| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 07:10PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:57:15 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: > 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 <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Aug 16 02:25PM -0500 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:10:27 +0000 (UTC), ceg >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. 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 <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 16 03:11PM -0500 On 8/16/2015 2:07 PM, ceg wrote: > 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. -- Maggie |
| kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey): Aug 16 04:20PM -0400 >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. 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" <sound.service@btconnect.com>: Aug 16 09:50PM +0100 "ceg" wrote in message news:mqqmgt$140$20@news.mixmin.net... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:38:06 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote: > cent of car drivers in England observed using a hand-held mobile phone > in 2009 and is not a statistically significant change. > UNQUOTE. I only mention the USA accident *rate* because we have *reliable* numbers for the USA, both prior and during the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates in the USA. Do we have reliable accident rate figures for the UK to see if the cellphone paradox applies to the UK as much as it does to the USA? Are you not missing the point? The UK figures seem to suggest that "skyrocketing mobile phone ownership" does not actually mean that more people are using their phones whilst driving. After all, everyone has one now, surely. Gareth. |
| "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com>: Aug 16 10:02PM +0100 "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message news:5I6Ax.386730$z21.2628@fx18.am4... "ceg" wrote in message news:mqqmgt$140$20@news.mixmin.net... 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? 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. Oops, I think we actually might be agreeing here. My bad. |
| Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net>: Aug 16 05:05PM -0400 On 8/16/2015 9:59 AM, ceg wrote: > 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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 02:04PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg >b. All the while *accidents* have been going down. >Hence, the paradox. >Where are all the accidents? 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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 02:05PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:32:55 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com> wrote: >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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 03:22PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:57:15 -0500, Vic Smith >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 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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 03:36PM -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. 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 10:47PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:11:41 -0500, Muggles wrote: > 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 <demi@moore.net>: Aug 16 03:47PM -0700 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:49:17 +0000 (UTC), ceg >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%. 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 10:49PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 10:51PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 10:54PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:20:57 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote: > 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. Hence the paradox. Where are the accidents? |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 10:57PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 10:58PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 11:01PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:04:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote: > 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? |
| ceg <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 11:02PM 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 11:08PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:42:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote: > 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 <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 16 06:10PM -0500 On 8/16/2015 5:47 PM, ceg wrote: > 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. > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 11:14PM On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:50:10 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote: > 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 <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com>: Aug 16 11:21PM 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. |
| MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Aug 16 08:15PM +0100 In article <mqqm7r$d77$1@dont-email.me>, curd@notformail.com says... > 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. I'm a UK resident and unaware of either of the facts. Any references? Mike. |
| 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