The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Here in the USA, most of those stoplight cameras are the same.

Some company offers to put up everything for free, and to handle all the work, and they all get a cut of the revenue.

It's a scam everywhere, I guess.

However, if all this is true, that cellphone use *causes* accidents, then the paradox is why haven't the accidents gone vastly up concomitant with the increase in cellphone ownership in the USA?

This is good information. It makes the paradox even worse!

Let's gloss over the word "involved", and assume, in good faith, that the statistics you provided are reliable.

Notice the *huge* numbers.

If one quarter of all accidents are *caused* by cellphone use, then accidents should go up (roughly) by at least a quarter.

(Note that I equated "involved" with "caused", which may be too loose an interpretation. Perhaps "involved" simply means that the phone was in the car, in which case, the entire statistic is meaningless in the USA - so I have to give it *some* meaning!).

One quarter is a *huge* number by the way, given the number of accidents in the USA every year.

So, where are all these accidents that you're talking about? They don't exist.

Either that, or they would have happened anyway (which is what one person said) simply because dumbshits are behind the wheel.

In fact, the *only* reliable conclusion we can make is that the dumbshits will have accidents no matter what, with or without cellphones.

At least if we *assume* that, then the accident statistics make sense, and the paradox is answered.

Do you see that anything that "proves* cellphone use while driving is so dangerous just makes the entire paradox worse?

Clearly the accidents don't exist. Clearly many of us feel (including me) that cellphone use contributes to the accident rate.

But, if we can't find *any* increase in the accident rate, even if we feel strongly that cellphone use should be contributing to the accident rate, what does that tell us?

Do you see how your post just contributes to the paradox? It makes the paradox even worse.

I doubt accident rates are under reported only for the period where cellphone ownership went from zero to 100% in the USA, and then, magically, accident rates went back to proper reporting.

It's too convenient.

The answer isn't going to be *that* simple. :)

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 worse.

If cellphone use is so bad, where are the accidents?

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.

This was brought up before as a possible solution to the paradox.

Basically, what it says is that dumbshits will have accidents no matter what.

So, before cellphones existed, a certain percentage of dumbshits had a certain (presumably large) percentage of the accidents. And, after cellphone ownership skyrocketed, those same dumbshits (or their direct descendents) *still* have a certain large percentage of the accidents.

At least that dumbshit-are-dumbshits explanation solves the paradox.

This is the conundrum.

If cellphones are as dangerous as we think they are, then the accidents

*must* be going up.

But they're not.

So, something is wrong in our logic.

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?

Ok, you're assuming a constant RATE of distracted driving accidents as in some number of accidents for some number of cell phone users. I can accept that because there has been no significant technical or behavior modifications to the instrument that might reduce this rate. In theory, hands free driving should reduce accidents, but the few numbers I've seen don't show any change.

I ran into the cell phone as the demonic root of all evil when giving talks on the connection between cell phone use and cancers of the brain and CNS. I produced a long term graph of new cases of brain and CNS cancers versus time: Between 1975 and 2011, cell phone use went up dramatically. If there were a connection, there should have been a corresponding increase in brain/CNS cancer incidence. There isn't. Actually, there's a downward trend caused by the introduction of PET (positron emission tomography) diagnostics, which provided much earlier diagnosis of new tumors. That shows up in the peak, where more tumors were found earlier, and a subsequent drop to normal levels, after the early diagnosis cases became the norm.

What "ceg" seems to want is a similar graph of automobile accidents and distracted driving accidents, that can be analyzed in a similar manner. I've offered several reasons why this data will probably be inaccurate and possible biased by those doing the collecting. I know that I can produce such data and graphs, but I'm lazy, it's too much work, and it's too hot.

Well, maybe a few: Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However, I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very suspicious.

Here's one that shows a drop in the fatality rate per mile and cell phone use. I read the text and I'm not sure what this is suppose to demonstrate:

Here's an interesting article on juggling the traffic statistics: Again, the number of fatalities per mile are dropping but since there's no proven cause, it could as well be from improved medical response than from improved vehicle safety technology.

And so on. Most of what I'm finding is little better than the above garbage.

Also, there's another problem. Distracted driving tends to come from a self-selected statistical population. The only drivers that are being asked if they were texting are those involved in an accident. Unless the accident investigator likes to guess, the driver will probably be interviewed at the hospital and asked if they were using a cell phone while driving. The answer is predictably no. It's much the same with statistics involving bicycle helmets and bicycle accidents. Those choosing to answer have a vested interest in the result and will therefore tend to answer that of course they were wearing a helmet and it must have been lost or stolen at the scene.

I found the source: "Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional road fatalities yearly in the United States."

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or even play a radio while they drive.

Sounds good to me.

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a simulator without putting other drivers at risk.

This one:

I think part of the test showed people did fairly well traveling down the highway. Driving in the city was where they were failing.

Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me, the reallity is that much of the time when I'm driving, my mind is on other things.

One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck. I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling. But, I have developed more skill at paying attention to the road.

Per Ashton Crusher:

I have heard a local cop remark that he found driving a police cruiser with all it's radios and other distractions to be something of a frightening experience.

Per John Robertson:

I would not agree.

A cell phone conversation is fundamentally different from a CB conversation (which was not alluded to), talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio.

The difference is that there is no unspoken agreement that driving comes first. i.e. the person on the other end of the conversation has no expectation of anything but the partner's 100% involvement.