The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Page 6 of 16  
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving enforcement and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the skyrocketing cellphone ownership figures.
However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing of drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have to agree, in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel each other out.
I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 1:43 PM, ceg wrote:

http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-studies.aspx
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:23:32 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

Lots of good reading there, so thanks for the links. It will take me a while to go through it, but for others, here's the list of "stuff" that is on that page.
I'm first going to look for effects on "accident rates" in the USA, which is the key focus of this thread.
1. Meta-Analyses & Literature Reviews These papers compile the findings of many studies, which is convenient to get an overview of the issue:
Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone? Ishigami & Klein. (2009). Journal of Safety Research. 40; 157–164.
Analysis of the Literature: The Use of Mobile Phones While Driving Brace, Young & Regan. (2007). Monash University Research Centre.
Cell phones and driving: review of research McCartt, Hellinga, Braitman. (2006). Traffic Injury Prevention. 7; 89-106.
A meta-analysis of driving performance and crash risk associated with the use of cellular telephones while driving Caird, et al. (2005). Department of Psychology University of Calgary, Honeywell, Human Factors North. PROCEEDINGS of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. 478-485.
The Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving, A Meta-Analytic Approach Horrey & Wickens. (2004). Technical Report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Effects of Cellular Telephones on Driving Behaviour and Crash Risk: Results of Meta Analysis Caird, et al. (2004). CAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2. Crash Risk & Crash Data Young Drivers Report the Highest Level of Phone Involvement in Crash or Near-Crash Incidences National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. NOTE: Beginning with 2010 data, NHTSA is using a new measure of distracted driving crashes. The new definiti​on is more narrow, intended to focus on distractions most likely to affect crash involvement. Thus 2010 distraction numbers cannot be compared to previous years.
Distracted Driving 2009 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
Trends in Fatalities From Distracted Driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008 Wilson. (2010). American Journal of Public Health. 100(11):2213-2219.
Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study McEvoy, et al. (2005). BMJ. 331(7514):428
The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes Stutts, et al. (2001). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety
Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits Lissy, et al. (2000). Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Phase 1 Report.
Crashes Induced by Driver Information Systems and What Can Be Done to Reduce Them Green. (2000). University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions Redelmeier & Tibshirani. (1997). New England Journal of Medicine, 336; 453-458. ​ 3. Hands-Free Devices This NSC white paper includes an extensive bibliography of research studies about cognitive distraction and hands-free phone conversation while driving:
​Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free phones is risky behavior White paper. (2010). National Safety Council. 4. Cognitive Distraction Research This NSC white paper includes an extensive bibliography of research studies about cognitive distraction and phone conversation while driving:
Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free phones is risky behavior White paper. (2010). National Safety Council.
Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. June 2013. 5. Text Messaging and Voice-Activated Texting Research listed here about manual texting and speech-to-text systems:
​New research reveals that voice-activated in-car technologies dangerously undermine driver attention. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2013.
Voice-to-Text Driver Distraction Study. New research findings suggest that voice-to-text applications offer no real safety advantage over manual texting. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 2013.
The Effect of Text Messaging on Driver Behavior: A Simulator Study Reed & Robbins. (2008). Published Project Report PPR 367. Transport Research Laboratory.
The effects of text messaging on young novice driver performance Hosking, Young & Regan. (2006). Report No. 246. Monash University Accident Research Centre. 6. Cell Phones Compared to Alcohol Impaired Driving This study examined cell phone use while driving as well as alcohol-impaired driving:
​Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver Strayer, Drews, Crouch. (2006). Human Factors. 48(2);381-391. 7. Driver Cell Phone Use Rates These studies estimate how many drivers are using cell phones, through direct observation of drivers in traffic, self-report surveys or other methods:
​Driver Electronic Device Use in 2012 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
Driver Electronic Device Use in 2011 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
Driver Electronic Device Use in 2010 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. 8. Evaluations of Laws & Enforcement These studies examine the effectiveness of laws and enforcement:
High-Visibility Enforcement Demonstration Programs in Connecticut and New York Reduce Hand-Held Phone Use National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
Phoning While Driving Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2010). Status Report.
Longer-term effects of Washington, DC, law on drivers hand-held cell phone use McCartt & Hellinga. (2007). Traffic Injury Prevention. 8(2):199-204.
Effects of Washington, D.C. law on drivers hand-held cell phone use McCartt, Hellinga, Geary. (2006). Traffic Injury Prevention. 7(1):1-5.
Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers handheld cell phone use McCartt & Geary. (2004). Injury Prevention. 10(1):11-5.
Drivers use of handheld cell phones before and after New York State's cell phone law McCartt, Braver, Geary. (2003). Prevention Medicine. 36(5):629-35. ​ 9. Teens & Young Drivers Studies that focused on teens, novice drivers and young adults:
Young Drivers Report the Highest Level of Phone Involvement in Crash or Near-Crash Incidences National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
Distracted Driving Among Newly Licensed Teen Drivers AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2012).
Teens and Distracted Driving: Texting, talking and other uses of the cell phone behind the wheel Madden & Lenhart. (2009). Pew Internet & American Life Project. 10. Public Opinion Surveys ​Surveys have measured public support for hands-free, handheld and texting bans. Surveys also offer insight into driver attitudes, beliefs and behaviors:
2013 Traffic Safety Culture Index AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2013.
National Distracted Driving Telephone Survey Finds Most Drivers Answer the Call, Hold the Phone, and Continue to Drive National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Tech.
National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors Tison, Chaudhary & Cosgrove. (2011). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. More research reports and analysis on distracted driving, cell phones & car crashes:
National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors Tison, Chaudhary & ; Cosgrove. (2011). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Distracted Driving Telephone Survey Finds Most Drivers Answer the Call, Hold the Phone, and Continue to Drive National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Tech.
Distracted Driving and Driver, Roadway and Environmental Factors Singh. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Technical Report. DOT HS 811 380.
Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2008).
The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data Klauer, et al. (2006). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical Report. DOT HS 810 594.
Effects of Simulator Practice and Real-World Experience on Cell-Phone–Related Driver Distraction Cooper & Strayer. (2008). Human Factors. 50(6): 893–902.
Mobile telephone simulator study Kircher, et al. (2004). Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.
NHTSA Status Summary: Using Wireless Communication Devices While Driving National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003). Obtained via Freedom of Information Act and published by the New York Times.
Distractions in Everyday Driving Stutts, et al. (2003). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Highway Safety Research Center, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
The Use of Mobile Phones in Road Traffic, SNRA inquiry into the use of mobile phones and other IT systems while driving Patten, et al. (2003). Swedish National Road Administration.
Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: an integrated model approach Salvucci. (2001). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 55, 85:107.
Cell Phone Use Monteressi. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:02:01 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Desi gn. 478-485.

). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

sure of distracted driving crashes. The new definition is more narrow, inte nded to focus on distractions most likely to affect crash involvement. Thus 2010 distraction numbers cannot be compared to previous years.

ving:

ting.

s:

ors:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it, you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't see you here again until 2017.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.
I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.
Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files, that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given just the titles).
Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow, (magically perhaps?) your point.
Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your "scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).
Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous: "Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers handheld cell phone use"
This one also may apply to the problem at hand: "Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"
This one should be directly related, if it contains good data: "Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions"
Likewise with this one: "Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"
Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not): "The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"
And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year, this one may contain related data: "2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"
Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct information about the paradox. That you don't see that, and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing anything that affects people's lives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:57:03 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

I didn't say the links prove my point, or any point. I just observed that for someone so interested in this alleged "paradox" you should have found those links and read the studies, analyzed them, figured out what data they used, how the studies were conducted etc., before coming in here and squawking Paradox! Paradox, over and over. I suggested looking at actual studies many times. SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said it just took a simple Google search.
Also, you apparently agree, because now you say you're finally going to go look at those studies. So, instead of at least looking for the studies, then looking at the studies, before discussing your alleged paradox, here you are, still bitching. Everyone can determine for themselves who has the low intellect.

Again, you're lying. Never said any such thing.
Rest of nonsensical rant based on a strawman lie, deleted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I think you consistently fail to comprehend that the *more* you show *studies* that purport to indicate the dangers of cellphone driving, the *LARGER* the paradox looms, since there is no evidence whatsoever in the governments' own statistics, of an increased rate of accidents in the USA concomitant with the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates.
You can't just invalidate the most accurate statistics on the topic just because you don't like (or understand) the logic.
If all these scare-tactics articles are actually correct, then the paradox looms larger than ever, because the accident rate simply has not risen. Period.
So, the *answer* to the conundrum is still open as to why, and the articles are expected to help answer why - but the articles can't possibly change the answer on the accident rates (because that is a fact).
You may as well propose that the sun revolves around the earth, just because it seems to you that it does.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:49:36 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

The only paradox here is how someone can still be alive and be so dumb as to come in here claiming Paradox! while you haven't even read the studies actually done on the subject. It took SeaNymph just a couple of minutes to find them, and she's obviously not the one with the hard on about the issue. What does that say about you?
since there

Idiot, you don't even know what the most accurate source of data is. You haven't even read the freaking studies to see what data they used, what they accounted for, the methods, etc. But feel free to keep digging your hole deeper.

This from the guy who just posted:

What a complete village idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:56:56 +0000 (UTC), ceg

I went thru this a few years ago with the Daytime Driving Light fanatics. I collected all the research reports (where I was working at the time had a research section that could get them all for me) and went thru them all. What I found was that what you might think from both the title and the Summaries was almost never what the data showed. And the bottom line was that most of the studies were so poorly done as to be worthless. They were clearly commissioned merely to "prove" the desired political end. There were a few good ones that had actually established CONTROLS so they could properly compare before and after accidents. And the result was that 80% of those studies concluded that the data did not rise to the level of statistically sound usefulness to conclude anything. The remaining studies showed some types of accidents increased and some types of accidents decreased and that the net result of DRLs was at best a wash. They were neither useful nor harmful based on accident rates although they were clearly, based on complaints, highly irritating to a great many drivers since they shined the cars high beams into oncoming traffic in the daytime. They also increased the incidence of motorcycles being hit by cars as I recall. I thin the number of pedestrians hit went down.
In any case, what you say it true, you can't tell anything by the titles and in my experience you can't tell anything by the research either about 80% of the time. It would not surprise me if less then fifty people in the world actually read the entirety of many of these studies although millions may read some liberal arts major's newspaper story based on them having read the (misleading) summary of the report.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/20/2015 03:14 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Ashton Crusher:

Seems like several people have pointed out that other factors have reduced the accident and fatality rates - possibly resolving part of it - and that others have pointed out that the accident data telling whether-or-not a cell phone was in use is highly suspect - possibly resolving another part of it.
Did I miss something in the other posts, or have these two things been pointed out?
--
Pete Cresswell

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

Sure, lots of things have been suggested and proposed. Where's the data?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/18/2015 11:01 PM, ceg wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:23:39 PM UTC-4, SeaNymph wrote:

Nice job at doing the work for the lazy ass CEG. Another sign that he's a troll. Any reasonable person that was even a fraction as interested in this topic as he is would have found the actual research studies before running around squawking Paradox! Paradox! I suggested it several times, but he's rather just squawk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 7:14 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

It will take me a while to go through the links before I can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/19/2015 8:06 AM, ceg wrote:

accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes I find it hard to believe.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4 wrote:

Not to mention that it has nothing to do with home repair. : )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:43:52 +0000 (UTC), ceg

Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

That's a key part of the paradox.
The only explanations given, other than there is no net effect on accident rates, is some preposterous alignment of the stars.
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.