Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andrew <andrew@spam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,ca.driving
Subject: Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:40:10 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v2u0da$2hmu$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <v2ssjo$ddd$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <50745j90ulcvpp3h0m3nos1cu08r1jt80g@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 00:40:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="83678"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sCcmtdSdndiS1d2duJHiLd7UqBg= sha256:VI447QJqN6jtVUSwqpxVTssgykL+HaKy8wv0E9iLOww=
	sha1:akZbZPHkduIOlPMSeKYXCL0faso= sha256:iLoMShD/F8FXunHaIXxnnU6UCifAM7V1CdY6k8ufk6A=
X-Newsreader: PiaoHong.Usenet.Client.Free:1.65
Bytes: 9463
Lines: 191

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>

You think I don't realize most people believe in myths?
Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.
 <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.
  <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.
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
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?

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

Ask me how I know this - 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 - 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. 
You think I never took statistics? It's bullshit for you to say that
without even understanding 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.
You saying "correlation is note equal to causation" is simply your
desperate way to make those iron-clad facts disappear from your view.

If your entire argument is to deny that facts can exist, then you have no
argument. Again, only fools disagree with the facts. 

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.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========