Well, around here, driving drunkly was common and normal behaviour for
a large segment of the population thirty years ago, and now it isn't.
Perhaps as a hazard it has disappeared and been replaced with texting
while driving instead.

>The *new* paradox looms - which is - if cellphone use isn't distracting,
>then why do "studies show" that it *is* distracting (as drunk driving)?
>
>Nothing makes sense in all these arguments.
>There is very little intelligent discussion.

This is true, because there is very little actual data. So an intelligent
discussion is pretty much impossible.

[Dan Espen]

ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>>>Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
>>>*extremely reliable*.
>>

>> Why is that a paradox?
>
> I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Very funny.

The Fermi Paradox is about "absence of evidence for extraterrestrial
intelligence".

--
Dan Espen

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:36:10 -0700, Ashton Crusher <de...@moore.net>
wrote:

>And if cell phone use and texting is so
>horrible, why do we allow the police to drive around all day talking
>on their radios and typing on their mobile data terminals? Funny how
>when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the police state
>suddenly it's not important to outlaw it.

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

There are also other users of mobile data terminals that are exempted
by the Calif Vehicle Code. While the law was written to prevent
people from watching TV while driving, it has been expanded to data
terminals, GPS, computahs, etc. Section 27602:
<https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/vctop/vc/d12/c5/a5/27602>

Note that ham radio operators have been exempt. Part of the reason is
that there was no evidence of any significant accidents or fatalities
to hams resulting from talking while moving when the ordinance was
inscribed. There are about 2,000 ham operators in the county. I
think I've met about 1/3 of them. In the last 40 years, I don't know
of any that have died or been injured while driving, much less while
talking on the radio.

So, what's the difference between texting, talking, and ham radio
operation? Ham radio is a simplex operation. You can only talk and
listen, one at a time, and not simultaneously, such as on the
telephone. We seem to be able to handle either the input or output
channel quite easily, but not simultaneously. I've done some crude
testing to see if that's true. When I use a PTT (push to talk
microphone) to make a phone call while moving, there's no problem
because my caller and I are operating simplex. The same operation
done with a handset, in full duplex mode, it highly distracting and
sometimes confusing.

If you want innovation in this area, consider adding a typical mobile
radio microphone to a cell phone, add a loudspeaker, set it up for
simplex, and maybe the mythical accident rate will fall. If not, I
can probably arrange the statistics to demonstrate that it will.

For texting, I had a recent bad experience. I was the passenger in a
car where the driver was getting "notifications" continuously roughly
twice per minute. The phone would make an obnoxious noise when they
arrived. He just couldn't resist the temptation to look at his phone
and see what had just arrived. I mentioned it to him, and was
ignored. There was no interactive texting or chat session, but plenty
of approximately 3 second distractions. That's enough for an
accident. Fortunately, there were none, although I was tempted to
kiss the ground as I exited the vehicle.

>Note, I'm not addressing Texting... that's not a
>'distraction', it is literally a separate task from driving and I
>would expect properly done research would show it's in a whole
>different class of hazards from talking on a phone. But that's just
>an expectation.

Yep. You got it. The smartphone has an accelerometer and can easily
tell when it's moving. Buffer incoming texts and block the keyboard
while the phone is moving. End of problem (until it's hacked).

Apps are already available but it really should be built into the
phone firmware:
<https://play.google.com/store/search?q=no%20text%20while%20driving%20app&c=apps>

[Dan Espen]

ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> writes:

> The paradox is that cellphone ownership skyrocketed in the past few years
> in the USA, while accidents continued on the *same steady decline* that
> they had been on for decades.

Here's a hint:

cell phone ownership IS NOT EQUAL TO cell phone usage while driving

--
Dan Espen

[Dean Hoffman]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:14:45 -0500, ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> PARADOX 2: If 98.5% of the drivers are already such responsible users of
> cellphones, then why the need for the laws that penalize cellphone use
> while driving?
>

Because there's no end of people who think they should tell others how
to
live their lives. Mandatory wiper laws are an example. I guess there are
still people who think living isn't terminal.
This http://tinyurl.com/qclh5gg leads to the Carpe Diem site.
It talks about a woman who successfully challenged Mississippi's Board
of Cosmetology. They required 18 months of schooling for people who
wanted to braid hair professionally.



--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:58:37 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:38:06 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> QUOTE:
>> In 2014, 1.5 per cent of car drivers in England were observed using a
>> hand-held mobile phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per
>> cent of car drivers in England observed using a hand-held mobile phone
>> in 2009 and is not a statistically significant change.
>> UNQUOTE.
>
>I only mention the USA accident *rate* because we have *reliable* numbers
>for the USA, both prior and during the skyrocketing cellphone ownership
>rates in the USA.
>
>Do we have reliable accident rate figures for the UK to see if the
>cellphone paradox applies to the UK as much as it does to the USA?


Speaking of the UK, they did a study of the influence of speed cameras
(they have a LOT of them) on accidents and it showed that where there
were cameras that statistically the accidents INCREASED. They
attempted to bury the report. It was eventually released but
uniformly ignored by those in power. Further proof, as if more was
needed, that speed cameras are for revenue, not safety.

[Scott Dorsey]

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

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

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Why is that a paradox?

>I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Much of this has its basis in theology where wrestling over the
existence of God is an international sport. A more simplistic version
is that you can't prove anything with nothing as evidence.

The corollary also doesn't work where:
"Quantity of evidence is not evidence of quantity".
In other words, just because you have a large pile of numbers, doesn't
mean you can prove a large number of things.

The problem is that the "Fermi Paradox" is the logic sucks.

"The great Enrico Fermi proposed the following paradox. Given
the size of the universe and evidence of intelligent life on
Earth making it non-zero probability for intelligent life
elsewhere, how come have we not been visited by aliens? Where
is everybody?, he asked."

No matter how minute the probability of such life, the size
should bring the probability to 1. (In fact we should have
been visited a high number of times: see the Kolmogorov and
Borel zero-one laws.)

So, what's missing? Well, it's time or rather how many solar
revolutions a civilization can exist without destroying itself or
having some cosmic catastrophe do it for them. The details are worked
out in the Drake Equation:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation>
which computes the probability of two civilizations coming into
contact. If you happen to be a pessimist, and use pessimistic
probabilities, the probability might as well be zero. Inflating the
statistical population to astronomical proportions does nothing to
change the probabilities and certainly will not result in a 100%
chance of an alien encounter.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per ceg:
>Where are all the accidents?

How about under reporting?

How could cell phone-generated accidents get into the system as such?

Guy I used to windsurf with bought the farm a couple of years ago when a
guy in an F-150 drove into him from the back at highway speed (i.e.
50-60 mph).

He was riding on a wide shoulder, bright clear day, no intersections.

I have a hard time imagining that the guy who killed him told the
investigating officer "Yeah, I was just so into this (cell phone
conversation/text message/email) that I drifted on to the shoulder and
drove right into the victim."

Same with the buy who almost got me on the Atlantic City Expressway a
couple years ago: I'm running the right lane, guy in the left lane just
starts drifting into me and I can see him holding something in one hand
and poking his finger at it with the other hand (steering with his
knees?).... I took the shoulder and avoided contact - but if there had
been an accident I would not have expected the other driver to 'fess up.

Same with the guy in a pickup truck that almost nailed me on my bike
several years ago. I was riding on a very large cross-hatched (no
cars) area. I saw him coming - intent on *something* between his
knees... I zigged, he didn't zag and then he drove right through the
space I was occupying... never looked up. If I had woken up dead that
day, I am pretty sure he would have some other explanation than "I was
absorbed in my cell phone".

And then there is the Canadian study that equated driving while talking
on a cell phone with some level of alcohol intoxication....
--
Pete Cresswell

[Jeff Liebermann]

On 16 Aug 2015 20:42:19 -0400, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

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

Sounds like New Yuck City. You must live in a technically
impoverished area. Even the local fast food restaurants now have
license plate readers. The technology is quite common on the left
coast:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=automatic+license+plate+recognition+system&tbm=isch>
<http://www.licenseplatesrecognition.com/how-lpr-works.html>
<http://www.licenseplaterecognition.com>
<http://elsag.com/licenseplatereader.htm>
<http://www.theiacp.org/ALPR>
etc... Even cheap security cameras have a headlight blocking feature:
<http://www.cctvcamerapros.com/License-Plate-Capture-Cameras-s/283.htm>

Are you sure the second officer is typing in license plates and not
updating his Facebook page?

"Don't worry about the radios. We can always use Twitter for
dispatch"
(Don't ask me who said that).

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per ceg:

>Overall accident statistics for the USA are very reliable, since they are
>reported by police, insurance companies, and by individuals.

Am I the only one that sees a non-sequitur in that statement?

I'm thinking it's somewhere in here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

But I'm haven't drunk enough coffee lately to find it.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Ed Pawlowski]

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.

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg

<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
>

>>>Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are
>>>*extremely reliable*.
>>

>> Why is that a paradox?
>
>I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.
>

>Do you remember the Fermi Paradox?

No, I don't.

>As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption
>before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over
>lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some
>"signal" (or evidence) from them.

Enrico Fermi said that? Because it's not true. Until humans on earth
invented radio, less than 200 years ago, there were no signals from us.

And none of our radio waves have reached places 200 light years away or
more even now.

Plus there are animals living in the woods and rivers and oceans and on
mountains and underground that people who never go to those places never
see and only know about because others have told them. If others didn't
tell them, they wouldn't know. If the animals there are sending out
signals, they are short distance signals and they don't reach me.

>That evidence didn't exist.
>Hence the paradox.
>
>It's the same concept here.
>
>1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
>2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
>3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting
>this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).
>
>Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics
>on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!
>
>If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing*
>more accidents?
>
>That's the paradox.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:

You've missed the point. All those things you raise may well be true
but they were just as true before there were cell phones. The mix of
truth and lies in accident reports goes on but one key thing continues
and that is that virtually ALL significant accidents, certainly those
society might want to concern itself with, are REPORTED and go into
the statistics of HOW MANY accidents. Yeah, the listed causes might
be lies or honest mistakes but the NUMBERS are reported consistently
year after year after year. And its the NUMBERS of accidents ceg is
talking about as the data set, not the CAUSE that's listed. So we
know that the NUMBER of accidents, rate actually, the normalized
number, has steadily been going down down down.

Yet there are people claiming that a NEW and HORRIBLY DANGEROUS CAUSE
of accidents has been unleashed into the driving world, the Cell
Phone. We can't argue with the fact that over the past two decades
MILIIONS AND MILLLIONS of cell phones wound up in the hands of and
used by drivers, that's just a fact. But if all those cell phones are
REALLY this horribly DANGERIOUS ACCIDENT CAUSING instrument, WHERE ARE
THE ACCIDENTS????

[micky]

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:52:04 -0700, Jeff

Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:24:42 +0000 (UTC), ceg
><curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote:
>>> Why is that a paradox?
>
>>I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.
>
>Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
>"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
>Much of this has its basis in theology where wrestling over the
>existence of God is an international sport. A more simplistic version
>is that you can't prove anything with nothing as evidence.
>
>The corollary also doesn't work where:
>"Quantity of evidence is not evidence of quantity".
>In other words, just because you have a large pile of numbers, doesn't
>mean you can prove a large number of things.
>
>The problem is that the "Fermi Paradox" is the logic sucks.
>
> "The great Enrico Fermi proposed the following paradox. Given
> the size of the universe and evidence of intelligent life on
> Earth making it non-zero probability for intelligent life
> elsewhere, how come have we not been visited by aliens? Where
> is everybody?, he asked."
>
> No matter how minute the probability of such life, the size
> should bring the probability to 1. (In fact we should have

The thing is that probabilty on a yes or no question is only valuable
for betting parlors and insurance brokers, which are really the same
thing. One may thing the probability is very high, because there are
so many places life could be, but if there is no life beyond the earth,
it doesn't matter what the probability WAS.

It is partly tied up with theology, iiuc, in that some believers in God
want to believe that this earth is his only creation. I don't know why
they would think that either.

Another problem, IMO, is that scientists, as reported by the news, seem
to think life could only be water based, and seem to discount places
without water. . I know water has advantages, but it's not the only
possibility.

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no life anywhere else.
There are cerrtainly lots of places beyond earth with no life, so why
not more.

OTOH, if there is life, I see no special reason they would have a radio
transmitter. Until I got a cell phone, I didn't have one.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:05:33 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

No non-sequitur. The statistics ARE reliable as a year to year
measure. That an individual report may have errors is unquestionably
true. But the only number of significance is simply the NUMBER of
REPROTED accidents, not the accuracy of the little details of the
reports. If Officer Odie is dyslexic and instead of Hwy 52 MP 429 he
puts Hwy 25 MP 249 the report will be off by perhaps hundreds of miles
but that ACCIDENT occurred and it is included as part of the Total
number of accidents that go into the rate. Unless you want to make an
argument that there is some systemic problem where the same accidents
are getting reported multiple times for almost every jurisdiction in a
state or that the dog is eating the reports before they are filed I
don't see any reason to challenge the basic accident rates as accurate
enough for this discussion.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:25:35 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:
>
>> I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.
>
>If that is the case, that cellphone usage is *not* distracting, then,
>instantly, that would *solve* the paradox.
>
>But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
>(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
>driving drunkly"?
>
>The *new* paradox looms - which is - if cellphone use isn't distracting,
>then why do "studies show" that it *is* distracting (as drunk driving)?
>

I've elaborated on that very question earlier in this thread. The
short version is that most of the 'studies' are crap designed to prove
cell phones are dangerous thru a variety of nonsensical study
protocols. You want to prove pianos are dangerous? Do a study where
one person puts their head under the upraised and held in place by the
stick "hood" of the piano then simulate a magnitude 6 earthquake.
You'll find pianos to be quite dangerous.

[Ashton Crusher]

No, there is a LOT of data. And contrary to the theorizing of the
alarmists, there is no REAL WORLD evidence that the literal explosion
of cell phone use has caused even a blip in accident rates. A few
anecdotes of 'I saw Santa on his cell phone and he drove his sleigh
right into the side of the chimney" don't prove that cell phones are
some special case of distraction that should be outlawed while we
still allow the carrying of chatty passengers, the eating of food, the
application of lipstick, and the fiddling with CDs and MP3 players.

[Dean Hoffman]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:10:23 -0500, ceg <curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
>
> The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
> that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something
> else
> "should" be happening. But it's not.
>
> Hence, the paradox.
>
> Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

>
> Where are all the accidents?
>

> They don't seem to exist.
> At least not in the United States.
> Not by the federal government's own accident figures.
>
> 1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
> http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
>
> 2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
> http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
>
> 3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm
>
> If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths,
> but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to
> exist
> but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it
> is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.
>
> Such is the cellphone paradox.
>

Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free
vs. hands on cell phone
use while driving. All but one test subject failed their simulator test
either by crashing or getting lost.
Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on August 16.

[Ashton Crusher]

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.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:01:29 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:04:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
>> Also, I strongly question most of the studies that purport to show how
>> cell phones "distract' people. They usually put a person in a
>> simulator, tell them they MUST talk on a cell phone, and then when THEY
>> know it's the most inopportune time for a 'surprise' they flash a cow on
>> the road ahead and the simulating driver hits it. They ignore that in
>> the REAL world, most drivers are not simply stuck on their cell phone
>> completely ignoring everything around them as if in a trance waiting for
>> a guy in the back seat to hit the button for EMERGENCY at the worst
>> possible moment.
>
>I agree with you that the studies that show distracted driving to be
>tremendously dangerous *must* be flawed, for a bunch of reasons, but, one
>of them is that it just makes the paradox *worse*!
>
>Let's assume, for a moment, that driving while distracted by cellphone
>use *is* as dangerous as the studies show.
>
>Well then, the spike in accidents, as you noted, should at least be
>*visible* (it should actually be tremendously visible!).
>
>But it's not.

>Hence the paradox.
>Where are the accidents?

From my standpoint, there are essentially no new accidents. One
distraction has replaced another. It's even possible that people who
in the past would have fallen asleep did not today because they were
on their cell phone and that engagement kept them awake. But no one
knows.... How do you quantify and categorize accidents that didn't
happen?

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

>On 8/16/2015 9:59 AM, ceg wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cause-of-accident/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?
>>
>

>What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
>Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
>may have gone down another 10% or 20%

And if everyone had DRL's accidents would be reduced another 30%. And
if everyone had ABS another 25%. And if everyone had drivers Ed,
another 10%. And if tire laws were more stringent we could reduce
accidents another 15% and if every state had mandatory inspections
another 10%. By the time we get done with all our "improvements" we
won't need to manufacture new cars, the accident rate will be negative
and new cars will be spontaneously popping out of the road.

[Muggles]

On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, ceg wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:
>
>> I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.
>
> If that is the case, that cellphone usage is *not* distracting, then,
> instantly, that would *solve* the paradox.
>
> 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?



--
Maggie

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:58:30 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
>> Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
>> may have gone down another 10% or 20%
>

>That may very well be the case, but taking a look at the numbers, the
>accidents seem to be *steadily* decreasing.
>
>It would be nice though, to see two reliable charts plotted on top of
>each other.
>
>1. Total accidents in the USA from the 50s to now, versus,
>2. Total cellphone ownership in the USA over those same years.

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.

But lets talk in terms of something more visible. If the same ratio
is applied to those truck tires that fly apart, if in 1985 you saw a
truck tire fly apart once in a YEAR, in 2010 you would be seeing over
2 of them fly apart EVERY DAY.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html

1985 340,213
1986 681,825
1987 1,230,855
1988 2,069,441
1989 3,508,944
1990 5,283,055
1991 7,557,148
1992 11,032,753
1993 16,009,461
1994 24,134,421
1995 33,758,661
1996 44,042,992
1997 55,312,293
1998 69,209,321
1999 86,047,003
2000 109,478,031
2001 128,374,512
2002 140,766,842
2003 158,721,981
2004 182,140,362
2005 207,896,198
2006 233,000,000
2008 262,700,000
2009 276,610,580
2010 300,520,098

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:14:45 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.gul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:50:10 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone
>> ownership" does not actually mean that more people are using
>> their phones whilst driving.
>>
>> After all, everyone has one now, surely.
>
>In the USA, I would agree that almost every driver has one, and, in fact,
>there are usually as many cellphones in the vehicle as there are kids and
>adults over the age of about middle school.
>
>In fact, with tablets and cameras and gps devices also abounding, the
>number of "distracting" electronic devices probably exceeds the number of
>occupants in the car, such that we can consider 100% to be a somewhat
>conservative number (counted as the number of devices per vehicle).
>
>So, it's no wonder that, after almost every accident that the police
>investigate, they can confidently check the convenient box for "was a
>cellphone found in the vehicle?".
>
>So, what you're saying is that only a small percentage of people who
>*own* the cellphones are actually *using* them while driving.
>
>If this is the case, then that might solve the paradox.
>
>Q: Where are the accidents?
>A: They don't exist
>Q: Why not?
>A: Because only a small percentage of people are dumb enough to cause an
>accident by using their cellphone while driving.
>
>But, if that is true (and it might be), then why bother with a *law* if
>people are *already* so very responsible such that 98.5% of them wouldn't
>think of using their cellphone while driving?
>
>That then becomes the second paradox?

>
>PARADOX 2: If 98.5% of the drivers are already such responsible users of
>cellphones, then why the need for the laws that penalize cellphone use
>while driving?

That's easy.
1) the world is full of control freaks that live for ways to make
other people toe the line (usually arbitrarily drawn) whether those
other people need to or not.
2) Gvt wants as many laws as it can possibly have regardless of need.
That is clear by the fact that they add thousands of laws while at
the same time eliminating virtually no law no matter how antiquated
and inapplicable it is to modern society.

You see it in the newsgroups all the time. Someone "thinks" X is bad
and wants to make it illegal. They have ZERO data showing it's bad
but they are sure it is and that's all they need to criminalize it.
These same moronic nanny's are the same kind of people who love to get
elected to home owners associations and gvt.

[Ashton Crusher]

Gee, 18 months hardly seems like enough....

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:12:35 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

> The Fermi Paradox is about "absence of evidence for extraterrestrial
> intelligence".

This "cellphone paradox" is similar in that there seems to be
an absence of evidence of actual accident rates going up.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:52:04 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Think again. The Fermi Paradox is better stated as:
> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I don't disagree.

The absence of evidence of cellphone use causing accidents is
not evidence of absence.

I don't disagree.

Yet, it's still a paradox because common wisdom would
dictate that accidents *must* be going up (but they're
not).

Hence the paradox.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> While I'm not in a position to prove or demonstrate this, I think
> you'll find that such "accident" reports are highly opinionated, are
> skewed in the direction of smallest settlements, and are rarely
> corrected.

I think *some* statistics regarding car accidents *are* skewed,
and, in particular, any statistic that assigns a partial cause
to the fact that a cellphone was in the vehicle.

It's sort of like when they find an empty beer bottle in the
vehicle, they may ascribe it to an "alcohol" related category.

The problem here is that *every* car in the USA (well, almost
every car) has at least one cellphone per person over the age
of about 15.

So, *every* accident can easily be ascribed to the category
of "cellphone" related.

However, if we just look at actual accident numbers, I think those
are very good statistics, because they accidents are easy to
accurately report.

1. Police are required to report them when they are involved,
2. Insurance companies probably report them when a claim is made,
3. Drivers are required to report them in most states, etc.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> OMG! Do you really trust the government to do anything correctly? I
> wish I had your confidence and less personal experience. I'll spare
> you another anecdote illustrating the problem at the city level.

You'll note that I *asked* for better data, but nobody (yet) has
provided better accident statistics than what the government shows.

One person provided a statistic from the UK which showed that
cellphone *use* was extremely low in UK drivers, but nothing more
than that has been provided.

I'm not afraid of data. But nobody seems to have better data than
what I found.

One person noted that the accidents in a few years didn't go down
(they were flat), but nobody can show reliable data yet that the
accidents are going up.

So, the paradox remains.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Ok, think about it. You've just crashed your car into an immovable
> object while texting. You're still conscious and on an adrenalin
> high. The police are on their way and the last thing you need is for
> them to find your smartphone on the floor of the vehicle.

This scenario is already well accounted for.

It would show up in the total accident statistic.

So we already accounted for this scenario before we even started
this thread as it's counted in the government statistics already.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:05:33 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

> Am I the only one that sees a non-sequitur in that statement?
>
> I'm thinking it's somewhere in here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
>
> But I'm haven't drunk enough coffee lately to find it.

I asked for *better* statistics, but, so far, nobody has shown
any.

I'm not afraid of data.

But, what I found is apparently the best we have for total
accidents, year over year, in the USA.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:17:06 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:

> cell phone ownership IS NOT EQUAL TO cell phone usage while driving

You'll notice that I have been very careful to distinguish
between the two words:
1. Ownership, and,
2. Usage.

The *assumption* is that greater ownership means greater usage, but,
someone already posted a UK statistic which refutes that fact.

That statistic, as I recall, was something like only 1.5% of the
population were dumbshits that drove while using the cellphone.

So, it may just be that the dumbshits who cause accidents are dumbshits
who cause accidents no matter what. If it isn't a cellphone, it would
be something else.

At least that explanation would solve the paradox.

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:21:02 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

> Because there's no end of people who think they should tell others how
> to live their lives

I can't disagree with you.

I remember once, a few years ago, when they enacted the cellphone
law here in California, that I was in a parking lot, on my
cellphone with it held to my ear (before I had the bluetooth
setup).

Some guy vehemently yelled out his window as he drove by me,
while I was stationary, in the parking lot, clearly angry that
I was using the cellphone in the parking lot.

I felt like telling him that the law he screamed out doesn't
apply to stationary cars in a parking lot (just like stop signs
don't apply in private property parking lots), but, the entire
argument would have been lost on the dumbshit.

The net is that there are *plenty* of dumbshits out there who
think that *you* should do what *they* do; and that's the
tyranny of the majority that our founding fathers were so
worried about.

It's partly why we have an electoral college, by the way (along
with States' rights versus Federal rights being also a factor).

So, I agree. Perhaps cellphone laws are just merely a way for the
dumbshits to control everyone around them.