The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

:)

Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly" community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once* in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many crazy drivers!

A neighbor once "threatened" to buy me a red shirt -- just because she always saw me in black/navy or white. I'm not fond of bright colors (and particularly hate *green*!) Given that I have complete control over my appearance, I figure I should wear what I'm "happiest" with! (if clothes can be said to make you "happy")

I've always adopted the "many of the same" approach. E.g., when I used to wear dress shirts/slacks, I would have three or four of the same shirt hanging side by side in the closet. So, it was not uncommon to see me in the same "outfit" on successive days. Or, several times in a week.

Of course, it was typically the women who would notice such things (I think all men check is whether or not you have clothes *on*!). One lady commented once and I made a point of bringing in a handfull of hangers with identical shirts hung on each: "Oh! I see..."

[Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they are *drawn* to darker colors]

My Motorola Roadster speakerphone clips onto the visor and works just fine.

It's better than an earpiece, for me, because it will always be in the car, and it talks out my text messages, and takes dictation.

It *can* route through an unused FM channel of your choosing, but, I find that more work than it's worth to go through the radio amplifier. I just use the speakerphone portion.

When I receive a phone call, it tells me whom it's from and asks me "answer or ignore", and it always gets it right when I say either "answer" or "ignore".

When I want to call someone, I have to be a bit careful with strange names, such as "call Brumhilda", but, I "solved" that problem by assigning simpler names to the problematic ones, such as listing "Brumhilda" as "mom" (or some such simplification).

So, when I say "call mom", it asks "Do you want to call Mom?", where the number it calls is Brumhilda.

Overall, the Motorola Roadster is a fine device, but, I'm sure the Jabba and Plantronics, and other brands are just as well.

One caution though is that I don't use the Motorola Android software, because it never seems to work. I just use the native capability of the Roadster and the Android phone on Bluetooth.

You jumped in your last sentence from "accidents" to "fatalities", which are really far more complicated than accidents.

We must keep to the point that we *think* that hand held cellphone use seems, to us, to be something that must contribute to accidents.

I can't deny I think that also.

The only problem is that none of us can *find* those accidents! So, something is wrong somewhere.

Either our assumptions are wrong, or the data is wrong, because the data shown to date does not match the assumptions we all have.

If you have better data on accident rates, please show it.

Do you have any data to support those arguments?

I haven't seen that episode, but I love the Mythbusters. I agree that they probably don't "fudge" their data, but, I'm sure the *producers* choose the most *interesting* data, and not necessarily the most accurate results.

Still, I don't disbelieve that driving while using a cellphone is distracting.

I just can't find any data that supports that the accident rate in the USA is skyrocketing concomitantly with cellphone ownership rates.

So, while many individually contrived experiments easily show distraction, why is it that there are no combined purely factual reports that prove it's actually contributing to the accident rate in the USA?

Maybe. But if that were the case, wouldn't there have been an initial spike in the accident rate, and then a tailing off of that spike as we learned to avoid cellphone users?

No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist.

Wow. I use my cellphone every day, all day while driving. I must make maybe a half dozen calls alone on my hour-long commute, and, on a long drive, I'm on the phone almost the entire time. My problem is *power*, as the phone heats up when GPS and phone calls are simultaneous.

Meanwhile, on long trips, the three kids in the back each have their phones blaring some game or video (they never seem to find their headpieces when we leave for long trips).

And, of course, the wife has to have her music playing on her iPod.

Meanwhile, I have had only one accident in my entire life, and that was when someone rear ended me when I was in college, and it was partly my fault because I decided to turnright without using a turn signal, but braked hard for a yellow light (because the road suddenly came up and I had not realized it was my turn).

That accident was clearly my fault, but the other guy got a ticket, and when they called me into court, I told them exactly what happened, and, they STILL upheld the other guy's ticket (which I thought was kind of odd).

Anyway, I am shocked that you use the phone so little, as I use it basically 100% of the time when I'm in my car.

No amount of *estimation* error is going to cancel out the huge rates predicted by the reports.

Did you see the poster who showed a report of 25% greater accident rates?

Do you really believe that the "estimation errors" are exactly 1/4 of the huge numbers, and then, that these estimation errors only occur during the exact time frame when cellphone ownership rates skyrocketed?

And then, these very same "estimation errors" tailed off suddenly, and precipitously, exactly when cellphone ownership rates tailed off?

I responded to that post of yours which assumes that the drunk-driving campaign exactly cancels out the skyrocketing cellphone ownership effect on accident rates, in both timing and in number.

It's far-fetched to believe that both the timing and the size of the drunk-driving campaign results *exactly* cancel out that of the cellphone driving effect, but it is one possible answer to the conundrum.

This is perhaps the sixth possible answer to the enigma.

If I understand your argument, it's that the laws on cellphone use while driving have been 100% effective in preventing cellphone use while driving, and that these laws are so effective as to cancel out totally the skyrocketing accident rates predicted by the studies.

Why would they? With automatic braking, lane detection, backup cameras and the like other rates may be going down. You have to look at all the numbers. Don't forget MADD too.

Do you have *better* data than what I provided in the OP?

I've been asking for better accident rate data since this thread started.

I'm not afraid of better data (you may be, but I am not).

You are missing a screw if you think that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities will be simpler than a first-order issue such as accidents (which are the cause of those injuries and fatalities).

Are you seriously arguing that the injuries and fatalities would have happened *without* the accident happening first?

The fact you used "lying" instead of "laying" tells me you are intelligent; so I find it hard to believe you actually believe that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities can possibly provide the answer to the conundrum when the first order issue itself doesn't provide that answer.

The paradox is so clear that the only ones 'clouded' by it are those with an agenda that isn't supported by the data.

It's very clear:

1. Most of us (me included) believe that the skyrocketing ownership of cellphones in the USA must mean a concomitant skyrocketing *use* of those cellphones while driving; which itself, should indicate a concomitant increase of driving-while-distracted cases.
2. Most of us (me included) have seen the scary studies which show that the use of a cellphone while driving is distracting, and, most of us (me included) conclude that driving while distracted should be increasing the accident rate in the USA.
3. Yet, the best data shown here indicates that the accident rate in the USA is not going up (in fact, it's going down).

Most of us would say that this is a paradox. So far, six answers have been provided to satisfy that paradox.

You can't be serious if you want to use fatalities and injuries as your justification while wholly ignoring the accidents that

*caused* those fatalities and injuries.

Fatalities and injuries have ten times the factors that the accidents have - so - if accidents are too complex for you to handle details about to support your arguments - there is no way fatalities and injuries will support your argument.

The only person who would leap over accident rates to go to fatalities and injuries, is a person who has cherry picked some data which isn't supported by the accident rate, and wants to stick with that cherry-picked data come hell or high water, to support a bogus argument.

As I said many times, anyone with reliable accident rate data is welcome to post it - as this thread is about accident rates, pure and simple.

If a skyrocketing number of cellphone owners were to lay their phones on the highway, as you did, would you expect the number of crushed cellphones lying on the roadway to suddenly skyrocket accordingly, concomitant with the huge numbers of cellphones now lying on the roadway?

Wouldn't the timing and number of the cellphone crush rate correspond to the number of cellphones laid onto the highway?

If they don't - that would be a paradox to be resolved as this one is.

You may be right. It's entirely possible that the texting idiots with a coffee in the other hand merely scare the crap out of us cyclists and don't actually connect all that often, despite some spectacular lane drift episodes.

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

If I was going to spend that sort of time making/waiting for a chunk of meet, I'd rather roast a pork shoulder and live off pulled pork sandwiches for the next week or so! :>

I eat quickly (get it over with and move on to something else). An exception is baked stuffed shrimp. Partly because it is *so* good and *so* seldom made -- but also because it is so *rich* that it almost is sickening!

The other exception is ice cream. I still eat it quickly; but, I go back for *fifths* so it seems like I'm eating it for longer! :>

[I'll make some butter pecan gelato tomorrow]

Imagine that behavior in a public library!

[When did the "Ssssh!" go out of libraries??]

I did some volunteer work with a guy like that. We were digging through a large box of donated items (to sort out what would be salvageable vs. trash). He kept "implying" that I should stop talking (I was asking him questions about what sorts of items he was looking for -- so I could be of some help). Finally he said, "No, really, you have to stop talking! I can't concentrate on what I'm looking for if I have to listen to you (or anyone else)".

It was scary! What does he do when he's driving with a passenger?

If I were going to have pulled bbq, we'd smoke it all day and then end up giving much of it away to the kids because that wouldn't been the reason to cook a big piece of meat, anyway.

yum!

I've made ice cream 5 times in the last few weeks. Tried different recipes, which was fun. Haven't made any in the last 10 days, though.

LOL