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: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,ca.driving
Subject: Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 04:59:32 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v33obj$grl$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <v2ssjo$ddd$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2v70b$pkq2$1@solani.org> <v2vfbf$mks$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <xn0oma1306bpbsj000@reader443.eternal-september.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 04:59:32 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="17269"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lIhtnBYJwjOAAvLee7L23FVGSdc= sha256:/V0wCnyhqgzZvPSP9Ln/vHSiyK3eG+ADZMZnMDum9sk=
	sha1:mFWGqMx51QZMF/ldBON1BM/g7js= sha256:0YhaPGe7XW0589rD10lH+ogzeiEWLJ+2whmk343BiO8=
X-Newsreader: PiaoHong.Usenet.Client.Free:1.65
Bytes: 11224
Lines: 231

badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 15:15:59 -0000 (UTC) :

> A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle.  Surely you have stories of your
> own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road.

I welcome intelligent discourse between adults who can use their brains.

I'm a big German guy so I happen to like bimmers & beemers, but you can't 
own either of those without learning way too much about fixing them. :)

>>Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of
>>you.
> 
> That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you
> well know.

California isn't so bad. Back east it's worse for bikers due to the weather 
and the drivers and the fact you can't share the same lane in most states.

>>Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did.
>>Do you know why they give it out? I do.
> 
> No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong
> crowd in high school.  Tell us why they give it out.

It's simple: Smart people have fewer accidents. 

Which is the whole point, really, that cellphones use in and of itself 
doesn't cause accidents. People are gonna have accidents no matter what.

BTW, if I were a moron, I'd also think that the accident rate must have 
gone up and then leveled off trending with cellphone ownership rates.

But not being a moron... I looked it up.
And that's when I found out that the accident rate trend is unchanged.

That's just a fact. Nobody but a fool would disagree with that fact.
So the adult question to ask is why.

>>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of
>>>traffic,  instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front
>>>of them. This has  the effect of pissing off people behind them who
>>>try their damnest to get  around them. Distracted drivers can't
>>>stay in their lane, leading to other  drivers having to avoid them.
>>>Distracted drivers fail to go when the  traffic light turns green
>>>and cause cars farther back to miss the light  cycle and wait again
>>>for the green light. There are many more examples, but  you get the
>>>picture. Surely you can add more.

I base my assessments first on the facts. 
Once I understand the facts, then I can move on to their assessment.

Here's a fact that we must start with given it's a fundamental truth:
 *Accident trends show no effect whatsoever during cellphone years*

Yet most of us would have thought that distractions cause accidents, 
particularly when dumb people are distracted (see good student discount).

So we would have thought that the accident rate should have reflected 
greater rates of accidents during the times cellphones skyrocketed.

But it didn't happen.
So we're left with explaining why.

I'm not stupid; so I can come up with a whole bunch of hypotheses.
But they're just my hypotheses. 

>>Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
>>(See good student discount comment above.)
>>
>>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to
>>>say what  you want. 

Not raw statistics.
It's the conclusions you make from raw statistics that are manipulated.

The raw statistic of pure accident rates is not manipulated (AFAIK).

Note by the way that it's an act of desperation to (a) not know the 
statistics, and then (b) disagree with them anyway, and even much worse, to 
(c) claim that the raw statistics are "manipulated".

It's disingenuous at best. Deceitful at worst. It's what micky did.
It's what all the ignorant Apple zealots do when Apple facts are noted.

Don't do that.
If you don't believe the statistic, then you just don't believe in facts.

The statistics themselves say nothing directly about cellphones.
Especially since they've been gathered since the 1920's the same ways.

>>But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.
> 
> As you may remember, I also work in the field of science.  Specifically
> raw data collection and processing.  I have personally witnessed the
> lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support
> the narrative he was trying to create.  He ordered the processing
> algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted.  Those
> reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over.

Bear in mind that I looked at the raw data to see if it supported the 
conclusion every moron has made that cellphones must raise accident rates.

It's just not supported in the raw data, which, let's repeat, is reliable 
data which has been compiled since the 1920's the same way and nobody 
complained that it's skewed toward or against cellphones (because it has 
nothing, directly, to do with cellphones).

All it is, of course, is the total number of reported accidents divided by 
the number of miles driven (which is the normalized accident rate).

I argue that the reported accidents or the number of miles driven are 
manipulated (by whom?) in favor (or not) of cellphones... is absurd.

It's just reported accidents. Divided by the number of miles driven.
It has nothing to do with cellphones, per se.

But it does tell us a lot when we compare it to the period of time when 
cellphones went from 0% to 100% saturation in vehicles, does it not.

>>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
>>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone
>>>drivers have  on other drivers. 

It's a fundamental metric though.

I wish we had accurate data on cellphone *usage* while driving.
But we don't.

I also wish we had accurate statistics on distractions while driving.
We do, but every list I look at is different.
So we don't.

Still, the Connecticut cite I previously provided says what any sensible 
person would have said, which is that it's overblown at the very least.

 <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>
 "The use of cell phones while driving has been demonized by many 
  as a predominant cause of automobile accidents attributed to 
  distracted driving. While there is no doubt that distracted driving 
  is dangerous, and increases the risk of being involved in an automobile 
  accident, this Note contends that cell phone use does not play 
  as prominent a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed. 
  Many other distractive stimuli pose a more significant threat, and 
  often occur more regularly than cell phone use. Unlike cell phone use, 
  however, these other distractive stimuli have not been characterized 
  as negatively, or singled out by legislative bans."

>>> The accident rate can also be
>>>influenced by the increased  amount of drivers as opposed to the
>>>amount of accidents.

It's normalized by the number of miles driven, which means that's taken 
into account, in part, as is everything else that is related to accidents.

>>> And it's also hard  to determine how many of
>>>those actual accidents were the result of  distracted driving or
>>>some other factor. 

It's not only "hard", it's impossible. 

But get this. 

Cellphones are demonized, right? (See Uconn cite above, for example).
And cellphones went from 0% to 100% in just a few years.

If they're so bad, why does the reliable accident data not show that?

HINT: They're not so bad after all.

>>>I'd wager distracted drivers  caused a far
>>>higher rate of accidents than others did. 

Nobody doubts that. Driving entails handling distractions.
Please see my comment about the good-student discount, for example.

>>>Certainly no one  will
>>>admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
>>>light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

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