| Fred McKenzie <fmmck@aol.com>: Aug 16 01:50PM -0400 In article <mqp9gf$92t$2@news.mixmin.net>, > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:08PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:05:56 -0700, trader_4 wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:12PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 07:50:56 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:17PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:42:28 +0100, Rowan Pope wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:21PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:24PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:29PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:31PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:00:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:32PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:35PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:38PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:49:26 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:39PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:43PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen 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. 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:45PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:49PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:39:25 +0100, MJC wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:53PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:55PM 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 <Oren@127.0.0.1>: Aug 16 11:56AM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 12:06:34 -0400, Dan Espen <despen@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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:56PM 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 <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Aug 16 01:57PM -0500 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:35:54 +0000 (UTC), ceg >3. We can't find those accidents anywhere. >That's the paradox. >Where are they? 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 <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 16 01:58PM -0500 On 8/16/2015 8:59 AM, ceg wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:58PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:38:06 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 06:59PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:58:42 -0700, trader_4 wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 07:07PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:58:40 -0500, Muggles wrote: > 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? |
| Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com>: Aug 16 06:53PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 08:23:51 -0700, jurb6006 wrote: [...] Maybe that's why people are turning to Gun Owners of America? Certainly when handguns were outlawed in the UK in 1996 or thereabouts, gun crime went THROUGH THE ROOF. |
| 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 2 topics"
Post a Comment