Re: Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

So your argument is, "If they can make things up, so can we"?

It took me a long time to figure out why Michelle had the opinion that cell phone usage has gone down in the same period that the accidents have gone down.

Now I know why. thanks.

I have a little T Mobile flip phone/cell phone. I don't think I could use it while driving even if I wanted to.

Woman dies in car crash while posting how happy ''happy'' makes her. Article at jalopnik.com. I saw it at.

no.

nospam wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:00:51 -0400:

We could argue the octane details (which I will in a separate reply to your post above) but my point was that so-called 'common sense' dictates, to many people, that the higher-octane gas give the car more power than the lower octane gas.

Those people point to all the commercials showing a tiger running across the screen for higher-octane fuels. They also point to the fact that high-compression engines use high-octane fuels. Some even point to the fact that jet engines use REALLY HIGH octane fuels, as their 'common sense' indicator that higher octane gas means higher performance.

They even point to the price difference, just as they claim that Techron cleans better. All this seems to be 'common sense' to them, but, as you will see in the next post, it's all basically untrue (with the devil being in the details).

So, what some consider the common sense attitude that the higher octane fuel costs more and is used in high-performance vehicles, well then, common sense (for them) dictates that it *must* be (somehow) *better* for their car. It's not.

Likewise with the so-called 'common sense' attitudes that cellphones

*must* be causing accidents. They are not. Clearly they are not. Otherwise, accident statistics would be going up.

Anyway, I'll cover the octane stuff you mentioned separately.

nospam wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:00:51 -0400:

True. More specifically, it depends most on the engine design, and, more importantly, it depends a LOT on the compression ratio of the engine, but also on the timing, temperature, design load, valve timing, spark plug heat range, atmospheric pressure, humidity, etc.

Summarized, some cars are *designed* to use higher octane fuels, while most cars are not designed for high octane fuels.

Therefore, if your car is *designed* for the higher octane fuels, then you will likely get lower performance (mostly due to retarded timing) on lower-than-designed octane fuels. However, it really depends on how you drive and whether the knock sensors are retarding the timing or not.

Even if your engine is designed for higher-octane fuels, if the knock sensors are not retarding the timing, then you'll get no decrease in performance (AFAIK); but if the knock sensors *are* retarding the timing, then you likely *will* have a decrease in peak performance.

In short, if the car is not designed for the high octane fuel (and if it's running to spec), then there can't possibly be any increase in performance with the higher-than-designed octane rated fuel.

This is true - but it's not the point. My point was that *higher* than recommended octane ratings provide no value.

It *is* true, especially in the case of the older cars you speak of, which may not have knock sensors, that *lower* than designed for octane ratings could easily be bad for the engine.

For example, if the engine is so old that it doesn't even have piezoelectric knock sensors, then putting lower-than-recommended octane rated fuels in can allow knocking to occur, which is really hard on pistons, valves, rings, and journals.

The only caveat to putting the recommended octane fuel in any engine is that these older cars *may* have carbon deposits on the piston head so thick that the compression ratio is affected, or, they may have non-working EGR systems such that the cylinders have more oxygen in them than expected, or they may have non-working cooling systems which make the engine hotter, etc.

But, assuming the engine is working to spec, putting *higher* than recommended octane rated fuels can't possibly increase performance.

Yet, "common sense" tells a lot of people that this is not the case. Of course, they're wrong. But the same people say that "common sense" tells them that cellphones use is causing accidents!

True. (I already explained this above.)

Everything you wrote is essentially correct, but the above paragraph can be misleading. The mfr. states that my car runs on regular, and, in fact, they like to highlight that "feature". It does run on regular, but barely, in high ambients. In the winter I can use most anything, but when it gets over 100 out here, the car won't run properly on anything but the highest octane I can find. The timing retards so severely that there is no power. The other issue is that mpg also goes down when the timing retards.

Bill Vanek wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:25:10 -0700:

Understood that the devil is in the details.

Specs being what specs are, they are often stated for a specific temperature and pressure (e.g., STP). Also gas being the variable that it is, can be different today from tomorrow (and from station to station and from winter to summer, etc.).

To underscore that variability, in the US, they don't even have a single 'octane' rating. They actually take an average of two different octane ratings, one more mechanical and the other more theoretical, but each differing by a significant number of points.

So, the AKI is clearly variable (within reason).

Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of accidents.

Never has a single fact or statistic been shown that accidents are increasing in the United States due to anything, let alone due to cell phone usage.

In fact, accidents are steadily decreasing, which is clear and obvious and nobody disputes that fact. Yet, somehow, the statement was made that "common sense" dictates that cell phones must (somehow? magically?) be causing accidents.

That was the only point of bringing up the octane "common sense" analogy.

dorayme wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:48:09 +1000:

I agree with you that the phone allows you to avoid accidents, but I disagree with you that the phone has nothing to do with driving.

The phone has a *lot* to do with driving!

You will avoid more accidents because you can see *traffic* red zones on your phone, miles before you enter them.

You will avoid construction and weather related accidents for the same reason.

Likewise, you can call in to a meeting, instead of having to rush to get to the office, and, if you're running late, you can notify people who are waiting for you to meet in a different location or time.

Similarly, the navigation apps on the phone allow you to know that a turn is coming up, that you might have missed - and - they tell you the road you are on without you having to try to read the street names which are off to the side of you instead of in front.

I've even averted a case of road rage, when someone got out of a car to confront the car in front of me, and when they saw me grab my camera to film them, they immediately got back in their car and sped off.

So, I do agree with you that cell phones make it *less likely* that you will be in an accident or altercation.

How about the "common sense" that a 36-month battery is somehow magically better than a 24-month battery?

This is a really foolish non sequitur. Otherwise nothing! There could be independent factors at work bringing down the accident rate. Think of it like this: A strong man pulls a lever one way, a couple of little kids the other way. It can still goes the strong man's way if a few other tiny kids help each other.

The warranty is better...

depends on the car. an econobox won't. a sports car probably will.

jet fuel is different, but avgas is higher octane.

techron is actually very good but every gas has similar additives.

depends on the car. some cars do not run well on low octane gas, notably older cars.

anything made in the past 10-20 years does not care since the ecu can adjust engine timing.

exactly.

ok

true.

that's why i said it depends on the car.

higher than what's recommended does not, but the problem is that some people think that any high octane fuel is a waste.

in some cars, it might be, but in others they are not. as i said, it depends.

exactly.

right. it depends what the recommended fuel is.

the warranty is. the battery might be. sometimes the batteries with longer warranties do have better specs. other times it's just a higher price for the longer warranty.

:)

Well, to be clear, the warranty may or may not be better, but, it certainly lasts for a longer period of time.

Many people, who subscribe to the "common sense" of phones causing accidents at the same time buy things by variables that they understand, instead of by variables that they don't understand (such as cold cranking amps in the case of a battery).

Anyone can understand the TIME PERIOD of a warranty, even those who subscribe to the notion that cell phone use causes accidents.

When challenged, they use "common sense" as their arguments. At least, they did so in this thread.

If cell phones were causing accidents, and since cell phone ownwership is nearly ubiquitous in the US, then there must be a vast increase of accidents, roughly at the same rate as ownership increased.

Now, what you say is true, which is that there are other factors at work - but then - tell me what those hugely influential other factors are that not only exactly cancel out the presumed increased accident rate of cellphone owners - but - goes so far as to bring that down to negative values.

That is, the factors you are presuming to exist, must be so great as to more than cancel out the cell phone ownership values.

As seems to be the case, those arguing for cell phone laws have no data to back them up, while those arguing for the uselessness of the cell phone laws are the only ones providing data.