How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?

It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA

The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
since 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.

On 2024-05-25 07:29, Andrew wrote:
> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>
> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>
> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
> since 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.

You really know nothing about statistics...

On 25.05.24 17:10, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-05-25 07:29, Andrew wrote:
>> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>>
>> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>>
>> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
>> since 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.
>
> You really know nothing about statistics...

+1

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

I was considering letting this go and not replying to your last post in
the other thread, even though you didn't get the points I was trying to
make. But here you bring up the same mistaken ideas.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 14:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew@spam.net> wrote:

>How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>
>It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>
>The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,

More insults. In the same way I turned you off in my 3rd line above by
calling your ideas mistaken, by calling them stupid, you turn off every
person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. If you're a scientist,
you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people
is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe.
>since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
>namely (a) injury lawyers,

That's silly. Injury lawyers don't benefit from statistics. It doesn't
help them if 100 million accidents were caused by cellphones. The judge
won't even let them offer statistics as evidence at the trial. They
need to show that the other driver in *their* lawsuit was negligent,
perhaps by using the cellphone when he should have been paying more
attention to his driving.

>(b) insurance companies

Insurance companies don't benefit either. I can't give a reasonable
guess how you think they do. How do you think they do? Or are they
just a boogey-man to be blamed for anything relating to negligence or
insurance?

>(c) ticketing police.

Police don't benefit either. Even you admitted that paying attention to
the cell phone can cause accidents. Do you think the police should
ignore someone doing that just because for *other* reasons, according to
you, cellphones lower the accident rate? That's ridiculous.

>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?

I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation. Google the
preceding three words and maybe some webpage will explain it better than
I'm about to: You admit there are hundreds of factors in determining
the accident rate but then because it's going down**, you claim that
proves that ONE of those hundreds is lowering it.

**I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate
per capita has been going up since 2010. There is a logical reason why
death rate and accident rate are correlated. (No one dies in a traffic
accident unless there *was* a traffic accident.) So you're probably
wrong about the accident rate going down since 2010.

> <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/>

Two graphs at this web page show the death rate going up since 2010. One
of them shows the per capita death rate going up since 2010.
Hoised by your own petard.
>
>HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.

Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all.

micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 :

> you turn off every
> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents.

I'm a scientist. I look at facts. If people can't handle facts, then they
can't help me... they can't help you... and they can't help themselves.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acensus.gov+us+accident+rate+year+over+year>

You think I don't realize most people believe in myths?
Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1103.xls>

They didn't.
That's just a fact.
<https://www2.census.gov/prod2/2011pubs/11statab/trans.pdf>

Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all.
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>

> If you're a scientist,
> you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people
> is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe.

Every scientist welcomes an _adult_ discourse on the facts.
However, no real scientist would dispute the facts; only fools do that.
That's why they're fools.
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1113.pdf>

Now I'm well aware (a) personal injury law firms, (b) insurance companies,
and (c) ticketing police *love* to dispute the facts - but the facts that
matter are the accident rate in the US which is reliable information that
is completely outside those three agencies who make money off of the issue.
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1949/compendia/hist_stats_1789-1945/hist_stats_1789-1945-chK.pdf>

>>since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
>>namely (a) injury lawyers,
>
> That's silly. Injury lawyers don't benefit from statistics. It doesn't
> help them if 100 million accidents were caused by cellphones. The judge
> won't even let them offer statistics as evidence at the trial. They
> need to show that the other driver in *their* lawsuit was negligent,
> perhaps by using the cellphone when he should have been paying more
> attention to his driving.
>>(b) insurance companies
>
> Insurance companies don't benefit either. I can't give a reasonable
> guess how you think they do. How do you think they do? Or are they
> just a boogey-man to be blamed for anything relating to negligence or
> insurance?
>
>>(c) ticketing police.
>
> Police don't benefit either. Even you admitted that paying attention to
> the cell phone can cause accidents. Do you think the police should
> ignore someone doing that just because for *other* reasons, according to
> you, cellphones lower the accident rate? That's ridiculous.
>
>>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?

You've apparently never looked up the subject.

Did you ever look up how to do something common on the Internet and most of
the hits are all shills which are trying to make money off of swaying you?

Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those
shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies.

Ask me how I know this - and then ask yourself why I know you don't know
this? It's because I've looked this stuff up. And you have never done so.

What you're saying is out of desperation that only personal injury lawyers
can provide good facts - which is ridiculous.

Science is all that matters.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

> I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation.

Whenever a moron hates a fact, they say that, micky.
You think I never took statistics? It's bullshit for you to say that
without even understanding the facts.

Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things:
1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States.
2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into
use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States.

Those are facts.
You saying "correlation is note equal to causation" is simply your
desperate way to make those iron-clad facts disappear from your view.

If your entire argument is to deny that facts can exist, then you have no
argument. Again, only fools disagree with the facts.

That's why they're fools.

> Google the
> preceding three words and maybe some webpage will explain it better than
> I'm about to: You admit there are hundreds of factors in determining
> the accident rate but then because it's going down**, you claim that
> proves that ONE of those hundreds is lowering it.

Again and again and again you're so desperate to make the facts go away
that you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.

I only said one thing, which is teh accident rate is going down year after
year after year and it did not go up before, during or after the meteoric
skyrocketing rise in cellphone ownership rates.

That's just a fact, micky.

If you hate that fact, just say you hate facts, micky.
You think you're the only one who hates facts?

You're not.
Look at the Apple newsgroup for people who hate facts, Micky.

Me? I love facts.
And the fact is the accident rate in the USA is steadily trending downward.

1. It was trending downward before cellphones existed.
2. It trended downward while cellphone ownership rates skyrocket.
3. And it's still trending downward after cellphones hit saturation.

> **I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate
> per capita has been going up since 2010.

Injuries and fatalities are a second order effect, subject to even more
variables than accident rates are, so you have no business going there
until you understand the first-order accident rates, micky.
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-10.pdf>

I can feel your desperation - but you have to first understand the facts.

> There is a logical reason why
> death rate and accident rate are correlated. (No one dies in a traffic
> accident unless there *was* a traffic accident.) So you're probably
> wrong about the accident rate going down since 2010.

The accident rate has nothing to do with mortality, micky.
Nothing.

The accident rate would be the same with or without injuries, micky.
Injuries and fatalities are a second-order effect.

You're desperate to discount the facts that you don't like.
Stop doing that.
>> <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/>
>
> Two graphs at this web page show the death rate going up since 2010. One
> of them shows the per capita death rate going up since 2010.
> Hoised by your own petard.

Again, you're desperate to ignore the accident rate is a first-order fact.
Your sheer desperation is palatable.

We can discuss the second order effects, by the way, of the accident rate
going down, but if you think the accident rate is hard to believe, the
second-order effects will knock your socks off.

You're not ready for second-order effects yet.
You need to understand the accident rate first, and foremost.

>>
>>HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
>
> Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all.

The accident rate is not a "total" but a normalized figure based on the
number of miles driven, micky.

If you don't even understand that, what can you understand?
Think about that statement please.

Your entire argument is that you hate the facts.
That's sheer desperation, micky.

That's not science.
It's myth.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 00:40:10 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew@spam.net> wrote:

>micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 :
>
>> you turn off every
>> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents.
>
>I'm a scientist. I look at facts. If people can't handle facts, then they
>can't help me... they can't help you... and they can't help themselves.
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acensus.gov+us+accident+rate+year+over+year>

Again with the accident rate. The accident rate over years means
nothing without more info. Didn't I already say that in other words,
and yet you again cite the accident rate over years.

>You think I don't realize most people believe in myths?

I don't think at all that you don't think that, and it has nothing to do
with what I've written.

>Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.

May people who are stupid don't think that at all. Many of all sorts
don't think about this at all. And you've admitted that cell phones
cause accidents. But instead of letting it go at that, you insist on
claiming that they prevent as many accidents as they cause, and you give
the impression that you know this based on the total accident rate.

And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC)
you said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the
accident rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing
traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused
turnarounds, etc.)."

More important than each of your examplles here is "If anything". This
is where you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause
accidents. You don't say, Yes, they cause problems but they also help.
You say, *If anything* they have have a positive effect. You didn't
answer when I asked you: Do you see why that seems to be a denial
that their use causes accidents????? .

> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1103.xls>
>
>They didn't.
>That's just a fact.
> <https://www2.census.gov/prod2/2011pubs/11statab/trans.pdf>
>
>Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all.

The way you present facts, they have very little convincing value. It's
not the facts that are the problem here, it's your "logic".

> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
>
>> If you're a scientist,
>> you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people
>> is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe.
>
>Every scientist welcomes an _adult_ discourse on the facts.

Irrelevant.

I'm not talking about your opinion of your own style of writing. I'm
suggesting you ask other scientists what *they* think about your style
of writing, including among other things, your use of insults. But I
know you won't do it and I'm not sure you know any scientists. You would
have to show them your posts here to get their opinion.

>However, no real scientist would dispute the facts; only fools do that.
>That's why they're fools.
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1113.pdf>
>
>Now I'm well aware (a) personal injury law firms, (b) insurance companies,
>and (c) ticketing police *love* to dispute the facts - but the facts that

Irrelevant. Above and below, you didn't address the reasons I gave why
those 3 groups don't benefit from your statistics or any other
statistics. You're very good at answering without addressing what the
previous poster said.

>matter are the accident rate in the US which is reliable information that
>is completely outside those three agencies who make money off of the issue.
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1949/compendia/hist_stats_1789-1945/hist_stats_1789-1945-chK.pdf>
>
>>>since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
>>>namely (a) injury lawyers,
>>
>> That's silly. Injury lawyers don't benefit from statistics. It doesn't
>> help them if 100 million accidents were caused by cellphones. The judge
>> won't even let them offer statistics as evidence at the trial. They
>> need to show that the other driver in *their* lawsuit was negligent,
>> perhaps by using the cellphone when he should have been paying more
>> attention to his driving.
>>>(b) insurance companies
>>
>> Insurance companies don't benefit either. I can't give a reasonable
>> guess how you think they do. How do you think they do? Or are they
>> just a boogey-man to be blamed for anything relating to negligence or
>> insurance?
>>
>>>(c) ticketing police.
>>
>> Police don't benefit either. Even you admitted that paying attention to
>> the cell phone can cause accidents. Do you think the police should
>> ignore someone doing that just because for *other* reasons, according to
>> you, cellphones lower the accident rate? That's ridiculous.
>>
>>>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?
>
>You've apparently never looked up the subject.
>
>Did you ever look up how to do something common on the Internet and most of
>the hits are all shills which are trying to make money off of swaying you?

Irrelevant. Instead of addressing my points, you bring up
irrelevancies.

>Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those
>shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies.

Oh, you're making it relevant by saying anyone who disagrees with you is
a shill.

>Ask me how I know this -

You don't know anything, it seems.

>and then ask yourself why I know you don't know
>this? It's because I've looked this stuff up. And you have never done so.
>
>What you're saying is out of desperation that only personal injury lawyers
>can provide good facts -

I never said anything like that. I said that if injury lawyers want to
win their cases, they have to address the actual facts of the case they
are handling, and that statistics don't matter. They don't. I think I
know a lot more law than you do.

> which is ridiculous.
>
>Science is all that matters.
>https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot
>
>> I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation.
>
>Whenever a moron hates a fact, they say that, micky.

No they don't. This is why I posted. My criticism two lines up is
fairly rare and is only offered after people make the non-sequiturs that
you've made, assuming correlation equals causation.

>You think I never took statistics?

If you took it, you might have misunderstood parts of it, or extended it
to places it cannot go.

>It's bullshit for you to say that
>without even understanding the facts.

I do understand the facts.

>Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things:
>1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States.
>2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into
> use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States.
>
>Those are facts.

No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to
doughnuts that the accident rate has too.

But even if you were right, and even if 1 and 2 were facts, which 2 is
not, it's not the facts that are your problem. It's your misuse of
logic which causes you to draw unsupported and probably false
conclusions from your facts.

>You saying "correlation is note equal to causation" is simply your
>desperate way to make those iron-clad facts disappear from your view.

Nope.

>If your entire argument is to deny that facts can exist,

Silly red herring. I never said that and of course I don't think it.

>then you have no
>argument. Again, only fools disagree with the facts.

Only fools bring up things the other guy never said or implied.

I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping
the rest. When I first started using Usenet, 30 years ago, we had people
of all ages and some were young enough to learn from criticism. Now
everyone here is over 60, I think, and their bad habits are baked in. So
I've given it a shot and you can reply if you wish but unless you come
up with a new, even more silly "argument" you can have the last word. I
don't promise to read your post even if you do reply. Your posts are
depressing.

micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 21:48:21 -0400 :

> Again with the accident rate. The accident rate over years means
> nothing without more info. Didn't I already say that in other words,
> and yet you again cite the accident rate over years.

The accident rate is a first-order effect, micky.
Hence, it's the most important metric of all.
>>You think I don't realize most people believe in myths?
>
> I don't think at all that you don't think that, and it has nothing to do
> with what I've written.

Do you know how many people believe that high-octane gas is better than
regular, micky... just because they believe in every myth sold to them?

>>Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.
>
> And you've admitted that cell phones cause accidents.

Distractions cause accidents. Cellphones are a distraction.
But they're not even the major distraction, by the way.
<https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>

> But instead of letting it go at that, you insist on
> claiming that they prevent as many accidents as they cause, and you give
> the impression that you know this based on the total accident rate.

Let's be clear what I said, which is that it is a well-known fact that the
accident rate trend in the USA was slowly trending downward in all fifty
states before cellphones existed, and that trend remained unchanged both
during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and well after
saturation.

> And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC)
> you said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the
> accident rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing
> traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused
> turnarounds, etc.)."
>
> More important than each of your examplles here is "If anything". This
> is where you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause
> accidents. You don't say, Yes, they cause problems but they also help.
> You say, *If anything* they have have a positive effect. You didn't
> answer when I asked you: Do you see why that seems to be a denial
> that their use causes accidents?????

The fact is the fact whether or not we know why it's a fact.

The fact is that the US accident rate trend remained downward before,
during and after complete saturation of cellphone ownership per vehicle.

That's just a fact, just like the fact that gravity isn't a force.

We first have to accept that face (only fools disagree with facts).
Once we accept that fact, then we can hypothesize why that's a fact.

My response to Knuttle was my own personal hypothesis; but that assessment
of the fact could very well be wrong.

What's not wrong is the fact.
Everything else is an assessment of that fact.

>>Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all.
>
> The way you present facts, they have very little convincing value. It's
> not the facts that are the problem here, it's your "logic".

The fact is the convincing value.
If you don't accept the fact, then you know what that means.

Adults always agree with facts (because of the nature of adults).
People who can't agree with facts still think the earth is flat.

>>Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those
>>shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies.
>
> Oh, you're making it relevant by saying anyone who disagrees with you is
> a shill.

No. I'm saying anyone who purposefully distorts the facts to make money is
a shill. Big difference.

Nobody disagrees with the facts, micky.
Except fools. That's why they're fools.

>>You think I never took statistics?
>
> If you took it, you might have misunderstood parts of it, or extended it
> to places it cannot go.

I know the facts, micky. You want to know why?
Because like every other idiot out there, I believed that high-octane
gasoline was somehow inherently better than regular but what makes me
different from every other fool out there is I looked it up.

And then I found out that it's not.

Same thing with the accident rate, micky.
That's the difference between me and the morons who don't look things up.

It's a fact that the accident rate in the USA shows no change in the
downward trend before, during and after cellphones reached saturation.

You can't disagree with that fact (I provided the cites multiple times).
All you can do is disagree with my assessment of WHY that's a fact.

I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my assessment of facts.
I do have a problem with people disagreeing with the facts.

Only fools disagree with facts. That's why they're fools, after all.

>>It's bullshit for you to say that
>>without even understanding the facts.
>
> I do understand the facts.

Then, if you accept the accident rate remained wholly unchanged (slowly
trending downward), that is progress because only fools disagree with fact.

Now... it's a much harder discussion to make to explain WHY that's the
case. Rest assured I don't know why.

I just have my hypothesis as to why.
Those hypotheses you can reasonably disagree with.

As long as you don't disagree with the facts.
(Only fools disagree with facts - that's why they're fools.)

>>Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things:
>>1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States.
>>2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into
>> use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States.
>>
>>Those are facts.
>
> No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to
> doughnuts that the accident rate has too.

WTF? I wasn't talking about second-order effects.
Injuries (and fatalities) are second-order effects.

You don't even understand first-order effects yet, micky.
I cited the reliable statistics on the first-order effects.

The accident rate (which is normalized by miles driven) did not go up.
It went down.

> But even if you were right, and even if 1 and 2 were facts, which 2 is
> not, it's not the facts that are your problem. It's your misuse of
> logic which causes you to draw unsupported and probably false
> conclusions from your facts.

You don't understand that a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact.
It's not whether or not "I am right" when it's a fact.

It's the fact that is right.

Nobody disagrees with facts except fools, micky.
That's why they're fools.

It's not *my* fact that the accident rate trend is unchanged.
It's *the* fact.

> I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping
> the rest.

EOD. There's a reason I said only fools disagree with facts.

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 - but I do agree with you it would be
one of the most important statistics for this dicussion - which we don't
have.

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).

>> The rest was an hypothesis to potentially explain that unexpected fact.
>
> So we went from scientific method and statistical data to hypothetical
> potentials. OK, I didn't lock in on that one, my bad :-)

Of course. As I said to micky, the fact is the fact is the fact.
The fact is the accident rate did not go up. It went down.
But it was always going down, so the trend was unchanged.

That's not *my* fact.
That's *the* fact.

Now the question is WHY.
Hell. I don't know why.

Like every other moron out there, I would have thought the accident rate
would have skyrocketed and then leveled off after saturation.

But what makes me different from every other moron out there is I looked
for the data - and that's when I found out that the accident rate trend is
unchanged.

So now we're stuck with explaining why.

All I have to explain why are my hypotheses.
You can disagree with them all you want.

That's the nature of an hypothesis.
Even Albert Einstein's theory of gravitation is only a theory.

Do you know that gravity isn't even a force?
You can ask me why, and I will tell you why, but that doesn't make my
hypothesis correct.

>>> BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
>>> offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before?
>>
>> Guess what. The US census bureau statistics do NOT rely on that.
>> So it's a non sequitur what anyone "says" about the cause of the accident.
>
> The cause of the accident is not likely to be recorded as having been
> cell-phone use unless someone fesses up to it.
> Accident investigation
> does not on one hand include automatic mandatory x-checking with the
> cell service providers and in many jurisdictions such would not even be
> permitted on the other. I've done accident investigation in three areas
> of activity and am of the opinion that quite a few reports are
> misleading and not only accidentaly so ..for any number of reasons.

We covered this also in gory detail. Apparently there's now a checkbox on
many accident forms whether there was a cellphone in the vehicle at the
time of the accident.

Guess what? We covered that this box is checked almost 100% of the time.
Which skews the statistics like you can't believe.

Unfortunately, it's a statistic that will never be good simply because
there is no good way to collect it. That's too bad. But that's just the
facts.

>> The actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states.
>
> Sidebar: is this comp.mobile.android or comp.mobile.android.us?

Well, we covered that in gory detail also.

In Australia, they statistics are good enough to show the same trends as
the USA but paradoxically, when we looked in the UK, the trends were
different.

There's a reason I only discuss the USA and that's the reason.
The statistics are phenomenally accurate for the USA.

I can't vouch for either Australia or the UK though.
So I only talk about the facts that I'm very confident of.

Make sense?

Nonetheless, you have a good point, so here are some searches:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=accident+rate+australia+year+over+year>
<https://www.google.com/search?q=accident+rate+uk+year+over+year>

>>> Right, so
>>> much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
>>> one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
>>
>> Nobody but you said that anyone said anything after the
>> accident. They could have had the accident for any number of reasons.
>
> I never said that anyone said anything. What I thought to have alluded
> to rather unequivocally was that IF someone had used a phone and knew
> that that use had lead up to the accident then that person would not
> likely volunteer that information.

Agree. I'll always agree with any logically sensible assessment of facts.

> This may soon become unnecessary
> anyway with the onset of AI helping cops catch offenders given that it
> has the speed to analyse cell traffic around and entire block for
> instance and alert the cop waiting at the intersection "green Honda
> arriving from South leg in 45 seconds was on line while in motion for
> the last ten and a half minutes". Once the pull-over happens all the
> data is already printed on the ticket.

This is perhaps the future... especially since police already do geofencing
dragnets when there is a crime, so why not when there is an accident.

> And although this thread is already way off-topic, one more tidbit:
> accident prevention depends on defensive legislation AND defensive
> driving.

Actually, we covered that also. Turns out all the safety laws are for
naught. Sadly so. The only effect of safety laws is a second-order effect
on length of hospital stay. (Remember, I alluded to this when I said to
someone that the second-order effects will knock your socks off).

But I don't want to go there because people haven't even understood the
first-order effects yet - so it's premature to move to the effect (or lack
of effect) of safety laws on injuries (we even covered how much money they
make - which is billions per year - on tickets for safety law violations).

> It is not at all necessary for a lawmaker to KNOW that a
> scientific correlation exsist between cell use and accidents, it is more
> important to act with prejudice and watch for what, cell-phones
> included, MIGHT cause an accident. The way to legislate is the way that
> I have driven over a million clicks with no accident, if anyone wants to
> argue with that, go for it.

Except, sadly, that the laws have no first order effects. We can dig that
one up, but it's too deep for this group when people can't even read an
excel spreadsheet by one of the most reliable government agencies around.

The main effect of safety laws in this realm is on revenue generation.
We covered this in gory detail already. Look it up.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>
> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>
> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
> since 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.
>

As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
maneuvers if necessary.

Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently
assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are
looking at their phones. This doesn’t mean they are going to be an accident
statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their
erratic driving.

Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
around them. Distracted drivers can’t stay in their lane, leading to other
drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
you get the picture. Surely you can add more.

Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
you want. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but accident rate is not the
only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have
on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased
amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it’s also hard
to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
distracted driving or some other factor. I’d wager distracted drivers
caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one
will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

On 5/26/2024 7:38 AM, badgolferman wrote:

> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
> instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
> the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
> around them. Distracted drivers can’t stay in their lane, leading to other
> drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
> traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
> cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
> you get the picture. Surely you can add more.
>

I see that constantly. It used to be that someone who drove
slow and/or erratic was almost certainly elderly, so I'd try to be
patient. These days it's almost always the case that they're
simply on the phone.

Though yesterday I saw a lot of such people doing things like
stopping to pull a u-turn or slowing down at each side street.
I realized that most of them were tourists or non-locals in town
for a Memorial Day cookout. What a relief. :)

badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) :

> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
> also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me.

I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200.

> That
> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
> their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
> unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
> maneuvers if necessary.

Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of you.

> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently
> assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are
> looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they are going to be an accident
> statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their
> erratic driving.

Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did.
Do you know why they give it out? I do.

> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
> instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
> the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
> around them. Distracted drivers can't stay in their lane, leading to other
> drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
> traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
> cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
> you get the picture. Surely you can add more.

Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
(See good student discount comment above.)

> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
> you want.

The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts.
That's why they're fools.

The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with them.
It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably disagree with.

Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they progress
to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will invariably
disagree simply because they put different weights on each fact).

But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.

> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have
> on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased
> amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it's also hard
> to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
> distracted driving or some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers
> caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one
> will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
> light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles driven.

In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip during the
skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from 0% to almost 100%.

Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
The only question is why.

Andrew wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 14:01:20 -0000 (UTC) :

> Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
> (See good student discount comment above.)

Oops. Nobody ever said that driving doesn't* entail handling distractions.

Bear in mind, cellphones are an added distraction that didn't exist prior.
However, there are still hundreds of distractions while driving.

As I said, they give good-student discounts for a reason.

The adult question here isn't whether or not cellphones were such an
addition that the accident rate trend changed. It didn't.

That's just a fact.
Nobody who is intelligent will disagree with that fact.

What intelligent people need to discuss... is why.

Andrew wrote:

>badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings,
>>and that also includes the attention of the drivers
>>ahead/beside/behind me.
>
>I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200.

Yes. 2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles.
https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh

A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle. Surely you have stories of your
own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road.

>
>> That
>> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to
>>see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to
>>know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready
>>to take evasive maneuvers if necessary.
>
>Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of
>you.

That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you
well know.

>> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can
>>confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted
>>because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they
>>are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a
>>menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
>
>Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did.
>Do you know why they give it out? I do.

No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong
crowd in high school. Tell us why they give it out.

>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of
>>traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front
>>of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who
>>try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't
>>stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them.
>>Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green
>>and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again
>>for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the
>>picture. Surely you can add more.
>
>Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
>(See good student discount comment above.)
>
>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to
>>say what you want.
>
>The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts.
>That's why they're fools.
>
>The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with
>them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably
>disagree with.
>
>Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they
>progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will
>invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each
>fact).
>
>But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.

As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically
raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the
lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support
the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing
algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those
reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over.

>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone
>>drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be
>>influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
>>amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of
>>those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
>>some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
>>higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will
>>admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
>>light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.
>
>The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
>driven.
>
>In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
>during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
>0% to almost 100%.
>
>Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
>The only question is why.

Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those
facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't
think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.

--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." ~ Voltaire

On 2024-05-26 04:38, badgolferman wrote:
> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>>
>> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>>
>> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
>> since 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.
>>
>
>
> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
> also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
> their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
> unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
> maneuvers if necessary.

Yes... ...but are you a "trained scientist"?

😜

On 2024-05-26 08:15, badgolferman wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
>> badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) :
>>
>>> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings,
>>> and that also includes the attention of the drivers
>>> ahead/beside/behind me.
>>
>> I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200.
>
> Yes. 2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles.
> https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh
>
> A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle. Surely you have stories of your
> own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road.
>
>>
>>> That
>>> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to
>>> see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to
>>> know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready
>>> to take evasive maneuvers if necessary.
>>
>> Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of
>> you.
>
> That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you
> well know.
>
>>> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can
>>> confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted
>>> because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they
>>> are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a
>>> menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
>>
>> Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did.
>> Do you know why they give it out? I do.
>
> No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong
> crowd in high school. Tell us why they give it out.
>
>>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of
>>> traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front
>>> of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who
>>> try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't
>>> stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them.
>>> Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green
>>> and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again
>>> for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the
>>> picture. Surely you can add more.
>>
>> Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
>> (See good student discount comment above.)
>>
>>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to
>>> say what you want.
>>
>> The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts.
>> That's why they're fools.
>>
>> The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with
>> them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably
>> disagree with.
>>
>> Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they
>> progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will
>> invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each
>> fact).
>>
>> But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.
>
> As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically
> raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the
> lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support
> the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing
> algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those
> reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over.
>
>>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
>>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone
>>> drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be
>>> influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
>>> amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of
>>> those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
>>> some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
>>> higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will
>>> admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
>>> light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>
>> The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
>> driven.
>>
>> In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
>> during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
>> 0% to almost 100%.
>>
>> Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
>> The only question is why.
>
> Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those
> facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't
> think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.
>

Moreover, no "trained scientist" would ever look at just the prevalence
of cellphones/smartphones and the accident rate and conclude that they
can't be a problem...

....because there are too many other variables involved to draw such a
conclusion.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 05:58:30 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew@spam.net> wrote:

>micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 21:48:21 -0400 :
>
>> Again with the accident rate. The accident rate over years means
>> nothing without more info. Didn't I already say that in other words,
>> and yet you again cite the accident rate over years.
>
>The accident rate is a first-order effect, micky.
>Hence, it's the most important metric of all.

No, in the discussion at hand the "most important metric" is the rate of
accidents caused by cell-phone distracted driving.
>
>>>You think I don't realize most people believe in myths?
>>
>> I don't think at all that you don't think that, and it has nothing to do
>> with what I've written.
>
>Do you know how many people believe that high-octane gas is better than
>regular, micky... just because they believe in every myth sold to them?

Irrelevant. You said what I think when I don't think that. What some
people think about high-octane gas is irreelveant to both your thoughs
and my thoughs on what you said I think. Also, high octane gas has
nothning to do with the accident rate or the rate of accidents caused by
cellphone-distracted driving.

>>>Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.
>>
>> And you've admitted that cell phones cause accidents.
>
>Distractions cause accidents. Cellphones are a distraction.
>But they're not even the major distraction, by the way.

Even if you be right, it's not important. some distractions are harder
to eliminate than others, and society tries to eliminate or lessen those
distractions it can succeed with, whether they are "the major" one or
not.

> <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>

A citation that actually makes your point. Wonderful. But what does it
say?

>this Note contends that cell phone use does not play as prominent a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed.

A comparison that does not matter to me. IL don't know how it's
*typically pportrayed* and I don't much care as long as cell phone usage
causes accidents.

>Many other distractive stimuli pose a more significant threat, and often occur more regularly than cell phone use.

So what?

> Unlike cell phone use, however, these other distractive stimuli have not been characterized as negatively, or singled out by legislative bans.

Maybe there is a good reason for that. But since this abstract doesn't
give examples of what these other distractions are, we can only guess.

>In particular, Connecticut’s legislation banning cell phone use while driving is neither a direct nor a particularly effective means of achieving its purported purpose of increasing the safety of Connecticut’s roadway

It doesn't have to be *particularly* effective to be worthwhile. It
only has to be somewhat effective. I guess he's put up a paper tiger
(or do I mean red herring) to argue against

--- end of quote and my comments on the quote ---

>
>> But instead of letting it go at that, you insist on
>> claiming that they prevent as many accidents as they cause, and you give
>> the impression that you know this based on the total accident rate.
>
>Let's be clear what I said, which is that it is a well-known fact that the
>accident rate trend in the USA was slowly trending downward in all fifty
>states before cellphones existed, and that trend remained unchanged both
>during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and well after
>saturation.

I know you said that. You've said it 4 times at least. It doesn't
prove your point, because it is about the entire accident rate, not
about the rate caused by cellphones. Duh. In addition, since the death
rate has been increasing since 2010, it's likely the accident rate has
also, which would make your statement about "unchanged" and "well after
saturation" eithert not clear or false.
>
>
>> And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC)
>> you said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the
>> accident rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing
>> traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused
>> turnarounds, etc.)."
>>
>> More important than each of your examplles here is "If anything". This
>> is where you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause
>> accidents. You don't say, Yes, they cause problems but they also help.
>> You say, *If anything* they have have a positive effect. You didn't
>> answer when I asked you: Do you see why that seems to be a denial
>> that their use causes accidents?????
>
>The fact is the fact whether or not we know why it's a fact.

Unresponsive to what I said. When you said "If anything" you seem
clearly to have denied that cellphones cause accidents.
>
>The fact is that the US accident rate trend remained downward before,
>during and after complete saturation of cellphone ownership per vehicle.

The accideent rate is NOT the isssue. The rate of accidents due to cell
phone usage is the issue under discussion.
>
>That's just a fact, just like the fact that gravity isn't a force.

No, it's nothing like gravity.

>We first have to accept that face (only fools disagree with facts).
>Once we accept that fact, then we can hypothesize why that's a fact.
>
>My response to Knuttle was my own personal hypothesis; but that assessment
>of the fact could very well be wrong.

Thius might be a retraction. It follows the sub-topic by several
sentences so I'm not sure.

>What's not wrong is the fact.
>Everything else is an assessment of that fact.
>
>>>Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all.
>>
>> The way you present facts, they have very little convincing value. It's
>> not the facts that are the problem here, it's your "logic".
>
>The fact is the convincing value.

Facts without relevant arguments do not have convincing value.

And more to the point, if people here are not convinced, it doesn't have
convincing value, and I would venture that you have not convinced a
single reader that cellphones prevent as many accidents as they cause.

>If you don't accept the fact, then you know what that means.
>
>Adults always agree with facts (because of the nature of adults).
>People who can't agree with facts still think the earth is flat.
>
>>>Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those
>>>shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies.
>>
>> Oh, you're making it relevant by saying anyone who disagrees with you is
>> a shill.
>
>No. I'm saying anyone who purposefully distorts the facts to make money is
>a shill. Big difference.
>
>Nobody disagrees with the facts, micky.
>Except fools. That's why they're fools.

Relying on insults instead of cogent, or at least relevant arguments, is
not a good way for a scientist to behave.

>>>You think I never took statistics?
>>
>> If you took it, you might have misunderstood parts of it, or extended it
>> to places it cannot go.
>
>I know the facts, micky. You want to know why?
>Because like every other idiot out there, I believed that high-octane
>gasoline was somehow inherently better than regular but what makes me
>different from every other fool out there is I looked it up.
>
>And then I found out that it's not.

Huh? It is better in some situations. That's why they invented it.

>Same thing with the accident rate, micky.
>That's the difference between me and the morons who don't look things up.
>
>It's a fact that the accident rate in the USA shows no change in the
>downward trend before, during and after cellphones reached saturation.

Third time you're saying this in the same post. Doesn't make it
persuasive.

>You can't disagree with that fact (I provided the cites multiple times).
>All you can do is disagree with my assessment of WHY that's a fact.

No, I'm disagreeing with what you can conclude from it. From the part
of it that is true.

>I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my assessment of facts.
>I do have a problem with people disagreeing with the facts.
>
>Only fools disagree with facts. That's why they're fools, after all.
>
>>>It's bullshit for you to say that
>>>without even understanding the facts.
>>
>> I do understand the facts.
>
>Then, if you accept the accident rate remained wholly unchanged (slowly
>trending downward), that is progress because only fools disagree with fact.
>
>Now... it's a much harder discussion to make to explain WHY that's the
>case. Rest assured I don't know why.
>
>I just have my hypothesis as to why.
>Those hypotheses you can reasonably disagree with.
>
>As long as you don't disagree with the facts.
>(Only fools disagree with facts - that's why they're fools.)

On 5/26/24 07:38, badgolferman wrote:
> Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
>> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>>
>> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>>
>> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
>> since 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.
>>
>
>
> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
> also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
> their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
> unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
> maneuvers if necessary.
>
> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently
> assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are
> looking at their phones. This doesn’t mean they are going to be an accident
> statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their
> erratic driving.
>
> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
> instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
> the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
> around them. Distracted drivers can’t stay in their lane, leading to other
> drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
> traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
> cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
> you get the picture. Surely you can add more.
>
> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
> you want. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but accident rate is not the
> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have
> on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased
> amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it’s also hard
> to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
> distracted driving or some other factor. I’d wager distracted drivers
> caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one
> will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
> light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam
displays to see if he was recording good clips. Motor cycles are small
and less visible but while someone is talking *even on bluetooth* ITS
*MIND is NOT free* though that part of the watch is relegated to the
subconscious which can be very slow and superfluous (that's how some
people in dire staits can drive asleep with eyes open, been there).

In addition to *patience and courtesy* defensive driving requires
continuous scanning and attention, always looking at spots that are
hidden because THAT's where surprises will erupt from right into your
face in a fraction of a second. After stopping distance issues, the
second problem in tailgaiting is that you don't see 80% of what's in
front of you! Suddenly low and narrow section motorbike image fragments
flash briefly where you don't even have enough time to see and react to
a two-story high cement truck. The biker pays with his life. If I were
riding a bike I'd watch for drivers whose heads on not moving all the time.

A good exercise is watching u-tube videos, trying to hit the instant
when you know that it's gonna happen; also noting the beady-eyed
low-brow darwin awarders refusing to yield because they have the right
of way to someone tryin to merge too late for any number of reasons. Not
surprisingly they seem completely pucking clueless about the fact that
all kinds of people use the road including some who have just lost their
job a parent or a child, whose doctor has just told them they have a few
month at the most or are going to a funeral if not just passively having
a freakin stroke. The "I have the right of way" chest pounding ape show
and the grand-prix belong somewehere else, NOT on public roads.

Unfortunately the money beast doesn't want us to spend eight hours on
the road when even then we could instead be shopping and producing
profits so the future that we have to prepare to trip-up is the one in
which computer driven cars follow each other ten feet apart at 200 while
all occumpants are tele-gossiping, shopping or watching pornos.

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 15:15:59 -0000 (UTC),
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

.....
>Andrew wrote.
>>badgolferman wrote:
>
>>> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can
>>>confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted
>>>because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they
>>>are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a
>>>menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
.....
>
>>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of
>>>traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front
>>>of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who
>>>try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't
>>>stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them.
>>>Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green
>>>and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again
>>>for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the
>>>picture. Surely you can add more.
>>
>>Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
>>(See good student discount comment above.)
>>
>>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to
>>>say what you want.
>>
>>The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts.
>>That's why they're fools.

There is more than one way to find a fool.

>>The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with
>>them.

> It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably
>>disagree with.
>>
>>Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they
>>progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will
>>invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each
>>fact).
>>
>>But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.
>
>As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically
>raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the
>lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support
>the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing

Was the topic traffic accidents or something else? Would I be aware of
a debate on whatever topic it was? What was the topic?

>algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those
>reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over.
>
>>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
>>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone
>>>drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be
>>>influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
>>>amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of
>>>those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
>>>some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
>>>higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will
>>>admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
>>>light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.
>>
>>The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
>>driven.
>>
>>In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
>>during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
>>0% to almost 100%.
>>
>>Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
>>The only question is why.
>
>Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those
>facts, especially if those people are the government.

Or manufacturers, or even devoted users. Some similarity to
politicians and voters here.

> If someone don't
>think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.
>
>--
>"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." ~ Voltaire

I was going to quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it" and attribute that to Voltaire, but
checking now it seems his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall was saying
what she thought he was thinking.

For a long time I was very impressed by that saying, but I thought
Voltaire was standing up for somoene else. After all, it says "what you
say" and "your right". But I think the issue was that people were not
defending Voltaire's rigght to say what he wanted. That puts a whole
new light on his devotion to free speech. Voltaire was a critic of
Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, while living in a
CAtholic country, and he got in trouble for it, eventually moved to
Geneva to be away from them. I actually spent a month visiting a
friend in Geneva but didn't learn that there was a Voltaire museum there
until I had only 2 days to stay, and I had no time to visit. I might
have known a lot more a lot earlier if I had, and if the exhibits were
in English.

Your quote might be similar, but it's better because it doesnt' appear
to be defending someone else when IMO he's really thinking about
himself.

micky wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 18:41:37 -0400 :

> No, in the discussion at hand the "most important metric" is the rate of
> accidents caused by cell-phone distracted driving.

It's my supposition that it's a myth that the USA accident rate went up due
to the cellphone ownership saturation going from 0% to 100% in the USA.

I provided data from the US Census Bureau supporting that supposition.
If you disagree, simply provide data that disagrees with the Census Bureau.

>>Do you know how many people believe that high-octane gas is better than
>>regular, micky... just because they believe in every myth sold to them?
>
> Irrelevant. You said what I think when I don't think that. What some
> people think about high-octane gas is irreelveant to both your thoughs
> and my thoughs on what you said I think. Also, high octane gas has
> nothning to do with the accident rate or the rate of accidents caused by
> cellphone-distracted driving.

I'll try to be nicer micky, where my main point is and was that too many
people believe in myths which have no basis whatsoever in actual facts.

>>Distractions cause accidents. Cellphones are a distraction.
>>But they're not even the major distraction, by the way.
>
> Even if you be right, it's not important. some distractions are harder
> to eliminate than others, and society tries to eliminate or lessen those
> distractions it can succeed with, whether they are "the major" one or
> not.

The main idea here for adults to discuss isn't that the accident rate
didn't go up when cellphones were introduced... since that is a fact.

The main idea to discuss is why.

>> <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>
>
> A citation that actually makes your point. Wonderful.
> But what does it say?

First off, I am the only one who is citing reliable facts, micky.
<https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>

So there's no reason for you to say what you said, particularly since
nobody else provided any cites that disagreed with the facts, micky.

"This Note contends that cell phone use does not play as prominent
a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed.
Many other distractive stimuli pose a more significant threat,
and often occur more regularly than cell phone use.

Unlike cell phone use, however, these other distractive stimuli
have not been characterized as negatively, or singled out by
legislative bans."

My point is most people are basically inherently incredibly stupid.
Most people blindly believe in every single myth in the book of myths.

Only the most intelligent people bother to look up facts behind the myths.

Worse, legislators cater to these stupid people by enacting laws that make
no sense when you look at the threat using intelligence & scientific data.

>>this Note contends that cell phone use does not play as prominent
> a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed.
>
> A comparison that does not matter to me. IL don't know how it's
> *typically pportrayed* and I don't much care as long as cell phone usage
> causes accidents.

Their point was that the government made laws based on no reliable science.
You must know that is a peeve of mine, don't you?

Gun laws, for example, aren't based on logic but on pure senseless emotion.
So are the climate taxation laws. And many other idiotic laws.

People vote for them because most people are basically inherently stupid.
Which is why I'm communicating to this newsgroup not to be that stupid.

>>In particular, Connecticut�s legislation banning cell phone use
> while driving is neither a direct nor a particularly effective
> means of achieving its purported purpose of increasing the
> safety of Connecticut�s roadway
>
> It doesn't have to be *particularly* effective to be worthwhile. It
> only has to be somewhat effective. I guess he's put up a paper tiger
> (or do I mean red herring) to argue against

Remember when I mentioned that if people only understood the
second-order effects of all recent safety laws, it would knock
their socks off?

Guess what?

The *only* first-order effect of dozens of recent motor vehicle
safety laws was to increase the revenue of the governments making them.

We discussed this in gory detail in the past, micky.

*There was zero safety gained by enacting the safety laws*, micky.
The only gain was to revenue.

Only morons believe that these laws increased safety.
Which, again, is my main point that most people are incredibly stupid.

But people on this newsgroup not ready for second-order effects yet.
They have to understand the first-order effects first.

Most people can't delve deeply into any subject.
Which is why the myth persists.

>>Let's be clear what I said, which is that it is a well-known fact that the
>>accident rate trend in the USA was slowly trending downward in all fifty
>>states before cellphones existed, and that trend remained unchanged both
>>during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and well after
>>saturation.
>
> I know you said that. You've said it 4 times at least. It doesn't
> prove your point, because it is about the entire accident rate, not
> about the rate caused by cellphones. Duh. In addition, since the death
> rate has been increasing since 2010, it's likely the accident rate has
> also, which would make your statement about "unchanged" and "well after
> saturation" eithert not clear or false.

I never disagree with any perfectly valid and logically sensible point.
All I can tell you is the accident rate has not shot up in the least.

I can't tell you why.

But anyone who says that it did shoot up, has to show us data first.
Otherwise, the point is that the myth is busted.

Cellphones did not cause the accident rate to change in the least.

>>The fact is the fact whether or not we know why it's a fact.
>
> Unresponsive to what I said. When you said "If anything" you seem
> clearly to have denied that cellphones cause accidents.

I never said that. I said that the accident rate shows no influence
whatsoever from the meteoric rise in cellphone saturation in vehicles.

Notice very clearly I am stating only the facts.

The question of why can only be approached after people agree on facts.
That's how adult conversations work.

>>The fact is that the US accident rate trend remained downward before,
>>during and after complete saturation of cellphone ownership per vehicle.
>
> The accideent rate is NOT the isssue. The rate of accidents due to cell
> phone usage is the issue under discussion.

There's a reason I mentioned the good-student discount I always got.
Stupid people will always have accidents, micky.

It's one of the things that stupid people do.

>>That's just a fact, just like the fact that gravity isn't a force.
>
> No, it's nothing like gravity.

My point is everyone thinks gravity is a force, but that's a myth.
Look it up. It's not a force.

But stupid people believe in every myth in the book.
Which is my main point.

Stupid people never bother to check whether a myth is correct or not.

>>My response to Knuttle was my own personal hypothesis; but that assessment
>>of the fact could very well be wrong.
>
> Thius might be a retraction. It follows the sub-topic by several
> sentences so I'm not sure.

There is only one fact that matters and the rest is conjecture.
We can't discuss the reasons why until we understand the facts first.

>>The fact is the convincing value.
>
> Facts without relevant arguments do not have convincing value.

I make the same "relevant argument" as that Connecticut cite did.
I'll put it bluntly: *Only stupid people clamor for cellphone laws*.

That's the main point.

> And more to the point, if people here are not convinced, it doesn't have
> convincing value, and I would venture that you have not convinced a
> single reader that cellphones prevent as many accidents as they cause.

Heh heh heh... do you want to know what the IQ is of most people here?

1. Only stupid people disagree with facts (that's why they are stupid).
2. A lot of people disagreed with the facts (which proves they're stupid).
3. Not one of them provided a single factual cite to back up their claims.
(It's how stupid people act.)

>>Nobody disagrees with the facts, micky.
>>Except fools. That's why they're fools.
>
> Relying on insults instead of cogent, or at least relevant arguments, is
> not a good way for a scientist to behave.

It's a well known phenomenon.

>>I know the facts, micky. You want to know why?
>>Because like every other idiot out there, I believed that high-octane
>>gasoline was somehow inherently better than regular but what makes me
>>different from every other fool out there is I looked it up.
>>
>>And then I found out that it's not.
>
> Huh? It is better in some situations. That's why they invented it.

badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 15:15:59 -0000 (UTC) :

> A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle. Surely you have stories of your
> own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road.

I welcome intelligent discourse between adults who can use their brains.

I'm a big German guy so I happen to like bimmers & beemers, but you can't
own either of those without learning way too much about fixing them. :)

>>Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of
>>you.
>
> That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you
> well know.

California isn't so bad. Back east it's worse for bikers due to the weather
and the drivers and the fact you can't share the same lane in most states.

>>Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did.
>>Do you know why they give it out? I do.
>
> No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong
> crowd in high school. Tell us why they give it out.

It's simple: Smart people have fewer accidents.

Which is the whole point, really, that cellphones use in and of itself
doesn't cause accidents. People are gonna have accidents no matter what.

BTW, if I were a moron, I'd also think that the accident rate must have
gone up and then leveled off trending with cellphone ownership rates.

But not being a moron... I looked it up.
And that's when I found out that the accident rate trend is unchanged.

That's just a fact. Nobody but a fool would disagree with that fact.
So the adult question to ask is why.

>>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of
>>>traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front
>>>of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who
>>>try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't
>>>stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them.
>>>Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green
>>>and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again
>>>for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the
>>>picture. Surely you can add more.

I base my assessments first on the facts.
Once I understand the facts, then I can move on to their assessment.

Here's a fact that we must start with given it's a fundamental truth:
*Accident trends show no effect whatsoever during cellphone years*

Yet most of us would have thought that distractions cause accidents,
particularly when dumb people are distracted (see good student discount).

So we would have thought that the accident rate should have reflected
greater rates of accidents during the times cellphones skyrocketed.

But it didn't happen.
So we're left with explaining why.

I'm not stupid; so I can come up with a whole bunch of hypotheses.
But they're just my hypotheses.

>>Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
>>(See good student discount comment above.)
>>
>>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to
>>>say what you want.

Not raw statistics.
It's the conclusions you make from raw statistics that are manipulated.

The raw statistic of pure accident rates is not manipulated (AFAIK).

Note by the way that it's an act of desperation to (a) not know the
statistics, and then (b) disagree with them anyway, and even much worse, to
(c) claim that the raw statistics are "manipulated".

It's disingenuous at best. Deceitful at worst. It's what micky did.
It's what all the ignorant Apple zealots do when Apple facts are noted.

Don't do that.
If you don't believe the statistic, then you just don't believe in facts.

The statistics themselves say nothing directly about cellphones.
Especially since they've been gathered since the 1920's the same ways.

>>But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.
>
> As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically
> raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the
> lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support
> the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing
> algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those
> reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over.

Bear in mind that I looked at the raw data to see if it supported the
conclusion every moron has made that cellphones must raise accident rates.

It's just not supported in the raw data, which, let's repeat, is reliable
data which has been compiled since the 1920's the same way and nobody
complained that it's skewed toward or against cellphones (because it has
nothing, directly, to do with cellphones).

All it is, of course, is the total number of reported accidents divided by
the number of miles driven (which is the normalized accident rate).

I argue that the reported accidents or the number of miles driven are
manipulated (by whom?) in favor (or not) of cellphones... is absurd.

It's just reported accidents. Divided by the number of miles driven.
It has nothing to do with cellphones, per se.

But it does tell us a lot when we compare it to the period of time when
cellphones went from 0% to 100% saturation in vehicles, does it not.

>>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
>>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone
>>>drivers have on other drivers.

It's a fundamental metric though.

I wish we had accurate data on cellphone *usage* while driving.
But we don't.

I also wish we had accurate statistics on distractions while driving.
We do, but every list I look at is different.
So we don't.

Still, the Connecticut cite I previously provided says what any sensible
person would have said, which is that it's overblown at the very least.

<https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>
"The use of cell phones while driving has been demonized by many
as a predominant cause of automobile accidents attributed to
distracted driving. While there is no doubt that distracted driving
is dangerous, and increases the risk of being involved in an automobile
accident, this Note contends that cell phone use does not play
as prominent a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed.
Many other distractive stimuli pose a more significant threat, and
often occur more regularly than cell phone use. Unlike cell phone use,
however, these other distractive stimuli have not been characterized
as negatively, or singled out by legislative bans."

>>> The accident rate can also be
>>>influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
>>>amount of accidents.

It's normalized by the number of miles driven, which means that's taken
into account, in part, as is everything else that is related to accidents.

>>> And it's also hard to determine how many of
>>>those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
>>>some other factor.

It's not only "hard", it's impossible.

But get this.

Cellphones are demonized, right? (See Uconn cite above, for example).
And cellphones went from 0% to 100% in just a few years.

If they're so bad, why does the reliable accident data not show that?

HINT: They're not so bad after all.

>>>I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
>>>higher rate of accidents than others did.

Nobody doubts that. Driving entails handling distractions.
Please see my comment about the good-student discount, for example.

>>>Certainly no one will
>>>admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
>>>light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

I do not disagree that it is nearly impossible, if not impossible, to get
good statistics of the accidents _directly_ caused by cellphone
distraction.

All you can get is a moron claiming that they were involved in one
accident, that the moron felt was caused by (always the _other_ driver) who
was distracted (as if all accidents are all only single-vehicle crashes).

Trust me I'm well aware that most people are incredibly stupid.
Their own arguments make absolutely no sense, except in their heads.

Never does the accurate data ever support their claims, badgolferman.
Yet they believe it. Because they're dunning kruger mount stupid people.

They never check their strongly held belief systems against the facts.

>>The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
>>driven.
>>
>>In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
>>during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
>>0% to almost 100%.
>>
>>Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
>>The only question is why.
>
> Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those
> facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't
> think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.

On 5/28/2024 12:59 AM, Andrew wrote:

> It's simple: Smart people have fewer accidents.
>
> Which is the whole point, really, that cellphones use in and of itself
> doesn't cause accidents. People are gonna have accidents no matter what.
>

So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
virtue of your science degree.

And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.

That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
halfwits like me can understand it.

> Andrew wrote:
> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
>
> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in
the USA
>
> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
> since 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.

Your inside an accident. Somebody ask you

1) was your phone on.
2) what were you doing with your phone

The moment you answer two you have become liable. Your phone could be
one like your radio and you could be talking
but your eyes have to be on the road. Not facetime, not tv, not xxx.

Even if your talking on the phone and your driving the question next
would be.

3) what were you talking about.

EXAMPLE: My aunt-in-law literally crashed her car head on with a tree
and light a blaze. If they check the phone bill how much do we want to
bet.

A. She was talking with another woman that told her she is having her
husbands baby.

or

B. She was talking with her mother ( the in-law ) who do not like her
husband due to his appearance.

So imagine if there was no phone. Imagine if she got the news after
she came home. Imagine if talking to one of these idiots "made
her unbalanced in calculations ( thinking ).

...............

My mother drives still and she has become obsessive over TV programs (
Prime, Netflix, Disney+, etc ).

Imagine if the phone rings and it displays a message "Emergency
please mom pick up".

My dad got into an accident one time ( not phone related ) but imagine
how much worst it could be.

This is a response to the post seen at:
http://www.jlaforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=665966706#665966706

Newyana2 wrote on Tue, 28 May 2024 09:23:55 -0400 :

> So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
> while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
> because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
> And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
> virtue of your science degree.
> And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
> somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
> Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.
>
> That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
> motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
> being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
> halfwits like me can understand it.

The only claim I'm making is that it's a myth that the cellphone saturation
rates going from 0% to nearly 100% in a few years had any measurable effect
on the accident rate trend in each of the 50 states in the United States.

That's simply a fact.

If people don't like that fact, they can cite some other reliable agency
other than the US Census Bureau who reports US normalized accident rates.

They can also cite accident rates year over year in other countries.
<https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>

Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.

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.

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.
*It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA*