The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

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/stat...atalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/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.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
> 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
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

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

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/stat...es/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?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 01:10:23 -0500, 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?
>
> 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/

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

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

Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
very data-based person.

Here's the paradox.

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

That's the paradox.

A. We can *assume* that driving while using cellphones has gone up.
B. We can also *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous.
C. Unfortunately, distracted driving statistics are atrociously
inaccurate.

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

So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox.
a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA,
b. All the while *accidents* have been going down.

Hence, the paradox.
Where are all the accidents?

In article >,
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.

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.

"ceg" wrote in message ...

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/stat...atalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/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.





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


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




Gareth.

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

>On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> <https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...nt/cell-phone/
>cell-phone-statistics.html>
>> "1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
>> texting and driving."
>
>Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a
>very data-based person.
>
>Here's the paradox.
>
>1. You and I believe that distracted driving can easily cause accidents.
>2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA.
>3. But, accidents have not.
>
>That's the paradox.

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.