XPost: comp.mobile.android, comp.mobile.ipad   
   From: nospam@nospam.invalid   
      
   In article <010320141801519649%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name   
    wrote:   
      
   > It's pretty much a guaratee that you're not going to get such a curve   
   > and there's no way to realistically prove anything along these lines.   
   > There's far too many factors which can hide the true figures - a   
   > growing number of cars, accidents not reported, people who lie about   
   > using the cellphone and get away with it, growing number of people who   
   > obey the laws (where applicable) or choose not to use a cellphone,   
   > improved car safety systems (meaning less actual accidents, but more   
   > unreported "near misses"), etc., etc. Potentially the number of   
   > accidents directly and easily attributable to cellphone use could even   
   > be lower than it was because of these factors rather than using a   
   > cellphone while driving actually being "safe".   
      
   yep. there's a lot of fudging the data.   
      
   and a pet peeve of mine, near miss means the opposite of what you think   
   it does. if you did not collide with something, you have missed it   
   entirely and not just 'near.'   
      
   a near hit is coming very close to hitting something, but avoiding it.   
      
   > As a silly example, if 10 years ago there were 80 cellphone using   
   > drivers and they all had one accident because of using the phone, then   
   > that would be 80 accidents / 100% of all drivers. If now there are 800   
   > drivers, but only 80 of them use the cellphone while driving and have   
   > one accident because of using the phone ... it's still 80 accidents,   
   > but only 10% of all drivers OR 100% of all cellphone using drivers ...   
   > so it's either less than or equal to the past figure, so there is no   
   > "curve" or provable "increase", but the number of possible accidents   
   > had more of those other 90% of drivers decided to use their cellphone   
   > can't be known.   
      
   that's why raw numbers are misleading.   
      
   > That's why I said the only thing you can prove is that cellphone use   
   > while driving is *definitely* the cause of *some* accidents. There have   
   > also been studies in driving simulations and safety test tracks that   
   > show using the cellphone does distract drivers from fully concentrating   
   > on the road.   
      
   so is fumbling with the radio, driving after arguing with one's spouse,   
   driving with a hangover and lots more.   
      
   humans aren't perfect.   
      
   > Is cellphone using while driving the cause of more accidents than   
   > someone having a heart attack while driving (for example)? Who knows,   
   > and is unprovable and largely irrelevant - you can't stop someone   
   > having a heart attack, but you can (at least try to) stop them using a   
   > cellphone, putting on make-up, etc. while driving.   
      
   you can try, but stupid drivers will do it anyway.   
      
   > The less potential and preventable dangers there are, the better it is   
   > for everyone on the road.   
      
   the better trained the drivers are, the less likely they'll do   
   something stupid.   
      
   using a cellphone is also not necessarily dangerous. for instance, in   
   stop & go traffic on a highway, where you're inching along, it won't   
   make one bit of difference one way or the other. on the other hand,   
   traveling 80 mph in wyoming, it very likely will.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)