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.

If you want to show that you welcome questions, you'll stop using terms
like fool and moron to describe those who disagree with you.
>
>Most people just believe in myths without ever checking the data.