How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police.
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?
<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/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
On 2024-05-25 07:29, Andrew wrote:
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA >>
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. >>
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?
<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/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
You really know nothing about statistics...
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers,
(b) insurance companies
(c) ticketing police.
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?
<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/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
you turn off every
person who thinks cell phones cause accidents.
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.
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?
I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation.
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.
**I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate
per capita has been going up since 2010.
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.
<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.
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all.
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.
Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all.
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. >>
The accident rate is not a "total" but a normalized figure based on the >number of miles driven, micky.
If you don't even understand that, what can you understand?
Think about that statement please.
Your entire argument is that you hate the facts.
That's sheer desperation, micky.
That's not science.
It's myth.
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.
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.
Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate.
And you've admitted that cell phones cause accidents.
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.
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?????
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".
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.
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.
It's bullshit for you to say that
without even understanding the facts.
I do understand 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.
No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to doughnuts that the accident rate has too.
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.
I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping
the rest.
In order to have any meaningful correlation between cell phones in cars
and their effect on accidents one would have to know how many of those
cell phones were in use while driving and also the accident rate in
those cars as compared to the others. Without this in the case of
cell-phone correlation the supplied study provides just irrelevant statistical noise.
The rest was an hypothesis to potentially explain that unexpected fact.
So we went from scientific method and statistical data to hypothetical potentials. OK, I didn't lock in on that one, my bad :-)
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 cause of the accident is not likely to be recorded as having been cell-phone use unless someone fesses up to it.
Accident investigation
does not on one hand include automatic mandatory x-checking with the
cell service providers and in many jurisdictions such would not even be permitted on the other. I've done accident investigation in three areas
of activity and am of the opinion that quite a few reports are
misleading and not only accidentaly so ..for any number of reasons.
The actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states.
Sidebar: is this comp.mobile.android or comp.mobile.android.us?
Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby >>> one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
Nobody but you said that anyone said anything after the
accident. They could have had the accident for any number of reasons.
I never said that anyone said anything. What I thought to have alluded
to rather unequivocally was that IF someone had used a phone and knew
that that use had lead up to the accident then that person would not
likely volunteer that information.
This may soon become unnecessary
anyway with the onset of AI helping cops catch offenders given that it
has the speed to analyse cell traffic around and entire block for
instance and alert the cop waiting at the intersection "green Honda
arriving from South leg in 45 seconds was on line while in motion for
the last ten and a half minutes". Once the pull-over happens all the
data is already printed on the ticket.
And although this thread is already way off-topic, one more tidbit:
accident prevention depends on defensive legislation AND defensive
driving.
It is not at all necessary for a lawmaker to KNOW that a
scientific correlation exsist between cell use and accidents, it is more important to act with prejudice and watch for what, cell-phones
included, MIGHT cause an accident. The way to legislate is the way that
I have driven over a million clicks with no accident, if anyone wants to argue with that, go for it.
As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me.
That
means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
maneuvers if necessary.
Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
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.
Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
you want.
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. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
distracted driving or some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers
caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. 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.
Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
(See good student discount comment above.)
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.
Andrew wrote:
badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) :
As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings,
and that also includes the attention of the drivers
ahead/beside/behind me.
I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200.
Yes. 2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles.
https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh
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.
That
means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to
see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to
know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready
to take evasive maneuvers if necessary.
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.
Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can
confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted
because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they
are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a
menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
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.
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.
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.
The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts.
That's why they're fools.
The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with
them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably
disagree with.
Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they
progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will
invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each
fact).
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.
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. The accident rate can also be
influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of
those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
higher rate of accidents than others did. 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.
The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
driven.
In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
0% to almost 100%.
Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
The only question is why.
Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't
think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.
Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA >>
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. >>
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?
<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/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. >>
As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
maneuvers if necessary.
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.
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?
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.
<https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>
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.
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
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.
And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 2
Andrew <[email protected]> wrote:
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA >>
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. >>
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?
<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/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. >>
As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That
means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
maneuvers if necessary.
Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are looking at their phones. This doesn’t mean they are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
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.
Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
you want. 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. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it’s also hard to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
distracted driving or some other factor. I’d wager distracted drivers caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. 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.
Andrew wrote.....
badgolferman wrote:
Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can >>>confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted >>>because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they
are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a >>>menace to other drivers with their erratic driving.
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.
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.
The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts. >>That's why they're fools.
The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with
them.
It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably
disagree with.
Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they
progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will >>invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each >>fact).
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.
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. The accident rate can also be
influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of
those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
higher rate of accidents than others did. 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.
The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
driven.
In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
0% to almost 100%.
Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
The only question is why.
Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those >facts, especially if those people are the government.
If someone don't
think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." ~ Voltaire
No, in the discussion at hand the "most important metric" is the rate of accidents caused by cell-phone distracted driving.
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.
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 prominenta 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.
In particular, Connecticut�s legislation banning cell phone usewhile 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The accident rate can also be
influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the
amount of accidents.
And it's also hard to determine how many of
those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or
some other factor.
I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far
higher rate of accidents than others did.
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.
The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles
driven.
In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip
during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from
0% to almost 100%.
Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
The only question is why.
Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't
think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.
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.
Andrew wrote:the USA
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,ticketing police.
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c)
In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happeningto the
accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise incellphone
ownership in the United States?
What do you see?
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphonedays?
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected bycellphones.
So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
virtue of your science degree.
And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.
That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
halfwits like me can understand it.
Not your cherished accident data. There's no data since 2008.
Newyana2 wrote on Tue, 28 May 2024 09:23:55 -0400 :
So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
virtue of your science degree.
And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.
That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
halfwits like me can understand it.
The only claim I'm making is that it's a myth that the cellphone saturation >rates going from 0% to nearly 100% in a few years had any measurable effect >on the accident rate trend in each of the 50 states in the United States.
That's simply a fact.
If people don't like that fact, they can cite some other reliable agency >other than the US Census Bureau who reports US normalized accident rates.
They can also cite accident rates year over year in other countries.
<https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 :
you turn off every
person who thinks cell phones cause accidents.
More insults. In the same way I turned you off in my 3rd line above by
calling your ideas mistaken, by calling them stupid, you turn off every
person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. 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.
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>
Nobody has yet found any statistic that backs up the myth.
There's a reason for that fact.
Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States.
But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
Newyana2 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/29/2024 12:34 AM, Andrew wrote:
Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States. >>> But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
I clicked, read and responded to the first links you posted.
You never answered. At any rate, this is getting silly. You've
said your piece. It's nonsense. You only attack rather than
discuss with people. I'm beginning to think that you're a bot
created by a consortium of car and cellphone makers.
If you want to discuss ANYTHING you have to start by trying
to be intellectually honest. You can't do that if you hold onto a
vested interest in the outcome.
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens of
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:
��Arlen, really? How do people identify him?From his manner of "speaking".
Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens ofCould be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
On 5/29/2024 12:05 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:
Arlen, really? How do people identify him?From his manner of "speaking".
Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.
Interesting. I just figure that the majority of people are
motivated by emotion, can't stand to be wrong, and don't
think very clearly. So I'm not surprised to see a new person
hold forth as an irrational hothead. I suppose that on the
bright side these discussions provide a chance to clarify
topics.
On 5/29/2024 12:05 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2024-05-29 08:44, Newyana2 wrote:
��Arlen, really? How do people identify him?From his manner of "speaking".
Honestly, I'm shocked that anyone COULDN'T recognize him.
Interesting. I just figure that the majority of people are
motivated by emotion, can't stand to be wrong, and don't
think very clearly. So I'm not surprised to see a new person
hold forth as an irrational hothead. I suppose that on the
bright side these discussions provide a chance to clarify
topics.
On 5/29/2024 12:48 PM, micky wrote:
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens ofCould be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
I've seen bot posts on Reddit. Usually I don't think of it until
someone points it out, then I realize that it probably is a bot
post. Then again, is there a difference between bots, marketing,
Chinese propagandists and Russian hackers? They're mostly only
identifiable by their viewpoint.
Andrew wrote:the USA
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons?
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in
The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds,ticketing police.
since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c)
In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happeningto the
accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise incellphone
ownership in the United States?
What do you see?
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphonedays?
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected bycellphones.
An insurance company survey that found
That's simply a fact.
It's your opinion.
If you want to discuss ANYTHING you have to start by trying
to be intellectually honest. You can't do that if you hold onto a
vested interest in the outcome.
On 2024-05-29 17:44, Newyana2 wrote:
On 5/29/2024 11:22 AM, Chris wrote:
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens
of posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
Arlen, really? How do people identify him?
We have correlated the identity Andrew with him months ago. He is made
many posts with it, the identification is easy.
He has several quirks of language. One is saying he speak facts, when
there are none in evidence. Another is insulting. If I see some new
name that insults me out of the blue, there are high chances that it
is him.
He changes names often. He may refer to posts he made under another
name.
In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 04:34:04 -0000 (UTC), Andrew ><[email protected]> wrote:
Newyana2 wrote on Tue, 28 May 2024 09:23:55 -0400 :
So... you're saying it's fine to yap on your cellphone
while driving -- or even while taming lions or mountain climbing --
because accidents are directly connected to low intelligence.
And you're most decidedly not a moron. You're a genius, by
virtue of your science degree.
And you're also a fatalist? All accidents are predestined. And
somehow destiny has ruled that scientists don't get into accidents.
Rather, accidents are Fate's way of punishing dumb people.
That helps explain why you think that it's not dumb to ride a
motorcycle: You have a science degree that prevents you from
being hit by a truck. Now that you've clarified your logic, even
halfwits like me can understand it.
The only claim I'm making is that it's a myth that the cellphone saturation >>rates going from 0% to nearly 100% in a few years had any measurable effect >>on the accident rate trend in each of the 50 states in the United States.
Most of us here know that
That's simply a fact.
It's your opinion.
If people don't like that fact, they can cite some other reliable agency >>other than the US Census Bureau who reports US normalized accident rates.
Or they can just semi-ignore your opinion, since you don't back it up
with logic. Logical logic, that is. You have a few facts but you don't >connect them sufficiently, and the ones you offer are not sufficent to >support your opinion. Instead you just claim your conclusions are
facts.
They can also cite accident rates year over year in other countries.
<https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
Notice that the common myth isn't only unsupported in the United States. >>But you won't click on any of these reference links, now will you.
Myth has two meanings, the classic meaning of a narrative that explains >something, and the more recent narrowed meaning of a specifically false >narrative. I've forgotten what you say the myth is, but if it's too
strong, of course it's not true. That's implied by the word "too". But
if it's that cell phones cause a lot more accidents and deaths than they >prevent, I'm sure that's true and you haven't convinced anyone here >otherwise. You have given only the vaguest examples of how cell phones
might lower the accident rate, and I don't think they do more than a
teeny tiny bit. So all we have are the accidents they cause.
Yet you're still posting about it with no additional logic or arguments.
Sorry. I'll grant that I was confusing here. My second line below was written first, and it was clear, but then I wrote my first line."Most of
us here know that" which only addressed the accident rate, I guess, but
it had the effect of changing what my second line, It's your opinion,
seemed to refer to.
It's your opinion that cellphone usage had no measurable effect on the accident rate.
Because you only look at the whole accident rate and you don't have the
data or you don't bother to look at the accident rate caused by cell
phones.
Or perhaps you think that whatever the amount of car damage, and the
number of injurie and deaths is so small, it's worth ridiculing. I
think no matter what the number is, it's important and efforts should be made, and are being made, to lower them.
He also replies to his own posts with different names in order to give
the appearance his positions are more popular than they are.
If you believe that the accident rate in the USA has shown any direct
effect (either up or down) due to the tremendously different fact that cellphones went from 0% saturation to nearly 100% in only a few years....
You're not going to find that supposed direct effect in the actual facts.
Jolly Roger wrote on 29 May 2024 21:31:40 GMT :
He also replies to his own posts with different names in order to
give the appearance his positions are more popular than they are.
I know that most people are moronsi
In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 15:22:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozens ofCould be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
That's sort of, almost, sort of the basis on which I rationalized my
posts, that it was an academic challenge to go to the core of the false logic.
So I usad to practice my own arguments. It will help me in my run for Congress this fall.
You're not going to find that supposed direct effect in the actual facts.
Technically that is correct because accident statistics limited to
reported accidents cannot in any way be linked to any data limited to
general cell-phone ownership. Yet legislators are nixing TV in the front
seat but not digital displays 'not necessary' to operation (replacing necessary steam-gauge dials); they have climbed down from the tree and
are now walking on three, a few more miles to go.
Straight to the insults
They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam displays to see if he was recording good clips.
The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
FACT.
It is not a myth it is a fact. You get in the car
in no way you should answer that phone, unless your at a light and it
is on speaker or your in park. Point being you could be distracted. You
might as well have a tablet-computer with a SIM-card
slot just for your car. Rather then you blasted phone. It is
distracting and not everybody have the ability to focus on the road
and some moron on the phone.
Your time may be better spent buying a machinegun and opposing
abortion. No one debates the issues anymore.
scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them.
Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by country.
<https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues until covid and the latest data still shows greater numbers of accidents since 2004.
Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.
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.
Think about that.
a. You supplied zero facts, and yet you denied all facts you didn't like.
b. Then, worse, what you did supply was only ad hominem attacks.
I cited reliable facts which have been compiled for over a hundred years.
You cited none.
Yet you disputed all facts, simply because they don't fit your belief
system. Who does that? Think about that before responding, please.
Bear in mind, nobody disputes the accident rate statistics.
Nobody.
If they did, you would have supplied a cite showing that they did.
You can't.
Because nobody denies the accident rate facts who is a responsible adult.
The fact you simply denied that facts can exist is your entire argument.
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?
sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 09:22:31 -0500 :
Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?
Jolly Roger wrote on 30 May 2024 00:49:26 GMT :
Straight to the insults
You're the ones denying all facts simply because you don't like them.
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?
bad������sector wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 19:21:04 -0400 :
They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam
displays to see if he was recording good clips.
The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
The myth is that cellphones are so dangerous to use in a vehicle that the accident rate must have skyrocketed (and then leveled off) during the
period that ownership rates went meteorically from 0% to almost 100%.
And yet... the fact is... nothing happened to the accident rate.
Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 11:51:28 +0200 :
scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them.
Scientists provide reliable facts, which I provided, did I not?
Those reliable facts have been compiled for over a hundred years, Carlos.
Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean they're not facts.
Worse, you denied the facts simply because you don't like the facts.
That's not how scientists are supposed to act, Carlos.
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?
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?
I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
Of course, everyone already knows that.
The trolling part of this whole ridiculous argument he has for some
unknown reason (attention perhaps) started is unclear. But I guess I
too am a moron because I would certainly say it is an OBVIOUS truth that >using a cell phone is dangerous, for some groups of people more than
other, and that most people understand this naturally. Texting while
driving is unimaginable to me, yet I see it all the time. The fact that
most places are making laws to curtail the use of cell phones while
driving attests to that truth. All you have to do is get in a vehicle
and drive and every time you will see someone who is not paying
attention to the road, but instead is on the cell phone. It has changed
the way most people drive, having to always be on the lookout for those >idiots and have an escape route available. Especially motorcyclists
like me. Everybody sees it, everybody knows it, and everybody realizes
it's causing a lot of traffic accidents. Everybody except the
"scientist" Arlen the Troll.
sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief systems?
I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
Of course, everyone already knows that.
Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief system.
The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable cites.
On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
systems?
I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief
system.
Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I guess
you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll repeat it
and see if you can understand it this time. Read it slowly, might
help.
"I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
Of course, everyone already knows that."
The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that
the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable
cites.
Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could
call everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.
On 2024-05-30, sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
systems?
I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief
system.
Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I guess
you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll repeat it
and see if you can understand it this time. Read it slowly, might
help.
"I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a troll.
Of course, everyone already knows that."
The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that
the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable
cites.
Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could
call everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.
It's fascinating how much time and effort he expends doing this. He
spends hours and hours ever day doing this exact same thing in multiple newsgroups. It must be exhausting. I'd feel sorry for him, but he does
it willingly.
bad������sector wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 19:21:04 -0400 :
They don't even have to be looking at the phone or at any display. I saw
one idiot in whose car I was a passenger frequently eyeball two dashcam
displays to see if he was recording good clips.
The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
On 5/30/2024 5:29 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2024-05-30, sticks <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/30/2024 12:43 PM, Andrew wrote:
sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
systems?
I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're
a troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief
system.
Disregarding the stuff you snipped as usual in your responses, I
guess you cannot understand the one you replied to above. I'll
repeat it and see if you can understand it this time. Read it
slowly, might help.
"I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you
made up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
troll. Of course, everyone already knows that."
The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is
that the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any
reliable cites.
Nah, I'm just not interested in this topic you created so you could
call everybody other than you a moron. The whole thing is dumb.
It's fascinating how much time and effort he expends doing this. He
spends hours and hours ever day doing this exact same thing in
multiple newsgroups. It must be exhausting. I'd feel sorry for him,
but he does it willingly.
What is also fascinating is the amount of time and effort people put
into replying to every topic he starts. He only does this because he
knows "the usual suspects" will reply. He is pulling the strings and
you willingly dance for him.
That's what trolls do. Start LOTS of absurd topics to get attention.
Unless you genuinely like to argue with idiots, just ignore him. It
is very easy to do.
Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
On 30/05/2024 08:36, Andrew wrote:
Chris wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 06:34:27 -0000 (UTC) :
Take a look at the accident numbers for the entire world, by
country. <https://data.oecd.org/transport/road-accidents.htm>
If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a
reversal in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The
increasing trend continues until covid and the latest data still
shows greater numbers of accidents since 2004.
You don't get it that numbers of accidents isn't a valid metric.
It's the accident rate that matters since it's normalized properly.
The numbers have gone up 28% between 2011 and 2016. Do you really
believe that's driven by something else??
Bear in mind accident-rate statistics have been compiled for a
hundred years and yet you dispute them only because you don't like
what they are.
Do you know why you can't find statistics that back up your belief
system? I do.
They don't exist.
If they did exist, you'd find them. And you haven't.
So taking the data from OECD and normalising by the population and
miles driven data from IIHS, both sources being ones you've
recommended, the accident rate has rapidly increased since 2010. NB:
the iphone was launched in 2007. https://ibb.co/tpXpCDY
Still believe the data doesn't exist?
So Arlen has been shown to be spreading lies and he's suddenly stopped posting. Hmmm, I wonder why?
Give it a few days and he'll be back with a new nym spouting rubbish
about something completely different yet the same.
The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths
that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
There's a dividing line you seem to be confused about, the one between science and belief, the two equally are important realms that are by definition mutually exclusive of one another. The latter tries to
process issues that the former is incapable of resolving. To think that
all that is is what we 'know' in the folly of many. I once read a
perfect example of this when an astronomer (of all people!) said "we
cannot find dark matter so it does not exist".
bad������sector wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 21:42:00 -0400 :
The main message I wanted to communicate is that people believe in myths >>> that have no basis in fact when you bother to doublecheck the facts.
There's a dividing line you seem to be confused about, the one between
science and belief, the two equally are important realms that are by
definition mutually exclusive of one another. The latter tries to
process issues that the former is incapable of resolving. To think that
all that is is what we 'know' in the folly of many. I once read a
perfect example of this when an astronomer (of all people!) said "we
cannot find dark matter so it does not exist".
You touch on a point that I've always tried to figure out why people come
up with religious beliefs about anything (e.g., Apple phones), where that belief system is always two things, it seems, which is the crime here.
1. The belief is fed to the people (by someone with something to gain)
2. The belief is wrong
Take the iPhone, for example:
a. Apple feeds iPhone owners all sorts of false messaging, right?
b. And Apple benefits greatly by feeding Apple owners these myths
Same here with cellphones.
a. The government benefits with the increased revenue from ticketing
b. And the government feeds people that it's "doing something" for safety.
And yet, as with Apple, the only benefit is to their bottom line.
Even as most people never question those two myths, right?
Back to your point, religion was the first "science" that explained everything, such that you could ask any question you wanted to ask about
why things happen and the answer was that "god" did it, that's why.
While Apple and the government benefit greatly in earning revenue from spewing these lies, I don't gain any monetary gain by informing you of the truth.
As for dark matter, it's a conundrum for sure. The galaxies are spinning at far too great a speed at the outer edges, but it could be almost anything (and yes, I'm aware of most of the theories to explain the discord).
It could be our equations are simply wrong on the grand scale of things.
Or, it could be matter in another dimension (orthogonal to our three, or perhaps in the fourth time dimension, which already is orthogonal) is influencing us. By way of background, if you know electrical engineering
(or math), the square root of minus 1 is either "i" or "j" depending on whether you're an engineer or a mathematician, but it shows up in electromagnetic wave equations due to the fact that time is 90 degrees orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.
Note that hypothesis is interesting which has an analogy that an ant in flatland can't see you above it but if you stand over it, your shadow can
be seen by that ant in flatland. Your shadow influences what the ant can
see but the ant can't explain where the shadow came from since it can't measure any massive object causing that shadow.
a. There's a shadow
b. But where is the mass that caused that shadow?
c. That mass is in a dimension orthogonal to what the ant can measure.
By the way, another non-intuitive interesting situation is that we all move at the speed of light, but most people don't understand that sentence
because most of that movement is in the dimension of time - and yet - everything moves at the same speed - but in the four dimensions - so it
only appears that some things are moving at speeds slower than the speed of light - but if we were massless we'd be moving ONLY at the speed of light
in the spatial dimensions - which means we don't move through time at all.
That's really why time slows down as we approach the speed of light in the spatial dimensions since everything moves at the speed of light.
Just as the fact that gravity isn't a force, most people can't fathom a discussion at this adult level - since they're uneducated & ignorant of
such things. Worse, most have an IQ that can't handle this process.
Sigh.
sticks wrote on Thu, 30 May 2024 11:43:22 -0500 :
Where are your cites to facts upon which you base your belief
systems?
I have no interest in playing your stupid game on this issue you made
up. My only point is showing your logic is flawed and you're a
troll. Of course, everyone already knows that.
Of course you have no science to back up your imaginary belief system.
The reason you are so desperate that you can't find any cites is that
the imaginary myth you believe in, isn't supported by any reliable
cites.
The accident rate (slowly trending downward) did not show any effect whatsoever from the skyrocketing saturation of cellphones in the USA.
Those who think it did are simply wrong, and the proof is none of them
has provided even a single cite that backs up their belief in the
myth.
In comp.mobile.android, on Wed, 29 May 2024 13:25:00 -0400, Newyana2
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5/29/2024 12:48 PM, micky wrote:
You realise this is "arlen", right? This is his MO. Fire off dozensCould be. I usually don't get caught up in his stuff.
of posts and threads on the same topic with no interest in having a
discussion. Unless, of course, with sycophants.
I've seen bot posts on Reddit. Usually I don't think of it until
someone points it out, then I realize that it probably is a bot
post. Then again, is there a difference between bots, marketing,
Chinese propagandists and Russian hackers? They're mostly only
identifiable by their viewpoint.
Come to think of it, bots could be valuable for Chinese and Russians.
You only have to teach English to one computer instead of a bunch of
people.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:37:05 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,955 |