Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andrew <andrew@spam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: How will the police find me.
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:11:43 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v2tunu$ef0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <9r9l4j1dauquc3vrg6bghhp6cerpsq01a9@4ax.com> <v2eaoe$3p5bi$1@dont-email.me> <0ckl4jl3efgequrtb68ed09gmrenl0q8bv@4ax.com> <v2g5b1$4h19$1@dont-email.me> <v2ga5f$5b0i$1@dont-email.me> <v2gfnm$2f5k$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <eh4t4jhh4gaj3pittannlqeseb3l1c31ql@4ax.com> <v2m89s$2aer$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2stgn$2tq6u$1@dont-email.me> <v2t175$1e9$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <pyadndEKTvDjh8_7nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:11:43 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="14816"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BhLRlY6ykyE52lmdwqh/eg4D5GM= sha256:QwDOStU1gnCaKszfT3EsIV/1zNr/6CKz2a1TGZJiZO8=
	sha1:jGrnYphaifWxUbeBgi84rVxQWrc= sha256:uV7fnAg4cQxaoJr9g3j32GflxaAyeKG+9i+DeOMf6Wo=
X-Newsreader: PiaoHong.Usenet.Client.Free:1.65
Bytes: 5800
Lines: 84

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/>