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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, it's nothing like gravity.

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

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

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

Facts without relevant arguments do not have convincing value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't this the fourth time you've said this in one post. I'm not going
back to count but I think you need new writers.

>>>Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things:
>>>1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States.
>>>2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into
>>> use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States.
>>>
>>>Those are facts.
>>
>> No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to
>> doughnuts that the accident rate has too.
>
>WTF? I wasn't talking about second-order effects.
>Injuries (and fatalities) are second-order effects.

You should be talkign about the injuries and fatalities. They are a lot
more important than crumpled fenders.

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

Now I'm repeating myself. The accident rate is not imporrtant here.
it's the rate of accidents caused by cellphone usage.
>
>The accident rate (which is normalized by miles driven) did not go up.
>It went down.
>
>> But even if you were right, and even if 1 and 2 were facts, which 2 is
>> not, it's not the facts that are your problem. It's your misuse of
>> logic which causes you to draw unsupported and probably false
>> conclusions from your facts.
>
>You don't understand that a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact.
>It's not whether or not "I am right" when it's a fact.
>
>It's the fact that is right.
>
>Nobody disagrees with facts except fools, micky.
>That's why they're fools.
>
>It's not *my* fact that the accident rate trend is unchanged.
>It's *the* fact.
>
>> I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping
>> the rest.
>
>EOD. There's a reason I said only fools disagree with facts.

Yes, there is. You don't have counter-arguments so you insult people
for things they did not do.