The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Page 2 of 16  
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:14:25 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

Again you're lying. There is no basis to conclude that there are just minor errors. The census bureau states:
1 - the data is estimated
2 - that the data should be used with caution for making year to year comparisons.
And again, I never said that it cancels out anything. I said that you're doing exactly what they cautioned against and that we don't know all the reasons behind their cautionary statement. What you're doing is like someone taking death rates over a number of years and trying to extract the rate of pancreatic cancer, when the creators of the data say that it should be used for year to year comparison with caution. Unless you know all the details of why that caution was given, you'd have to be an idiot. And to continue the comparison, what you're doing is using those raw death rates to try to make some kind of case, instead of looking at the actual pancreatic cancer studies, how they were done, what data they used, what they concluded, etc.

Of course everything that dispels your "paradox" is frivolous when you're a troll. BTW, since you're so damned interested in this, why is it that another poster had to show you the links to some of the actual studies on cell phone usage and accidents? Studies where you could learn the data, methods, etc that they used. I know why, because like a crazed parrot, you'd rather squawk Paradox!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:

If it bothers you so much, why not just ignore the thread?
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And if t4 bothers you so much, why don't you do the same? PKB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 12:36 PM, ChairMan wrote:

... and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby dooby ... ooooooo sha sha ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JvkaUvB-ec

--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sly and the Family Stone on Ed Sullivan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzyRM0Sjl8
What a contrast between the band's dress and the audience's.
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 5:35 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

love it .. they sure were having a good time.
--
Maggie

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 10:32 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I'v also tried writing notes for service calls, while driving. I'm with you, writing takes a LOT of brain RAM. I've not tried a small recorder, but that should be considerable safer. I can drive and talk on a CB or amateur radio and still be focussed on the road.
The one or two times I tried texting (many years ago) I could feel the lack of concentration on my driving.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Was the "hysteria" over drunk driving also unwarranted? The number of drunk driving fatalities has been cut by about half since that campaign began. And of course there are many times more drunk driving accidents than fatalities. So, the increase usage of cell phones could have just replaced those. Nothing I've see so far says that it's unjustified hysteria in either case.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 11:27:18 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

You keep ignoring the direct evidence, from the link to the data that you provided. This is what the data report says:
"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:07:36 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

You fundamentally don't understand zeros.
It's like the old joke of aiming nuclear weapons.
If the number of accidents were truly going up, no amount of estimation errors would hide that fact.
It's clear, that the accident rate did not track the cellphone ownership rate, and that is a fact that no amount of apologies on your part can erase.
I think you're looking to prove your point that the astoundingly huge skyrocketing rate that must be expected by your assumptions is, somehow, magically, hidden inside of "estimation" errors.
You're grasping at straws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:50:36 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

Now I agree with Ed, you're full of BS. And for the record, if you can read, that two sentence disclaimer on your data set did not say "Data is estimated so year to year comparisons should be made with caution" It says "Data is estimated. Year to year comparisons should be made with caution". I assume that important difference is lost on you too, because you just want to keep saying Paradox! Paradix!, when a number of possible and legitimate reasons have been provided.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:27:14 +0000 (UTC), ceg

The other issue is that for every alleged accident caused by someone "using a cell phone" there may have been 20 million similar "hazardous events that could have caused an accident" where the driver was using a cell phone and DIDN'T have an accident.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per ceg:

Am I the only one that sees a non-sequitur in that statement?
I'm thinking it's somewhere in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
But I'm haven't drunk enough coffee lately to find it.
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No non-sequitur. The statistics ARE reliable as a year to year measure. That an individual report may have errors is unquestionably true. But the only number of significance is simply the NUMBER of REPROTED accidents, not the accuracy of the little details of the reports. If Officer Odie is dyslexic and instead of Hwy 52 MP 429 he puts Hwy 25 MP 249 the report will be off by perhaps hundreds of miles but that ACCIDENT occurred and it is included as part of the Total number of accidents that go into the rate. Unless you want to make an argument that there is some systemic problem where the same accidents are getting reported multiple times for almost every jurisdiction in a state or that the dog is eating the reports before they are filed I don't see any reason to challenge the basic accident rates as accurate enough for this discussion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:38:04 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:15:45 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."
There from your own data source, talking about the accident numbers, is your reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:05:33 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.