In comp.mobile.android, on Tue, 21 May 2024 08:49:15 -0800, "Bill
Bradshaw" <bradshaw@gci.net> wrote:

>
>I am sending this to you

Frank

>and Andrew.

But I will answer anyhow!

> If you do not have cell phone service
>how can you send somebody your location and problem?

That's the advantage of GPS based reporting. I can't send my problem.
All anyone would know is that I haven't returned home, or to the car,
but I can send my location.

BTW, I would say the odds of my needing this are less than 1 in 50,000.

I've had a couple physicals and I'm very very unlikely to have a heart
attack or stroke, and after breaking each of my legs in two incidents
long ago, I'm pretty careful not to do that. But I would sure feel
stupid if the unlikely happened and I was lying there and hadn't let
anyone know where I was, or what to do if I didn't come home. It
would be worse if I were conscious because then I would spend the hours
before my demise kicking myself with my one good leg for being
unprepared.

Even though it was a weekday, there were 15 cars in the parking lot
(many of whom I later realized had taken a trail in the opposite
direction), and I was 200 and 300 yards behind other walkers, and bumped
into 3 people and two dogs coming the other way, but after 15 minutes, I
never saw anyone else until 10 minutes from the end.

><Bill>

micky wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 00:46:56 -0400 :

> There are three questions above and afaict you didn't answer any of
> them. Maybe somewhere in your text you have answers, but I didn't see
> them, so do me a favor and answer each of the 3 questiosn above.

What I'm saying is based on facts, not myth.
> I'll fully phrase them individually, and add one:
>
> Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their
> cellphone while driving?

Of course not. Nobody said that.

> Are you saying no one does anything on his cell phone that take takes
> his attention away from his driving?

Of course not. Nobody said that.

> If you agree that they do do things that take their attention, are you
> saying it's not dangerous?

Of course not. Nobody said that.
> Are you saying it doens't cause accidents?

Of course not. Nobody said that.

>>Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
>>I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>>
>>I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
>>publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
>
> You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
> things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still
> be a danger. That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
> at the top.

I'm a scientist.

It's good that you understand a few things which is that the accident rate
is based on a variety of things - but what you have to understand is the
accidents that are caused by cellphones would have happened anyway in the
statistical record.

You will NEVER understand that statement, if you don't understand why I
kept advising you that all cellphones did was replace an existing
distraction out of the top ten that was already causing most accidents.

Cellphones merely pushed number 10 of the top ten, into number 11.
Cellphones accomplished nothing else that would raise the accident rate.

And, on the flip side, they lowered the accident rate in many ways.
It's not a simple 1 + 1 = 2 equation.

But anyone who claims the accident rate went up, is a fool.
Because that is a myth.

At least in the USA it is, as the reliable data shows otherwise.

>>What you have here is a fact. The accident rate is unchanged.
>>What you need to figure out is why.
>
> I just want to figure out what you're saying.

I'm a scientist. I base assessments on facts. Not myths.
a. I completely understand that cellphones are a distraction.
b. I completely understand they didn't exist and now they're everywhere.
c. I completely understand why people believe the myth.

But when you look at the reliable data, the accident rate remained
unchanged (steadily trending down) in each of the 50 states before, during
and after the sky rocketing cellphone ownership rates.

The difference between a scientist and a moron is a moron believes the
myths without checking them but the scientist looks for the facts first.
>>The fact is simple (as only fools dispute facts).
>>The why isn't so simple - but there are reasons why.
>>
>>But until you agree with the fact, you have no business working on the why.
>
> I'm not working on the why; I'm not working on any fact. I'm only
> asking what you are saying.

Simple. The reliable records show no effect of cellphones on accidents if
you look at the reliable accident rate statistics of the USA by the CB.

What happened was there were always distractions while driving.
And there were always a top ten (or whatever) cause of accidents.

My hypothesis on the why is all cellphones did was displace one of the top
ten. As such, they had no effect on the accident rate.

But it's open to your assessment as to the why.
Thanks for asking questions - as I'm a scientist so I welcome questions.

Most people just believe in myths without ever checking the data.

I have been using SPOT which does what you want, for a fee.
https://www.findmespot.com/en-us/about-spot/company-info�

It works everywhere on the globe as a small device similar to a ship
beacon. Your location is set to the Google map that SPOT will maintain for
every subscriber. SPOT can be set to transmit your location at intervals.

It can be set to send a message via text when you turn it on where that
message can have the tracking URL where people can then watch your
progress.

The subscription allows it to send a text to any phone world wide.

The beacon has an SOS button which activates the worldwide beacon system
used for aircraft and ships with an automated distress message & location.

The service will notify local rescue groups (local police usually).

In comp.mobile.android, on Thu, 23 May 2024 14:56:19 -0000 (UTC), Andrew
<andrew@spam.net> wrote:

>micky wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 00:46:56 -0400 :
>
>> There are three questions above and afaict you didn't answer any of
>> them. Maybe somewhere in your text you have answers, but I didn't see
>> them, so do me a favor and answer each of the 3 questiosn above.
>
>What I'm saying is based on facts, not myth.
>
>> I'll fully phrase them individually, and add one:
>>
>> Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their
>> cellphone while driving?
>
>Of course not. Nobody said that.
>
>> Are you saying no one does anything on his cell phone that take takes
>> his attention away from his driving?
>
>Of course not. Nobody said that.
>
>> If you agree that they do do things that take their attention, are you
>> saying it's not dangerous?
>
>Of course not. Nobody said that.
>
>> Are you saying it doens't cause accidents?
>
>Of course not. Nobody said that.

In that case, I wish you had just answered me when I asked 3 of these 4
questions in the previous post.

Better than that, when you first said that cellphones have lowered the
accident rate, it would have been very good if you'd mentioned that they
also cause accidents. Just giving the total accident rate is not going
to prove anything to anyone, especially given that you yourself say
there are hundreds of things that affect the accident rate.

>>>Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
>>>I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>>>
>>>I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
>>>publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
>>
>> You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
>> things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still
>> be a danger. That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
>> at the top.
>
>I'm a scientist.

Being a scientist is great, but writing in a way that convinces people
of things is a separate skill. It helps a lot to make the affirmative
points one thinks supports his position, but it ALSO MATTERS A LOT to
foresee the objections readers will have and deal with them. In this
case that would be admitting that cellphones caause accidents and trying
to convince readers that they lessen the number of accidents more than
they increase them. A) I don't know how anyone can do that if the
readers are not going to spend hours and hours looking at detailed
accident data, B) I don't think it matters, because cellphoners have so
many advantages unrelated to traffic accidents, and because this is
supposed to be a free country, so that few are going to object to the
use of cellphones, and also few will object ot enforcing laws against
using them while driving in ways that make accidents more likely. Which
is the situation we have now.
>
>It's good that you understand a few things which is that the accident rate
>is based on a variety of things

Yes, I understand that. I feel so good about that.

>- but what you have to understand is the
>accidents that are caused by cellphones would have happened anyway in the
>statistical record.

Huh? What is the difference between "would have happened anyway" and
"would have happened anyway in the statistitical record"?
First, if there's a difference, I want to talk about real-life
accidents, not some statistical record which you seem to say disguises
the cause of cell-phone-caused accidents.
Second, if there is no substantial difference, you seem to be
backtracking on the answers you gave to my 4 questions above. No, the
accidents caused by cellphones would not have happened anyway if there
were no cellphones or if people didn't use them while driving.

>
>You will NEVER understand that statement, if you don't understand why I
>kept advising you that all cellphones did was replace an existing
>distraction out of the top ten that was already causing most accidents.

What was the existing distraction they replaced? Why don't you include
that since it's clearly so important to the point you are tryhing to
convince people of?
>
>Cellphones merely pushed number 10 of the top ten, into number 11.
>Cellphones accomplished nothing else that would raise the accident rate.

Of course they did. You admitted it when you answered the 4 questions
above.

>And, on the flip side, they lowered the accident rate in many ways.

You said that earlier, but I don't think so. You brought up traffic
data. Before there was traffic data on cellphones, one could get
traffic data by listening to the radio, and in many cases it made no
difference. For me and many there was only one route to work and when
one got to the bumper-to-bumper area, he slowed down, just like now.

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.)."

I could go over each of these to say why I think their effects are
minimal. But more important here is "If anything". This is where you
seem 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. Do you see why that seems to be a denial
that their use causes accidents?????

>It's not a simple 1 + 1 = 2 equation.
>
>But anyone who claims the accident rate went up, is a fool.

You're not going to get far if you keep insulting people who disagree
with you. Ask the other scientists you know if that's a good way to
promote your ideas.

>Because that is a myth.

Largely proof by assertion, since the facts are hidden in details of
thousands of pages of accident data.

>At least in the USA it is, as the reliable data shows otherwise.
>
>>>What you have here is a fact. The accident rate is unchanged.
>>>What you need to figure out is why.
>>
>> I just want to figure out what you're saying.
>
>I'm a scientist. I base assessments on facts. Not myths.
>a. I completely understand that cellphones are a distraction.
>b. I completely understand they didn't exist and now they're everywhere.
>c. I completely understand why people believe the myth.
>
>But when you look at the reliable data, the accident rate remained
>unchanged (steadily trending down)

You constantly talk about the total accident rate, when you should be
looking at and talking about accidents caused by cellphones and
accidents prevented by cellphones. It doesn't seem very scientific to
talk about the total accident rate. Espcially, when the very people
who says cellphones cause accidents and not disputing afaik that the
total accident rate is going down. The total accident rate going down
is a red herring by you. It's not in dispute.

> in each of the 50 states before, during
>and after the sky rocketing cellphone ownership rates.
>
>The difference between a scientist and a moron is a moron believes the
>myths without checking them but the scientist looks for the facts first.

More insults.
>>>The fact is simple (as only fools dispute facts).
>>>The why isn't so simple - but there are reasons why.
>>>
>>>But until you agree with the fact, you have no business working on the why.
>>
>> I'm not working on the why; I'm not working on any fact. I'm only
>> asking what you are saying.
>
>Simple. The reliable records show no effect of cellphones on accidents if
>you look at the reliable accident rate statistics of the USA by the CB.
>
>What happened was there were always distractions while driving.
>And there were always a top ten (or whatever) cause of accidents.
>
>My hypothesis on the why is all cellphones did was displace one of the top
>ten. As such, they had no effect on the accident rate.

That makes no sense. Lets use 5 instead of 10: If there were 5 causes of
accidents, causing 20, 18, 16, 14, and 12 accidnents per month and
cellphones displaced, say, problem 2, by causing 19 accidents per month,
there would now be 6 causes of 20, 19, 18, 16, 14, and 12 accidents per
month. An increase of 19. And that probably is what happened, minus
the number of fewer accidents because of cellphones. You've only made
the vaguest references to that.
>
>But it's open to your assessment as to the why.
>Thanks for asking questions - as I'm a scientist so I welcome questions.

micky wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 12:28:44 -0400 :

> Better than that, when you first said that cellphones have lowered the
> accident rate, it would have been very good if you'd mentioned that they
> also cause accidents.

You are correct.

I said, from the start, they're certainly a distraction.
There's no doubt distractions cause accidents.

I even said I'd expect the accident rate to skyrocket.
And yet, since I'm a scientist, I checked.

It didn't go up (it steadily went down).
But most people are not scientists.

They don't check anything.

Most people are, in fact, stupid.
They believe every myth that they're fed.

Most people don't bother to check if the myth is real or not.
I did.

It's a myth.
Now it's up to us to figure out why (I gave you my hypothesis already).

> to prove anything to anyone, especially given that you yourself say
> there are hundreds of things that affect the accident rate.

You are correct.

The NHTSA concentrated on the top ten, in which cellphone use is.

However there was always a top ten cause of accidents.
And there always will be.

Didn't you get the "good student discount" when you were a new driver?
I certainly did.

One of the top causes of accidents is stupid drivers.
Stupid drivers will have accidents no matter what.

>>>>Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
>>>>I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>>>>
>>>>I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
>>>>publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
>>>
>>> You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
>>> things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still
>>> be a danger. That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
>>> at the top.
>>
>>I'm a scientist.
>
> Being a scientist is great, but writing in a way that convinces people
> of things is a separate skill.

You are correct.

But I'm not writing a scientific paper here. I've been there. Done that.
But this is just a casual conversation.

I consider the vast majority of people on this newsgroup to be stupid.
So I write that way.

But you asked a reasonable question, so I thanked you and answered it.
The others simply spouted their myths.

If Andy Burns had questioned it, I'd write to him differently than, oh,
say, Joerg Lorenz or Alan Baker or Frank Slootweg.

I dumb down the message to fit the audience.
I raise it to the adult level when people act like adults.

> It helps a lot to make the affirmative
> points one thinks supports his position, but it ALSO MATTERS A LOT to
> foresee the objections readers will have and deal with them.

You are correct. I said even I would have thought that cellphones cause
accident rates to rise just as I would have thought that high-octane
gasoline is better and just as I would have thought that an iPhone is safer
than Android and just as I would have thought that low fat is better than
high fat, and just as I would have thought that name brand drugs are better
than generic drugs.

But since I'm a scientist, I check things.
And they're all myth. (As an aside, I love the Myth Busters series.)

> In this
> case that would be admitting that cellphones caause accidents and trying
> to convince readers that they lessen the number of accidents more than
> they increase them. A) I don't know how anyone can do that if the
> readers are not going to spend hours and hours looking at detailed
> accident data, B) I don't think it matters, because cellphoners have so
> many advantages unrelated to traffic accidents, and because this is
> supposed to be a free country, so that few are going to object to the
> use of cellphones, and also few will object ot enforcing laws against
> using them while driving in ways that make accidents more likely. Which
> is the situation we have now.

All you realize that it's a myth is this single set of statistics:
*What is the accident rate before, during & after?*

If the cumulative effect of added cellphone distraction was as bad as
people think it is, then the accident rate would have to have gone up.

It did not.

In fact, it went down - but it was trending down anyway.
So the best we can say is that it was unaffected.

Now, the question is WHY was it unaffected, the answer to which I only have
two hypothesis to offer to explain the reason that the myth is a myth.

We already know there are already thousand of distractions, and even if we
concentrate on the top ten, cellphones simply displaced one so there are
still a top ten.

We also can surmise that cellphones, while a distraction, also removed one
distraction, which was the use of driver navigation (e.g., with paper
maps).

Also cellphones reduced the issues with detour and avoiding traffic. And
cellphones allowed far better route planning and contingency efforts.

It's a hellova' lot safer having Google tell you in the dead of night that
the road forks up ahead than to find out with your own eyeballs, right?

>>It's good that you understand a few things which is that the accident rate
>>is based on a variety of things
>
> Yes, I understand that. I feel so good about that.

The rate depends on miles driven, the price of gas, the economy, weather
events, social events (like Covid), etc., as the number of accidents will
change but that's why they normalize it by miles driven (which they know
well as they have fuel & toll road statistics to gauge that kind of stuff).

What you see in the news are "accidents", which will always happen.

What matters to make intelligent conclusions is the accident rate.

>>- but what you have to understand is the
>>accidents that are caused by cellphones would have happened anyway in the
>>statistical record.
>
> Huh? What is the difference between "would have happened anyway" and
> "would have happened anyway in the statistitical record"?

Same thing.

What I mean is there are always gonna be stupid people driving.
Those stupid people will have accidents.

No matter what.
It won't matter which distraction causes the accident.

While I've never had an accident (and I've driven hundreds of thousands of
miles in a variety of states in a variety of weather and variety of cars)
I'm sure you know stupid people who keep having accidents, don't you?

It's not accidents that matter.
It's accident rates.

> First, if there's a difference, I want to talk about real-life
> accidents, not some statistical record which you seem to say disguises
> the cause of cell-phone-caused accidents.

I'm not saying accidents don't happen.

But the rate is unaffected.
So we have to figure out why.

That's what intelligent people would do.

> Second, if there is no substantial difference, you seem to be
> backtracking on the answers you gave to my 4 questions above. No, the
> accidents caused by cellphones would not have happened anyway if there
> were no cellphones or if people didn't use them while driving.

The fact is the rate is unchanged.
So we need to figure out why.

My hypothesis could be that the cellphone reduced accidents as much as it
caused them, which is a variant on the cellphone merely replaced another
distraction and removed others.

It's my hypothesis.
What's yours?

>>You will NEVER understand that statement, if you don't understand why I
>>kept advising you that all cellphones did was replace an existing
>>distraction out of the top ten that was already causing most accidents.
>
> What was the existing distraction they replaced? Why don't you include
> that since it's clearly so important to the point you are tryhing to
> convince people of?

We covered this in gory detail.
They're all listed by the NHTSA.
Eating in cars was one of them.

>>Cellphones merely pushed number 10 of the top ten, into number 11.
>>Cellphones accomplished nothing else that would raise the accident rate.
>
> Of course they did. You admitted it when you answered the 4 questions
> above.

Not if they reduced a few distractions too (e.g., being lost).
That's a biggie.

Plus they reduced accidents by informing you of red traffic ahead.
And they reduced U-Turns from missing your next turn.

They even reduced accidents by telling you what lane to be in.
Lots and lots and lots of ways cellphones reduced accidents too.

That's why I said the morons don't understand that they're spouting myths.

>>And, on the flip side, they lowered the accident rate in many ways.
>
> You said that earlier, but I don't think so. You brought up traffic
> data. Before there was traffic data on cellphones, one could get
> traffic data by listening to the radio, and in many cases it made no
> difference. For me and many there was only one route to work and when
> one got to the bumper-to-bumper area, he slowed down, just like now.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris
> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>>> In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 19 May 2024 21:58:37 -0400, knuttle
>>> <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
>>>>> Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my
>>>>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
>>>>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
>>>>> stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
>>>>> texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
>>>>> simple instructions I found on the web.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
>>>>> police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
>>>>> knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected
>>>>> criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
>>>>> sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
>>>>> a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
>>>>> can see on her phone to their phone? How?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
>>>>> incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to
>>>>> its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
>>>>> the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
>>>>> it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
>>>>> you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
>>>>> (which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
>>>>> expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
>>>>> where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
>>>>> I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
>>>>> something I'd likely want to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
>>>>> think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
>>>>> have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
>>>>> satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work?
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
>>>>> show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
>>>>> they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
>>>>> kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
>>>
>>>> If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
>>>> without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
>>>> finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
>>>> finding your direction so you do not get lost.
>>>>
>>>> Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
>>>> on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your
>>>> batteries expire.
>>>
>>> I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if you
>>> weren't.
>>>
>>> I've been hiking in the woods alone since I was 6 years old.
>>
>> Then you should know that before you head off to tell someone your route
>> and approximate time you will be done by. Then if you're not back by the
>> time you said you would be that person can alert mountain rescue.
>
> I thought it was clear from my post that I did all that.
>
>> This has always been the case with no need for technology.
>
> No, the post revolved around knowing with some precision where I was,

Which in the scenario you provided of your phone being stolen or broken is
impossible.

> not just somewhere, anywhere, on a 2 to 10 miles trail, so that on a
> loop trail rescuers can go clockwise or counter-clockwise from the trail
> head, whichever is quicker. Or with yesterday's trai that went from one
> road to another 3 miles away and then via another route back to the
> first road, they can start at whichever road is closer to the person
> being rescued.
>
> Or, especially relevant yesterday when much of the trail on a hill near
> a river, even the path itself sloped to the side, if the person has
> rolled down a hill off the trail, so the rescuers don't walk right by
> him.
>
>> If you want to depend on fallible technology - requires battery, wifi, gps,
>
> Only GPS and battery, and I have plenty of battery and GPS is exceedinly
> reliable. There was no cell signal on 90% of the trail, and certainly
> no wifi.

Well that's useless for anyone but you. Your ex nor the police will ever
where you are from your phone 90% of the time.

> But I challenge your use of "depend on". You missed the part that I had
> told my friend where I was going on and how long it would take me.

Good.

> The
> technology part is a supplement, so that they will be find me faster.

Not without a data connection they won't.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> micky wrote on Wed, 22 May 2024 20:52:26 -0400 :
>
>> Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their
>> cellphone while driving? And that that isn't dangerous? that it
>> doesnt' cause accidents?
>
> Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
> I'm a scientist.

Not even close.

>My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>
> I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
> publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
> start) states since the 1920s,

And stopped about 10 years ago as far as I can find. Can you share a link
which shows this accident data for the last 20-25 years?

and their data on accident rates for each
> and every one of the fifty states show NO ADVERSE EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the
> accident rate for any state and for all states in the periods before
> cellphones, during cellphone ownership skyrocketing, and afterward.
>
> The accident rate is slowly going down; but it certainly didn't go up
> *That's just a fact.*
>
> Only fools dispute facts (that's why they're fools).

Looking at correlations - which is all you're doing - doesn't categorically
answer either way. It's certainly factual information, but it doesn't make
your global assertions facts.

Chris wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 21:47:27 -0000 (UTC) :

>> Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
>> I'm a scientist.
>
> Not even close.

Tell me a single fact I've ever stated that you can prove is wrong?

HINT: You can't.

Note: There's a difference between facts & assessments of those facts.

For example, this is a fact:
The US Census Bureau reports accident rates for every state in the US.

Assessment of that fact:
Those accident rate reports are accurate.

Note the difference, Chris, between fact & assessment of fact.

You'll never find my facts wrong.
What you might (rightfully) disagree with are my assessments of facts.

>
>>My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>>
>> I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
>> publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
>> start) states since the 1920s,
>
> And stopped about 10 years ago as far as I can find. Can you share a link
> which shows this accident data for the last 20-25 years?
> and their data on accident rates for each

We can google for it since it was reported in this very newsgroup, Chris.
http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android

>> Only fools dispute facts (that's why they're fools).
>
> Looking at correlations - which is all you're doing - doesn't categorically
> answer either way. It's certainly factual information, but it doesn't make
> your global assertions facts.

As I said, most people are stupid, Chris (that's an assessment, by the way)
where they simply believe all myths they're told (e.g., they're told by
Apple that iPhones are safer than Android and they just believe it).

That's how advertising works, Chris.
And propaganda too.

The easy thing is that the fact is the accident rate has not gone up.
The assessment of that fact is the hard part.

Why do you think the accident rate trend was unchanged by cellphones?

HINT: There are multiple hypothesis's that I can come up with, btw...
1. It could be that cellphones merely replaced an existing distraction.
2. It could be cellphones save as many accidents as they cause.
3. It could be that dumb people are gonna have accidents no matter what.
4. It could be hands-free laws actually had an effect (I doubt it though).
etc.

I'm not sure *why* cellphones didn't increase the accident rate.
Note that just like all the dumbshits out there, I would have thought that
cellphones sky rocketing MUST have increased the accident rate.

But what stands me apart from the dumbshits is I looked for the numbers.
And they don't exist.

Don't blame me for not being stupid.
Commend me for telling you what you would never have thought of to check.

Chris wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 21:33:01 -0000 (UTC) :

>> No, the post revolved around knowing with some precision where I was,
>
> Which in the scenario you provided of your phone being stolen or broken is
> impossible.

If the phone is broken or stolen, the next best bet is a HAM or Satellite
radio in the backpack. Now if even the backpack is stolen or crushed....
then I'm out of ideas for micky's situation.

>> Only GPS and battery, and I have plenty of battery and GPS is exceedinly
>> reliable. There was no cell signal on 90% of the trail, and certainly
>> no wifi.
>
> Well that's useless for anyone but you. Your ex nor the police will ever
> where you are from your phone 90% of the time.

In order for him to communicate, he's gonna need either a radio, or, if
they're looking for him, a mirror or bright flashlight.

Lots of people have spelled HELP in the sand on an island also... but
that's far out of the realm of the comp.mobile.android newsgroup I think.
>> But I challenge your use of "depend on". You missed the part that I had
>> told my friend where I was going on and how long it would take me.
>
> Good.

I have a similar issues as micky does, in that I hike alone and I'm well
into my age of breaking bones being easy - so that's why I have SOS
mechanisms on my phone (which require cellular signal of course).

I also keep a small ham radio in a plastic bag in the backpack.

>> The
>> technology part is a supplement, so that they will be find me faster.
>
> Not without a data connection they won't.

Actually, he doesn't need a "data" connection, per se, since SMS doesn't
need cellular data - where all he has to do is send a text but if he's out
of cellular connection - that text will wait until his phone floats
downstream in a plastic bag until it finally reaches civilization.

On 2024-05-23 16:42, Andrew wrote:
> Chris wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 21:47:27 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
>>> I'm a scientist.
>>
>> Not even close.
>
> Tell me a single fact I've ever stated that you can prove is wrong?

You stated: "I'm a scientist"

The obligation is on YOU to prove that claim.

>
> HINT: You can't.
>
> Note: There's a difference between facts & assessments of those facts.
>
> For example, this is a fact:
> The US Census Bureau reports accident rates for every state in the US.
>
> Assessment of that fact:
> Those accident rate reports are accurate.
>
> Note the difference, Chris, between fact & assessment of fact.
>
> You'll never find my facts wrong.
> What you might (rightfully) disagree with are my assessments of facts.
>
>>
>>> My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>>>
>>> I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
>>> publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
>>> start) states since the 1920s,
>>
>> And stopped about 10 years ago as far as I can find. Can you share a link
>> which shows this accident data for the last 20-25 years?
>> and their data on accident rates for each
>
> We can google for it since it was reported in this very newsgroup, Chris.
> http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android

And yet you provide no actual link.

I think that says all that needs to be said.

On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:58:37 -0400, knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
>> Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my
>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
>> stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
>> texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
>> simple instructions I found on the web.
>If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
>without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
>finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
>finding your direction so you do not get lost.

And of course being in the Boy Scouts would enable (apologies to AmE
speakers for whom "enable" is a dirty word, what do you use instead?)
you to grit your teeth and be prepared to hop, skip and jump with a
broken leg.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 21:33:01 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> No, the post revolved around knowing with some precision where I was,
>>
>> Which in the scenario you provided of your phone being stolen or broken is
>> impossible.
>
> If the phone is broken or stolen, the next best bet is a HAM or Satellite
> radio in the backpack. Now if even the backpack is stolen or crushed....
> then I'm out of ideas for micky's situation.

He also mentioned unconscious...

>>> Only GPS and battery, and I have plenty of battery and GPS is exceedinly
>>> reliable. There was no cell signal on 90% of the trail, and certainly
>>> no wifi.
>>
>> Well that's useless for anyone but you. Your ex nor the police will ever
>> where you are from your phone 90% of the time.
>
> In order for him to communicate, he's gonna need either a radio, or, if
> they're looking for him, a mirror or bright flashlight.

He doesn't want to communicate. He wants a system where it'll do everything
for him if he becomes incapacitated.

> Lots of people have spelled HELP in the sand on an island also... but
> that's far out of the realm of the comp.mobile.android newsgroup I think.
>
>>> But I challenge your use of "depend on". You missed the part that I had
>>> told my friend where I was going on and how long it would take me.
>>
>> Good.
>
> I have a similar issues as micky does, in that I hike alone and I'm well
> into my age of breaking bones being easy - so that's why I have SOS
> mechanisms on my phone (which require cellular signal of course).
>
> I also keep a small ham radio in a plastic bag in the backpack.
>
>>> The
>>> technology part is a supplement, so that they will be find me faster.
>>
>> Not without a data connection they won't.
>
> Actually, he doesn't need a "data" connection, per se, since SMS doesn't
> need cellular data

Micky doesn't want to be able to send a message.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris
> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> A non-map based option is WhatThreeWords. See if you can suit your needs.
>
> I looked at it quite a bit and it woudln't be suitable for me. I don't
> have any way to generate the 3 words while I'm hiking, and every 10 feet
> I'd need another set of 3 words. Plus there is no relationship between
> the words for one location and the adjacent locations.
>
> Plus if I could generate the words, my friend would not know what they
> mean,

I was thinking more for your friend to be able to relay your location more
easily than google map coordinates.

> and I doubt the local police would understand them either.

Why? Many rescue services are fully aware.

> So how
> could they rescue me?

You could ask them.

> However, it's definitely interesting
>
>> The system has covered the whole planet surface in a grid of 3x3m squares
>> each defined by a unique combination of three words e.g.
>> The White House
>>
>> ///metals.rated.purely
>> https://w3w.co/metals.rated.purely
>>
>> It is ideal for giving directions where there's no points of reference.
>

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Chris wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 21:47:27 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>> Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
>>> I'm a scientist.
>>
>> Not even close.
>
> Tell me a single fact I've ever stated that you can prove is wrong?

Thanks for confirming you don't know what a scientist is. HINT: it's not
about never being wrong.

> HINT: You can't.

You mean other than the two times in the last month?. 1) you claimed ios
had no geofencing capability, 2) you claimed ios had 10x the zero days of
android.

> Note: There's a difference between facts & assessments of those facts.
>
> For example, this is a fact:
> The US Census Bureau reports accident rates for every state in the US.
>
> Assessment of that fact:
> Those accident rate reports are accurate.

Based on what? How are you defining accuracy? Is it post hoc justification
because those numbers match your bias?

> Note the difference, Chris, between fact & assessment of fact.

I do. I doubt you do, however.

> You'll never find my facts wrong.

Apart from all the times I and others have.

> What you might (rightfully) disagree with are my assessments of facts.

That as well.

>>
>>> My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>>>
>>> I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
>>> publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
>>> start) states since the 1920s,
>>
>> And stopped about 10 years ago as far as I can find. Can you share a link
>> which shows this accident data for the last 20-25 years?
>> and their data on accident rates for each
>
> We can google for it since it was reported in this very newsgroup, Chris.
> http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android

That's not the same as providing a link. Where's the source of your data.
Information without a verifiable source is just anecdote. The onus is on
you to show evidence of your "facts". No-one else's.

If you can't or won't then your "facts" are baseless and can be summarily
dismissed.

Chris wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:22:34 -0000 (UTC) :

>> Assessment of that fact:
>> Those accident rate reports are accurate.
>
> Based on what? How are you defining accuracy? Is it post hoc justification
> because those numbers match your bias?

You're the one with the "bias" becsaue you quoted zero facts.

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

I know the facts.
You are just guessing.

Hence, you're the one holding on to the myth without checking the facts.

People who are not ignorant & uneducated *have* looked at the myth though.
<https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>

Look at the US Census Accident Rate statistics by year, for example.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>

What do you see, Chris?
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>

Look at first-order effects, Chris... i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>

What do you see happening during the skyrocketing cellphone days, Chris?
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>

HINT: Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.

On 5/22/2024 10:05 PM, Andrew wrote:

> I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>
> I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
> publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
> start) states since the 1920s, and their data on accident rates for each
> and every one of the fifty states show NO ADVERSE EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the
> accident rate for any state and for all states in the periods before
> cellphones, during cellphone ownership skyrocketing, and afterward.
>
> The accident rate is slowly going down; but it certainly didn't go up
> *That's just a fact.*
>

As Chris said, you need to provide links and not just rant that
you're smarter than everyone else. The US Census Bureau surveys
population every 10 years. If they also keep accident records then
you need to provide a link.

The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
about deaths. But I did find this:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231211115919/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/11/briefing/us-traffic-deaths.html

They say that cellphones and marijuana smoking are the two
suspected causes of a 10-year increase in traffic deaths. Though
deaths is not the same as accidents. Nevertheless, pot and
cellphones makes sense to me given my own personal experience.
I'm astonished by how often I smell pot. I would be astonished at
how many people are cellphone addicts, but it's been going on so
long now that it's no longer surprising.

The trouble with scientism is that it doesn't recognize its own
limitations and the human tendency toward irrationality. To assess
data you need to be free of bias and you also need to be able
to look at your own preconceptions. And you need to be able to
question the data. In short, to be a good scientist
you need to be emotionally mature and develop self-knowledge.
Raging about what fools you think other people are is not scientific.

With science having become a kind of state religion, scientific
research is increasingly used as political propaganda. People are
increasingly prefacing their opinions with "research shows...". And
of course, any scientist who's also a cellphone addict will have a
strong bias against fuinding any negative data about cellphone use.

Very little of what passes for science is unbiased and relatively free of
gross preconceptions. We can look at virtually any topic. Dark matter,
global warming, cholesterol lowering to reduce heart disease, SRIs to
treat depression, the claim that there are not only two sexes, the
national recycling scam that's had people believing they were recycling
plastics for decades, the self-deception of viewing "renewable fuels" as
a category of "green" energy (Burning wood is not green.)... Even the
famous theory of evolution has holes in it.

All of these topics are subject to strong emotional bias by many
people. They're also subject to strong political bias. And that's not even
getting into the issue of blinding preconceptions and addiction to
certainty. A glaring example of preconceptions is the current view
of neuroscientists that "the mind is what the brain does". That's how
we got the idea of curing depression by simply changing brain chemistry
with SRIs. (One in 4 adults in the US is now hooked on some kind of
happy pill. Many of those are neurotransmitter re-uptake inhibitors,
which exist only due to the mechanistic view of biology put forth
by modern science, despite a lack of evidence for their claimed
usefulness.)

The neuroscientist/psychiatry view of "mind" is a comically irrational
point of view if you think about it. Scientists think they can accurately,
"objectively" describe the world they experience, yet they also believe
that mind as such doesn't truly exist, and that anything they think is
basically just chemical reactions. Why doesn't science accept mind as
such? Simply because mind is not subject to empirical observation and
thus can never be defined scientifically. If science can't test for it then
it can't be relevant. So mind is posited in a reductionist manner as
brain chemistry, because that can be empirically observed.

That might be worth a bit of reflection: You claim to know absolutely
the facts about traffic accidents and you claim to represent a group
of notably intelligent people who are not like "most people who are fools".
You're proud to be a scientist. By extension you also believe that you're
nothing more than a bio-robot thinking whatever the chemicals in
your brain happen to cook up -- that your apparent mind is nothing more
than Scrooge's "bit of mustard". Yet you're comically certain of your own
intelligense and lack of bias. What's wrong with this picture?

By letting your emotional bias hold sway you end up like the
horny young man who tries to convince his date that she should
come back to his house for the night, because his house is 4.3 miles
closer to her place of work than her own house is. Therefore she
could get to work the next day more easily. That "logical" young man
is presenting watertight logic, yet the foolish idiot young woman
is fully aware of the sexual motive that he can't see himself. :)

That's the achilles heal of science.

Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :

> The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
> about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
> about deaths.

I'm a well-trained scientist.

I base my assessments on facts.
While most people (who are not scientists) simply guess at everything.

Don't look at second-order effects of accidents until you've ascertained
first-order effects, since deaths are a function of many more things.

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

The only place that myth exists is in people's minds when they don't think.
However, even I would have *thought* accident rates would have skyrocketed.

They didn't.
Not in the USA anyway (where accurate records have been kept for decades).

The rate not only didn't skyrocket, it barely changed.

And what changed was it slowly trended down, down, down.
That's just a fact.

Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools).

The main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police.

In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the
accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
ownership in the United States?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>

What do you see?
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>

Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>

What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>

HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.

On 5/25/24 11:47, Andrew wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :
>
>> The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
>> about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
>> about deaths.
>
> I'm a well-trained scientist.
>
> I base my assessments on facts.
> While most people (who are not scientists) simply guess at everything.
>
> Don't look at second-order effects of accidents until you've ascertained
> first-order effects, since deaths are a function of many more things.
>
> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
>
> The only place that myth exists is in people's minds when they don't think.
> However, even I would have *thought* accident rates would have skyrocketed.
>
> They didn't.
> Not in the USA anyway (where accurate records have been kept for decades).
>
> The rate not only didn't skyrocket, it barely changed.
>
> And what changed was it slowly trended down, down, down.
> That's just a fact.
>
> Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools).
>
> The main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
> namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police.
>
> In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the
> accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
> ownership in the United States?
> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
>
> What do you see?
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
>
> Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
>
> What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
>
> HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.

None of the above proves that cell-phone use while drivig is not
extremely dangerous or that the part of accidents caused by cell phone
use or by other distracting devices is not increasing with increasing
cellphone use. BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before? Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".

A few years ago I had a near head-on collision (missed BY INCHES) with a
closure rate of well over 250 km/h and the other driver was a woman
(sole occupant in that car with phone in hand) who had deviated
completely into my single lane from a point about 200 feet in front of
me, try THAT once for a hard opinion-alignment! Also a few years ago I
was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not
noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
(mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).

Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I
affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING in this respect) try to remember road/traffic details from the
previous few minutes without drawing a complete blank. You can cheat,
but when alone and looking at yourself in the mirror you'll remember the
astounding revelation and it will change your habbits.

bad sector wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:06:06 -0400 :

> None of the above proves that cell-phone use while drivig is not
> extremely dangerous or that the part of accidents caused by cell phone
> use or by other distracting devices is not increasing with increasing
> cellphone use.

I'm a scientist. I know what facts are. And I know what bullshit is.

I welcome adult discourse as one of my goals is to teach others.
And if others have something to teach me, that's fine also.

But just repeating the myth doesn't help anyone. Not me. Not you.
Bear in mind, and note very clearly: I only said one thing was a fact.

The accident rate slow trend of down didn't change before, during or after
the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership rates (essentially from 0%
cellphones in a vehicle to 100% today).
<https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>

The rest was an hypothesis to potentially explain that unexpected fact.

> 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 actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states.
The US Census Bureau works off of those reliably reported accidents.
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
> Right, so
> much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
> one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".

See above. Nobody but you said that anyone said anything after the
accident. They could have had the accident for any number of reasons.

Only you built that strawman which you could then shoot down.
I never said what caused the accidents (and neither do the statistics).

Bear in mind it seems you're desperate to fabricate excuses.
Be careful please.

Please separate fact from myth if you're going to dispute facts.
Only a fool disputes facts (that's why they're fools, after all).
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>

> A few years ago I had a near head-on collision (missed BY INCHES) with a
> closure rate of well over 250 km/h and the other driver was a woman
> (sole occupant in that car with phone in hand) who had deviated
> completely into my single lane from a point about 200 feet in front of
> me, try THAT once for a hard opinion-alignment! Also a few years ago I
> was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
> stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
> know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not
> noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
> might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
> over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
> (mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).

Anecdotal evidence, while it works great on fools, is not science.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=anecdotal+evidence+is+not+science>

If you're that desperate to dispute facts, then you have no case.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence>

If all you have is anecdotal evidence, then you only believe in myths.
<https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/02/10/5-reasons-why-anecdotes-are-totally-worthless/>

HINT: I once forgot to say "knock on wood" and I had an accident; therefore
not saying "knock on wood" must be the cause of all accidents, you claim.

> Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I
> affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY
> NOTHING in this respect) try to remember road/traffic details from the
> previous few minutes without drawing a complete blank. You can cheat,
> but when alone and looking at yourself in the mirror you'll remember the
> astounding revelation and it will change your habbits.

Only a fool disputes facts. That's why they're fools.
If the only evidence you can supply is anecdotal, then it's not science.
It's a myth.

<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/>

In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 24 May 2024 21:58:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

>micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris
>> <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A non-map based option is WhatThreeWords. See if you can suit your needs.
>>
>> I looked at it quite a bit and it woudln't be suitable for me. I don't
>> have any way to generate the 3 words while I'm hiking, and every 10 feet
>> I'd need another set of 3 words. Plus there is no relationship between
>> the words for one location and the adjacent locations.
>>
>> Plus if I could generate the words, my friend would not know what they
>> mean,
>
>I was thinking more for your friend to be able to relay your location more
>easily than google map coordinates.

Oh, that makes sense. But getting her to learn it would be difficult.
She's very busy, and I'll be lucky if she notices that I didn't come
home at the end of the day.
>
>> and I doubt the local police would understand them either.
>
>Why? Many rescue services are fully aware.

Well, maybe they are. If it were less hypothetical, I'd call and ask.

>> So how
>> could they rescue me?
>
>You could ask them.

Oh, you addressed that. Well, not until she knows how to do it. ;-)

But in general, I looked up where I was hiking and Little Gunposder
Falls Park is only about 4400 feet wide for most of its length, inc.
where I was.

And on either side are houses, suburban style, not just farms. Of coure
that doesnt' mean they have cell coverage.

And I looked up the range of 4G cells. About 10 miles, it said.

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

And finally I looked for a cell tower map and the only one I could find
was created by users, not the cell companies:
https://www.cellmapper.net/map?MCC=310&MNC=260&type=LTE&latitude=39.47766648552397&longitude=-76.40962748753074&zoom=17.73195256160045&showTowers=true&showIcons=true&showTowerLabels=true&clusterEnabled=true&tilesEnabled=true&showOrphans=false&showNoFrequencyOnly=false&showFrequencyOnly=false&showBandwidthOnly=false&DateFilterType=Last&showHex=false&showVerifiedOnly=false&showUnverifiedOnly=false&showLTECAOnly=false&showENDCOnly=false&showBand=0&showSectorColours=true&mapType=roadmap&darkMode=false&imperialUnits=false
And it shows quite a few cell towers with 2 miles of where I was, not in
the woods but along Jerusalem Road and Harford Road. I didn't see them,
and there may be redundant reports by the volunteer contributors, but
the river valley was quite shallow where I was and I should have had
cell service like the T-mobile coverage map says I did. .

Next time, though I don't want to spend more time fiddling with my
phone, I'll try sending texts or something when I'm in this situation,

I wish I were going back to this very trail, but there are a lot of
trails I haven't been to**, and I'd rather do them.

When I was activities chairman or president of my hiking club, we had
people coming from DC and this area is on the far side of Baltimore for
them, so we skipped this area.

>> However, it's definitely interesting
>>
>>> The system has covered the whole planet surface in a grid of 3x3m squares
>>> each defined by a unique combination of three words e.g.
>>> The White House
>>>
>>> ///metals.rated.purely
>>> https://w3w.co/metals.rated.purely
>>>
>>> It is ideal for giving directions where there's no points of reference.
>>
>
>

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:06:06 -0400, bad sector
<forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:

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

So what happened? Did she start looking at the road and go back ot her
lane? Did you head for the shoulder?

>Also a few years ago I
>was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
>stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
>know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not
>noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
>might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
>over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
>(mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).
>
>Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I
>affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY
>NOTHING in this respect)

The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
if you're headed to an obstacle.

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

On 5/25/24 20:11, Andrew wrote:

> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>

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.

> 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 :-)

>> 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.

> The actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states.

Sidebar: is this comp.mobile.android or comp.mobile.android.us?

>> 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. 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.

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

--
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
vehicle in motion at any speed. "Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free".
In the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that
distance should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5km/h of CLOSURE
speed (i.e. no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any
vehicle approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such
an automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first
pay large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
to be beefed up exponentially).

On 5/25/2024 11:47 AM, Andrew wrote:

> What do you see?
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
>
I see irrelevant statistics that only go up to 2008 -- about
the time the iPhone came out.

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

Your second link is from an insurance company group
and says that 11% of fatal crashes are known to be caused
by cellphone use. That's just the ones that admitted to it or
perhaps were found to be using their cellphone by other means.
And it's only including fatal crashes. The man who sideswiped
me while distracted by his cellphone, for example, didn't cause
a major accident. There was no bodily harm.

Also, pedestrian deaths have increased since 2009. I wouldn't
say that proves a cellphone connection, but it certainly points
in that direction.

Your last link simply says that death rates have decreased.
That relates to seat belts, airbags, better brakes, etc. It's
not a direct indication of actual accident rates. It doesn't
even refer to accident rates. It's referring only to deaths per
miles driven.

This is why you need to keep your emotions out of it. Reading
so much disparate data, which actually says very little about
anything other than the usefulness of seat belts, can make it
very tempting to read meaning into it.

An interesting other factor that's barely mentioned is the
excessive computerization. With today's cars, few things
can be done without looking at the dashboard. In older
cars, heat, AC, radio, etc can be easily adjusted without
looking. With touchscreens distraction is unavoidable.

On 5/25/2024 9:16 PM, micky wrote:

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

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.