The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

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?

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.

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.

This is the conundrum.

If cellphones are as dangerous as we think they are, then the accidents

But they're not.

So, something is wrong in our logic.

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?

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: 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: 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:

Here's an interesting article on juggling the traffic statistics: 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.

I found the source: "Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional road fatalities yearly in the United States."

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or even play a radio while they drive.

Sounds good to me.

This one:

I think part of the test showed people did fairly well traveling down the highway. Driving in the city was where they were failing.

Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me, the reallity is that much of the time when I'm driving, my mind is on other things.

One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck. I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling. But, I have developed more skill at paying attention to the road.

Per Ashton Crusher:

I have heard a local cop remark that he found driving a police cruiser with all it's radios and other distractions to be something of a frightening experience.

Per John Robertson:

I would not agree.

A cell phone conversation is fundamentally different from a CB conversation (which was not alluded to), talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio.

The difference is that there is no unspoken agreement that driving comes first. i.e. the person on the other end of the conversation has no expectation of anything but the partner's 100% involvement.

Per Muggles:

Understood that there may be people out there carrying on cell phone conversations who I do not notice, but I still have to wonder why is it so often obvious that somebody is talking on a phone even before one overtakes them and confirms it?

- Varying speed for no apparent reason

- Cruising the left lane below lane speed

- Wandering back-and-forth across lines....

Seems like a virtual definition of "Distracted" and all seem to me tb highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday it was 4.

Per Muggles:

Bingo!... I think we have an answer....

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries

On track to be the worst year since 2007, when fatalities were 45,000, I think she said. If not that, then 40, 000.

So traffic deaths are up in general because they were down to 35,000 for quite a few years.

Reason given is low gas prices and more diiving, but you know you're not getting a complete analysis from top-of-the-hour news. And it still ruins your prmeise that accidents are not up.

Sorta. Different people can do varying number of things at the same time. (For a few, that number is zero). When I'm talking on a ham radio in the car, I can only do two things simultaneously. I sometimes announce that: "Talk, Think, Drive... pick any two" I tend to favor Talk and Drive. The usual result is that thinking and therefore the quality of my discourse suffer greatly. With a cell phone conversation, I need to both talk and think, leaving driving as the lesser priority. However, with ham radio, little or no thought is involved because I mentally rehearse what I'm going to say in advance.

I've only seen someone do 3 things at once, once. I was once at a ham convention and watched someone simultaneously copy high speed Morse code in his head, engage in a PSK-31 keyboard to keyboard exchange, and talk to me at the same time. I was impressed, but I must say that he was also well practiced. I suppose if someone offered classes in reactive driving responses while texting or talking, it might improve the situation.

One such study simply counted the number of people that drove by with BlueGoof headsets screwed into their ear and simply assumed that if they were wearing the headset, they must be talking while driving. A few of my friends wear theirs almost full time, because they don't want to fumble for the headset while moving.

My guess(tm) is that the number of cellphone using drivers, in heavy traffic, is much higher. From cell phone provider logs and statistical summaries, it's known that cell phone use tends to follow traffic congestion patterns with peaks during the rush hour. I can see the increased "hash" in the 850/1900 MHz bands on my service monitor during rush hour. (My office is near a major freeway exchange). The assumption is that most of the calls come from drivers either on the freeways, or the nearby roads, both of what are typically barely moving. I wanted to do a time lapse video showing the effect, but my IFR-1500 currently has a very sick power supply.

The problem is that in heavy traffic (rush hour), the traffic isn't moving very fast. The opportunity to do some real damage or produce a fatality is quite limited. At worst, a minor rear-end fender bender. The fatalities seem to be more on the open highways, uncrowded streets, and intersections, where traffic is light and moving at considerable speed. Counting cars in such situation will probably yield considerably less than the claimed 1.5% simply because there far fewer automobiles. Therefore, I would guess(tm) that the 1.5% is an average between congested traffic with high cell phone use, and light traffic with light cell phone use.

If someone counted distracted cell phone drivers that are driving fast enough to do some real damage (e.g. >25 mph), methinks the percentages will be very low. Yet those are the ones that are going to kill innocent people or themselves.

Well Jeff, you've provided the answer to the question, WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS? Now convince them it's not a "paradox."