My first thought, when I saw how badly he was weaving from side to side, was that he was
very drunk. So I caught up with him to get the plate number and a good description, and was
getting ready to call 911, when I saw what was going on: he was doing some major nasal
excavation, picking his nose with one hand and holding the steering wheel with the other.
He'd shove his right index finger up his right nostril, and lean waaaay over to the left -- and
pull the steering wheel to the left. Then he'd switch hands...
Wouldn't you agree that the statistics showing distracted driving would
include numbers related to driving while using a cell phone? Therefore,
how would it be determined which stats were legitimately due to being
distracted. Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:58:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:
The cellphone paradox takes all that into account automatically.
The statistics for overall accidents in the USA should include
*everyone*, whether or not they own or use a cellphone.
Since we presume cellphone ownership has skyrocketed, and we presume a
certain number of those cellphone owners are using the phone while
driving, then we *presume* that overall accident rates would go up.
But, overall accident rates are not going up.
In fact, they're going down at just about the same rate as they were
(year to year) before cellphones were invented.
So that's the paradox.
Where are the accidents?
I'd only agree with the idea that *some* cell phone usage while driving
may be distracting enough to cause an accident, so there would then be
another subset of statistics defining different usages of a cell phone.
From that point it might be determined how much cell phone usage had to
do with distracted driving which would make the overall percentage even
smaller widening the gap between accidents related to cell phone use and
IOW, I more or less agree with you, but for more specific reasons.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:11:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:
I have to agree with you, as would everyone else, that *most* cellphone
usage while driving does *not* contribute to accidents.
However, most of us feel (including me) that cellphone usage, overall,
should *increase* the accident rate (since cellphone *ownership* is
almost 100% in the USA for people of driving age).
The paradox looms even taller if cellphone usage is as distracting as the
studies show (i.e., at the level of drunk driving).
So, the more strenuous we make the argument that cellphone use is
distractingly dangerous, the *larger* the paradox looms to slap us in the
Where are these accidents?
I don't think it's a given that it would increase the accident rate
because as people have gotten used to the technology, they've adjusted
how they use it, as in, hands free devices and blue tooth technology
built into cars that make the tech no more distracting than turning on a
radio or playing music.
I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:10:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:
If that is the case, that cellphone usage is *not* distracting, then,
instantly, that would *solve* the paradox.
But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
The *new* paradox looms - which is - if cellphone use isn't distracting,
then why do "studies show" that it *is* distracting (as drunk driving)?
Nothing makes sense in all these arguments.
There is very little intelligent discussion.
So, maybe the solution to the paradox is, as you said, "it really
doesn't matter" whether someone is using the phone while driving,
or not, with respect to accident rates in the USA???
But that flies against "common wisdom".
It's true, playing music can be pretty distracting. It isn't normally,
but sometimes it can be.
Well, around here, driving drunkly was common and normal behaviour for
a large segment of the population thirty years ago, and now it isn't.
Perhaps as a hazard it has disappeared and been replaced with texting
while driving instead.
This is true, because there is very little actual data. So an intelligent
discussion is pretty much impossible.
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
On 16 Aug 2015 19:54:01 -0400, email@example.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
No, there is a LOT of data. And contrary to the theorizing of the
alarmists, there is no REAL WORLD evidence that the literal explosion
of cell phone use has caused even a blip in accident rates. A few
anecdotes of 'I saw Santa on his cell phone and he drove his sleigh
right into the side of the chimney" don't prove that cell phones are
some special case of distraction that should be outlawed while we
still allow the carrying of chatty passengers, the eating of food, the
application of lipstick, and the fiddling with CDs and MP3 players.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:50:21 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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
If cellphone use is so bad, where are the accidents?
I've elaborated on that very question earlier in this thread. The
short version is that most of the 'studies' are crap designed to prove
cell phones are dangerous thru a variety of nonsensical study
protocols. You want to prove pianos are dangerous? Do a study where
one person puts their head under the upraised and held in place by the
stick "hood" of the piano then simulate a magnitude 6 earthquake.
You'll find pianos to be quite dangerous.
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:46:35 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:08:29 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
Unbelievable comparison. Earthquakes are rare events, people
sticking their heads in pianos are rare events. People driving
while talking on a cell phone or texting are not rare. Neither
are sudden changes in driving conditions, eg someone opening a
door on a parked car, stepping into traffic, stopping in traffic,
etc. TAHT is what the simulations have worked with, not some
totally bizarre, one in a billion event. There are plenty of
stories of accidents and fatalities where cell phone usage was
involved. Can you show us one of your piano accidents?
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:43:56 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
One more time, there has been a nationwide campaign against drunk
driving over approximately the same time that cell phone usage has
gone way up. Fatalities from drunk driving have gone down dramatically,
something like by half. Is that not meaningful? It's reasonable to
assume that many times more accidents have also been eliminated. Is
that not meaningful? And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced
the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and
deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?
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.