I looked up when US cellphone ownership percentages hit their 100% plateau.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/global-u-s-growth-in-smartphone-growth-starts-to-decline.html
"From roughly 2007 until 2013, the smartphone market grew at an astonishing
pace, posting double-digit growth year after year, even during a global
recession."

Funny how US car accident rates were slowly going down before then.
Funny how US accident rates _continued_ to go down during that time frame.

"Smartphone growth began to slow starting in 2013 or 2014. In 2016, it was
suddenly in the single digits, and in 2017 global smartphone shipments,
for the first time, actually declined ¡X fewer smartphones were sold than
in 2017 than in 2016."

Also funny is how US accident rates _further_ continued to go down then too!
--
People are wrong because they assume what isn't happening, is happening.

"dan" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:s7s108$2ajf$1@neodome.net...
> I looked up when US cellphone ownership percentages hit their 100%
> plateau.
>
> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/global-u-s-growth-in-smartphone-growth-starts-to-decline.html
> "From roughly 2007 until 2013, the smartphone market grew at an
> astonishing
> pace, posting double-digit growth year after year, even during a global
> recession."
>
> Funny how US car accident rates were slowly going down before then.
> Funny how US accident rates _continued_ to go down during that time frame.
>
> "Smartphone growth began to slow starting in 2013 or 2014. In 2016, it was
> suddenly in the single digits, and in 2017 global smartphone shipments,
> for the first time, actually declined ¡X fewer smartphones were sold than
> in 2017 than in 2016."
>
> Also funny is how US accident rates _further_ continued to go down then
> too!

I can imagine phones being responsible for drivers make silly,
non-safety-critical mistakes like take a wrong turning, but I find that as
soon as anything safety-critical needs my attention, all extraneous sound
(phone call, radio, CD etc) gets ignored. When I listened to talking books
to while away a long journey, I would realise that the story suddenly made
no sense, because something had demanded my full attention so my ears/brain
had filtered out a few sentences of the book.

With a phone call, I tell people "I'm driving, so I may miss some of what
you are saying if I need to concentrate on driving". It's the same as having
a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is that the
other person can see the incident that has needed my attention and so they
know to repeat what they have just said.

I don't often use a phone while driving, and if I do, I answer and defer the
caller ("can you hold on a moment") if I'm in dense traffic or have to
follow signs for directions, and tend to talk only when I'm in light traffic
where I don't anticipate constant reactions to changing road circumstances.

I also have an absolute rule: I won't get involved in any conversation that
is "difficult" (eg emotional or confrontational) while I'm driving - either
face-to-face or via mobile phone.

And to initiate a phone call I will, as far as possible, stop while I'm
choosing the number from the menu - and *always* if the number isn't in the
phone's memory and has to be keyed in digit by digit (because then I have to
touch the phone, whereas selecting a number from the memory involves
scrolling through a list on the hands-free unit or maybe even using voice
recognition).

I always keep my phone on, capable of receiving calls, even if I let them go
to voicemail, so I know that someone has tried to call me and that I
probably need to find somewhere to stop briefly to listen to the message and
maybe to return the call.

Am I right that while it is illegal (in the UK) to touch the phone while
driving, it is not illegal to touch a hands-free unit to answer or to scroll
through the address book? Subject always to the standard rule about any
control on the car: is now a bad time to do this?

On Sun, 16 May 2021 22:21:24 +0100, NY wrote:

> I can imagine phones being responsible for drivers make silly,
> non-safety-critical mistakes like take a wrong turning, but I find that as
> soon as anything safety-critical needs my attention, all extraneous sound
> (phone call, radio, CD etc) gets ignored.

Distractions have existed in driving since driving has existed.
US accident rates have slowly declined with or without cellphones.

There's no relationship whatsoever in the US Census Bureau accident rates.
The effect _should_ be astoundingly high if all the clickbait were true!

The only people claiming cellphones change accident rates are those who
stand to make (a lot of) money off of their claims and those who are simply
ignorant people (unaware of statistics) who believe in that clickbait.

> When I listened to talking books
> to while away a long journey, I would realise that the story suddenly made
> no sense, because something had demanded my full attention so my ears/brain
> had filtered out a few sentences of the book.

Yes.

People who intelligently handle distractions continue to handle them well.
People who don't, won't.

One more distraction in a list of hundreds changes nothing in that equation.
There's a reason some people pay higher insurance rates than others.

> With a phone call, I tell people "I'm driving, so I may miss some of what
> you are saying if I need to concentrate on driving". It's the same as having
> a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is that the
> other person can see the incident that has needed my attention and so they
> know to repeat what they have just said.

Yes.
What happens is some people handle distractions intelligently.
Other people do not handle distractions intelligently.

Those who don't will _always_ have accidents.
Those people would have had the same number of accidents before as after.

There is no relationship between US cell phone ownership & accident rates.

Anyone who thinks there is a relationship is almost certainly getting all
their data from lawyers & other companies who make money off of charging
higher rates or from giving out tickets or from claiming to be kissing
babies (aka politics).

>
> I don't often use a phone while driving, and if I do, I answer and defer the
> caller ("can you hold on a moment") if I'm in dense traffic or have to
> follow signs for directions, and tend to talk only when I'm in light traffic
> where I don't anticipate constant reactions to changing road circumstances.

There are many distractions of which cell phones are in the top ten or top
twenty perhaps which simply means that whatever place in that order they
took simply displaced whatever was there before (and which is still there).

People who handle distractions intelligently won't have accidents.
People who can't will _always_ have accidents.

The cellphone isn't the cause of the accident - the person's abilities are.
> I also have an absolute rule: I won't get involved in any conversation that
> is "difficult" (eg emotional or confrontational) while I'm driving - either
> face-to-face or via mobile phone.
>
> And to initiate a phone call I will, as far as possible, stop while I'm
> choosing the number from the menu - and *always* if the number isn't in the
> phone's memory and has to be keyed in digit by digit (because then I have to
> touch the phone, whereas selecting a number from the memory involves
> scrolling through a list on the hands-free unit or maybe even using voice
> recognition).

Studies of one are always anecdotal and have some value but we have to be
careful ascribing too much value to them as I could claim that I use the
cell phone constantly and I've never had an accident in a million miles of
driving.

US cellphone ownership rates and US accident rates are completely unrelated
when you look at the aggregate statistics compiled by the US Census Bureau
over the time period before, during & after smartphone ownership rates shot
to almost 100%.

>
> I always keep my phone on, capable of receiving calls, even if I let them go
> to voicemail, so I know that someone has tried to call me and that I
> probably need to find somewhere to stop briefly to listen to the message and
> maybe to return the call.

One could argue that full time use of cellphones can help avoid accidents
but I'm not making that argument although I can easily see that you can "see
up ahead" around the curve (so to speak) if you're aware of traffic
congestion.

Also if you're being verbally informed by your phone which turns to make and
which lane to be in, that also can avoid a few accidents perhaps.

But given US accident rates are completely unaffected by US cellphone
ownership rates even those intuitive advantages must also be in the noise
level in terms of causing or avoiding accidents statistically speaking.

Where cellphones excel though is getting emergency personnel _to_ an
accident, which lowers fatality rates given the essence of time.

> Am I right that while it is illegal (in the UK) to touch the phone while
> driving, it is not illegal to touch a hands-free unit to answer or to scroll
> through the address book? Subject always to the standard rule about any
> control on the car: is now a bad time to do this?

I don't know UK laws but in the USA each state has its own set of wacky laws
but that's more due to politicians wanting to look like they kiss babies
than to any rational look at the actual statistics of overall US accident
rates.

Mostly what you'll see are insurance companies, law firms, police
organizations, and other money grubbing entities (such as politicians,
police, and other government agencies who make money off of tickets) who are
the loudest in claiming that the statistics that are known to be reliably
collected must be wrong simply because one more distraction in a list of
many has been added to the list.

"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote

|It's the same as having
| a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is that the
| other person can see the incident that has needed my attention and so they
| know to repeat what they have just said.

And the other person doesn't say, "I want a divorce" while
you're being cut off in the middle of an intersection.

You think you're paying attention. If you haven't
had an accident it's only because people nearby
can tell you're out to lunch and they're being careful.

On 2021-05-16 2:21 p.m., NY wrote:
> "dan" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:s7s108$2ajf$1@neodome.net...
>> I looked up when US cellphone ownership percentages hit their 100%
>> plateau.
>>
>> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/global-u-s-growth-in-smartphone-growth-starts-to-decline.html
>>
>> "From roughly 2007 until 2013, the smartphone market grew at an
>> astonishing
>>  pace, posting double-digit growth year after year, even during a global
>>  recession."
>>
>> Funny how US car accident rates were slowly going down before then.
>> Funny how US accident rates _continued_ to go down during that time
>> frame.
>>
>> "Smartphone growth began to slow starting in 2013 or 2014. In 2016, it
>> was
>>  suddenly in the single digits, and in 2017 global smartphone shipments,
>>  for the first time, actually declined ¡X fewer smartphones were sold
>> than
>>  in 2017 than in 2016."
>>
>> Also funny is how US accident rates _further_ continued to go down
>> then too!
>
> I can imagine phones being responsible for drivers make silly,
> non-safety-critical mistakes like take a wrong turning, but I find that
> as soon as anything safety-critical needs my attention, all extraneous
> sound (phone call, radio, CD etc) gets ignored. When I listened to
> talking books to while away a long journey, I would realise that the
> story suddenly made no sense, because something had demanded my full
> attention so my ears/brain had filtered out a few sentences of the book.

I'm sorry to say, but you are the exception rather than the rule.

>
> With a phone call, I tell people "I'm driving, so I may miss some of
> what you are saying if I need to concentrate on driving". It's the same
> as having a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is
> that the other person can see the incident that has needed my attention
> and so they know to repeat what they have just said.
>
> I don't often use a phone while driving, and if I do, I answer and defer
> the caller ("can you hold on a moment") if I'm in dense traffic or have
> to follow signs for directions, and tend to talk only when I'm in light
> traffic where I don't anticipate constant reactions to changing road
> circumstances.
>

Again: exception not rule.

> I also have an absolute rule: I won't get involved in any conversation
> that is "difficult" (eg emotional or confrontational) while I'm driving
> - either face-to-face or via mobile phone.
>

Supra

> And to initiate a phone call I will, as far as possible, stop while I'm
> choosing the number from the menu - and *always* if the number isn't in
> the phone's memory and has to be keyed in digit by digit (because then I
> have to touch the phone, whereas selecting a number from the memory
> involves scrolling through a list on the hands-free unit or maybe even
> using voice recognition).

I use voice commands. "Hey Siri, call Chris" for example

>
> I always keep my phone on, capable of receiving calls, even if I let
> them go to voicemail, so I know that someone has tried to call me and
> that I probably need to find somewhere to stop briefly to listen to the
> message and maybe to return the call.
>
> Am I right that while it is illegal (in the UK) to touch the phone while
> driving, it is not illegal to touch a hands-free unit to answer or to
> scroll through the address book? Subject always to the standard rule
> about any control on the car: is now a bad time to do this?

There is a ridiculous dichotomy that makes touching a phone's activation
button too dangerous to allow, but allows drivers to fiddle with
touchscreen controls to their hearts' content.

On 2021-05-16 3:19 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>
> |It's the same as having
> | a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is that the
> | other person can see the incident that has needed my attention and so they
> | know to repeat what they have just said.
>
> And the other person doesn't say, "I want a divorce" while
> you're being cut off in the middle of an intersection.
>
> You think you're paying attention. If you haven't
> had an accident it's only because people nearby
> can tell you're out to lunch and they're being careful.
>
>
>

No, that's not necessarily so.

Some people do actually have the mental wherewithal to know where their
attention must be focused.

On 16/05/2021 21:57, dan wrote:
> I looked up when US cellphone ownership percentages hit their 100% plateau.
>
> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/global-u-s-growth-in-smartphone-growth-starts-to-decline.html
> "From roughly 2007 until 2013, the smartphone market grew at an astonishing
> pace, posting double-digit growth year after year, even during a global
> recession."
>
> Funny how US car accident rates were slowly going down before then.
> Funny how US accident rates _continued_ to go down during that time frame.
>
> "Smartphone growth began to slow starting in 2013 or 2014. In 2016, it was
> suddenly in the single digits, and in 2017 global smartphone shipments,
> for the first time, actually declined ¡X fewer smartphones were sold than
> in 2017 than in 2016."
>
> Also funny is how US accident rates _further_ continued to go down then too!

It's funny that you don't show any evidence to support to assertion. Go
back to bed Arlen. You've lost this argument too many time already...

On 16/05/2021 22:21, NY wrote:
> Am I right that while it is illegal (in the UK) to touch the phone while
> driving, it is not illegal to touch a hands-free unit to answer or to
> scroll through the address book? Subject always to the standard rule
> about any control on the car: is now a bad time to do this?

Nope not true. The general offence is "driving without due care and
attention" which has been around a long time. It doesn't matter whether
it's an analogue radio or your satnav if you aren't properly paying
attention to your driving you can be prosecuted.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/

There's also an additional fine of £200 (and 6 points on your licence)
for using a phone non-hands free.
https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

On 17/05/2021 01:53, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2021-05-16 3:19 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>>
>> |It's the same as having
>> | a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is that the
>> | other person can see the incident that has needed my attention and
>> so they
>> | know to repeat what they have just said.
>>
>>    And the other person doesn't say, "I want a divorce" while
>> you're being cut off in the middle of an intersection.
>>
>>    You think you're paying attention. If you haven't
>> had an accident it's only because people nearby
>> can tell you're out to lunch and they're being careful.
>>
>>
>>
>
> No, that's not necessarily so.
>
> Some people do actually have the mental wherewithal to know where their
> attention must be focused.

Only where 'the mental wherewithal' means they make a conscious decision
to either end the call and resume it later or pull-over to continue the
call.

"Chris" <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

| > Some people do actually have the mental wherewithal to know where their
| > attention must be focused.
| | Only where 'the mental wherewithal' means they make a conscious decision
| to either end the call and resume it later or pull-over to continue the
| call.
| Yes. "Don't worry, honey. I'll pull out before I come.
I have great self control."

On 2021-05-17 1:52 a.m., Chris wrote:
> On 17/05/2021 01:53, Alan Baker wrote:
>> On 2021-05-16 3:19 p.m., Mayayana wrote:
>>> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> |It's the same as having
>>> | a conversation with someone in the car; the only difference is that
>>> the
>>> | other person can see the incident that has needed my attention and
>>> so they
>>> | know to repeat what they have just said.
>>>
>>>    And the other person doesn't say, "I want a divorce" while
>>> you're being cut off in the middle of an intersection.
>>>
>>>    You think you're paying attention. If you haven't
>>> had an accident it's only because people nearby
>>> can tell you're out to lunch and they're being careful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, that's not necessarily so.
>>
>> Some people do actually have the mental wherewithal to know where
>> their attention must be focused.
>
> Only where 'the mental wherewithal' means they make a conscious decision
> to either end the call and resume it later or pull-over to continue the
> call.
>
>

If you can safely hold a conversation with someone IN the car...

On Mon, 17 May 2021 09:45:37 +0100, Chris wrote:

> Nope not true. The general offence is "driving without due care and
> attention" which has been around a long time. It doesn't matter whether
> it's an analogue radio or your satnav if you aren't properly paying
> attention to your driving you can be prosecuted.
> https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/

Where is this high accident rate predicted by click bait articles?

It's not in the reliable data.
The US Department of Transportation maintains accurate historical records.

*Where are the accidents?*

US DOT Bureau of Transportation Statististics Motor Vehicle Safety Data
https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data

1990 302 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1991 267 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1992 266 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1993 276 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1993 276 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1993 273 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1993 260 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1998 241 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
1999 233 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2000 233 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2001 226 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2002 221 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2003 219 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2004 208 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2005 206 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2006 198 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
*2007 199 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
*2008 195 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
*2009 186 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
*2010 183 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
*2011 181 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
*2012 189 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
*2013 190 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA*
2014 200 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2015 203 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2016 215 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2017 201 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2018 208 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
2019 207 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles in the USA
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/2021-03/table_02_17_011921.xlsx

Nobody quotes _reliable_ statistics because they don't fit their agenda.

Notice that the "accidents" are never _these_ reliable statistics but are
cherry picked by law firms, insurance companies and ticketing agencies.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/global-u-s-growth-in-smartphone-growth-starts-to-decline.html
"From roughly 2007 until 2013, the smartphone market grew at an astonishing
pace, posting double-digit growth year after year, even during a global
recession."

*Why is there no measurable effect on accident rates in the US?*

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/2021 21:57, dan wrote:
[...]

> > Also funny is how US accident rates _further_ continued to go down then too!
>
> It's funny that you don't show any evidence to support to assertion. Go
> back to bed Arlen. You've lost this argument too many time already...

+<very_large_number>

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/05/2021 22:21, NY wrote:
> > Am I right that while it is illegal (in the UK) to touch the phone while
> > driving, it is not illegal to touch a hands-free unit to answer or to
> > scroll through the address book? Subject always to the standard rule
> > about any control on the car: is now a bad time to do this?
>
> Nope not true. The general offence is "driving without due care and
> attention" which has been around a long time. It doesn't matter whether
> it's an analogue radio or your satnav if you aren't properly paying
> attention to your driving you can be prosecuted.
> https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/legal/driving-without-due-care-and-attention/
>
> There's also an additional fine of £200 (and 6 points on your licence)
> for using a phone non-hands free.
> https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

In The Netherlands the rule for phones is simple: You are not allowed
to touch it while driving. And indeed most other stuff falls in the
"driving without due care and attention" category.

On 17 May 2021 14:40:54 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> +<very_large_number>

Where are your statistics on US accident rates coming from, Mr. Slootweg?

Mine come _directly_ from the highly reliable data of the US Census Bureau.
https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/2021-03/table_02_17_011921.xlsx

My data isn't from law firms, insurance agencies & other ticketing agents.
(1) Cellphone ownership (and presumed use) skyrocketed during a known period
(2) Accurate reliable data on US accident rates show zero measurable effect.

My data doesn't come from pure clickbait which predicts huge accident rates.

My assessments are based on _accurate_ & _reliable_ data, Mr. Slootweg.
https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data

*Where is your US data from which you make your assessments, Mr. Slootweg?*

On 17 May 2021 14:47:32 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> In The Netherlands the rule for phones is simple: You are not allowed
> to touch it while driving. And indeed most other stuff falls in the
> "driving without due care and attention" category.

In your mind here is proof positive *holding* a phone causes accident. :-)
https://youtu.be/cArCizOqIug?t=40
The Crash That Called - Chris's True Pixel Story

The Android phone detected the accident & called him back, by default.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-suddenly-pushes-a-little-known-pixel-feature-and-its-marvelous/