The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

From my standpoint, there are essentially no new accidents. One distraction has replaced another. It's even possible that people who in the past would have fallen asleep did not today because they were on their cell phone and that engagement kept them awake. But no one knows.... How do you quantify and categorize accidents that didn't happen?

And if everyone had DRL's accidents would be reduced another 30%. And if everyone had ABS another 25%. And if everyone had drivers Ed, another 10%. And if tire laws were more stringent we could reduce accidents another 15% and if every state had mandatory inspections another 10%. By the time we get done with all our "improvements" we won't need to manufacture new cars, the accident rate will be negative and new cars will be spontaneously popping out of the road.

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

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.

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

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.

Gee, 18 months hardly seems like enough....

This "cellphone paradox" is similar in that there seems to be an absence of evidence of actual accident rates going up.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This one ??

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.