Do Cellphones have a Net Kill Rate?

[Ottawa]

Something I have been wondering about...regarding the *safety* of having a cellphone in North America...I wonder whether safety is an expensive and deadly illusion in this case? 

Estimates are that cellphone distraction causes 2,600 DEATHS per year in the United States (these stats are out of date). 

http://www.livescience.com/121-drivers-cell-phones-kill-thousands-snarl-traffic.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/23/us-cellphones-driving-idUSTRE68M53K20100923

In addition to this, cellphone usage causes orders of magnitude more injuries and increased (but unquantified) fiscal loss through traffic congestion, and phone/subscription costs.

My questions begin with: 
How many lives do cellphones save in the North America? 
How many injuries do they prevent (this last question is a trick)?

This is only bare bones (so far) to promote discussion....

[matchewed]

I would imagine that the number of 911 calls made by cellphones which resulted in saved lives would out weigh the number. No stats just general reasoning.

[Ottawa]

I would imagine that the number of 911 calls made by cellphones which resulted in saved lives would out weigh the number. No stats just general reasoning.

That's where I'd like to find some actual information. 

Until then...some food for thought:

In many cases cellphones may be bogging the system down and draining resources.  Where once one or two land line calls would dial 911 at the site of a fire...now you have 50 cellphone calls...so in this example the cellphone didn't save...it drained the system. 

Perhaps where someone has recklessly flipped their (anti-mustachian) ATV in a forest (assuming cellphone coverage)...and a cellphone is available...well...no Darwin Award for that guy - since he'll have help coming soon...

Another thought...do people take fewer safety precautions...because of the cellphone - thus causing themselves un-necessary peril?  So in this case the cellphone saviour is merely a bailout for inadequate planning? (BTW - another source of cellphone deaths I suspect...)

[GuitarStv]

As someone who has never needed to carry a cellphone (and will continue to avoid carrying one unless it becomes necessary), I think that their utility is quite overrated.

[tuyop]

I really think that the question misses the point. Cell phones are not a lifesaving device, it's not their purpose. It's like asking what the net kill rate for automobiles is, given that they're used to transport people who need urgent medical care and also cause tens of thousands of deaths.

A better question would be: how can we reduce the dangers of using <insert modern convenience that also directly causes accidental death>?

And that's exactly what we try to do, I think it's a great discussion to talk about whether speed limits actually save lives, or whether bans on cell phone use while driving actually stop people or just increase the danger because they try to hide the use below the dash.

[Ottawa]

I really think that the question misses the point. Cell phones are not a lifesaving device, it's not their purpose. It's like asking what the net kill rate for automobiles is, given that they're used to transport people who need urgent medical care and also cause tens of thousands of deaths.

Perhaps...if you redefine the point...(and my point wasn't well defined - however let me frame a little better the reason I posed the question):

When folks are asked to 'give up their device' in order to reign in spending they often quote "Safety" as the reason they couldn't do without it.  Given this line of reasoning I wanted to ask the question that tried to address this key point...as MMM did in this article: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/06/07/safety-is-an-expensive-illusion/

This whole idea started while reading Jacob's post "Drop the Cellphone Plan" http://earlyretirementextreme.com/day-4-drop-the-cell-phone-pla.html and the 'edit' at the bottom of this article to address concerns people raised. 

[spider1204]

I also wouldn't be surprised that if on the safety front it was kind of an arms race like a bigger vehicle.  Where it's the case that owning a cell phone may increase your safety a little a bit, while simultaneously decreasing the safety of those around you.  Thus, safety wise there's no reason not to own one since you'll still be hit by all the downsides from everyone around you.

[Posthumane]

Every cell phone can dial 911, regardless of whether it is on a current plan or has a valid sim card. So if the argument for keeping a cell phone is safety a person can keep an old phone in their car somewhere without actually paying monthly for it. If you need to make calls to something other than emergency services (i.e. to call a tow truck if your car breaks down in the middle of nowhere) then I don't consider that safety anymore, but rather convenience.

[tuyop]

Oh that's just a lame excuse that people who live in fear use to avoid admitting that they're living in fear.

The alternative to claiming "safety" or whatever for any silly expensive convenience is to admit that the only thing that placates the sense of existential dread and anxiety inherent in their empty, sad lives of compulsion and habit is to participate in the prescribed therapeutic activities of consumption and false community.

[Ottawa]

Oh that's just a lame excuse that people who live in fear use to avoid admitting that they're living in fear.

The alternative to claiming "safety" or whatever for any silly expensive convenience is to admit that the only thing that placates the sense of existential dread and anxiety inherent in their empty, sad lives of compulsion and habit is to participate in the prescribed therapeutic activities of consumption and false community.

Exactly!  I totally agree - I thought I would try to replace the irrational fear with objective data that would put a new balance on the actual risk...rather than the perceived risk: by dismantling the crutch of consumerism addiction thinly veiled as 'mandatory safety device'.

[arebelspy]

Even if they have a net kill rate, it's a tragedy of the commons situation.

Regarding the safety thing: Each cell phone makes it safer for the individual.  Each other person's cell phone makes it less safe for you (net: they could use it to call when you have an emergency, it's more likely they'll use it to text while driving and get you into an accident).

If you stop carrying the cell phone you're less safe (and we can debate how much less safe, it doesn't really make you that much safer, and I agree that safety is an illusion).  It may be better for everyone to stop carrying them in terms of overall safety, but since that won't happen it's better for you to carry one than not.

Further, even if they do have a net kill rate: so what?

Their primary use isn't safety.  A car baby seat that killed more than it saved would be an issue, because that's its main goal.

A cell phone's main goal isn't safety, it's one tiny subset.  Cars probably have a net kill rate, more dying in auto accidents than are saved by rushing to the hospital (versus the amount of time it would take to rush them in a horse and buggy).  But their primary use isn't to make us safer.  If you want to be safer, you wouldn't step into a car.  The primary use is transportation, and we accept the trade off of some deaths (and try to reduce them where we can).

A cell phone's primary use is (insert whatever you believe here - but I doubt you believe it is safety) and so we trade off some net overall safety for that use.

We don't have to, and we should try to reduce those risks (texting while driving and such), just like we try to reduce car risks (via safety mechanisms like seat belts, things like speed limits, making drunk driving illegal, etc.), but you say cell phones may have a net kill rate, I say: so what?

[tuyop]

Even if they have a net kill rate, it's a tragedy of the commons situation.

Regarding the safety thing: Each cell phone makes it safer for the individual.  Each other person's cell phone makes it less safe for you (net: they could use it to call when you have an emergency, it's more likely they'll use it to text while driving and get you into an accident).

If you stop carrying the cell phone you're less safe (and we can debate how much less safe, it doesn't really make you that much safer, and I agree that safety is an illusion).  It may be better for everyone to stop carrying them in terms of overall safety, but since that won't happen it's better for you to carry one than not.

Further, even if they do have a net kill rate: so what?

Their primary use isn't safety.  A car baby seat that killed more than it saved would be an issue, because that's its main goal.

A cell phone's main goal isn't safety, it's one tiny subset.  Cars probably have a net kill rate, more dying in auto accidents than are saved by rushing to the hospital (versus the amount of time it would take to rush them in a horse and buggy).  But their primary use isn't to make us safer.  If you want to be safer, you wouldn't step into a car.  The primary use is transportation, and we accept the trade off of some deaths (and try to reduce them where we can).

A cell phone's primary use is (insert whatever you believe here - but I doubt you believe it is safety) and so we trade off some net overall safety for that use.

We don't have to, and we should try to reduce those risks (texting while driving and such), just like we try to reduce car risks (via safety mechanisms like seat belts, things like speed limits, making drunk driving illegal, etc.), but you say cell phones may have a net kill rate, I say: so what?

So if I'm truly safety-obsessed, does it make more sense to boycott cell phones (and cars, planes, bicycles, walking...) in the hopes that everyone else will stop using one after following my example? Like, what do we tell people when they bring up "safety" as the reason why they just cannot do without their phone?

Personally, I don't speak to people about these things most of the time, because I find their opinions infuriating, but in the past I've just come out and said that being in fear is no way to live your life. I don't have many friends.

[Ottawa]

Further, even if they do have a net kill rate: so what?...Their primary use isn't safety.  We don't have to, and we should try to reduce those risks (texting while driving and such), just like we try to reduce car risks (via safety mechanisms like seat belts, things like speed limits, making drunk driving illegal, etc.), but you say cell phones may have a net kill rate, I say: so what?

1) I think that such data would be fairly important kryptonite for consumerist suckas who say "I woudn't give up my $500 cellphone and $85 plan because I'm safer for it!".  I am questioning that logic (would not it be better to opt for the $100 used phone and $10 plan).
2) Slightly off topic...I also wonder if the 'convenience' of the average cellphone isn't net neutral at best (worse for a sucka who buys a new one every 6 months, better for a discerning Mustachian)...if you consider everything from mining lithium to belching factory production to shipping to infrastructure to cash sucking plans etc...after all we are ultimately talking about Mustachian use vs not.
3) Personally it pisses me off when I'm bike commuting and see someone ahead of me swerving around like a drunk driver only to find them texting at the next stoplight...and hoping next time they're not behind me!

A car baby seat that killed more than it saved would be an issue, because that's its main goal.

You've opened another can of statistical worms...an interesting TED talk I listened to last night...   ;-)
www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.html

[Jamesqf]

Perhaps where someone has recklessly flipped their (anti-mustachian) ATV in a forest (assuming cellphone coverage)...and a cellphone is available...well...no Darwin Award for that guy - since he'll have help coming soon...

Well, maybe :-)  OTOH, I'm amused by people who suggest I carry a cell phone for "safety" while hiking, mountain biking, or riding the horse*, 'cause about 90% of the time, there ain't no signal out there.

* Which you could say is very unMustachian, or you could consider the point of being Mustachian is to be able to afford things like that.

[gdborton]

Safety is too open ended to effectively argue over.

Based solely on lives saved vs lives cost, I'd argue for more lives saved.

The biggest danger of a cell phone is not paying attention while driving, but that is less cell phone and more irresponsibility.  The same idiot that died fiddling with their cell could have been killed by their cheeseburger, makeup, or radio.