Groups > comp.mobile.android > #155990 > unrolled thread

Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?

Started by	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
First post	2026-09-18 00:28 +0300
Last post	2026-10-04 10:55 +1300
Articles	20 on this page of 123 — 23 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →

#156061

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-20 23:55 +0300
Message-ID	<118ph7r$23tl$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156051

The Real Bev wrote:
> this may be the beginning of all-AI arguments on usenet.

Hi The Real Bev,

You haven't been on c.m.a for a while, so you must be coming from 
elsewhere. Good to see you.

Remember, more than one person noted I knew the answer more than a decade 
ago to this question, and it has only gotten more definitive with another 
decade of data, all collected well before AI was a "thing" available to us.

The good data has been collected in the USA for over a century, all of 
which predates, AI, and people who know me know I've presented this prior.

But, I challenge Carlos to use AI to test the data itself.
I ask Carlos to paste the posts which I provided the data to AI.

And for Carlos to ask AI if the data is correct.
That would be a useful use of AI if Carlos can find a hole in my argument.

He won't be able to, though.
I wonder if anyone has noticed I'm the only one who actually provided data?

Everyone who tried to refute the data did so in one of these ways:
 1. They claimed they knew a sister of a friend who had a car accident
    by someone who owned a cell phone so of course, cell phones raised
    the accident rate.

 2. They claimed cell phones are a distraction (which, by the way, I don't
    think anyone disagrees with, least of all me), so, of course, to them, 
    adding one distraction to the thousands inherent in driving must, 
    to them, have vastly increased the accident rate.

 3. Some tried pithy aphorisms to refute all facts that belie their 
    religious belief system, such as the "Correlation isn't causation", 
    and yet, it's clear they never even *looked* at the data presented.

What I'm trying to do, clearly, is the same as if I told a man that an 
astronaut wasn't weightless while orbiting even though they think she was.

People who lack scientific minds will believe anything that sounds logical.
-- 
On Usenet, old friends discuss topics of interest to learn from each other.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156062

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-20 23:58 +0300
Message-ID	<118phds$b4p$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156051

The Real Bev wrote:
> Carlos, this may be the beginning of all-AI arguments on usenet. 
> Probably not a good thing :-(

Hi The Real Bev,

You haven't been on c.m.a for a while, so you must be coming from 
elsewhere. Good to see you.

Remember, more than one person noted I knew the answer more than a decade 
ago to this question, and it has only gotten more definitive with another 
decade of data, all collected well before AI was a "thing" available to us.

The good data has been collected in the USA for over a century, all of 
which predates, AI, and people who know me know I've presented this prior.

But, I challenge Carlos to use AI to test the data itself.
I ask Carlos to paste the posts which I provided the data to AI.

And for Carlos to ask AI if the data is correct.
That would be a useful use of AI if Carlos can find a hole in my argument.

He won't be able to, though.
I wonder if anyone has noticed I'm the only one who actually provided data?

Everyone who tried to refute the data did so in one of these ways:
 1. They claimed they knew a sister of a friend who had a car accident
    by someone who owned a cell phone so of course, cell phones raised
    the accident rate.

 2. They claimed cell phones are a distraction (which, by the way, I don't
    think anyone disagrees with, least of all me), so, of course, to them, 
    adding one distraction to the thousands inherent in driving must, 
    to them, have vastly increased the accident rate.

 3. Some tried pithy aphorisms to refute all facts that belie their 
    religious belief system, such as the "Correlation isn't causation", 
    and yet, it's clear they never even *looked* at the data presented.

What I'm trying to do, clearly, is the same as if I told a man that an 
astronaut wasn't weightless while orbiting even though they think she was.

People who lack scientific minds will believe anything that sounds logical.
-- 
On Usenet, old friends discuss topics of interest to learn from each other.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156067

From	Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Date	2026-09-21 10:25 +1200
Message-ID	<118pmfv$3gu5h$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156051

On 2026-09-20 15:07:49 +0000, The Real Bev said:

> ... all-AI ... not a good thing

Corrected it for you.  :-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156075

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-21 07:09 +0000
Message-ID	<118ql73$3p71b$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156048

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-09-17 23:28, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
>> 
>> In a recent thread c.m.a/m.p.m.i on various carplay, androidauto, android
>> automotive and screen mirroring (sonicboom) solutions, an offshoot tangent
>> occurred when we theorized why factories don't just make automotive dash
>> systems a phone mirror so that a familiar interface is always on the dash.
> 
> 
> I'm tired, not interested in arguing this again. So I asked ChatGPT to 
> argue it for me. If you do not agree with what he says, take it with him :-P

Nice one!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156079

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-21 12:34 +0300
Message-ID	<118qtnh$jpp$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156075

Chris wrote:
>> I'm tired, not interested in arguing this again. So I asked ChatGPT to 
>> argue it for me. If you do not agree with what he says, take it with him :-P
> 
> Nice one!

Hi Chris,

Carlos posted jokes. 
They're funny.

But they had nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is why do people
persist in believing the propaganda without ever once questioning it?

Ask Carlos, or anyone, to take the posts in this thread which do contain
the statistics, and links to where they came from, to ask the LLM this... 

Q: Dear LLM, here are the statistics someone posted to Usenet to back up
   his claim that most people are stupid in that they believe the 
   propaganda that the cellphone caused the USA accident rate to spike.
   Did it?
A: (Let's see what Carlos gets out of that, instead of just posting jokes.)
-- 
Most people don't own the capacity to question what everyone else thinks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156080

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-21 12:39 +0300
Message-ID	<118qu0d$1u0f$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156048

Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> In a recent thread c.m.a/m.p.m.i on various carplay, androidauto, android
>> automotive and screen mirroring (sonicboom) solutions, an offshoot tangent
>> occurred when we theorized why factories don't just make automotive dash
>> systems a phone mirror so that a familiar interface is always on the dash.
> 
> 
> I'm tired, not interested in arguing this again.

Hi Carlos,

Cut it with the childish stupidity.
Just cut it.

It is unbecoming.
If you can't handle an erudite adult conversation, just go elsewhere.

Stop acting like an ignorant child who can't handle the data.
You haven't even L@@KED at the data, and you're "tired of it"? 

WTF?
What kind of person says something that incredibly childish, Carlos?

Seriously.
Have you no decency?

I get it you own a religious belief system devoid of facts, but just
because you didn't L@@K at the data, doesn't mean that by posting your
silly childish jokes about it, that your jokes make the data disappear.

The fact that all data is invisible to you notwithstanding, and the fact
that you don't own the mental capacity to think about it notwithdstanding,
just posting jokes to this newsgroup doesn't make the data go away.

Why don't you post the facts that were provided in this thread to the LLM?
-- 
Intelligence, when bestowed upon a person, affords them wondrous insight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156088

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-21 16:07 +0000
Message-ID	<118rknj$4fma$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156080

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> In a recent thread c.m.a/m.p.m.i on various carplay, androidauto, android
>>> automotive and screen mirroring (sonicboom) solutions, an offshoot tangent
>>> occurred when we theorized why factories don't just make automotive dash
>>> systems a phone mirror so that a familiar interface is always on the dash.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm tired, not interested in arguing this again.
> 
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> Cut it with the childish stupidity.
> Just cut it.

Typical reaction to a pertinent post. Attacking the messenger rather than
deal with the facts. 

Picking just the first example from NHTSA. Where do you disagree with the
facts?
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem

There's a 12x increased risk of an accident when dialling a phone number
and 6.6x increased risk when texting. 

These are results from scientific studies done with the appropriate data,
not random police statistics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156090

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-22 02:11 +0800
Message-ID	<118rs0m$1vmb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156088

Chris wrote:
> Typical reaction to a pertinent post. Attacking the messenger rather than
> deal with the facts. 
> 
> Picking just the first example from NHTSA. Where do you disagree with the
> facts?
> https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem
> 
> There's a 12x increased risk of an accident when dialling a phone number
> and 6.6x increased risk when texting. 
> 
> These are results from scientific studies done with the appropriate data,
> not random police statistics.

Hi Chris,

Let's give up.
Nobody on this newsgroup owns enough intelligence to understand the issue.
Except me.

AS I know EXACTLY why the data shows no accident rate increase from phones.

Nobody who responded will ever understand why because they're all holding a
religious belief system that, clearly, even they can't support with facts.

They support their religious belief system with emotional anecdotes.
But not with facts. 

That's telling.

Not a single person on this thread acted like an adult by providing data
that supported their hypothesis, except for me, so keep that in mind.

Carlos' response was particularly childish, as it went like this:
 1. First, Carlos didn't even L@@K at the data
 2. Then, to make the data "go away", Carlos said
    "I'm tired, not interested in arguing this again"
 3. And yet, Carlos not only has never even once mentioned the data, 
    but Carlos never provided any data whatsoever. Not before. Not now.

WTF?
That's not the actions of an adult, Chris.

Those are the actions of a child.

Basically, Carlos has formed his own religious view of the situation.
And he's welcome to have his own opinions completely devoid of facts.

It's Carlos' right to form an opinion that is completely devoid of data.
I'm not chastising Carlos for having an opinion he simply can't support.

But by saying:
 "I'm tired, not interested in arguing this again"
he's implied that he's argued it even once.

Which he hasn't.

Carlos hasn't even L@@Ked at the data, let alone provide an argument.
Alas, there is an argument Carlos "could" have provided.

I know that argument that Carlos (or anyone) could have provided 
that explains the data and fits the hypotheses perfectly by facts.

He doesn't. 

Nobody does. Except me.
Because I've thought about WHY the accident rate was completely unchanged.

I know why because I've discussed this with intelligent people for years.
You don't know why.
Carlos doesn't know why.

You never will.
Neither will he.

Both of you cling to your religious belief systems which can't be shaken.
So you will never learn why.
--
If someone hasn't seen the data, they can't possibly understand the issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156092

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-22 06:22 +1200
Message-ID	<118rsl4$ofe$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156090

Chris wrote:
> Picking just the first example from NHTSA. Where do you disagree with the
> facts?
> https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem
> 
> There's a 12x increased risk of an accident when dialling a phone number
> and 6.6x increased risk when texting. 
> 
> These are results from scientific studies done with the appropriate data,
> not random police statistics.

I have to commend Chris... on being the first person to act like an adult.

Chris is the first person in this thread to even attempt to reconcile the
facts scientifically that the accident rate was completely unchanged in the
decades before, during and after the skyrocketing rate of cellphone
ownership, where we can presume added a new distraction to the thousands of
distractions facing every driver since the 1920s when automobiles became
common.

Nobody disputes the accident rate trend was unchanged, so every hypothesis
as to why cellphones caused nary a blip on the accident rate must
incorporate that fact into the accident rate, which is the total number of
accidents divided by the number of miles driven, which is accurate data
compiled in the USA for almost a century which nobody disputes.

So before I respond to Chris, I need to commend him for "trying" to
reconcile with the facts that cellphones had no effect on accident rates.

Notice I don't disagree with science.
I never, in my decades on Usenet, have *ever* disagreed with facts.

Only a fool does that.
That's why they're fools.

I'm no fool.
I know what that article says.

The problem is a high conditional risk ratio for a particular behavior
doesn't tell us that the behavior is a major cause of crashes at the
population level. Show me the population-attributable fraction, using a
defensible causal methodology.

Does anyone here even know what the major cause of accidents happens to be?
Anyone?
Nobody?
-- 
Until we understand the data, we have no business making assessments.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156095

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-09-21 21:53 +0200
Message-ID	<cie8omxafp.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to	#156090

On 2026-09-21 20:11, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Typical reaction to a pertinent post. Attacking the messenger rather than
>> deal with the facts.
>>
>> Picking just the first example from NHTSA. Where do you disagree with the
>> facts?
>> https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem
>>
>> There's a 12x increased risk of an accident when dialling a phone number
>> and 6.6x increased risk when texting.
>>
>> These are results from scientific studies done with the appropriate data,
>> not random police statistics.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Let's give up.
> Nobody on this newsgroup owns enough intelligence to understand the issue.
> Except me.

LOL.

Skimmed over your post a bit, it is foolish, not worth it to answer.




-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156096

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-22 08:59 +1200
Message-ID	<118s5sc$1al2$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156095

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Skimmed over your post a bit, it is foolish, not worth it to answer.

Hi Carlos,

I'll respond to you like an adult, but only when you act like an adult.
People who deny all data w/o looking at it will never be able to learn.

1. Cellphones are an added distraction (nobody doubts that).
2. And distractions are one of many accident causes (nobody denies that).
2. Yet, they had no effect on the accident rate (only fools deny that).

I'm extremely well educated. So that fact is interesting to me.
Many people fabricated their opinions, purely anecdotally.

Without science. Without data. Without logic. Without reason. Without fact.
The question is:
 Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?

You're one of them.
You'll never learn anything because all you did was make silly jokes.

Instead of LEARNING why it is that phones, which are a major distraction
added to the thousands of existing distractions, didn't cause the accident
rate to do anything differently.

There are GOOD REASONS why adding another distraction to thousands of
existing distractions had no effect whatsoever on the accident rate.

But you'll never learn why.
Because of your attitude of denying all data without even LOOKing at it.

The reason why people believe what they believe, is simply they can't learn
anything because their entire fact-free belief system is religious alone.

Propaganda feeds them what they believe.
And they simply parrot the propaganda.

Without even realizing why the accident rate didn't change during the
skyrocketing time of cellphones. There's a good reason for that, BTW.

But you'll never learn it.
Nobody here will.

They're not capable of understanding why what happened, is what happened.
-- 
People who deny all data w/o looking at it will never be able to learn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156098

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-21 21:15 +0000
Message-ID	<118s6pp$baj0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156090

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Typical reaction to a pertinent post. Attacking the messenger rather than
>> deal with the facts. 
>> 
>> Picking just the first example from NHTSA. Where do you disagree with the
>> facts?
>> https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem
>> 
>> There's a 12x increased risk of an accident when dialling a phone number
>> and 6.6x increased risk when texting. 
>> 
>> These are results from scientific studies done with the appropriate data,
>> not random police statistics.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Let's give up.

The only person giving up is you. Don't let the door hit you on your
backside on the way out...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156100

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-22 13:26 +1200
Message-ID	<118slgp$10te$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156098

Chris wrote:
> The only person giving up is you.

Hi Chris,
The only person who supplied any data, is me.

Everyone else said they heard that their sister's best friend's mother was
in an accident where a cellphone was involved, so that's all they know.

1. Nobody said cellphones aren't a distraction.
2. Nobody said cellphones aren't an added distraction
3. Nobody said there aren't a billion distractions
4. Of which, cellphones are only one.

Think about that.

Do you know the major cause of accidents?
I do.

HINT: It's not distractions.
-- 
When people can't handle the data, they simply stop thinking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156101

From	kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Date	2026-09-21 21:30 -0400
Message-ID	<118slnv$7ha$1@panix2.panix.com>
In reply to	#156100

Maria Sophia  <pusvul@getTjewytR4so+mqe2.invalid> wrote:
>Do you know the major cause of accidents?
>I do.
>
>HINT: It's not distractions.

The major cause of accidents is high speed chases between police and
untrained drivers behind the wheel of stolen schoolbusses full of weed.
It happens every day.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156103

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-22 15:43 +1400
Message-ID	<118smgd$2ns0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156101

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>HINT: It's not distractions.
> 
> The major cause of accidents is high speed chases between police and
> untrained drivers behind the wheel of stolen schoolbusses full of weed.
> It happens every day.

Hi Scott,

Hoooray! 

You're the first person to begin to understand what's happening!

If we remove the specific details (of LE being involved), the major cause
of accidents is speeding (i.e., not being in control) where the cellphone
distraction effect is dwarfed by the fact the person couldn't control the
vehicle when "something happens" which ended up in an on-record accident.

People forget that distractions are NOT even close to the major accident
cause (in terms of the accident rate), which is why the rate didn't change.

Depending on whom we ask, the three major causes of accidents are
 1. speed
 2. impairment
 3. failure to yield right of way (i.e., breaking the rules)

Distractions pale in comparison.

Which explains why the accident rate had no effect (either way) when
cellphones became one more of over a thousand known distractions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156111

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-22 08:44 +0000
Message-ID	<118tf4j$mq1v$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156100

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> The only person giving up is you.
> 
> Hi Chris,

You're not giving up, then?

> The only person who supplied any data, is me.

And you haven't explained why it is useful and relevant. For some reason
you think correlating mobile phone ownership with a survey of police
accident reports is indicative of something. Explain. You may think it's
obvious, but it isn't and won't become clear until you understand the
parameters of your datasets and the limitations of correlations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156113

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-23 06:25 +1400
Message-ID	<118ua5v$1624$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156111

Chris wrote:
>> The only person who supplied any data, is me.
> 
> And you haven't explained why it is useful and relevant. For some reason
> you think correlating mobile phone ownership with a survey of police
> accident reports is indicative of something. Explain. You may think it's
> obvious, but it isn't and won't become clear until you understand the
> parameters of your datasets and the limitations of correlations.

Hi Chris,

 1. We know EXACTLY when cell phones came into being, Chris.
 2. We know EXACTLY what the accident rate is before, during & after.

The fact the accident rate shows NO CHANGE from the downward trend simply
tells us that the cellphone didn't change the accident rate.

So why do people think it did?

HINT: People parrot propaganda.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156123

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-23 17:40 +0000
Message-ID	<11912uk$20b0d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156113

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> The only person who supplied any data, is me.
>> 
>> And you haven't explained why it is useful and relevant. For some reason
>> you think correlating mobile phone ownership with a survey of police
>> accident reports is indicative of something. Explain. You may think it's
>> obvious, but it isn't and won't become clear until you understand the
>> parameters of your datasets and the limitations of correlations.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
>  1. We know EXACTLY when cell phones came into being, Chris.
>  2. We know EXACTLY what the accident rate is before, during & after.

Why does a correlation of those numbers have any meaning? You're assuming
that the before, during and after are directly comparable. Are they? Has
nothing else changed in that period?

> The fact the accident rate shows NO CHANGE from the downward trend

You've only shown three numbers. That's nowhere near enough to make any
categorical statements. Either one way or the other.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156127

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-24 09:37 +1200
Message-ID	<1191gr7$2ei3$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156123

Chris wrote:
>>  1. We know EXACTLY when cell phones came into being, Chris.
>>  2. We know EXACTLY what the accident rate is before, during & after.
> 
> Why does a correlation of those numbers have any meaning? You're assuming
> that the before, during and after are directly comparable. Are they? Has
> nothing else changed in that period?
> 
>> The fact the accident rate shows NO CHANGE from the downward trend
> 
> You've only shown three numbers. That's nowhere near enough to make any
> categorical statements. Either one way or the other.

Hi Chris,

The whole point of this thread is to force people to challenge propaganda.

You bring up good questions, where something mysterious might have happened
(where I joke it must be intelligent aliens) to EXACTLY counter the
astoundingly sudden spike in accidents that the common hypothesis predicts.

Mysteriously, this counteraction
 a. EXACTLY counters EXACTLY the cellphone ownership rise and plateau
 b. EXACTLY in time, duration, and in numbers

Amazing. 
It's so amazing that I claim only very intelligent Aliens could do it.

In fact, your claim is so amazing as to be utterly absurd.
Why can't you accept the fact that the accident rate did NOT spike, Chris?

What's wrong with the data?
The data is good data. Nobody professional objects to the data, Chris.

That data is very reliable. 
 a. Number of accidents
 b. Divided by miles driven

Those who claim that's "cherry picked data" are simply showing that they
own a religious belief system that can't handle it's basic good data.

Now, I'm like anyone, where I read that cellphones were an added
distraction, but what makes me different than most, is that I can think.

I looked for the accident rate to spike.
It didn't.

Why not? 
I think I know why, but that's not the question in this thread.

If cellphones had any measurable effect on the accident rate, show it.
So the question in this thread is why do people believe that it did?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#156121

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-23 21:37 +1000
Message-ID	<1190dma$160v$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#155990

Why did I ask this question of cellphone & automotive newsgroups?

 Q: *Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?*
 A: ?

I'm making a point that people parrot emotional propaganda w/o thinking.
Most people simply do not understand what has always caused most accidents.
 a. Speeding
 b. Intoxication
 c. Failure to yield the right of way

Because of emotional propaganda, people lost sight of the magnitude of how
little distractions cause accidents, and how adding a new distraction to
the thousands of existing distractions, didn't cause measurable changes to
the accident rate as measured before, during and after the cellphone spike.

Most people religiously parrot the propaganda w/o even thinking about it.
Why?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →

csiph-web

Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?

Contents

#156061

#156062

#156067

#156075

#156079

#156080

#156088

#156090

#156092

#156095

#156096

#156098

#156100

#156101

#156103

#156111

#156113

#156123

#156127

#156121