Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise
 in the USA
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 09:22:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Message-ID: <v3a237$1nodr$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v2ssjo$ddd$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <v2v70b$pkq2$1@solani.org> <v2vfbf$mks$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <xn0oma1306bpbsj000@reader443.eternal-september.org>
 <v33obj$grl$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <3ce32e95-3359-c3f6-7c34-6909bcb82a5b@invalid.nospam>
 <v36b7s$1r28$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
 <630736f2-6537-e202-9116-4c013d56140d@invalid.nospam>
 <v37h8e$16mi7$1@dont-email.me> <i0ne5jhpec132tb67g73b8lenve9fut52r@4ax.com>
 <v38ktm$1gcum$1@dont-email.me>
 <v391hc$jdm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 16:22:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="83d7a2b9237a21bfe05450a77b0c6379";
	logging-data="1827259"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18waHvaLpgNGG07IaX/Rj+E"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Betterbird/102.15.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:piV03ppVj1TgUKDlHHrZfEQGgz8=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v391hc$jdm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
Bytes: 5155

On 5/30/2024 12:06 AM, Andrew wrote:
> sticks wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500 :
> 
>> The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
>> FACT.
> 
> Adults back up their strongly held belief systems with facts, don't they?
> Yet you backed up your belief systems with only ad hominem attacks.

Says the scientist who calls everyone else a moron.

> Think about that.
> a. You supplied zero facts, and yet you denied all facts you didn't like.

You mean like everything I supplied showing your bullcrap to be just 
that?  Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.

> b. Then, worse, what you did supply was only ad hominem attacks.

Usenet is a special place.  Calling out trolls is pretty common.  You 
should know since you are a troll and most people know it.

> I cited reliable facts which have been compiled for over a hundred years.
> You cited none.

That would be proof you didn't read what I posted.

> Yet you disputed all facts, simply because they don't fit your belief
> system. Who does that? Think about that before responding, please.

You don't have any facts, dipshit.  That was the point of my post.

> Bear in mind, nobody disputes the accident rate statistics.
> Nobody.  

Except for the NHTSA.

"NHTSA recognizes that there are limitations to the collection and 
reporting of FARS and CRSS data with regard to driver distraction. The 
data collections for FARS and CRSS are based on PCRs (police crash 
reports) and information gathered after the crashes have occurred."

"One noteworthy challenge for collection of distracted driving data is 
the PCR itself. PCRs vary across jurisdictions, creating inconsistencies 
in reporting. Many variables on the PCR are nearly universal, but 
distraction is not one of those variables. Some PCRs identify
distraction as a distinct reporting field while others do not have such 
a field and identification of distraction is based upon the narrative 
portion of the report. This variation in reporting forms contributes to 
variation in the reported number of distraction-affected crashes. Any
national or State count of distraction-affected crashes should be 
interpreted with this limitation in mind due to potential underreporting 
in some States and overreporting in others"

That said, even if we could trust the gubmint to have reliable 
statistics, they're still not a fact.  Statistics are a tool. Did you 
miss this part too?


"A statistic is just a number. And numbers are as easily manipulatable,
incomplete, and misleading as words are. But they’re more dangerous than
words, because numbers are associated with math, and math is associated 
with fact."


> If they did, you would have supplied a cite showing that they did.
> You can't.

Don't have to.  You did.

> Because nobody denies the accident rate facts who is a responsible adult.

Except the HHTSA...

> The fact you simply denied that facts can exist is your entire argument.

Nope, my argument is that using statistics as if they are fact is not 
something a scientist should be doing.  They are no such thing.  I've 
pointed out why.

> The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
> while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

round and round and round and round.

-- 
Stand With Israel!