Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:55:37 -0400, nospam wrote:

> the reduction in fatalities has been trending down before
> there were cellphones and continues to trend down even though cellphone
> use is up.

I use my cellphnoe all day, every day.
While driving. While walking. While resting. While working.
I've never had a traffic accident.

Yet, I can be *punished* for being a safe driver.
There is NO EVIDENCE that aggregate cellphone use causes accidents.

Bad drivers cause accidents.
There are already plenty of laws against bad driving.

Why add more (obviously useless) laws?

On 04/23/2014 01:08 PM, bob mullen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:55:37 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> the reduction in fatalities has been trending down before
>> there were cellphones and continues to trend down even though cellphone
>> use is up.
>
> I use my cellphnoe all day, every day.
> While driving. While walking. While resting. While working.

No life, eh? That's too bad. I feel sorry for you. You should unplug
once in a while. Get to know your family. You'll be the better for it.

> I've never had a traffic accident.

You've been lucky. VERY lucky.
>
> Yet, I can be *punished* for being a safe driver.

Using a cell phone while driving means you are NOT a "safe driver."
Period. "Never had an accident" is NOT the definition of "safe driving."

> There is NO EVIDENCE that aggregate cellphone use causes accidents.

There is NO EVIDENCE that increased aggregate cell phone use means
increased use without a hands-free device while driving, either.
>
> Bad drivers cause accidents.

And those that use their cell phones while driving are by definition
"bad drivers."

> There are already plenty of laws against bad driving.

Including those banning cell phone use without a hands-free device.

I'm curious... Do you advocate texting while driving, too?

TJ

In article >, bob mullen
> wrote:

> I use my cellphnoe all day, every day.
> While driving. While walking. While resting. While working.
> I've never had a traffic accident.

Anecdotal, not illustrative.

>> There are already plenty of laws against bad driving.
>
> Including those banning cell phone use without a hands-free device.

Laws banning cell phone use while driving that make exceptions
for a hands-free device are bad laws. There is no evidence that
a hands-free device is any less distracting than a handsful device.

nospam wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:00:51 -0400:

> with older cars, there may be performance issues and/or knocking if you
> use lower octane gas than what is recommended for the vehicle.
>
> with newer cars, the engine can automatically adjust the timing
> regardless of what type of gas you use, and the fact that it does
> adjust the timing at all means the octane does make a difference.

We could argue the octane details (which I will in a separate reply
to your post above) but my point was that so-called 'common sense'
dictates, to many people, that the higher-octane gas give the car
more power than the lower octane gas.

Those people point to all the commercials showing a tiger running
across the screen for higher-octane fuels. They also point to the
fact that high-compression engines use high-octane fuels. Some
even point to the fact that jet engines use REALLY HIGH octane
fuels, as their 'common sense' indicator that higher octane gas
means higher performance.

They even point to the price difference, just as they claim that
Techron cleans better. All this seems to be 'common sense' to them,
but, as you will see in the next post, it's all basically untrue
(with the devil being in the details).

So, what some consider the common sense attitude that the higher
octane fuel costs more and is used in high-performance vehicles,
well then, common sense (for them) dictates that it *must* be
(somehow) *better* for their car. It's not.

Likewise with the so-called 'common sense' attitudes that cellphones
*must* be causing accidents. They are not. Clearly they are not.
Otherwise, accident statistics would be going up.

Anyway, I'll cover the octane stuff you mentioned separately.

nospam wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:00:51 -0400:

> it depends on the car.

True. More specifically, it depends most on the engine design, and,
more importantly, it depends a LOT on the compression ratio of the engine,
but also on the timing, temperature, design load, valve timing, spark
plug heat range, atmospheric pressure, humidity, etc.

Summarized, some cars are *designed* to use higher octane fuels,
while most cars are not designed for high octane fuels.

Therefore, if your car is *designed* for the higher octane fuels, then
you will likely get lower performance (mostly due to retarded timing) on
lower-than-designed octane fuels. However, it really depends on how you drive
and whether the knock sensors are retarding the timing or not.

Even if your engine is designed for higher-octane fuels, if the knock
sensors are not retarding the timing, then you'll get no decrease
in performance (AFAIK); but if the knock sensors *are* retarding the
timing, then you likely *will* have a decrease in peak performance.

In short, if the car is not designed for the high octane fuel (and
if it's running to spec), then there can't possibly be any increase
in performance with the higher-than-designed octane rated fuel.

> with older cars, there may be performance issues and/or knocking if you
> use lower octane gas than what is recommended for the vehicle.

This is true - but it's not the point. My point was that *higher*
than recommended octane ratings provide no value.

It *is* true, especially in the case of the older cars you speak of,
which may not have knock sensors, that *lower* than designed for
octane ratings could easily be bad for the engine.

For example, if the engine is so old that it doesn't even have
piezoelectric knock sensors, then putting lower-than-recommended octane
rated fuels in can allow knocking to occur, which is really hard on
pistons, valves, rings, and journals.

The only caveat to putting the recommended octane fuel in any
engine is that these older cars *may* have carbon deposits on the
piston head so thick that the compression ratio is affected, or,
they may have non-working EGR systems such that the cylinders
have more oxygen in them than expected, or they may have non-working
cooling systems which make the engine hotter, etc.

But, assuming the engine is working to spec, putting *higher*
than recommended octane rated fuels can't possibly increase
performance.

Yet, "common sense" tells a lot of people that this is not the
case. Of course, they're wrong. But the same people say that
"common sense" tells them that cellphones use is causing accidents!

> with newer cars, the engine can automatically adjust the timing
> regardless of what type of gas you use, and the fact that it does
> adjust the timing at all means the octane does make a difference.

True. (I already explained this above.)

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:54:09 +0000 (UTC), Pat Wilson
> wrote:

>In short, if the car is not designed for the high octane fuel (and
>if it's running to spec), then there can't possibly be any increase
>in performance with the higher-than-designed octane rated fuel.

Everything you wrote is essentially correct, but the above paragraph
can be misleading. The mfr. states that my car runs on regular, and,
in fact, they like to highlight that "feature". It does run on
regular, but barely, in high ambients. In the winter I can use most
anything, but when it gets over 100 out here, the car won't run
properly on anything but the highest octane I can find. The timing
retards so severely that there is no power. The other issue is that
mpg also goes down when the timing retards.

Bill Vanek wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:25:10 -0700:

> In the winter I can use most
> anything, but when it gets over 100 out here, the car won't run
> properly on anything but the highest octane I can find.

Understood that the devil is in the details.

Specs being what specs are, they are often stated for a specific
temperature and pressure (e.g., STP). Also gas being the variable
that it is, can be different today from tomorrow (and from station
to station and from winter to summer, etc.).

To underscore that variability, in the US, they don't even have
a single 'octane' rating. They actually take an average of two
different octane ratings, one more mechanical and the other
more theoretical, but each differing by a significant number of
points.

So, the AKI is clearly variable (within reason).

Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that
higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater
performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones
must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of
accidents.

Never has a single fact or statistic been shown that accidents
are increasing in the United States due to anything, let alone
due to cell phone usage.

In fact, accidents are steadily decreasing, which is clear and obvious
and nobody disputes that fact. Yet, somehow, the statement was made
that "common sense" dictates that cell phones must (somehow? magically?)
be causing accidents.

That was the only point of bringing up the octane "common sense"
analogy.

dorayme wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:48:09 +1000:

> you are juggling a device that has nothing to do with the
> driving of the car, it will affect ability to avoid accidents.

I agree with you that the phone allows you to avoid accidents,
but I disagree with you that the phone has nothing to do with driving.

The phone has a *lot* to do with driving!

You will avoid more accidents because you can see *traffic* red
zones on your phone, miles before you enter them.

You will avoid construction and weather related accidents for the
same reason.

Likewise, you can call in to a meeting, instead of having to rush
to get to the office, and, if you're running late, you can notify
people who are waiting for you to meet in a different location or
time.

Similarly, the navigation apps on the phone allow you to know that
a turn is coming up, that you might have missed - and - they tell
you the road you are on without you having to try to read the
street names which are off to the side of you instead of in front.

I've even averted a case of road rage, when someone got out of a
car to confront the car in front of me, and when they saw me
grab my camera to film them, they immediately got back in their
car and sped off.

So, I do agree with you that cell phones make it *less likely*
that you will be in an accident or altercation.

Pat Wilson > wrote:

> Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that
> higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater
> performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones
> must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of
> accidents.

How about the "common sense" that a 36-month battery is somehow
magically better than a 24-month battery?