- The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents? - 25 Updates
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 16 10:03PM -0500 On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, ceg wrote: > 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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 08:08PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:58:30 +0000 (UTC), ceg >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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 08:15PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:14:45 +0000 (UTC), ceg >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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 08:15PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:21:02 -0500, "Dean Hoffman" >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. Gee, 18 months hardly seems like enough.... |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:21AM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:22AM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:27AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:29AM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:31AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:32AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:05:33 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:34AM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:40AM 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. |
| Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 08:39PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, "Dean Hoffman" >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. This one ?? http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/cell-phone-vs-drunk-driving-minimyth/ It's like all the other ridiculously done "tests" of cell phone distraction. They literally FORCE someone to remain talking on the phone while at the same time telling them to do this or that. Normal people don't try and parallel park while on a phone being asked to listen to a nonsense sentence and immediately repeat it back to them while also trying to parallel park with their free hand. I found one supposedly real world study that found new drivers were distracted by cell phones, not really a surprise as they are distracted by everything as the study confirmed. The study found that experienced drivers were not affected by talking on the phone but said they were affected by dialing them but didn't say how much. The fact that talking on the phone didn't cause them problems was not what they expected of course and the article goes to some pains to point out that it is at odds with "other studies". Yeah, because the other studies are the dumb ones like Myth busters did. The bottom line is driving is a skill and like any skill you get better with experience. And with experience you can use a cell phone with no more hazard then any number of other things people do in their cars. But the powers that be are determined to demonize cell phone use and I think the main reason is because you can SEE other people using cell phones and that just pisses them off. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distracted-driving-study-cell-phone-dialing-texting-dangerous-talking-less-so/ |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:41AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:36:12 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote: > that speed cameras are for revenue, not safety. Here in the USA, most of those stoplight cameras are the same. Some company offers to put up everything for free, and to handle all the work, and they all get a cut of the revenue. It's a scam everywhere, I guess. |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:42AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:59:26 -0500, Sam E wrote: > That's true. There's also the tendency to imagine you're where the > person you're talking to is. With the phone, that's not in your vehicle > and it takes too long to shift attention. However, if all this is true, that cellphone use *causes* accidents, then the paradox is why haven't the accidents gone vastly up concomitant with the increase in cellphone ownership in the USA? |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:47AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:34:59 -0400, Hang Up and Drive wrote: > of all motor vehicle crashes – up from the previous year > http://www.nsc.org/Pages/NSC-releases-latest-injury-and-fatality-statistics-and-trends-.aspx > http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-studies.aspx This is good information. It makes the paradox even worse! Let's gloss over the word "involved", and assume, in good faith, that the statistics you provided are reliable. Notice the *huge* numbers. If one quarter of all accidents are *caused* by cellphone use, then accidents should go up (roughly) by at least a quarter. (Note that I equated "involved" with "caused", which may be too loose an interpretation. Perhaps "involved" simply means that the phone was in the car, in which case, the entire statistic is meaningless in the USA - so I have to give it *some* meaning!). One quarter is a *huge* number by the way, given the number of accidents in the USA every year. So, where are all these accidents that you're talking about? They don't exist. Either that, or they would have happened anyway (which is what one person said) simply because dumbshits are behind the wheel. In fact, the *only* reliable conclusion we can make is that the dumbshits will have accidents no matter what, with or without cellphones. At least if we *assume* that, then the accident statistics make sense, and the paradox is answered. |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:50AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:54:36 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > And then there is the Canadian study that equated driving while talking > on a cell phone with some level of alcohol intoxication.... Do you see that anything that "proves* cellphone use while driving is so dangerous just makes the entire paradox worse? Clearly the accidents don't exist. Clearly many of us feel (including me) that cellphone use contributes to the accident rate. But, if we can't find *any* increase in the accident rate, even if we feel strongly that cellphone use should be contributing to the accident rate, what does that tell us? Do you see how your post just contributes to the paradox? It makes the paradox even worse. |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 03:51AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:54:36 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote: > How about under reporting? I doubt accident rates are under reported only for the period where cellphone ownership went from zero to 100% in the USA, and then, magically, accident rates went back to proper reporting. It's too convenient. The answer isn't going to be *that* simple. :) |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 04:07AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:50:21 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote: > 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. I can't disagree with anything you said. Even though I feel, in my heart, that cellphone use *must* be (somehow) causing accidents, I can't find *any* evidence of it actually happening in the USA government statistics on overall accident rates in the USA. I see plenty of horrible anecdotes, but, they only make the paradox worse. If cellphone use is so bad, where are the accidents? |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 04:08AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:46:35 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote: > 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. I have to believe you. The *one* statistic I would believe is overall accidents. All the rest seem to be fabricated with an agenda in mind. The funny thing is that they make the paradox even worse. I can't be the only person to notice this though. |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 04:10AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:03:11 -0500, Muggles wrote: > 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? This was brought up before as a possible solution to the paradox. Basically, what it says is that dumbshits will have accidents no matter what. So, before cellphones existed, a certain percentage of dumbshits had a certain (presumably large) percentage of the accidents. And, after cellphone ownership skyrocketed, those same dumbshits (or their direct descendents) *still* have a certain large percentage of the accidents. At least that dumbshit-are-dumbshits explanation solves the paradox. |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 04:11AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:51:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote: > 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. This is the conundrum. If cellphones are as dangerous as we think they are, then the accidents *must* be going up. But they're not. So, something is wrong in our logic. |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 17 04:15AM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote: > I don't see any reason to challenge the basic accident rates as > accurate enough for this discussion. To be clear, I agree that the basic accident rates, as compiled by the government, are probably as reliable as any data we'll ever get. If someone has *better* accident rate data for the USA, I'd be perfectly happy for them to quote it though. What we're looking for is an obvious huge jump in the accident rate concomitant with the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates. That we can find no such correlation makes the paradox. Where are all the accidents? |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 16 09:26PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:31:42 -0700, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote: >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???? Ok, you're assuming a constant RATE of distracted driving accidents as in some number of accidents for some number of cell phone users. I can accept that because there has been no significant technical or behavior modifications to the instrument that might reduce this rate. In theory, hands free driving should reduce accidents, but the few numbers I've seen don't show any change. I ran into the cell phone as the demonic root of all evil when giving talks on the connection between cell phone use and cancers of the brain and CNS. I produced a long term graph of new cases of brain and CNS cancers versus time: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/brain-CNS-cancer.jpg> Between 1975 and 2011, cell phone use went up dramatically. If there were a connection, there should have been a corresponding increase in brain/CNS cancer incidence. There isn't. Actually, there's a downward trend caused by the introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) diagnostics, which provided much earlier diagnosis of new tumors. That shows up in the peak, where more tumors were found earlier, and a subsequent drop to normal levels, after the early diagnosis cases became the norm. What "ceg" seems to want is a similar graph of automobile accidents and distracted driving accidents, that can be analyzed in a similar manner. I've offered several reasons why this data will probably be inaccurate and possible biased by those doing the collecting. I know that I can produce such data and graphs, but I'm lazy, it's too much work, and it's too hot. Well, maybe a few: <http://undistracteddrivingadvocacy.net/linked/f2_fatalities.png> Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However, I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very suspicious. Here's one that shows a drop in the fatality rate per mile and cell phone use. I read the text and I'm not sure what this is suppose to demonstrate: <http://www.bhspi.org/photos/BHPSI_NHTSA_fars1961-081b.gif> Here's an interesting article on juggling the traffic statistics: <http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data> Again, the number of fatalities per mile are dropping but since there's no proven cause, it could as well be from improved medical response than from improved vehicle safety technology. And so on. Most of what I'm finding is little better than the above garbage. Also, there's another problem. Distracted driving tends to come from a self-selected statistical population. The only drivers that are being asked if they were texting are those involved in an accident. Unless the accident investigator likes to guess, the driver will probably be interviewed at the hospital and asked if they were using a cell phone while driving. The answer is predictably no. It's much the same with statistics involving bicycle helmets and bicycle accidents. Those choosing to answer have a vested interest in the result and will therefore tend to answer that of course they were wearing a helmet and it must have been lost or stolen at the scene. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 16 09:35PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:26:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote: >the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However, >I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very >suspicious. I found the source: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951952/> "Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional road fatalities yearly in the United States." -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 1 topic"
Post a Comment