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.

I'm not even going to try to argue with you if you think that traffic data
on the radio is anywhere as good as traffic data and rerouting on a phone.

You're talking to someone who is as old at least as you are, so I know.

> 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?????

What I know is a fact is the accident rate is unchanged in the USA.
The rest are my hypothesis' to explain why that is the case.

>>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.

Unfortunately, most people on this newsgroup aren't the brightest.
So that's how I talk to people. I bring it down to their level.

If you think I dumb it down here, you should see me on Apple newsgroups!
:)

>>Because that is a myth.
>
> Largely proof by assertion, since the facts are hidden in details of
> thousands of pages of accident data.

As is all statistical data.

>>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.

The accident rate is the starting point.
Not any given anecdotal accident.

Don't you ever wonder why when they're selling you crap, that they have
those testimonials instead of showing you the drug doesn't work overall?

> More insults.

When people act like adults, I treat them like adults.
You must know this by now.

I'll even treat Frank Slootweg and Alan Baker like an adult if they act
like adults. You never see me treating Andy Burns badly, for example.

I dumb the message down to fit the person.