The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

I thought the paradox was clear by my Fermi Paradox example.

Do you remember the Fermi Paradox? As I recall, a bunch of rocket scientists were making the assumption before lunch that aliens must exist, when, all of a sudden, Fermi, over lunch, realized belatedly that if they do exist, then there must be some "signal" (or evidence) from them.

That evidence didn't exist. Hence the paradox.

It's the same concept here.

  1. We all assume cellphone use while driving is distracting.
  2. We then assume that distracted driving causes accidents.
  3. But, the belated realization is that there is no evidence supporting this assumption in the total accident statistics (which are reliable).

Even worse, if we believe the studies and the (clearly flawed) statistics on cellphone use while driving, that just makes the paradox WORSE!

If cellphone use is so distractingly dangerous, why isn't it *causing* more accidents?

That's the paradox.

Reply to
ceg
Loading thread data ...

There is no need to add second-order issues such as injuries or fatalities to the equation because the *accident* is what matters.

We all know that nothing is simple, but, accident statistics in the USA are reliable, and pretty simple to compile (most states have a reporting requirement, for example).

Injuries and fatalities add a second (third and forth) order of confusion to the mix, and yet, they add no value whatsoever because the paradox is looking for *accidents*, not fatalities.

If people want to look at fatalities, and to ignore accidents, then we can conclude that cellphones actually *save* lives because they get help quickly, and they allow GPS routing to the hospital, and they allow Google Traffic to route traffic away from the accident, etc.

So, why would you want to confuse a simple issue with fatalities and injuries when the only result would be confusion and the lack of any clarity if we did?

Keeping it simple and reliable:

  1. We all believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
  2. We all believe that distracted driving can cause accidents, and,
  3. We all know cellphone ownership has shot off the charts in the past few year, so,

The paradox is: Q: Where are the accidents?

Reply to
ceg

Do you see that this argument only makes the paradox even worse?

Doesn't anyone see that?

Reply to
ceg

Don't you see that the argument you make (which I fully believe) only makes the paradox worse?

Reply to
ceg

First off, we're not talking fatalities.

We're talking accidents.

And, while I agree that accidents have been going down for a long time (due to a host of unrelated factors) fatalities are affected by an even larger host of unrelated factors. (In fact, cellphone use can make fatalities fewer in quite a few ways but I don't want to go there.)

It's complex enough just to stick with accidents, which are going down, let alone fatalities (which are also going down).

The simple fact is:

  1. We believe cellphone use is distracting, and,
  2. We believe distractions cause accidents, yet,
  3. We can't find those accidents anywhere.

That's the paradox. Where are they?

Reply to
ceg

This is the *only* logical argument to date that satisfies the paradox.

The question is whether or not it's true, since the *rates* of accident decline appear to be unaffected by the rates of cellphone ownership.

So, what is the corresponding "safety feature" that *exactly* matched the skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers in the USA?

NOTE: This is why rec.autos.tech was initially added.

Reply to
ceg

The accident data for the USA is as reliable as any data you'll ever get, particularly because the police report it, the insurance companies report it, and in many states (such as mine), both individuals involved in even a minor accident are required to report it.

Reply to
ceg

The paradox is that cellphone ownership skyrocketed in the past few years in the USA, while accidents continued on the *same steady decline* that they had been on for decades.

If cellphone use causes accidents, there are only these ways this could happen.

  1. Something else skyrocketed in the opposite direction exactly canceling out the cellphone-use-related accidents (starting and finishing at the exact same time periods), or,
  2. Total accident figures in the USA suddenly became flawed only during the exact period of skyrocketing cellphone ownership increases, or,
  3. Nobody is *using* the cellphone while driving in the USA, or,

  1. Cellphone use has no appreciable effect on accident rates in the USA.

Any one of those four would solve the paradox. But, which of the four is it?

Reply to
ceg

This is almost certainly true, but that doesn't change that there are only four possible solutions to the paradox, none of which does anyone like.

Reply to
ceg

Look at the declining accident rates, which have been steady decade after decade after decade.

The innovation you speak of is one of the four possible solutions to the paradox, but, it *requires* that the "innovations" *exactly* cancel out the admittedly skyrocketing cellphone ownership numbers, and, worse, that these innovations exactly tailed off at the exact moment that cellphone ownership in the USA approached 100%.

Reply to
ceg

That's pretty close, except it's even worse than that. The accident rate has been steadily decreasing, year after year after year, with or without cellphone ownership.

The paradox is that we all *assume* the accidents are going up; but they are not.

So, something is *wrong* with our assumptions.

Either:

  1. Something is *exactly* canceling the skyrocketing accident rate, or,
  2. The accident rate isn't skyrocketing (in fact, it's going down).
Reply to
ceg

No no no. The *phone* has to be *attached* to the seatbelt!

(True story: California law. It's not handheld, if it's *attached* to something!).

:)

Reply to
ceg

So you fully agree with the paradox then.

We both agree that distraction is going to *cause* accidents.

The only problem with that assumption is that the accidents don't exist.

Hence, the paradox.

It wouldn't be a paradox if we thought that cellphone use did not cause accidents; it's only a paradox because we *believe* that cellphone use while driving causes accidents.

But the accidents just don't exist. Hence the paradox.

Reply to
ceg

It's not a "paradox." And why do you say that accidents caused by cell phone use can't be found? The are plenty in the news. Besides, unsurprisingly, they are under reported.

formatting link

Reply to
Vic Smith

I only mention the USA accident *rate* because we have *reliable* numbers for the USA, both prior and during the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates in the USA.

Do we have reliable accident rate figures for the UK to see if the cellphone paradox applies to the UK as much as it does to the USA?

Reply to
ceg

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.

Reply to
Muggles

But don't you see that this comment, which I don't disagree with, just makes the paradox WORSE?

Reply to
ceg

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?

Reply to
ceg

You're a smart guy.

Think about what you just said.

Then, compare what you said to the reliable accident-rate figures in the USA, compiled for decades.

What you just said was that you agree that somehow, magically, all the accidents that are caused by cellphone use aren't reported in the total statistics, all teh while being reporting in your specific statistics.

In fact, you state, they're underreported, in the individual statistics, all the while being wholly absent in the total statistics.

So, what you said, just reaffirms the paradox. You just don't realize it yet.

REQUEST: Someone please explain the paradox to Vic Smith, whom I know to be a good thinker, as he just reaffirmed the paradox without even knowing that he did so.

Reply to
ceg

I have a cellphone. If I receive a call on it while I am driving, I am not even going to look at it. That can wait untill I am not driving.

Reply to
JR

MotorsForum website 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.