Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:22:34 -0000 (UTC) :

Silent snip noted. Arlen is clearly unhappy about being found out to be
wrong on multiple occasions.

>>> Assessment of that fact:
>>> Those accident rate reports are accurate.
>>
>> Based on what? How are you defining accuracy? Is it post hoc justification
>> because those numbers match your bias?
>
> You're the one with the "bias" becsaue you quoted zero facts.

Also noted that you haven't answered the question.

> Unlike you, I've said many times that I too would have believed the ignrant
> myth about cellphones & accident rates had I not checked the facts in the
> reliable records like any well-trained scientist should do,.
>
> I know the facts.
> You are just guessing.

I haven't made any statements.

> Hence, you're the one holding on to the myth without checking the facts.
>
> People who are not ignorant & uneducated *have* looked at the myth though.
> <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>
>
> Look at the US Census Accident Rate statistics by year, for example.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
>
> What do you see, Chris?
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>

I see very old and patchy data.

> Look at first-order effects, Chris... i.e., the accident rate per year.
> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
>
> What do you see happening during the skyrocketing cellphone days, Chris?
> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
>
> HINT: Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.

Only one of those links is for accidents. The others are deaths, which
you've claimed for years are not meaningful.

On 5/25/24 21:16, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:06:06 -0400, bad sector
> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/25/24 11:47, Andrew wrote:
>>> Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :
>>>
>>>> The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
>>>> about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
>>>> about deaths.
>>>
>>> I'm a well-trained scientist.
>>>
>>> I base my assessments on facts.
>>> While most people (who are not scientists) simply guess at everything.
>>>
>>> Don't look at second-order effects of accidents until you've ascertained
>>> first-order effects, since deaths are a function of many more things.
>>>
>>> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>>>
>>> The only place that myth exists is in people's minds when they don't think.
>>> However, even I would have *thought* accident rates would have skyrocketed.
>>>
>>> They didn't.
>>> Not in the USA anyway (where accurate records have been kept for decades).
>>>
>>> The rate not only didn't skyrocket, it barely changed.
>>>
>>> And what changed was it slowly trended down, down, down.
>>> That's just a fact.
>>>
>>> Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools).
>>>
>>> The main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
>>> namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police.
>>>
>>> In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the
>>> accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
>>> ownership in the United States?
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
>>>
>>> What do you see?
>>> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
>>>
>>> Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
>>> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
>>>
>>> What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
>>>
>>> HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
>>
>>
>> None of the above proves that cell-phone use while drivig is not
>> extremely dangerous or that the part of accidents caused by cell phone
>> use or by other distracting devices is not increasing with increasing
>> cellphone use. BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
>> offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before? Right, so
>> much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
>> one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
>>
>> A few years ago I had a near head-on collision (missed BY INCHES) with a
>> closure rate of well over 250 km/h and the other driver was a woman
>> (sole occupant in that car with phone in hand) who had deviated
>> completely into my single lane from a point about 200 feet in front of
>> me, try THAT once for a hard opinion-alignment!
>
> So what happened? Did she start looking at the road and go back ot her
> lane? Did you head for the shoulder?

Off-topic but I'll come back to it if at least one other request comes
in, it was an eye-opener and made me appreciate Subaru handling on (then
new) nokian tires!

>> Also a few years ago I
>> was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
>> stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
>> know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not
>> noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
>> might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
>> over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
>> (mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).
>>
>> Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I
>> affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY
>> NOTHING in this respect)
>
> The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
> the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
> paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
> if you're headed to an obstacle.

THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.

>> try to remember road/traffic details from the
>> previous few minutes without drawing a complete blank. You can cheat,
>> but when alone and looking at yourself in the mirror you'll remember the
>> astounding revelation and it will change your habbits.

bad��sector wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 07:48:52 -0400 :

> THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
> without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
> less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
> way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
> assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
> name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.

Most people, unfortunately, believe everything that "sounds" right to them.
(It's why advertising works, after all, is it not?)

I believe it's a myth that humans multi-task well. However, I'm not a
specialist in neuroscience, but I think I saw somewhere that multi
processing is a myth. We simply do what single-core CPUs do.

Apparently we page it out and then page it back in to process different
scenarios. But let me look it up before I delve deeper into neuro babble...
<https://www.google.com/search?q=can+humans+multiprocess+psychology>

Here's the first hit.
*The Fallacy of Multitasking*
<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-stress-and-burnout/202203/the-fallacy-multitasking>

Bear in mind, almost everything that dumb people think is true, is wrong.
It's why advertising works.

And why they give a good-student discount to A students, by the way.

Chris wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 10:03:18 -0000 (UTC) :

> Only one of those links is for accidents. The others are deaths, which
> you've claimed for years are not meaningful.

They contained both.

And the US Census Bureau has been accurately reporting accident rates since
the 1920s.

Nobody intelligent disagrees with their accident-rate statistics.

What intelligent people may disagree with is why they are what they are.
My hypothesis as to why the facts are what they are is only my theory.

You're quite welcome to disagree with my theory of why the facts are what
they are; but nobody intelligent can disagree with the facts.

As I say on the Apple group all the time, just because people hate facts
doesn't instantly turn those facts into not being facts.

There is no question the accident rate trend remained unchanged.
The only question is why.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :
>
>> The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
>> about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
>> about deaths.
>
> I'm a well-trained scientist.

Having (supposed) college degrees and books doesn't make you a scientist.
Certainly not a "well-trained" one.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 10:03:18 -0000 (UTC) :

Why do you snip so heavily? Uncomfortable reading?

>> Only one of those links is for accidents. The others are deaths, which
>> you've claimed for years are not meaningful.
>
> They contained both.
>
> And the US Census Bureau has been accurately reporting accident rates since
> the 1920s.

I'm ask again. What makes you believe they are accurate? If they're so
accurate why have they stopped collecting the data?

On 5/26/24 8:18 AM, Chris wrote:

>Having (supposed) college degrees and books doesn't make you a scientist.

Course it does. You can be anything you want to be on Usenet...

Chris wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 15:24:36 -0000 (UTC) :

>> And the US Census Bureau has been accurately reporting accident rates since
>> the 1920s.
>
> I'm ask again. What makes you believe they are accurate? If they're so
> accurate why have they stopped collecting the data?

There is no question the statistics are reliable and currently maintained.
<https://data.census.gov/>

There was no change in accident rates (they're slowly trending downward).

The only question is why.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 22:16:53 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 5/25/2024 9:16 PM, micky wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
>> the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
>> paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
>> if you're headed to an obstacle.
>>
> That's an important point that cellphone addicts often ignore.
>No one says, "Honey, I want a divorce" from the passenger seat in
>the middle of a busy intersection. But they might say it over a
>cellphone.

That too! I hadn't thought about that, that the topic the other party to
a phone call chooses can be very upsetting, distracting to the nth
degree.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 07:48:52 -0400, bad?sector
<forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:

>
>> The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
>> the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
>> paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
>> if you're headed to an obstacle.
>
>THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
>without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
>less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
>way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
>assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
>name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.

Hey, I agree with you and even I didn't understand this explanation! If
people don't understand, use little words that someone like me will
understand.

On 5/26/2024 6:49 PM, micky wrote:

>> THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
>> without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
>> less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
>> way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
>> assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
>> name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.
>
> Hey, I agree with you and even I didn't understand this explanation! If
> people don't understand, use little words that someone like me will
> understand.
>

Basically it's saying there's no such thing as multitasking.
People who try to are addicted to speed, constantly jumping
back and forth between things as a way to feel productive.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 22:13:00 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 5/25/2024 11:47 AM, Andrew wrote:
>
>> What do you see?
>> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
>>
> I see irrelevant statistics that only go up to 2008 -- about
>the time the iPhone came out.
>
>
>> Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
>> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
>>
>> What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
>>
>> HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
>>
>
> Your second link is from an insurance company group
>and says that 11% of fatal crashes are known to be caused
>by cellphone use. That's just the ones that admitted to it or
>perhaps were found to be using their cellphone by other means.
>And it's only including fatal crashes. The man who sideswiped
>me while distracted by his cellphone, for example, didn't cause
>a major accident. There was no bodily harm.
>
> Also, pedestrian deaths have increased since 2009. I wouldn't
>say that proves a cellphone connection, but it certainly points
>in that direction.
>
> Your last link simply says that death rates have decreased.
>That relates to seat belts, airbags, better brakes, etc. It's
>not a direct indication of actual accident rates. It doesn't
>even refer to accident rates. It's referring only to deaths per
>miles driven.
>
> This is why you need to keep your emotions out of it. Reading
>so much disparate data, which actually says very little about
>anything other than the usefulness of seat belts, can make it
>very tempting to read meaning into it.
>
> An interesting other factor that's barely mentioned is the
>excessive computerization. With today's cars, few things
>can be done without looking at the dashboard. In older
>cars, heat, AC, radio, etc can be easily adjusted without
>looking. With touchscreens distraction is unavoidable.

This last paragraph is important. My car is from 2005 and the only
touchscreen function is moving the map, which I don't do too much. Some
other fuctions have physical controls but one can't tell with his hands
what result he gets. There are digital displays of temp and fan speed.
OTOR, some cars have more and more controls on the steering wheel, and
if you have to be using them, that's a good place to find them,

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/resources/texting-and-driving-accident-statistics
Texting and Driving Accident Statistics 2024

The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving
leads to 1.6 million crashes each year. In fact, at any given time
throughout the day, approximately 660,000 drivers are attempting to use
their phones while behind the wheel of an automobile according to an
NHTSA Survey.

Generally, the numbers illustrating the dangers of texting while driving
are downright startling. While smartphones have made it easy for us to
stay connected at all times, they can pose serious safety risks if
someone decides to check their text messages, emails, phone calls,
social media pages or any other mobile applications while driving.

The following figures reflect the most recent available statistics that
demonstrate the dangers of texting and driving.

Current Distracted Driving Facts and Statistics

Around 3,000 people die in accidents involving a distracted driver
each year. (CDC)
Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds.
Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a
football field. (NHTSA)
A National survey on distracted driving showed almost 1 in 10
respondents reporting sending texts or emails while driving at least
sometimes where about 1 in 12 reported using some smartphone app that
was not a navigation app. (NHTSA)
From 2011 to 2021 crashes involving cell phone use on average
accounted for about 13 percent of fatal crashes involving distractions
yearly. (NSC) [13 percent is a lot, and I don't see how cell
phones can prevent anywhere near a compensating number of accidents or
deaths. The only thing I remember from this thread is telling you in
advance where a traffic jamb is, and I think it's very rare for a
drivers who are not seriously tailgating to plow into stopped traffic. ]
Roughly 93 percent of drivers consider hand-held cell phone use as
dangerous however 27 percent have reported sending a text/email while
driving and 38 percent reported reading a text/email while driving.
(AAA) [I myself have never done these things, but even outside the
car, I rarely text or read (or less often send) email on a cellpohne/]
From 2013 to 2022, over 1.2 million crashes took place in PA alone
with over 130,000 of them being attributed to some form of distracted
driving and 573 being categorized as fatal with 1765 deaths recorded
according to PennDOT’s Pennsylvania Crash Information Tool website.
As of April 2023, in 24 states and the District of Columbia the use
of hand-held devices has been banned for all drivers, while 48 states
and the District of Columbia have banned texting while driving. (NSC)
Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers participating in interstate
commerce cannot use “hand-held mobile telephones,” or engage in texting,
while driving a commercial motor vehicle (FMCSR)

On 5/26/2024 9:19 PM, micky wrote:

> Roughly 93 percent of drivers consider hand-held cell phone use as
> dangerous however 27 percent have reported sending a text/email while
> driving and 38 percent reported reading a text/email while driving.

There's the rub. Most heavy cellphone users simply don't
have the self-control to resist, and neither do the cops who
should be writing them tickets. It's a kind of lifestyle epidemic.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/24 8:18 AM, Chris wrote:
>
>> Having (supposed) college degrees and books doesn't make you a scientist.
>
> Course it does. You can be anything you want to be on Usenet...

Very true.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 24 May 2024 21:58:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris
>>> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was thinking more for your friend to be able to relay your location more
>> easily than google map coordinates.
>
> Oh, that makes sense. But getting her to learn it would be difficult.
> She's very busy, and I'll be lucky if she notices that I didn't come
> home at the end of the day.

Sounds like she is the issue here, not your app requirements.

>
> And I looked up the T-mobile coverage map, and it includes every place I
> was and every place nearby. Still, when the webradio stopped working,
> I looked at the top line and it showed zero bars. (I didn't use the
> apps I have that measure cell signal.) So how could that be if
> T-mobile says it's covered. I don't know.

The maps are a prediction. Reality is often different. Especially at the
edges.

On 27.05.24 08:54, Chris wrote:
> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 24 May 2024 21:58:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
>> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris
>>>> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was thinking more for your friend to be able to relay your location more
>>> easily than google map coordinates.
>>
>> Oh, that makes sense. But getting her to learn it would be difficult.
>> She's very busy, and I'll be lucky if she notices that I didn't come
>> home at the end of the day.
>
> Sounds like she is the issue here, not your app requirements.

It is a running gag for years that micky tries to solve his social
issues with Android apps.

--
"Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)

On 5/26/24 18:49, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 07:48:52 -0400, bad?sector
> <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
>>> the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
>>> paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
>>> if you're headed to an obstacle.
>>
>> THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
>> without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
>> less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
>> way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
>> assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
>> name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.
>
> Hey, I agree with you and even I didn't understand this explanation! If
> people don't understand, use little words that someone like me will
> understand.

Sorry, that's one of my too few faults, being quadrilingual and the
Bard's not being my mother tongue, but I'm always working on increasing
the total. The brain is capable of unloading some very simple tasks to
the unconscious, the latter being otherwise far more capable in its own
realm. The conscious and binary mind can juggle 2 or 3 task even rapidly
but not concurrently and when any of them start hogging the resource you
end up with 'helmet-fire' and/or panic. Anyone who uses even a
hands-free phone while driving has by definition more glands and
intestines where grey stuff should dwell to know any of this.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 15:24:36 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> And the US Census Bureau has been accurately reporting accident rates since
>>> the 1920s.
>>
>> I'm ask again. What makes you believe they are accurate? If they're so
>> accurate why have they stopped collecting the data?
>
> There is no question the statistics are reliable and currently maintained.

Not your cherished accident data. There's no data since 2008.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 22:07:38 -0400, Newyana2
<newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>On 5/26/2024 9:19 PM, micky wrote:
>
>> Roughly 93 percent of drivers consider hand-held cell phone use as
>> dangerous however 27 percent have reported sending a text/email while
>> driving and 38 percent reported reading a text/email while driving.
>
> There's the rub. Most heavy cellphone users simply don't
>have the self-control to resist, and neither do the cops who
>should be writing them tickets. It's a kind of lifestyle epidemic.

What I've done that I consider dangerous, at least if cars are nearby,
is that I like to use Navigation (but without spoken directions). Even
though I can find any place without navigation, I don't have to stop and
check where to turn next.

But if the webradio stops playing and I need to restart it, or I need to
do anything else on the phone, in order to get back to the map, first
one has to tap the little map** in the lower right corner. That makes
it a little bigger. Second, you have to then tap the little map in its
center, within the marked lines in the center, or nothing happens.

I see no need for it to be two steps and no need to have to be so
accurate in one's tapping. And with the car bumping up and down it's
hard to do. On a smooth rode with a fairly long car and "comfort"
suspension, the car ride can seem very smooth but when one puts his hand
out, he'll find his finger moving around quite a bit. So it takes a long
time to hit the mark, instead of one easily-made tap.

**(I do see why they keep the map showing, as little as it is. I don't
use it when it's little --- It's too little --- but others may really
want it.)

I've thought about writing google about this, not sure where to write.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> bad💽sector wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 21:43:23 -0400 :
>
>> In order to have any meaningful correlation between cell phones in cars
>> and their effect on accidents one would have to know how many of those
>> cell phones were in use while driving and also the accident rate in
>> those cars as compared to the others. Without this in the case of
>> cell-phone correlation the supplied study provides just irrelevant
>> statistical noise.
>
> You bring up a point that we discussed in gory detail in the past, which is
> that nobody knows much about the actual usage rate of cellphones. We all
> know people use them; but we have no reliable data on how much they're
> used.
>
> I covered this in gory detail where the NHTSA reports every May of every
> year (as I recall) on cellphone *usage* rates; but - get this - they
> calculate that at red lights. Yes. Red lights. They hvae a person sitting
> on the side peering into vehicles to note how many people are using them.
>
> Clearly this is a flawed statistic

Flawed how?

> Again, this was covered in gory detail in the past, the point being that
> the most *reliable* statistic we have is the accident rate (which is number
> of accidents normalized by the number of miles driven).

Why is it reliable?

It's obvious that not all accidents are ever captured. Fender benders where
no-one is hurt nor involves police nor is reported to insurance, for
example.

Chris wrote on Mon, 27 May 2024 13:17:56 -0000 (UTC) :

> Not your cherished accident data. There's no data since 2008.

Plenty of statistics on road accidents are current, Chris.
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>

The main problem is simply that the information is scattered about.
<https://www.statista.com/topics/3708/road-accidents-in-the-us/#topicOverview>
<https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-traffic-crash-data-fatalities>
<https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa-releases-2020-traffic-crash-data>

While the data is in various and sundry separate pieces...
<https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813183>

The only bounding dates that really matter for this topic are these two:
a. When did cellphones in vehicles basically not exist.
b. When did cellphones rise nearly to saturation in vehicles.

If cellphone use were as dastardly as the claims, there should be a
meteoric rise in the accident rate during that period, right?

Where is that meteoric rise?
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/pdf/fi200.pdf>

Hint: It's not there.

Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
<https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>

What do you see in those accident statistics for the time periods of
before, during, and after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership?

Try this search, but let's stick to first-order effects, which are the
normalized accident rates, as injuries are a second-order effect for later.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=accident+rate+usa+by+state+by+year+since+1900+to+present>

This shows normalized fatalities, which wasn't my main point, but it too is
trending the same way as the accident rate statistics were trending.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year>

We have to understand that the analysis gets exponentially more complex
once we delve into second-order effects such as injuries & fatalities.
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/introduction/>

Simply because there are more factors involved, where cellphones can
actually decrease the fatality rate in many ways (e.g., quicker aid).
<https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2022-traffic-deaths-2023-early-estimates>
"The agency estimates that 40,990 people died in motor vehicle
traffic crashes in 2023, a decrease of about 3.6% as compared
to 42,514 fatalities reported to have occurred in 2022.
The fourth quarter of 2023 represents the seventh consecutive
quarterly decline in fatalities beginning with the second
quarter of 2022."

The problem isn't finding recent data; it's finding only the accidents.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state>

Since the problem is complex enough, let's stick with first-order accidents
since there can't be second order effects of injuries without accidents.

Nobody has yet found any statistic that backs up the myth.
There's a reason for that fact.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Mon, 27 May 2024 13:17:56 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>> Not your cherished accident data. There's no data since 2008.
>
> Plenty of statistics on road accidents are current, Chris.
> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>

You keep conflating accidents with deaths/injuries. You've stated before
that *accidents* are what matter, which I agree with. However, the majority
of data is about accidents that cause injuries which I'd argue is pretty
reliable.

> The main problem is simply that the information is scattered about.
> <https://www.statista.com/topics/3708/road-accidents-in-the-us/#topicOverview>
> <https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-traffic-crash-data-fatalities>
> <https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/nhtsa-releases-2020-traffic-crash-data>

That's not the data you're looking for...

> While the data is in various and sundry separate pieces...
> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813183>
>
> The only bounding dates that really matter for this topic are these two:
> a. When did cellphones in vehicles basically not exist.
> b. When did cellphones rise nearly to saturation in vehicles.
>
> If cellphone use were as dastardly as the claims, there should be a
> meteoric rise in the accident rate during that period, right?

You claim the be a "well experienced scientist". Where's your hypothesis,
the model you're testing and an assessment of which data are most suitable
for testing your hypothesis? Currently, your question is poorly framed.

> Where is that meteoric rise?
> <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/pdf/fi200.pdf>
>
> Hint: It's not there.

As a scientist you will know that absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence. In other words, just because you cannot see it doesn't mean
*that's proof* of it not happening. It can just as well mean you've got the
wrong data or model.

> Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
> <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>

If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues
until covid and the latest data still shows greatest numbers of accidents
since 2004.

> What do you see in those accident statistics for the time periods of
> before, during, and after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership?

I don't see what you claim to be true.

> Nobody has yet found any statistic that backs up the myth.

Except the one you shared above.

Chris wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 07:45:37 -0000 (UTC) :

> If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
> in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues
> until covid and the latest data still shows greatest numbers of accidents
> since 2004.

You don't understand that the number of accidents is almost meaningless
because that needs to be normalized against the number of miles driven.

The fact is you scoured the Internet and still you can't find a single
reference that refutes the myth that cellphone use is as dangerous as you
claim.

All you have been doing is saying you don't like the fact that your own
belief system isn't based on any facts that you can cite on this thread.