In support of that perfectly valid argument, notice this sentence from an abstract titled "Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving" (
formatting link
).
"There was a similar pattern of results for passenger and cell phone conversations"
Even the NHTSA says that the additional distraction of cellphones is just another distraction added to an already long list of distractions that drivers handle every single day.
The only reliable measure is the real world, where the accident rate hasn't been affected one bit by the explosion in cellphones (and their use) while driving.
formatting link
formatting link
The most obvious question to ask is if adding the cellphone distraction is so bad, how come the accident rate in the real world is entirely unaffected?
NOTE: Rod Speed's fantastic allegations of alien influence notwithstanding.
Even sillier than you usually manage. The difference is that when you are talking to someone sitting next to you, that other person will usually have enough of a clue to stop talking when they see that you are about to run into something or run a little kid over etc.
When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant: driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that understanding. Same thing with CB radios.
OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter what is happening around the vehicle.
Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.
And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident statistics, because so few are actually stupid enough to do that, and even a terminal f****it such as yourself should have noticed that even if say half of those who are that stupid do have an accident as a result of that terminal stupidity, that would be swamped by the significant reduction in the accident and fatality rate due to much better roads with fully divided freeways and much better design of cars with seat belts, air bags, anti lock braking etc etc etc.
Seriously, if you just had an argument with your wife would you fall asleep from boredom? Yes, there are times you could, but that is not one of them.
No, its not and has been proven.
That would be good, but it is not what happens.
Actual experience. It is very rare under normal conditions, but more often I see drivers on the phone not paying attention to tieir surroundings.
They exist too, but less than the phone idiots. In the past month, from personal experience, I saw three on the phone, one reading what may have been a map. None are acceptable.
BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue" as a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.
So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the "industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their effects for news-worthy reasons.
For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is to artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...
EXAMPLE 1:
formatting link
"six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging inferno."
Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much fuel (in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!
EXAMPLE 2:
formatting link
formatting link
"police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."
Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?
Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.
EXAMPLE 3:
formatting link
The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of ''a high-octane'' gasoline.
I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not high-octane gasoline.
----------- In all these examples, the news (or the DA) attempts to "intensify" the scare power of "gasoline"; so my warning here is to be on the lookout for similar intensification efforts when it comes to McCarthyism, Salem Witch Trials, and cellphone related distractions.
BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue" as a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.
So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the "industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their effects for news-worthy reasons.
For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is to artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...
EXAMPLE 1:
formatting link
"six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging inferno."
Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much fuel (in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!
EXAMPLE 2:
formatting link
formatting link
"police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."
Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?
Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.
EXAMPLE 3:
formatting link
The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of ''a high-octane'' gasoline.
I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not high-octane gasoline.
----------- In all these examples, the news (or the DA) attempts to "intensify" the scare power of "gasoline"; so my warning here is to be on the lookout for similar intensification efforts when it comes to McCarthyism, Salem Witch Trials, and cellphone related distractions.
This is the first adult-like thing you've said in this thread, so I will respond in like manner.
If we assume that the annual studies by the NHTSA are correct, then we have to assume that 5% and 2% of all miles driven in the United States are done while actually holding the phone and texting on it, respectively.
It would be interesting to break that number down by miles driven, so if someone has a number for the number of miles driven by the approximately 275 million cars in the United States, that would be useful data.
The lack of accidents is the elephant in the room which has to be accounted for, and mathematically clever aliens are too amorphous for us to rely on them to give us that answer.
Since 95% of the time people are NOT holding cellphones while they're driving and 98% of the time they're not texting, the lack of accidents due to cellphone causing them _could_ be due to the fact that so few people actually _use_ them while driving.
NOTE: The NHTSA annual statistic does not count people using the cellphone without headgear and without actually holding it in their hands, so, we can assume that 7% is greater if we want to include all people _using_ the cellphone (e.g., via bluetooth speakersets).
"Call details" give date, time, duration, whether incoming or outgoing, &c. (Android 2.3.5 as embodied in antique Moto Droid X2.) Not clear whether "time" shows time call began or time call ended; nor what TZ is in use.
The difference between you and me is that you seem to trust your intuition more than you do facts, whereas I clearly trust facts more so than I trust my intuition. (Myers-Briggs stuff)
I quoted a fact from a published paper (albeit, all papers have to be properly *parsed*, because science is all about the details - and in vitro science is particularly dangerous due to the potential to mis-parse the details).
I also quoted a fact from the NHTSA statistical report.
My opinion comes directly from *those* facts.
Where'd you get your opinion from?
HINT: Without a reputable cite, please do not respond because we know the answer already anyway. So respond only after you dig up a cite that supports your view.
The real bull elephant in the room is the fact that the accident rates are entirely unaffected in both Australia and in the United States by the use of cellphones (we can presume NHTSA numbers of 5% for handheld and 2% for texting) while driving.
The female elephant in the room is the fact that cellphones are likely to be at least as common in cars as drivers with eye-correction (glasses or contacts).
That is to say, they're nearly ubiquitous, so, of course they're gonna be found "in use" during an accident in a huge number of situations.
For example, about 75% of American adults apparently wear eye correction (either near or far sighted or both):
formatting link
Therefore, we'd expect about 75% of all accidents to "involve" a driver who needs corrective devices.
Notice how horrible a statistic I can make news out of if I want to?
I could get a Salem-Witch-Trial McCarthyism-Red-Scare style news story out the door simply by fomenting the concept that people needing corrective devices "cause" 75% of all the accidents!
My point is that it's entirely the wrong approach to simply see if the cellphone was being _used_ at the time of the accident, just as it would be the wrong approach to see if corrective lenses were being used at the time of the accident.
I agree with you, as I've seen that "intensification" of scare value all over the place, and not only with respect to cellphone-related accidents.
Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially teh same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.
Is that intuition correct?
If so, then I'd intuit that kerosene (all types listed above) would likely be a bit *less* scary as an accelerant for arson purposes than would gasoline.
I'm not sure what to look up to confirm that intuitive assumption (and the Google Police would duly note that I made that search, I'm sure), so I wonder out loud here these two somewhat related musings:
Q1: Is kerosene & diesel fuel & jet fuel the same when it comes to starting fires?
Q2: Is kerosene/dieselfuel/jetfuel less (what's the adjective?) for burning down things?
"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could expect to see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the last decade. In fact, the reverse is true."
"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of a fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both legally or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."
"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."
============ The same is true in the United States, when one looks at *facts*.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.