The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Do you see that this argument only makes the paradox even worse?

Doesn't anyone see that?

Don't you see that the argument you make (which I fully believe) only makes the paradox worse?

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?

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.

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.

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,

1. 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?

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.

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%.

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).

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!).

:)

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.

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.

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?

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.

But don't you see that this comment, which I don't disagree with, just makes the paradox WORSE?

The cellphone paradox takes all that into account automatically.

The statistics for overall accidents in the USA should include

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?

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.

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."

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.