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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>Ask me how I know this -

You don't know anything, it seems.

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

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

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

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

>You think I never took statistics?

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

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

I do understand the facts.

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

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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

>That's why they're fools.
>
>> Google the
>> preceding three words and maybe some webpage will explain it better than
>> I'm about to: You admit there are hundreds of factors in determining
>> the accident rate but then because it's going down**, you claim that
>> proves that ONE of those hundreds is lowering it.
>
>Again and again and again you're so desperate to make the facts go away
>that you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
>
>I only said one thing, which is teh accident rate is going down year after
>year after year and it did not go up before, during or after the meteoric
>skyrocketing rise in cellphone ownership rates.
>
>That's just a fact, micky.
>
>If you hate that fact, just say you hate facts, micky.
>You think you're the only one who hates facts?
>
>You're not.
>Look at the Apple newsgroup for people who hate facts, Micky.
>
>Me? I love facts.
>And the fact is the accident rate in the USA is steadily trending downward.
>
>1. It was trending downward before cellphones existed.
>2. It trended downward while cellphone ownership rates skyrocket.
>3. And it's still trending downward after cellphones hit saturation.
>
>> **I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate
>> per capita has been going up since 2010.
>
>Injuries and fatalities are a second order effect, subject to even more
>variables than accident rates are, so you have no business going there
>until you understand the first-order accident rates, micky.
> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-10.pdf>
>
>I can feel your desperation - but you have to first understand the facts.
>
>> There is a logical reason why
>> death rate and accident rate are correlated. (No one dies in a traffic
>> accident unless there *was* a traffic accident.) So you're probably
>> wrong about the accident rate going down since 2010.
>
>The accident rate has nothing to do with mortality, micky.
>Nothing.
>
>The accident rate would be the same with or without injuries, micky.
>Injuries and fatalities are a second-order effect.
>
>You're desperate to discount the facts that you don't like.
>Stop doing that.
>
>>> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
>>>
>>>Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
>>> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
>>>
>>>What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
>>
>> Two graphs at this web page show the death rate going up since 2010. One
>> of them shows the per capita death rate going up since 2010.
>> Hoised by your own petard.
>
>Again, you're desperate to ignore the accident rate is a first-order fact.
>Your sheer desperation is palatable.
>
>We can discuss the second order effects, by the way, of the accident rate
>going down, but if you think the accident rate is hard to believe, the
>second-order effects will knock your socks off.
>
>You're not ready for second-order effects yet.
>You need to understand the accident rate first, and foremost.
>
>>>
>>>HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
>>
>> Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all.
>
>The accident rate is not a "total" but a normalized figure based on the
>number of miles driven, micky.
>
>If you don't even understand that, what can you understand?
>Think about that statement please.
>
>Your entire argument is that you hate the facts.
>That's sheer desperation, micky.
>
>That's not science.
>It's myth.