The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?