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	2026-10-05 09:11 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 126 — 24 participants

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

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

#156125

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-24 06:11 +1200
Message-ID	<11914ob$1qku$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156122

bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
>> HINT: I know the answer, but I can't explain it to you until you start to
>> think about what could be the reason there was no increase in accident
>> rate, when, clearly, cellphones are an added distraction by all counts.
> 
> Ok, please try.

Hi Bob Prohaska,

Many years ago, I too read all the emotionally charged propaganda about
cellphones causing horrific accidents, so I simply did what adults do.

I looked it up.
Whoa?
    What?
      No way.... 
        They lied?

Almost everything online about cellphones causing horrific accidents is
clickbait, where the articles *never* reference what really matters.

Almost all the clickbait is from four extremely biased clickbait entities:
 1. News media (man bites dog being more interesting than dog bites man)
 2. Insurance
 3. Politicians (and police)
 4. Lawyers

Almost *everything* online about cellphone related accidents is from them.
Nobody else (for the most part).
Just them.

Just try to find something (anything!) about this subject for the USA
accident rate caused by cellphones (not injuries as that's 2nd order).

You certainly can't have injuries without the 1st order accident first.

They make it sound like distractions are the major cause of accidents.
But the data is easy to check, and it simply did not support the claims.
 a. The number of accidents has been recorded for over a century
 b. As has the number of miles driven (although methods have changed)
 c. We take the number of accidents divided by miles to get the rate

And, of course, we look at three periods, which are extremely well known:
 i.   Before cellphones existed
 ii.  During the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership
 iii. After the cellphone ownership plateau

OMG! 
  Nothing?
    Seriously? 
      Absolutely no effect whatsoever?

The accident rate in the USA, which is extremely good data, doesn't even
show so much as a blip during the skyrocketing rise of cellphone ownership.

Hmmmm... 
  They lied.
   There is no evidence at all that the accident rate is at all affected...

So what is the real effect of cellphones, given they're certainly an added
distraction and distractions must cause *some* accidents in the USA, right?

Remember, people handle thousands of distractions while driving, and have
done so for a century (some handle it better'n others, but that's why they
give me a good-driver and good-student discount on my insurance premiums).

Then it hit me WHY cellphones had no effect on the USA accident rate.
 A. Speeding is the major cause of accidents in the USA
 B. Intoxication is the second leading cause of accidents in the USA
 C. Failure to yield is the third leading cause of accidents in the USA
The rest pale in comparison in terms of being a leading cause of accidents.

So now that we have the data, you see why I brought up people believing
gravity is a force, or people believing saints caused miracles or people
believing premium gasoline gives their Honda Civic more power, etc...

Most people simply parrot the propaganda without even thinking to check.
Most people don't own the mental acuity to separate propaganda from fact.

 Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
 A: Most people don't own the mental capacity to comprehend the facts.

They believe (and parrot!) *every* single thing that they told to believe.
-- 
Only after you compare the claims versus the data do you smell the BS.

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

#156129

From	bp@www.zefox.net
Date	2026-09-24 03:10 +0000
Message-ID	<11924aq$2atp7$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156125

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
>>> HINT: I know the answer, but I can't explain it to you until you start to
>>> think about what could be the reason there was no increase in accident
>>> rate, when, clearly, cellphones are an added distraction by all counts.
>> 
>> Ok, please try.
> 
> Hi Bob Prohaska,
> 
> Many years ago, I too read all the emotionally charged propaganda about
> cellphones causing horrific accidents, so I simply did what adults do.
> 
> I looked it up.
> Whoa?
>     What?
>       No way.... 
>         They lied?
> 
> Almost everything online about cellphones causing horrific accidents is
> clickbait, where the articles *never* reference what really matters.
> 
> Almost all the clickbait is from four extremely biased clickbait entities:
>  1. News media (man bites dog being more interesting than dog bites man)
>  2. Insurance
>  3. Politicians (and police)
>  4. Lawyers
> 
> Almost *everything* online about cellphone related accidents is from them.
> Nobody else (for the most part).
> Just them.
> 
> Just try to find something (anything!) about this subject for the USA
> accident rate caused by cellphones (not injuries as that's 2nd order).
> 
> You certainly can't have injuries without the 1st order accident first.
> 
> They make it sound like distractions are the major cause of accidents.
> But the data is easy to check, and it simply did not support the claims.
>  a. The number of accidents has been recorded for over a century
>  b. As has the number of miles driven (although methods have changed)
>  c. We take the number of accidents divided by miles to get the rate
> 
> And, of course, we look at three periods, which are extremely well known:
>  i.   Before cellphones existed
>  ii.  During the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership
>  iii. After the cellphone ownership plateau
> 
References?

Thanks for writing,

bob prohaska

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

#156131

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-25 00:22 +1200
Message-ID	<11934m5$1hlm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156129

bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
>> They make it sound like distractions are the major cause of accidents.
>> But the data is easy to check, and it simply did not support the claims.
>>  a. The number of accidents has been recorded for over a century
>>  b. As has the number of miles driven (although methods have changed)
>>  c. We take the number of accidents divided by miles to get the rate
>> 
>> And, of course, we look at three periods, which are extremely well known:
>>  i.   Before cellphones existed
>>  ii.  During the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership
>>  iii. After the cellphone ownership plateau
>> 
> References?
> 
> Thanks for writing,

Hi Bob,

I've never made a statement that isn't backed up in facts, in decades 
of posting to Usenet, so rest assured, everything I said has references.

The references are already in this thread, which I repeat below for 
your convenience...

 ====< #1 cut here for the next reference post >====
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.driving,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:35:00 +0300
Message-ID: <118khr3$1ekk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Your Name wrote:
>> Well if it's like it is here, because it's intuitively obvious that it 
>> must increase the accident rate. We still regularly see people driving 
>> while holding and using their phones and obviously there would be less 
>> accidents if they did not do so.
> 
> In New Zealand it has been illegal to use your cellphone while driving 
> (unless using a hands-free option) ... but the fine / penalty is so 
> pathetic and chances of getting caught that many people still do it.
> 
> It isn't helped by almost all car manufacturers now having silly 
> touchscreen systems in their cars, which means there's little 
> difference between using that and a cellphone, other than the cellphone 
> being a smaller screen size.  :-(

Hi YourName,

Assuming no other factor was involved to cancel the arguments that people
are claiming, if their hypothesis is cell phones cause accidents, then
the accident rate should have skyrocketed at some point during the 
introduction of cellphones, right?

What's intuitively obvious is most accidents are NOT caused by cell phones.
Speed and drunken driving are, almost certainly, vastly great represented.

Even so, given we know exactly when cellphones were introduced into the 
USA, those who argue cellphones meaningfully increased the USA accident 
rate have merely to show us valid USA statistics which back up their claim. 

U.S. cell phones, crashes, miles, and crash rate - 1988-2024
Crash rate = NHTSA estimated police-reported crashes ??WA VMT x 100 million.

Year	Wireless connections*	Police-reported crashes	VMT (billion)	Crashes / 100M VMT
1988	2.07 M	6,886,800	2,026	339.9
1989	3.51 M	6,652,815	2,096	317.4
1990	5.28 M	6,471,202	2,144	301.8
1991	7.56 M	6,117,359	2,172	281.6
1992	11.03 M	6,000,310	2,247	267.0
1993	16.01 M	6,105,915	2,296	265.9
1994	24.13 M	6,495,988	2,358	275.5
1995	33.79 M	6,699,415	2,423	276.5
1996	44.04 M	6,769,583	2,500	270.8
1997	55.31 M	6,624,149	2,568	257.9
1998	69.21 M	6,334,573	2,645	239.5
1999	86.05 M	6,279,036	2,707	232.0
2000	109.48 M	6,393,624	2,764	231.3
2001	128.37 M	6,322,963	2,813	224.8
2002	140.77 M	6,315,708	2,874	219.8
2003	158.72 M	6,327,955	2,909	217.5
2004	182.14 M	6,181,027	2,982	207.3
2005	207.90 M	6,159,350	3,009	204.7
2006	233.04 M	5,973,213	3,034	196.9
2007	255.40 M	6,024,008	3,049	197.6
2008	270.33 M	5,810,846	2,993	194.1
2009	285.65 M	5,505,180	2,976	185.0
2010	296.29 M	5,419,445	2,985	181.6
2011	315.96 M	5,337,829	2,965	180.0
2012	326.48 M	5,615,045	2,969	189.1
2013	335.65 M	5,686,891	2,988	190.3
2014	355.45 M	6,064,284	3,040	199.5
2015	377.92 M	6,296,134	3,110	202.4
2016	~387 M	6,821,129	3,174	214.9
2017	~392 M	6,452,598	3,225	200.1
2018	~413 M	6,734,681	3,255	206.9
2019	~435 M	6,756,084	3,276	206.2
2020	~461 M	5,251,006	2,917	180.0
2021	~491 M	6,103,213	3,154	193.5
2022	~515 M	5,930,697	3,197	185.5
2023	~558 M	6,138,474	3,247	189.0
2024	~?	6,180,241	3,294	1	8

*Wireless figures are connections/subscriptions, not unique people. 
CTIA's historical series gives the exact 1988-2015 numbers/
For example, 1990 was 5,283,055 and 2015 was 377,921,241.
<https://api.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ctia_survey_ye_2015_graphics.pdf?
Later CTIA reporting uses slightly different reported connections.

The crash figures through 2020 come from NHTSA's national GES/CRSS series.
NHTSA's historical table explicitly starts at 1988 and gives 6,886,800 
total crashes for that year.
 <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813375>
The 2023 and 2024 numbers are from NHTSA's latest national estimates.
 <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813720>
FHWA provides the national VMT series, including every year from 1988
through 2024.
 <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/our_nations_highways_2026/travel.cfm>

Note sample designs changed between 2015 & 1016 for NASS GES & CRSS 
estimates. That doesn't invalidate the table. But it does mean that
we should not interpret the jump from 202.4 in 2015 to 214.9 in 2016 
as necessarily a real-world increase without looking closer at it.
<https://studylib.net/doc/27913014/overview-of-motor-vehicle-traffic-crashes-in-2023--4->

Guess what?
Yup. You guessed it.

Just like everyone intuitively believes "premium gas" gives their Honda
Civic "more power", everyone believes the accident rate must have 
skyrocketed during the period that cell phones were introduced & after.

And yet... The numbers we can compare within the same GES system are valid:

Wireless connections:
 1990 -> 5.3 million
 2000 -> 109.5 million
 2010 -> 296.3 million

Crash rate:
 1990 -> 301.8 / 100M VMT
 2000 -> 231.3 / 100M VMT
 2010 -> 181.6 / 100M VMT

So while wireless connections increased roughly 56-fold from 1990 to 2010, 
the national police-reported-crash rate went down, not up. 

Think about that fact... 

 ====< #2 cut here for the next reference post >====

Newsgroups: alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:41:15 +0300
Message-ID: <118ki6q$1lni$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

AMuzi wrote:
> On 9/17/2026 4:28 PM, 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.
>> 
>> Like this:
>>   <https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring
>> 
>> Some brought up technical issues, but really, there are none, while others
>> brought up safety issues, and for that, I'm sure there are legal issues.
>> 
>> But, are those legal issues valid?
>> 
>> Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>> A: ?
>> 
>> Note we're restricting this to the USA only because accurate data has been
>> compiled by the USA government on accident rates over the past 100 years.
>> 
>> Note 1: Accident propaganda from the following will be deeply analyzed:
>>        a. Law firms
>>        b. Insurance companies
>>        c. Law enforcement claims & politician claims
>> 
>> Note 2: Accident *rate* is what matters, not any given number of accidents,
>>        over the period where cellphone ownership went from 0% to ~100%
>> 
>> Note 3: Fatalities and injuries, while deeply emotional, do not count
>>        (because they are a second-order effect *after* the accident).
>> 
>> Note 4: Nobody claims "distracted driving" doesn't cause a large number
>>         of accidents but distractions existed prior to cell phones and
>>         distractions exist after cell phone became predominate, and yet,
>>         in all the accurate accident-rate statistics, the rate simply
>>         slowly trended downward year after year, before, during & after.
>> 
>> Note 5: Paradoxically, cellphone hands-free laws were enacted in most
>>         states but there is absolutely no correlation with accident rates
>>         in those states, before, during or after the laws went into force.
>> 
>> There was no blip whatsoever, in USA accident rate (for which accurate
>> statistics have been kept for over a century) which tells the true story.
>> 
>> Given that, the question becomes...
>> Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>> A: ?
> 
> There are many post-crash reports of semi and auto drivers 
> watching movies or porn or texting furiously as they 
> massacre innocents.
> 
> I agree that if people merely used the audio (as police and 
> truckers do with radios) there would not be a problem.
> 
> https://www.lifeasatrucker.com/trucker-caught-watching-porn-before-crash-that-killed-father-a-tragic-lesson-on-distraction.html
> 
> https://discover.swns.com/2025/09/shocking-dashcam-captures-woman-texting-at-wheel-before-crash/

Assuming no other factor was involved to cancel the arguments that people
are making, if their hypothesis is "cell phones cause accidents," then
the accident rate should have increased substantially at some point
during the introduction and widespread adoption of cell phones, right?

What's intuitively obvious is that most accidents are NOT caused by
cell phones. Speed, alcohol, weather, road conditions, vehicle
conditions, driver experience, etc. are all potential causes.

Even so, given that we know approximately when cell phones were
introduced into the USA, those who argue that cell phones meaningfully
increased the USA accident rate have merely to show us valid USA
statistics which support that claim.

Here are the national numbers.

             U.S. CELL PHONES, CRASHES, MILES & CRASH RATE
                              1988-2024

Crash rate = NHTSA estimated police-reported crashes / FHWA VMT
             x 100 million.

Year   Wireless       Police-reported    VMT       Crashes/
       connections*   crashes             billion   100M VMT
----------------------------------------------------------------
1988     2.07 M        6,886,800          2,026       339.9
1989     3.51 M        6,652,815          2,096       317.4
1990     5.28 M        6,471,202          2,144       301.8
1991     7.56 M        6,117,359          2,172       281.6
1992    11.03 M        6,000,310          2,247       267.0
1993    16.01 M        6,105,915          2,296       265.9
1994    24.13 M        6,495,988          2,358       275.5
1995    33.79 M        6,699,415          2,423       276.5
1996    44.04 M        6,769,583          2,500       270.8
1997    55.31 M        6,624,149          2,568       257.9
1998    69.21 M        6,334,573          2,645       239.5
1999    86.05 M        6,279,036          2,707       232.0
2000   109.48 M        6,393,624          2,764       231.3
2001   128.37 M        6,322,963          2,813       224.8
2002   140.77 M        6,315,708          2,874       219.8
2003   158.72 M        6,327,955          2,909       217.5
2004   182.14 M        6,181,027          2,982       207.3
2005   207.90 M        6,159,350          3,009       204.7
2006   233.04 M        5,973,213          3,034       196.9
2007   255.40 M        6,024,008          3,049       197.6
2008   270.33 M        5,810,846          2,993       194.1
2009   285.65 M        5,505,180          2,976       185.0
2010   296.29 M        5,419,445          2,985       181.6

2011   315.96 M        5,337,829          2,965       180.0
2012   326.48 M        5,615,045          2,969       189.1
2013   335.65 M        5,686,891          2,988       190.3
2014   355.45 M        6,064,284          3,040       199.5
2015   377.92 M        6,296,134          3,110       202.4

2016     ~387 M        6,821,129          3,174       214.9
2017     ~392 M        6,452,598          3,225       200.1
2018     ~413 M        6,734,681          3,255       206.9
2019     ~435 M        6,756,084          3,276       206.2
2020     ~461 M        5,251,006          2,917       180.0
2021     ~491 M        6,103,213          3,154       193.5
2022     ~515 M        5,930,697          3,197       185.5
2023     ~558 M        6,138,474          3,247       189.0
2024        --         6,180,241          3,294       187.6

* Wireless figures are connections/subscriptions, NOT unique people.
  A person can have multiple connections, so these numbers should not
  be interpreted as "percentage of Americans who own a phone."

The historical CTIA series gives the exact annual wireless connection
numbers for the earlier period. For example:

  1990 =  5,283,055
  2000 =109,476,000 (approximately)
  2010 =296,293,000 (approximately)
  2015 =377,921,241

CTIA:
<https://api.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ctia_survey_ye_2015_graphics.pdf>

NHTSA's national crash series begins in 1988. It is based on the
National Automotive Sampling System's General Estimates System (GES),
which estimated the number of police-reported crashes in the USA.

NHTSA:
<https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813375>

For the later years, NHTSA uses the Crash Report Sampling System
(CRSS).

NHTSA:
<https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813720>

FHWA provides the national vehicle-miles-traveled series.

FHWA:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/our_nations_highways_2026/travel.cfm>

There is a methodological break between GES and CRSS in 2016. NHTSA
states that the estimates from the two systems are not directly
comparable because their sampling designs differ.

Therefore, don't interpret the change from 2015 to 2016 as necessarily
representing a real-world change in crashes.

The much cleaner comparison is entirely within the GES period:

                    WIRELESS CONNECTIONS
1990       5.3 million
2000     109.5 million
2010     296.3 million

                    CRASHES / 100M VMT
1990       301.8
2000       231.3
2010       181.6

So from 1990 to 2010, wireless connections increased approximately
56-fold.

During that same period, the national police-reported crash rate
declined from approximately 302 crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles
to approximately 182.

That's a decline of about 40%.

This does NOT prove that cell phones never cause individual accidents.
Obviously, a driver can be distracted by a cell phone and crash.

It does, however, create a very simple empirical question for anyone
claiming that cell phones caused a substantial increase in the overall
U.S. accident rate:

Where is the corresponding increase in the NATIONAL ACCIDENT RATE?

The phones went from essentially nothing to hundreds of millions of
connections.

The miles driven went up.

And the national crash rate, during the clean 1990-2010 GES period,
went DOWN substantially.

Think about that fact.

 ====< #3 cut here for the next reference post >====
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving,alt.home.repair
Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:56:33 +0300
Message-ID: <118kj3g$1k8h$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Nick Charles wrote:
>> As someone who works in the science field, I can assure you statistics
>> don�t always tell the truth. The criteria are often cherry picked, the data
>> can easily be skewed if not collected in a controlled environment, and the
>> biases of the researchers often provide conclusions not necessarily
>> consistent with the raw data.
>> 
>> I think it�s pretty obvious if you look at drivers around you that
>> distracted driving is out of control and in turn it leads to erratic
>> driving. I trust personal anecdotes more than statistics in this case.
> 
> Cell phones are absolutely causing more accidents every day. But that does not
> necessarily mean "more total accidents than before". 
> 
> In the past, "distracted driving" was people changing radio stations and/or
> tapes in the tape deck, etc.  Those days are long gone.  Not to mention women
> putting on makeup and looking at themselves in mirrors.
> 
> Today, "distracted driving" is texting/talking on the phone/changing your
> Spotify list/changing your iTunes list/watching TV/etc.  Not to mention women
> are now looking at themselves in their phone front camera while putting on
> makeup. 
> 
> So phones/iPads/whatever are definitely causing many/most/take your pick
> accidents today. But the overall accident totals could be the same, or
> statiscally not different. 
> 
> So the statement "phones are causing more accidents every day" is perfectly
> valid. Extrapolating that into "Phones have increased the accident rate" is
> not valid or logical. Could be the same number of "distracted driving"
> accidents. Just a different cause for the distraction.

Hi Nick,

If phones are causing a great number of accidents, we would expect it 
to show up in the USA statistics on the number of accidents per mile
during the period just before, during & after the cellphone skyrocketing.
 1. Pre-cellular baseline 1937-1982 No commercial US cellular service
 2. Cellular introduced	1983 First commercial cellular service began
 3. Early adoption 1984-1989 Cell phones existed but were still rare
 4. Rapid adoption 1990-1999 Cellular subscriptions exploded
 5. Mass adoption 2000-2004 >100 million U.S. wireless connections
 6. Essentially ubiquitous 2005-2010 ~208M -> 296M wireless connections
 7. Smartphone era 2011-present	Smartphones become dominant

Yet, the accident rate went down, just as it had been trending for 
decades, and still trends downward, which needs to be explained if 
someone is claiming that skyrocketing cell phone ownership caused
concomitant skyrocketing cellphone related accidents which wouldn't have
been caused otherwise, right? 

But we just showed the rates went down in the data for the United
States which has been compiled very accurately over decades in use.

Bear in mind there is one important limitation in that the NHTSA's
nationally estimated total-crash series begins in 1988. 

For 1983-1987, we have federal national traffic data, but not the same 
GES total-crash series, so, for sure, we need to understand the data.

What we can put together cleanly is this:

1983-2010: NATIONAL U.S. PICTURE

Period                 Year  Wireless  Crashes     VMT      Rate
                             connections           billion   /100M
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cellular introduced    1983  ~0.2 M    --          1,653    --
Early adoption         1984  ~0.3 M    --          1,720    --
Early adoption         1985   0.34 M   --          1,775    --
Early adoption         1986  ~0.68 M   --          1,835    --
Early adoption         1987  ~1.2 M    --          1,921    --
Early adoption         1988   2.07 M   6,886,800   2,026    339.9
Early adoption         1989   3.51 M   6,652,815   2,096    317.4
Rapid adoption         1990   5.28 M   6,471,202   2,144    301.8
                        1991   7.56 M   6,117,359   2,172    281.6
                        1992  11.03 M   6,000,310   2,247    267.0
                        1993  16.01 M   6,105,915   2,296    265.9
                        1994  24.13 M   6,495,988   2,358    275.5
                        1995  33.79 M   6,699,415   2,423    276.5
                        1996  44.04 M   6,769,583   2,484    272.6
                        1997  55.31 M   6,624,149   2,578    257.0
                        1998  69.21 M   6,334,573   2,632    240.7
                        1999  86.05 M   6,279,036   2,691    233.3
Mass adoption          2000 109.5 M    6,393,624   2,767    231.0
                        2001 128.4 M    6,322,963  ~2,801    225.7
                        2002 140.8 M    6,315,708  ~2,874    219.8
                        2003 158.7 M    6,327,955  ~2,910    217.5
                        2004 182.1 M    6,181,027  ~2,982    207.3
Essentially ubiquitous  2005 207.9 M    6,159,350  ~3,009    204.7
                        2006 233.0 M    5,973,213  ~3,034    196.9
                        2007 255.4 M    6,024,008  ~3,049    197.6
                        2008 270.3 M    5,810,846  ~2,993    194.1
                        2009 285.7 M    5,505,180  ~2,976    185.0
Essentially ubiquitous  2010 296.3 M    5,419,445  ~2,985    181.6

The VMT figures for 1983-2000 are available directly from the
Federal Highway Administration's historical series.
FHWA:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/line9.htm>

The national crash estimates beginning in 1988 come from NHTSA's
GES series. The 1988 estimate is 6,886,800 crashes. The 2000
estimate is 6,393,624.

NHTSA:
<https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/economic-impact-motor-vehicle-crashes-2000>

The wireless numbers for the early-adoption period and 1990s
come from the historical CTIA series.

Notice that this is the really important part when analyzing the dataset.

If we start the clean comparison at 1988, the progression is:

1988
  2.1 million wireless connections
  340 crashes / 100M VMT
1990
  5.3 million
  302 crashes / 100M VMT
2000
  109.5 million
  231 crashes / 100M VMT
2005
  207.9 million
  205 crashes / 100M VMT
2010
  296.3 million
  182 crashes / 100M VMT

So during the period when wireless connections went from roughly
  2 million --> 296 million
the national police-reported crash rate went from approximately
  340 --> 182 crashes per 100 million miles.
That's about a 46% decline in the crash rate.

And that's not using fatalities as a proxy. These are total
estimated police-reported crashes where you can't have a

From 1983-1987 is a bit harder because the dataset changed..

We have excellent national VMT:
  1983: 1.653 trillion miles
  1984: 1.720 trillion
  1985: 1.775 trillion
  1986: 1.835 trillion
  1987: 1.921 trillion
FHWA:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/line6.htm>

But for those years, it's harder to get comparative crash reports.

Luckily, 1988 is still extremely early in cellular adoption 
where only about 2 million U.S. wireless connections existed, so 
we can then follow the same national crash series through the 
explosion to hundreds of millions of connections.

  1. 1937-1982 -- Pre-cellular
     Historical baseline/context.
  2. 1983 -- Cellular introduced
     First commercial U.S. cellular service.
  3. 1984-1989 -- Early adoption
     Still extremely few subscribers.
  4. 1990-1999 -- Rapid adoption
     ~5M --> ~86M connections.
  5. 2000-2004 -- Mass adoption
     ~109M --> ~182M connections.
  6. 2005-2010 -- Essentially ubiquitous
     ~208M --> ~296M connections.
  7. 2011-present -- Smartphone era.

For the actual crash-rate calculation, however, we have to 
start around 1988, because that's where the nationally
estimated NHTSA total-crash series begins.

  1988:   2.1M phones / 340 crashes per 100M miles
  1990:   5.3M / 302 crashes per 100M miles
  2000: 109.5M / 231 crashes per 100M miles
  2010: 296.3M / 182 crashes per 100M miles

That is the cleanest first-order comparison of cellular adoption
versus total crash rate that the national data give us, where
the trend is clearly going down, not up.

So the hypothesis that cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing
caused accident rates to skyrocket, is busted, don't you think?

 ====< #4 cut here for the next reference post >====
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 10:58:17 +0300
Message-ID: <118iquo$kp0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Chris wrote:
>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
> 
> Before anyone responds you need to address three key flaws in your OP. 
> 
> 1. You present no data nor evidence. As a "trained scientist" - lol! - you
> should do better than that. A vague link is not enough. Be explicit
> regarding what data there is, the source and what you think it supports and
> how. 
> 2. Remember absence of proof is not proof of absence. A complex environment
> can mask one affect with another, competing, one. 
> 3. An argument to say that we're always distracted and we shouldn't bother
> to target a solvable distraction isn't valid. All avoidable accidents and
> deaths on the road should be targeted and reduced. 
> 
> If you do not address all three points. There's no reason to engage with
> this topic with you.

Hi Chris,

It's a perfectly valid question, especially since most people own purely 
religious belief systems which are not based on solid USA government facts.

Let's approach this problem, which, since most people only believe in the 
propaganda, clearly needs to be revisited, and with all the new valid data.

Let's look at the assessment by enumerating two sets of accurate facts. 
 A. Census gives us the accident numerator since at least way back to 1937.
 B. FHWA has annual USA vehicle-miles-traveled all the way back to 1900.
 C. The accidents divided by the miles driven gives us the accident rate.

While the overall trends matter, for the first-order assessment, we only 
need to look at the statistics during the time period of the cell phone.
 2. Pre-cellular baseline 1937-1982 No commercial US cellular service
 2. Cellular introduced	1983 First commercial cellular service began
 3. Early adoption 1984-1989 Cell phones existed but were still rare
 4. Rapid adoption 1990-1999 Cellular subscriptions exploded
 5. Mass adoption 2000-2004 >100 million U.S. wireless connections
 6. Essentially ubiquitous 2005-2010 ~208M -> 296M wireless connections
 7. Smartphone era 2011-present	Smartphones become dominant	

Hence, I posit it's reasonable for us to look the accident rate from 
January 1, 1983 (which we can reasonably define as the cellular era). 

Here is more granular detail on the total USA wireless subscribers.
 <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2001/compendia/statab/120ed/tables/sec18.pdf>
 <https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/mgallagher_isd2005_wireless_0.pdf>
 <https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Background_on_CTIA_Wireless_Industry_Survey_2020.pdf>

Roughly... 
 1990: 5.283 million wireless subscriber connections
 1993: 16.009 million wireless subscriber connections
 1994: 24.134 million wireless subscriber connections
 1995: 33.786 million wireless subscriber connections
 1996: 44.043 million wireless subscriber connections
 1997: 55.312 million wireless subscriber connections
 1998: 69.209 million wireless subscriber connections
 1999: 86.047 million wireless subscriber connections
 2000: ~109.5 million wireless subscriber connections
 2001: ~128.4 million wireless subscriber connections
 2002: ~140.8 million wireless subscriber connections
 2003: ~158.7 million wireless subscriber connections
 2004: ~182.1 million wireless subscriber connections
 2005: ~207.9 million wireless subscriber connections
 By 2005, that's roughly 70% of the U.S. population in subscriber connections.
 By 2010 there were about 296 million wireless subscriber connections.

Questions we might ask ourselves BEFORE making any assessments, are
 Q1: What was happening to the accident rate before cellular phones existed?
 Q2: What happened to the accident rate during the 1983-2000 adoption curve?
 Q3: What happened to the accident rate after cellular phones became commonplace?

 1983 = existence.
 1990s = adoption.
 ~2005-2010 = mass adoption.
 2010s-2020s = smartphone era.

Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the
cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.

Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies?
   The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused 
   an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile 
   traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred.
That produces a very specific prediction, does it not:
   If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, 
   then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, 
   the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.

If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then 
we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.

 1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular
           accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend.
 1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the 
           driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny.
 1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should
           show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones 
           are causing additional accidents.
 2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more 
           apparent if the hypothesis is substantial.
 2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should 
           remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are 
           materially causing additional accidents.
 2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated 
          with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.

The stronger test is:
 Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the
    trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?

What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis?
If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.
-- 
Most people espouse religious belief systems based on exactly zero facts.

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

#156135

From	bp@www.zefox.net
Date	2026-09-24 16:30 +0000
Message-ID	<1193j81$2r1co$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156131

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
>>> They make it sound like distractions are the major cause of accidents.
>>> But the data is easy to check, and it simply did not support the claims.
>>>  a. The number of accidents has been recorded for over a century
>>>  b. As has the number of miles driven (although methods have changed)
>>>  c. We take the number of accidents divided by miles to get the rate
>>> 
>>> And, of course, we look at three periods, which are extremely well known:
>>>  i.   Before cellphones existed
>>>  ii.  During the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership
>>>  iii. After the cellphone ownership plateau
>>> 
>> References?
>> 
>> Thanks for writing,
> 
> Hi Bob,
> 
> I've never made a statement that isn't backed up in facts, in decades 
> of posting to Usenet, so rest assured, everything I said has references.
> 
> The references are already in this thread, which I repeat below for 
> your convenience...

Your summaries are persuasive that crashes per vehicle mile have gone
down over the span of cellphone adoption. That does not suggest cellphone
use is benign while driving, rather that other innovations have been more
influential. Adoption of ABS is one counterpoise to distracted and 
unskilled driving.  

Thanks for writing,

bob prohaska
 

 


>  ====< #1 cut here for the next reference post >====
> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.driving,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech
> Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:35:00 +0300
> Message-ID: <118khr3$1ekk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
> 
> Your Name wrote:
>>> Well if it's like it is here, because it's intuitively obvious that it 
>>> must increase the accident rate. We still regularly see people driving 
>>> while holding and using their phones and obviously there would be less 
>>> accidents if they did not do so.
>> 
>> In New Zealand it has been illegal to use your cellphone while driving 
>> (unless using a hands-free option) ... but the fine / penalty is so 
>> pathetic and chances of getting caught that many people still do it.
>> 
>> It isn't helped by almost all car manufacturers now having silly 
>> touchscreen systems in their cars, which means there's little 
>> difference between using that and a cellphone, other than the cellphone 
>> being a smaller screen size.  :-(
> 
> Hi YourName,
> 
> Assuming no other factor was involved to cancel the arguments that people
> are claiming, if their hypothesis is cell phones cause accidents, then
> the accident rate should have skyrocketed at some point during the 
> introduction of cellphones, right?
> 
> What's intuitively obvious is most accidents are NOT caused by cell phones.
> Speed and drunken driving are, almost certainly, vastly great represented.
> 
> Even so, given we know exactly when cellphones were introduced into the 
> USA, those who argue cellphones meaningfully increased the USA accident 
> rate have merely to show us valid USA statistics which back up their claim. 
> 
> U.S. cell phones, crashes, miles, and crash rate - 1988-2024
> Crash rate = NHTSA estimated police-reported crashes ??WA VMT x 100 million.
> 
> Year    Wireless connections*   Police-reported crashes VMT (billion)   Crashes / 100M VMT
> 1988    2.07 M  6,886,800       2,026   339.9
> 1989    3.51 M  6,652,815       2,096   317.4
> 1990    5.28 M  6,471,202       2,144   301.8
> 1991    7.56 M  6,117,359       2,172   281.6
> 1992    11.03 M 6,000,310       2,247   267.0
> 1993    16.01 M 6,105,915       2,296   265.9
> 1994    24.13 M 6,495,988       2,358   275.5
> 1995    33.79 M 6,699,415       2,423   276.5
> 1996    44.04 M 6,769,583       2,500   270.8
> 1997    55.31 M 6,624,149       2,568   257.9
> 1998    69.21 M 6,334,573       2,645   239.5
> 1999    86.05 M 6,279,036       2,707   232.0
> 2000    109.48 M        6,393,624       2,764   231.3
> 2001    128.37 M        6,322,963       2,813   224.8
> 2002    140.77 M        6,315,708       2,874   219.8
> 2003    158.72 M        6,327,955       2,909   217.5
> 2004    182.14 M        6,181,027       2,982   207.3
> 2005    207.90 M        6,159,350       3,009   204.7
> 2006    233.04 M        5,973,213       3,034   196.9
> 2007    255.40 M        6,024,008       3,049   197.6
> 2008    270.33 M        5,810,846       2,993   194.1
> 2009    285.65 M        5,505,180       2,976   185.0
> 2010    296.29 M        5,419,445       2,985   181.6
> 2011    315.96 M        5,337,829       2,965   180.0
> 2012    326.48 M        5,615,045       2,969   189.1
> 2013    335.65 M        5,686,891       2,988   190.3
> 2014    355.45 M        6,064,284       3,040   199.5
> 2015    377.92 M        6,296,134       3,110   202.4
> 2016    ~387 M  6,821,129       3,174   214.9
> 2017    ~392 M  6,452,598       3,225   200.1
> 2018    ~413 M  6,734,681       3,255   206.9
> 2019    ~435 M  6,756,084       3,276   206.2
> 2020    ~461 M  5,251,006       2,917   180.0
> 2021    ~491 M  6,103,213       3,154   193.5
> 2022    ~515 M  5,930,697       3,197   185.5
> 2023    ~558 M  6,138,474       3,247   189.0
> 2024    ~?      6,180,241       3,294   1       8
> 
> *Wireless figures are connections/subscriptions, not unique people. 
> CTIA's historical series gives the exact 1988-2015 numbers/
> For example, 1990 was 5,283,055 and 2015 was 377,921,241.
> <https://api.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ctia_survey_ye_2015_graphics.pdf?
> Later CTIA reporting uses slightly different reported connections.
> 
> The crash figures through 2020 come from NHTSA's national GES/CRSS series.
> NHTSA's historical table explicitly starts at 1988 and gives 6,886,800 
> total crashes for that year.
>  <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813375>
> The 2023 and 2024 numbers are from NHTSA's latest national estimates.
>  <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813720>
> FHWA provides the national VMT series, including every year from 1988
> through 2024.
>  <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/our_nations_highways_2026/travel.cfm>
> 
> Note sample designs changed between 2015 & 1016 for NASS GES & CRSS 
> estimates. That doesn't invalidate the table. But it does mean that
> we should not interpret the jump from 202.4 in 2015 to 214.9 in 2016 
> as necessarily a real-world increase without looking closer at it.
> <https://studylib.net/doc/27913014/overview-of-motor-vehicle-traffic-crashes-in-2023--4->
> 
> Guess what?
> Yup. You guessed it.
> 
> Just like everyone intuitively believes "premium gas" gives their Honda
> Civic "more power", everyone believes the accident rate must have 
> skyrocketed during the period that cell phones were introduced & after.
> 
> And yet... The numbers we can compare within the same GES system are valid:
> 
> Wireless connections:
>  1990 -> 5.3 million
>  2000 -> 109.5 million
>  2010 -> 296.3 million
> 
> Crash rate:
>  1990 -> 301.8 / 100M VMT
>  2000 -> 231.3 / 100M VMT
>  2010 -> 181.6 / 100M VMT
> 
> So while wireless connections increased roughly 56-fold from 1990 to 2010, 
> the national police-reported-crash rate went down, not up. 
> 
> Think about that fact... 
> 
>  ====< #2 cut here for the next reference post >====
> 
> Newsgroups: alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
> Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:41:15 +0300
> Message-ID: <118ki6q$1lni$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
> 
> AMuzi wrote:
>> On 9/17/2026 4:28 PM, 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.
>>> 
>>> Like this:
>>>   <https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring
>>> 
>>> Some brought up technical issues, but really, there are none, while others
>>> brought up safety issues, and for that, I'm sure there are legal issues.
>>> 
>>> But, are those legal issues valid?
>>> 
>>> Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>>> A: ?
>>> 
>>> Note we're restricting this to the USA only because accurate data has been
>>> compiled by the USA government on accident rates over the past 100 years.
>>> 
>>> Note 1: Accident propaganda from the following will be deeply analyzed:
>>>        a. Law firms
>>>        b. Insurance companies
>>>        c. Law enforcement claims & politician claims
>>> 
>>> Note 2: Accident *rate* is what matters, not any given number of accidents,
>>>        over the period where cellphone ownership went from 0% to ~100%
>>> 
>>> Note 3: Fatalities and injuries, while deeply emotional, do not count
>>>        (because they are a second-order effect *after* the accident).
>>> 
>>> Note 4: Nobody claims "distracted driving" doesn't cause a large number
>>>         of accidents but distractions existed prior to cell phones and
>>>         distractions exist after cell phone became predominate, and yet,
>>>         in all the accurate accident-rate statistics, the rate simply
>>>         slowly trended downward year after year, before, during & after.
>>> 
>>> Note 5: Paradoxically, cellphone hands-free laws were enacted in most
>>>         states but there is absolutely no correlation with accident rates
>>>         in those states, before, during or after the laws went into force.
>>> 
>>> There was no blip whatsoever, in USA accident rate (for which accurate
>>> statistics have been kept for over a century) which tells the true story.
>>> 
>>> Given that, the question becomes...
>>> Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
>>> A: ?
>> 
>> There are many post-crash reports of semi and auto drivers 
>> watching movies or porn or texting furiously as they 
>> massacre innocents.
>> 
>> I agree that if people merely used the audio (as police and 
>> truckers do with radios) there would not be a problem.
>> 
>> https://www.lifeasatrucker.com/trucker-caught-watching-porn-before-crash-that-killed-father-a-tragic-lesson-on-distraction.html
>> 
>> https://discover.swns.com/2025/09/shocking-dashcam-captures-woman-texting-at-wheel-before-crash/
> 
> Assuming no other factor was involved to cancel the arguments that people
> are making, if their hypothesis is "cell phones cause accidents," then
> the accident rate should have increased substantially at some point
> during the introduction and widespread adoption of cell phones, right?
> 
> What's intuitively obvious is that most accidents are NOT caused by
> cell phones. Speed, alcohol, weather, road conditions, vehicle
> conditions, driver experience, etc. are all potential causes.
> 
> Even so, given that we know approximately when cell phones were
> introduced into the USA, those who argue that cell phones meaningfully
> increased the USA accident rate have merely to show us valid USA
> statistics which support that claim.
> 
> Here are the national numbers.
> 
>              U.S. CELL PHONES, CRASHES, MILES & CRASH RATE
>                               1988-2024
> 
> Crash rate = NHTSA estimated police-reported crashes / FHWA VMT
>              x 100 million.
> 
> Year   Wireless       Police-reported    VMT       Crashes/
>        connections*   crashes             billion   100M VMT
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 1988     2.07 M        6,886,800          2,026       339.9
> 1989     3.51 M        6,652,815          2,096       317.4
> 1990     5.28 M        6,471,202          2,144       301.8
> 1991     7.56 M        6,117,359          2,172       281.6
> 1992    11.03 M        6,000,310          2,247       267.0
> 1993    16.01 M        6,105,915          2,296       265.9
> 1994    24.13 M        6,495,988          2,358       275.5
> 1995    33.79 M        6,699,415          2,423       276.5
> 1996    44.04 M        6,769,583          2,500       270.8
> 1997    55.31 M        6,624,149          2,568       257.9
> 1998    69.21 M        6,334,573          2,645       239.5
> 1999    86.05 M        6,279,036          2,707       232.0
> 2000   109.48 M        6,393,624          2,764       231.3
> 2001   128.37 M        6,322,963          2,813       224.8
> 2002   140.77 M        6,315,708          2,874       219.8
> 2003   158.72 M        6,327,955          2,909       217.5
> 2004   182.14 M        6,181,027          2,982       207.3
> 2005   207.90 M        6,159,350          3,009       204.7
> 2006   233.04 M        5,973,213          3,034       196.9
> 2007   255.40 M        6,024,008          3,049       197.6
> 2008   270.33 M        5,810,846          2,993       194.1
> 2009   285.65 M        5,505,180          2,976       185.0
> 2010   296.29 M        5,419,445          2,985       181.6
> 
> 2011   315.96 M        5,337,829          2,965       180.0
> 2012   326.48 M        5,615,045          2,969       189.1
> 2013   335.65 M        5,686,891          2,988       190.3
> 2014   355.45 M        6,064,284          3,040       199.5
> 2015   377.92 M        6,296,134          3,110       202.4
> 
> 2016     ~387 M        6,821,129          3,174       214.9
> 2017     ~392 M        6,452,598          3,225       200.1
> 2018     ~413 M        6,734,681          3,255       206.9
> 2019     ~435 M        6,756,084          3,276       206.2
> 2020     ~461 M        5,251,006          2,917       180.0
> 2021     ~491 M        6,103,213          3,154       193.5
> 2022     ~515 M        5,930,697          3,197       185.5
> 2023     ~558 M        6,138,474          3,247       189.0
> 2024        --         6,180,241          3,294       187.6
> 
> * Wireless figures are connections/subscriptions, NOT unique people.
>   A person can have multiple connections, so these numbers should not
>   be interpreted as "percentage of Americans who own a phone."
> 
> The historical CTIA series gives the exact annual wireless connection
> numbers for the earlier period. For example:
> 
>   1990 =  5,283,055
>   2000 =109,476,000 (approximately)
>   2010 =296,293,000 (approximately)
>   2015 =377,921,241
> 
> CTIA:
> <https://api.ctia.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ctia_survey_ye_2015_graphics.pdf>
> 
> NHTSA's national crash series begins in 1988. It is based on the
> National Automotive Sampling System's General Estimates System (GES),
> which estimated the number of police-reported crashes in the USA.
> 
> NHTSA:
> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813375>
> 
> For the later years, NHTSA uses the Crash Report Sampling System
> (CRSS).
> 
> NHTSA:
> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813720>
> 
> FHWA provides the national vehicle-miles-traveled series.
> 
> FHWA:
> <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/pubs/our_nations_highways_2026/travel.cfm>
> 
> 
> There is a methodological break between GES and CRSS in 2016. NHTSA
> states that the estimates from the two systems are not directly
> comparable because their sampling designs differ.
> 
> Therefore, don't interpret the change from 2015 to 2016 as necessarily
> representing a real-world change in crashes.
> 
> The much cleaner comparison is entirely within the GES period:
> 
>                     WIRELESS CONNECTIONS
> 1990       5.3 million
> 2000     109.5 million
> 2010     296.3 million
> 
>                     CRASHES / 100M VMT
> 1990       301.8
> 2000       231.3
> 2010       181.6
> 
> So from 1990 to 2010, wireless connections increased approximately
> 56-fold.
> 
> During that same period, the national police-reported crash rate
> declined from approximately 302 crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles
> to approximately 182.
> 
> That's a decline of about 40%.
> 
> This does NOT prove that cell phones never cause individual accidents.
> Obviously, a driver can be distracted by a cell phone and crash.
> 
> It does, however, create a very simple empirical question for anyone
> claiming that cell phones caused a substantial increase in the overall
> U.S. accident rate:
> 
> Where is the corresponding increase in the NATIONAL ACCIDENT RATE?
> 
> The phones went from essentially nothing to hundreds of millions of
> connections.
> 
> The miles driven went up.
> 
> And the national crash rate, during the clean 1990-2010 GES period,
> went DOWN substantially.
> 
> Think about that fact.
> 
>  ====< #3 cut here for the next reference post >====
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving,alt.home.repair
> Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:56:33 +0300
> Message-ID: <118kj3g$1k8h$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
> 
> Nick Charles wrote:
>>> As someone who works in the science field, I can assure you statistics
>>> don?t always tell the truth. The criteria are often cherry picked, the data
>>> can easily be skewed if not collected in a controlled environment, and the
>>> biases of the researchers often provide conclusions not necessarily
>>> consistent with the raw data.
>>> 
>>> I think it?s pretty obvious if you look at drivers around you that
>>> distracted driving is out of control and in turn it leads to erratic
>>> driving. I trust personal anecdotes more than statistics in this case.
>> 
>> Cell phones are absolutely causing more accidents every day. But that does not
>> necessarily mean "more total accidents than before". 
>> 
>> In the past, "distracted driving" was people changing radio stations and/or
>> tapes in the tape deck, etc.  Those days are long gone.  Not to mention women
>> putting on makeup and looking at themselves in mirrors.
>> 
>> Today, "distracted driving" is texting/talking on the phone/changing your
>> Spotify list/changing your iTunes list/watching TV/etc.  Not to mention women
>> are now looking at themselves in their phone front camera while putting on
>> makeup. 
>> 
>> So phones/iPads/whatever are definitely causing many/most/take your pick
>> accidents today. But the overall accident totals could be the same, or
>> statiscally not different. 
>> 
>> So the statement "phones are causing more accidents every day" is perfectly
>> valid. Extrapolating that into "Phones have increased the accident rate" is
>> not valid or logical. Could be the same number of "distracted driving"
>> accidents. Just a different cause for the distraction.
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> If phones are causing a great number of accidents, we would expect it 
> to show up in the USA statistics on the number of accidents per mile
> during the period just before, during & after the cellphone skyrocketing.
>  1. Pre-cellular baseline 1937-1982 No commercial US cellular service
>  2. Cellular introduced 1983 First commercial cellular service began
>  3. Early adoption 1984-1989 Cell phones existed but were still rare
>  4. Rapid adoption 1990-1999 Cellular subscriptions exploded
>  5. Mass adoption 2000-2004 >100 million U.S. wireless connections
>  6. Essentially ubiquitous 2005-2010 ~208M -> 296M wireless connections
>  7. Smartphone era 2011-present Smartphones become dominant
> 
> Yet, the accident rate went down, just as it had been trending for 
> decades, and still trends downward, which needs to be explained if 
> someone is claiming that skyrocketing cell phone ownership caused
> concomitant skyrocketing cellphone related accidents which wouldn't have
> been caused otherwise, right? 
> 
> But we just showed the rates went down in the data for the United
> States which has been compiled very accurately over decades in use.
> 
> Bear in mind there is one important limitation in that the NHTSA's
> nationally estimated total-crash series begins in 1988. 
> 
> For 1983-1987, we have federal national traffic data, but not the same 
> GES total-crash series, so, for sure, we need to understand the data.
> 
> What we can put together cleanly is this:
> 
> 1983-2010: NATIONAL U.S. PICTURE
> 
> Period                 Year  Wireless  Crashes     VMT      Rate
>                              connections           billion   /100M
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cellular introduced    1983  ~0.2 M    --          1,653    --
> Early adoption         1984  ~0.3 M    --          1,720    --
> Early adoption         1985   0.34 M   --          1,775    --
> Early adoption         1986  ~0.68 M   --          1,835    --
> Early adoption         1987  ~1.2 M    --          1,921    --
> Early adoption         1988   2.07 M   6,886,800   2,026    339.9
> Early adoption         1989   3.51 M   6,652,815   2,096    317.4
> Rapid adoption         1990   5.28 M   6,471,202   2,144    301.8
>                         1991   7.56 M   6,117,359   2,172    281.6
>                         1992  11.03 M   6,000,310   2,247    267.0
>                         1993  16.01 M   6,105,915   2,296    265.9
>                         1994  24.13 M   6,495,988   2,358    275.5
>                         1995  33.79 M   6,699,415   2,423    276.5
>                         1996  44.04 M   6,769,583   2,484    272.6
>                         1997  55.31 M   6,624,149   2,578    257.0
>                         1998  69.21 M   6,334,573   2,632    240.7
>                         1999  86.05 M   6,279,036   2,691    233.3
> Mass adoption          2000 109.5 M    6,393,624   2,767    231.0
>                         2001 128.4 M    6,322,963  ~2,801    225.7
>                         2002 140.8 M    6,315,708  ~2,874    219.8
>                         2003 158.7 M    6,327,955  ~2,910    217.5
>                         2004 182.1 M    6,181,027  ~2,982    207.3
> Essentially ubiquitous  2005 207.9 M    6,159,350  ~3,009    204.7
>                         2006 233.0 M    5,973,213  ~3,034    196.9
>                         2007 255.4 M    6,024,008  ~3,049    197.6
>                         2008 270.3 M    5,810,846  ~2,993    194.1
>                         2009 285.7 M    5,505,180  ~2,976    185.0
> Essentially ubiquitous  2010 296.3 M    5,419,445  ~2,985    181.6
> 
> 
> The VMT figures for 1983-2000 are available directly from the
> Federal Highway Administration's historical series.
> FHWA:
> <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/line9.htm>
> 
> The national crash estimates beginning in 1988 come from NHTSA's
> GES series. The 1988 estimate is 6,886,800 crashes. The 2000
> estimate is 6,393,624.
> 
> NHTSA:
> <https://www.nhtsa.gov/document/economic-impact-motor-vehicle-crashes-2000>
> 
> The wireless numbers for the early-adoption period and 1990s
> come from the historical CTIA series.
> 
> Notice that this is the really important part when analyzing the dataset.
> 
> If we start the clean comparison at 1988, the progression is:
> 
> 1988
>   2.1 million wireless connections
>   340 crashes / 100M VMT
> 1990
>   5.3 million
>   302 crashes / 100M VMT
> 2000
>   109.5 million
>   231 crashes / 100M VMT
> 2005
>   207.9 million
>   205 crashes / 100M VMT
> 2010
>   296.3 million
>   182 crashes / 100M VMT
> 
> So during the period when wireless connections went from roughly
>   2 million --> 296 million
> the national police-reported crash rate went from approximately
>   340 --> 182 crashes per 100 million miles.
> That's about a 46% decline in the crash rate.
> 
> And that's not using fatalities as a proxy. These are total
> estimated police-reported crashes where you can't have a
> 
> From 1983-1987 is a bit harder because the dataset changed..
> 
> We have excellent national VMT:
>   1983: 1.653 trillion miles
>   1984: 1.720 trillion
>   1985: 1.775 trillion
>   1986: 1.835 trillion
>   1987: 1.921 trillion
> FHWA:
> <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/line6.htm>
> 
> But for those years, it's harder to get comparative crash reports.
> 
> Luckily, 1988 is still extremely early in cellular adoption 
> where only about 2 million U.S. wireless connections existed, so 
> we can then follow the same national crash series through the 
> explosion to hundreds of millions of connections.
> 
>   1. 1937-1982 -- Pre-cellular
>      Historical baseline/context.
>   2. 1983 -- Cellular introduced
>      First commercial U.S. cellular service.
>   3. 1984-1989 -- Early adoption
>      Still extremely few subscribers.
>   4. 1990-1999 -- Rapid adoption
>      ~5M --> ~86M connections.
>   5. 2000-2004 -- Mass adoption
>      ~109M --> ~182M connections.
>   6. 2005-2010 -- Essentially ubiquitous
>      ~208M --> ~296M connections.
>   7. 2011-present -- Smartphone era.
> 
> For the actual crash-rate calculation, however, we have to 
> start around 1988, because that's where the nationally
> estimated NHTSA total-crash series begins.
> 
>   1988:   2.1M phones / 340 crashes per 100M miles
>   1990:   5.3M / 302 crashes per 100M miles
>   2000: 109.5M / 231 crashes per 100M miles
>   2010: 296.3M / 182 crashes per 100M miles
> 
> That is the cleanest first-order comparison of cellular adoption
> versus total crash rate that the national data give us, where
> the trend is clearly going down, not up.
> 
> So the hypothesis that cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing
> caused accident rates to skyrocket, is busted, don't you think?
> 
>  ====< #4 cut here for the next reference post >====
> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
> Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 10:58:17 +0300
> Message-ID: <118iquo$kp0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
> 
> Chris wrote:
>>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
>> 
>> Before anyone responds you need to address three key flaws in your OP. 
>> 
>> 1. You present no data nor evidence. As a "trained scientist" - lol! - you
>> should do better than that. A vague link is not enough. Be explicit
>> regarding what data there is, the source and what you think it supports and
>> how. 
>> 2. Remember absence of proof is not proof of absence. A complex environment
>> can mask one affect with another, competing, one. 
>> 3. An argument to say that we're always distracted and we shouldn't bother
>> to target a solvable distraction isn't valid. All avoidable accidents and
>> deaths on the road should be targeted and reduced. 
>> 
>> If you do not address all three points. There's no reason to engage with
>> this topic with you.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> It's a perfectly valid question, especially since most people own purely 
> religious belief systems which are not based on solid USA government facts.
> 
> Let's approach this problem, which, since most people only believe in the 
> propaganda, clearly needs to be revisited, and with all the new valid data.
> 
> Let's look at the assessment by enumerating two sets of accurate facts. 
>  A. Census gives us the accident numerator since at least way back to 1937.
>  B. FHWA has annual USA vehicle-miles-traveled all the way back to 1900.
>  C. The accidents divided by the miles driven gives us the accident rate.
> 
> While the overall trends matter, for the first-order assessment, we only 
> need to look at the statistics during the time period of the cell phone.
>  2. Pre-cellular baseline 1937-1982 No commercial US cellular service
>  2. Cellular introduced 1983 First commercial cellular service began
>  3. Early adoption 1984-1989 Cell phones existed but were still rare
>  4. Rapid adoption 1990-1999 Cellular subscriptions exploded
>  5. Mass adoption 2000-2004 >100 million U.S. wireless connections
>  6. Essentially ubiquitous 2005-2010 ~208M -> 296M wireless connections
>  7. Smartphone era 2011-present Smartphones become dominant     
> 
> Hence, I posit it's reasonable for us to look the accident rate from 
> January 1, 1983 (which we can reasonably define as the cellular era). 
> 
> Here is more granular detail on the total USA wireless subscribers.
>  <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2001/compendia/statab/120ed/tables/sec18.pdf>
>  <https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/mgallagher_isd2005_wireless_0.pdf>
>  <https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Background_on_CTIA_Wireless_Industry_Survey_2020.pdf>
> 
> Roughly... 
>  1990: 5.283 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1993: 16.009 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1994: 24.134 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1995: 33.786 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1996: 44.043 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1997: 55.312 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1998: 69.209 million wireless subscriber connections
>  1999: 86.047 million wireless subscriber connections
>  2000: ~109.5 million wireless subscriber connections
>  2001: ~128.4 million wireless subscriber connections
>  2002: ~140.8 million wireless subscriber connections
>  2003: ~158.7 million wireless subscriber connections
>  2004: ~182.1 million wireless subscriber connections
>  2005: ~207.9 million wireless subscriber connections
>  By 2005, that's roughly 70% of the U.S. population in subscriber connections.
>  By 2010 there were about 296 million wireless subscriber connections.
> 
> Questions we might ask ourselves BEFORE making any assessments, are
>  Q1: What was happening to the accident rate before cellular phones existed?
>  Q2: What happened to the accident rate during the 1983-2000 adoption curve?
>  Q3: What happened to the accident rate after cellular phones became commonplace?
> 
>  1983 = existence.
>  1990s = adoption.
>  ~2005-2010 = mass adoption.
>  2010s-2020s = smartphone era.
> 
> Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the
> cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.
> 
> Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies?
>    The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused 
>    an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile 
>    traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred.
> That produces a very specific prediction, does it not:
>    If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, 
>    then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, 
>    the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.
> 
> If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then 
> we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.
> 
>  1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular
>            accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend.
>  1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the 
>            driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny.
>  1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should
>            show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones 
>            are causing additional accidents.
>  2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more 
>            apparent if the hypothesis is substantial.
>  2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should 
>            remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are 
>            materially causing additional accidents.
>  2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated 
>           with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.
> 
> The stronger test is:
>  Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the
>     trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?
> 
> What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis?
> If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.

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

#156137

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-25 05:40 +1200
Message-ID	<1193na2$su4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156135

bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
> Your summaries are persuasive that crashes per vehicle mile have gone
> down over the span of cellphone adoption. That does not suggest cellphone
> use is benign while driving, rather that other innovations have been more
> influential. Adoption of ABS is one counterpoise to distracted and 
> unskilled driving.

Hi Bob Prohaska, 

Thanks for responding like an adult, which is rare on these newsgroups.
I opened the thread, on purpose, to open people's eyes to the obvious.

Note that I never said distractions can't be the cause of accidents.
I said that cellphone distractions don't show up in the accident rate.

That's good data. Very good data. In fact, it's extremely good data.
So nobody reasonable can refute it just by waving their hands around it.

We could look to see WHY but anything that exactly cancels the cellphone
has to be done by Aliens because the staggeringly huge sudden input has to
be EXACTLY negated in both time and dimension, which is sim0ply absurd to
blame on other facts. It's too absurd to even be tenable, by the way.

I've heard it before, which is why I joke Aliens, very intelligent Aliens
in fact, are the only ones would could EXACTLY negate the supposed
accidents.

Suffice to say there is no factor that negated the cellphone accident rate.
It just doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying ABS (and other things) don't lower accidents.
Far from it.

We could look at ABS introduction to see if it changed the accident rate.

My hypothesis is that ABS should show a decreased accident rate but the
problem is measuring when ABS was introduced per model, so we'd likely want
to look at the accident rate, per model, which is data I don't have.

At least cellphones are independent of vehicles so they affect all at once.

BTW, thanks for asking for and looking at the data, which is first-order
data, so it's so simple as nobody could possibly claim it's cherry picked.
 1. I took the number of accidents per year, which is good data
 2. And divided by the number of miles driven, also which is good data
 3. For the period before, during & after cellphones skyrocketed

It's not complicated.
There's really no way possible for that first-order data to be skewed.
[Note that 2nd-order data can more easily be skewed (see details below).]

But first-order data is so simple we can only attack the measurement
methods, but, we can't because nobody professional doubts those measures.
 *Number of accidents divided by number of miles driven = accident rate*
There was a downward trend in the accident rate, overall, but which had
already been there well before and is still there well after cellphones.

Now, let's talk about that fact, because a decade ago, when cellphone laws
were all the rage, I L@@K@D for the accident rate change & it didn't exist.

Hmmm.... 
Why would adding a brand new distraction NOT increase the accident rate?

My hypothesis, a decade ago, was that cellphones are simply an added
distraction to the list of a thousand existing distractions, and, that
there are concepts of "good driver discounts" and "good student discounts"
which I got on my insurance when I was a kid BECAUSE I could handle them.

Some people are smart enough to handle distractions.
Others are not.

It was my hypothesis at that time that THOSE PEOPLE will have accidents no
matter what, and, in fact, those are the same people, I theorized, who hit
animals, as I've never hit an animal while driving in my entire life
because I'm aware of my driving (and no, it jumped out right in front of me
doesn't count as an excuse except with the insurance company it might).

Nobody can consider themselves a "good driver" in my opinion if they hit
anything in their entire life,l and I'm not caring about fault, either.

A "good driver", IMHO, can avoid any damn thing that happens out there.
If they can't, that's fine. They're just not a good driver, that's all.
They're average.

Average drivers will have more accidents, was my hypothesis, due to them
sucking at driving, but those are already aggregated in the statistics.

Anyway, be careful to note that I never said distractions do not cause
accidents, as they must. All I'm saying is it doesn't show in the rate.

Here's more details which cover other causes of accidents, but bear in mind
these are 2nd-order statistics which are skewed by a vast array of factors.

        ---- < cut here > ----
Newsgroups:
misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident
rate?
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 00:42:28 +1200
Message-ID: <11935rk$19ch$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

While it's trivial to compare crash data to cellphone ownership trends
by simple arithmetic, where we only need to account for the well reported
 a. Total number of accidents
 b. Divided by total number of miles driven
 c. For the periods before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed

A lot of the data is clouded by "injuries" and "fatalities", which are 
second-order effects (as the accident has to happen for their to be them).

Not only does an accident have to happen to have injuries and fatalities, 
but many other factors play a role, such as the speed at which emergency
services arrives, and the availability of local medivac transport, etc.

Nonetheless, we get some idea of what actually causes accidents in
this "copyright 2026 National Safety Council" report on 
 *Distracted Driving*

<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/distracted-driving/>
And 
 *Improper Driving and Road Rage*

<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/improper-driving-and-road-rage/>
Which reports:
 Speed too fast or unsafe �V 18.8%
 Failure to yield right-of-way �V 8.4%
 Careless driving �V 7.6%
 Improper lane usage �V 5.2%
But bear in mind those are for *fatal* crashes, which, while useful and 
while interesting, my argument is about crashes, which are first-order.

While it's notoriously difficult to ascertain how much any given 
driver is using a cellphone while driving, pertinent is this statement
 "Over the last 10 years, the prevalence of drivers using hand-held 
  cell phones at any given daylight moment has decreased from 3.8% 
  of drivers in 2015 to 1.9% in 2024."

 "The percentage of drivers manipulating hand-held electronic devices 
  has increased 104%, from 2.2% in 2015 to 4.5% in 2024. Among other 
  activities, this observation includes text messaging. Drivers 
  observed with visible headsets remain low at 0.5% in 2024."

The main problem is *how* they collect that data, which I've reported
in the past (a decade or more ago) was done by red-light observations.

For those who wish to look at 2nd-order effects (e.g., fatalities), 
this reference breaks down the cause of fatalities state by state.
 *Fatality Facts 2024, State by state*

<https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state#yearly-snapshot>

Please bear in mind fatalities are NOT what I'm talking about, 
because, while they're important, they're a 2nd-order effect
which has many more statistical complications (e.g., how long
it takes an ambulance to arrive) than just 1st-order crashes.
-- 
People tend to parrot propaganda without ever looking at the data.

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

#156205

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-30 07:24 +0000
Message-ID	<119idf1$ng0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156135

<bp@www.zefox.net> wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Questions we might ask ourselves BEFORE making any assessments, are
>> Q1: What was happening to the accident rate before cellular phones existed?
>> Q2: What happened to the accident rate during the 1983-2000 adoption curve?
>> Q3: What happened to the accident rate after cellular phones became commonplace?

Main critical question is what else is going on within the automative
industry or elsewhere that may affect accident rates. 

Also how useful are the data being used to make conclusions? Just because
data have been collected for a long time doesn't mean they are necessarily
useful for the purpose at hand. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your
data has any hope to reveal the outcomes you're looking for. For example,
can you prove with your data that the introduction of ABS reduced
accidents?

For example your very much lauded accident data is based on police surveys.
Surveys are universally known to be biased and only a sample of the truth.
Given that most "fender benders" don't involve the police, how does that
affect your assertions. 

Many posts back I gave you the exact data required to answer your question
reliably. Did you ever bother to see if it exists?

>> 1983 = existence.
>> 1990s = adoption.
>> ~2005-2010 = mass adoption.
>> 2010s-2020s = smartphone era.
>> 
>> Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the
>> cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.

That's not scientific. You're prejudging the results ahead of the
experiment. 

>> Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies?
>> The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused 
>> an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile 
>> traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred.
>> That produces a very specific prediction, does it not:
>> If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, 
>> then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, 
>> the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.

Only if no other outside factors are compensating and that you're able to
observe the change with the methods chosen. 

>> If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then 
>> we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.
>> 
>> 1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular
>> accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend.
>> 1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the 
>> driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny.
>> 1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should
>> show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones 
>> are causing additional accidents.
>> 2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more 
>> apparent if the hypothesis is substantial.
>> 2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should 
>> remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are 
>> materially causing additional accidents.
>> 2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated 
>> with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.

You're assuming a linear and direct relationship between mobile phone
ownership and use while driving. There are other models available. Where's
the evidence your assumption holds. 

>> The stronger test is:
>> Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the
>> trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?
>> 
>> What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis?

The above isn't a (testable) hypothesis. It's a simply a question. 

>> If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.

Experiments do not provide facts. They generate evidence.

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

#156207

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-30 09:56 -0600
Message-ID	<119jben$207j$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156205

Chris wrote:
> Main critical question is what else is going on within the automative
> industry or elsewhere that may affect accident rates. 
> 
> Also how useful are the data being used to make conclusions? Just because
> data have been collected for a long time doesn't mean they are necessarily
> useful for the purpose at hand. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your
> data has any hope to reveal the outcomes you're looking for. For example,
> can you prove with your data that the introduction of ABS reduced
> accidents?
> 
> For example your very much lauded accident data is based on police surveys.
> Surveys are universally known to be biased and only a sample of the truth.
> Given that most "fender benders" don't involve the police, how does that
> affect your assertions. 
> 
> Many posts back I gave you the exact data required to answer your question
> reliably. Did you ever bother to see if it exists?
> 
>>> 1983 = existence.
>>> 1990s = adoption.
>>> ~2005-2010 = mass adoption.
>>> 2010s-2020s = smartphone era.
>>> 
>>> Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the
>>> cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.
> 
> That's not scientific. You're prejudging the results ahead of the
> experiment. 
> 
>>> Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies?
>>> The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused 
>>> an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile 
>>> traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred.
>>> That produces a very specific prediction, does it not:
>>> If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, 
>>> then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, 
>>> the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.
> 
> Only if no other outside factors are compensating and that you're able to
> observe the change with the methods chosen. 
> 
>>> If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then 
>>> we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.
>>> 
>>> 1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular
>>> accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend.
>>> 1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the 
>>> driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny.
>>> 1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should
>>> show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones 
>>> are causing additional accidents.
>>> 2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more 
>>> apparent if the hypothesis is substantial.
>>> 2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should 
>>> remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are 
>>> materially causing additional accidents.
>>> 2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated 
>>> with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.
> 
> You're assuming a linear and direct relationship between mobile phone
> ownership and use while driving. There are other models available. Where's
> the evidence your assumption holds. 
> 
>>> The stronger test is:
>>> Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the
>>> trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?
>>> 
>>> What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis?
> 
> The above isn't a (testable) hypothesis. It's a simply a question. 
> 
>>> If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.
> 
> Experiments do not provide facts. They generate evidence.

The claim that aliens exactly manipulated the rate for 30 years, and then
stopped, by exactly counterbalancing the accidents, is so absurd as to
indicate desperation on the part of anyone who makes that ridiculous claim.

FACTS:

1. Police-reported motor-vehicle crashes (reported for over a century)
2. Divided by FHWA annual national vehicle-miles traveled statistics
3. Over 30-years of cellphone ownership skyrocketing (~1985 to ~2015)

The data is good data.

The accident rate was simply unaffected by the skyrocketing cellphone
ownership rates during those years...

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

#156212

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-30 20:26 +0000
Message-ID	<119jra7$j185$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156207

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Main critical question is what else is going on within the automative
>> industry or elsewhere that may affect accident rates. 
>> 
>> Also how useful are the data being used to make conclusions? Just because
>> data have been collected for a long time doesn't mean they are necessarily
>> useful for the purpose at hand. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your
>> data has any hope to reveal the outcomes you're looking for. For example,
>> can you prove with your data that the introduction of ABS reduced
>> accidents?
>> 
>> For example your very much lauded accident data is based on police surveys.
>> Surveys are universally known to be biased and only a sample of the truth.
>> Given that most "fender benders" don't involve the police, how does that
>> affect your assertions. 
>> 
>> Many posts back I gave you the exact data required to answer your question
>> reliably. Did you ever bother to see if it exists?
>> 
>>>> 1983 = existence.
>>>> 1990s = adoption.
>>>> ~2005-2010 = mass adoption.
>>>> 2010s-2020s = smartphone era.
>>>> 
>>>> Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the
>>>> cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.
>> 
>> That's not scientific. You're prejudging the results ahead of the
>> experiment. 
>> 
>>>> Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies?
>>>> The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused 
>>>> an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile 
>>>> traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred.
>>>> That produces a very specific prediction, does it not:
>>>> If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, 
>>>> then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, 
>>>> the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.
>> 
>> Only if no other outside factors are compensating and that you're able to
>> observe the change with the methods chosen. 
>> 
>>>> If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then 
>>>> we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.
>>>> 
>>>> 1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular
>>>> accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend.
>>>> 1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the 
>>>> driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny.
>>>> 1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should
>>>> show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones 
>>>> are causing additional accidents.
>>>> 2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more 
>>>> apparent if the hypothesis is substantial.
>>>> 2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should 
>>>> remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are 
>>>> materially causing additional accidents.
>>>> 2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated 
>>>> with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.
>> 
>> You're assuming a linear and direct relationship between mobile phone
>> ownership and use while driving. There are other models available. Where's
>> the evidence your assumption holds. 
>> 
>>>> The stronger test is:
>>>> Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the
>>>> trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?
>>>> 
>>>> What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis?
>> 
>> The above isn't a (testable) hypothesis. It's a simply a question. 
>> 
>>>> If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.
>> 
>> Experiments do not provide facts. They generate evidence.
> 
> The claim that aliens 

The fact you're having to resort to the absurd to answer straightforward
question tells us you're unwilling and/or incapable of having a rational
discussion. 

> exactly manipulated the rate for 30 years, and then
> stopped, by exactly counterbalancing the accidents, is so absurd as to
> indicate desperation on the part of anyone who makes that ridiculous claim.
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> 1. Police-reported motor-vehicle crashes (reported for over a century)
> 2. Divided by FHWA annual national vehicle-miles traveled statistics
> 3. Over 30-years of cellphone ownership skyrocketing (~1985 to ~2015)
> 
> The data is good data.

That's simply an opinion. 

> The accident rate was simply unaffected by the skyrocketing cellphone
> ownership rates during those years... 

You've not demonstrated that.

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

#156213

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-10-01 00:17 +0300
Message-ID	<119ju9j$119m$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156212

Chris wrote:
> The fact you're having to resort to the absurd to answer straightforward
> question tells us you're unwilling and/or incapable of having a rational
> discussion. 

You're the one claiming something absolutely fantastical changed the data.
Not me.

What do you think would change the data EXACTLY like anti-matter would?

>> 1. Police-reported motor-vehicle crashes (reported for over a century)
>> 2. Divided by FHWA annual national vehicle-miles traveled statistics
>> 3. Over 30-years of cellphone ownership skyrocketing (~1985 to ~2015)
>> 
>> The data is good data.
> 
> That's simply an opinion. 

heh heh heh... 
You're desperate when you call simple data NOBODY disputes, an "opinion".

You simply hate that you can't find any facts that back up your point of
view because your point of view isn't based on facts. It's your religion.

> 
>> The accident rate was simply unaffected by the skyrocketing cellphone
>> ownership rates during those years... 
> 
> You've not demonstrated that.

It's amazing, actually, how you show your desperation in every sentence.

You hate that there is no good data on the planet that backs up your point
of view, which means, obviously, your point of view isn't based on fact.

There's a reason nobody can have a scientific discussion with religious
people & that reason is that your entire belief system is simply made up.

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

#156219

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-10-01 07:49 +0000
Message-ID	<119l39f$vh5m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156213

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> The fact you're having to resort to the absurd to answer straightforward
>> question tells us you're unwilling and/or incapable of having a rational
>> discussion. 
> 
> You're the one claiming something absolutely fantastical changed the data.
> Not me.

Remind me. Who keeps bringing up aliens? 

If you can't cope with normal scientific inquiry then stop pretending this
is anything more than self-serving axe-grinding on your part. 

> You hate that there is no good data on the planet that backs up your point
> of view, which means, obviously, your point of view isn't based on fact.

Carlos highlighted several scientific studies which provided a lot of
evidence of the harms of mobile phone use while driving. 

Of course you ignored them. You're simply wilfully ignorant which is worse
than being an idiot.

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

#156222

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-10-01 18:09 +0900
Message-ID	<119l7vu$2ni4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156219

Chris wrote:
>> You're the one claiming something absolutely fantastical changed the data.
>> Not me.
> 
> Remind me. Who keeps bringing up aliens? 
> 
> If you can't cope with normal scientific inquiry then stop pretending this
> is anything more than self-serving axe-grinding on your part. 

C'mon, Chris.

You claiming all data is wrong is not you acting scientific in any manner.
 1. The number of accidents and the accident rate in the USA are good data
 2. For you to claim it's not good data, is patently absurd.
 3. Especially as you don't back up WHY you think it's not good data.

Your claim that "something EXACTLY canceled out the accidents" for the
period before, during and after cellphones, is so absurd that it's akin to
you claiming aliens exactly manipulated the data to cancel it exactly out.

>> You hate that there is no good data on the planet that backs up your point
>> of view, which means, obviously, your point of view isn't based on fact.
> 
> Carlos highlighted several scientific studies which provided a lot of
> evidence of the harms of mobile phone use while driving. 
> 
> Of course you ignored them. You're simply wilfully ignorant which is worse
> than being an idiot.

Look Chris, remember you said you had a PhD in the biological sciences and
I pointed out there's no way you could because you ridiculed statements
that anyone trained in basic immunology and virology would be shocked?

Remember that?
No? 

Allow me to remind you then:
 a. subunits of viral SARS-COV-2 RNA genomes
 b. immunological vehicles

Maybe you don't have a good memory, Chris... but I do.

Remember Chris, highly intelligent people must have a good memory because
they have to put together thousands of facts in order to make assessments.

One of those facts is I said, many times, a decade ago and recently, that I
too "would have" thought cellphones being a distraction, & distractions
causing accidents, "should" have skyrocketed the accident rate.

They should.
But they didn't.

Now what does a true scientist do with that information? 
 a. Do they cling to their old beliefs anyway (i.e., religion), or, 
 b. Do they come up with a new hypothesis as to why it didn't happen?

Note: I'm a scientist.
I gave you my hypothesis then, and recently, why it didn't happen.

Remember?
-- 
Most people believe that whatever it is that they know, must be everything.

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

#156232

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-10-01 20:47 +0000
Message-ID	<119mgsf$1hoar$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156222

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> You're the one claiming something absolutely fantastical changed the data.
>>> Not me.
>> 
>> Remind me. Who keeps bringing up aliens? 
>> 
>> If you can't cope with normal scientific inquiry then stop pretending this
>> is anything more than self-serving axe-grinding on your part. 
> 
> C'mon, Chris.
> 
> You claiming all data is wrong 

Complete failure of basic comprehension. 

> 
>>> You hate that there is no good data on the planet that backs up your point
>>> of view, which means, obviously, your point of view isn't based on fact.
>> 
>> Carlos highlighted several scientific studies which provided a lot of
>> evidence of the harms of mobile phone use while driving. 
>> 
>> Of course you ignored them. You're simply wilfully ignorant which is worse
>> than being an idiot.
> 
> Look Chris, 

<snip desperate attempt at deflection>

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

#156233

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-10-02 11:08 +0900
Message-ID	<119n3nl$1v02$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156232

Chris wrote:
>> You claiming all data is wrong 
> 
> Complete failure of basic comprehension. 

Let us all openly see your counterargument to the good data please.

> <snip desperate attempt at deflection>

Either you agree with the data, or you give what you consider better data.

Otherwise, nobody has refuted the scientific facts of
 a. The accident rate remained on the same downward curve 
 b. Before, during and after cellphones
 c. Which means cellphones did not affect the accident rate

Now, nobody said cellphones weren't an added distraction to the thousand of
distractions drivers incur every day, so the real question is why not?

Q: Why didn't the cellphone have any effect on the accident rate?
A: ?

HINT: I think I know why and I proposed it ten years ago. 
DOUBLEHINT: My hypothesis fits the data.

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

#156252

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-10-03 09:20 +0000
Message-ID	<119qhd1$2sjvk$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156233

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> You claiming all data is wrong 
>> 
>> Complete failure of basic comprehension. 
> 
> Let us all openly see your counterargument to the good data please.

Address the studies Carlos highlighted. They provided strong evidence that
mobile phones are dangerous. 

>> <snip desperate attempt at deflection>
> 
> Either you agree with the data, or you give what you consider better data.
> 
> Otherwise, nobody has refuted

I mean literally everyone here has. The fact you refuse to respond to
genuine questions means you don't understand the limitations of your own
assertions.

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

#156260

From	"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-10-04 13:36 +0200
Message-ID	<nies11F1topU9@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#156252

On 2026-10-03 11:20, Chris wrote:
> Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>>> You claiming all data is wrong
>>>
>>> Complete failure of basic comprehension.
>>
>> Let us all openly see your counterargument to the good data please.
> 
> Address the studies Carlos highlighted. They provided strong evidence that
> mobile phones are dangerous.

Indeed. Even if I wrote with humour or in jest, the links I provided are 
real serious. I just don't want to get involved myself.

> 
>>> <snip desperate attempt at deflection>
>>
>> Either you agree with the data, or you give what you consider better data.
>>
>> Otherwise, nobody has refuted
> 
> I mean literally everyone here has. The fact you refuse to respond to
> genuine questions means you don't understand the limitations of your own
> assertions.
> 
> 


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

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

#156268

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-10-04 17:05 -0300
Message-ID	<119ubil$1rpf$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156260

Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> Address the studies Carlos highlighted. They provided strong evidence that
>> mobile phones are dangerous.
> 
> Indeed. Even if I wrote with humour or in jest, the links I provided are 
> real serious. I just don't want to get involved myself.

I have never disagreed with anyone who claims something logically tenable.
Never.

In decades of being on Usenet, I never disagree with fact-based statements.
Not even once.

However, being intelligent scientists means we UNDERSTAND what was claimed.
And what was NOT claimed.

NOBODY said cell phones shouldn't have increased accidents.
Not me. Not anyone.

And yet, they didn't increase the accident rate.
That's all we said.

Those are facts.
Anyone disputing those facts is a fool because they're good data.

 *So the question is WHY didn't cellphones increase the accident rate?*

If we don't know why, then we know almost nothing about the problem set.

HINT: I gave an hypothesis for why, a decade ago, which was based on facts.
-- 
Most people fall for propaganda because they don't understand the facts.

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

#156276

From	Black Republican <black.republican@jury.duty>
Date	2026-10-05 06:35 -0400
Message-ID	<6ac37d72$0$25$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#156268

On 10/4/26 16:05, Maria Sophia wrote:

> 
>   *So the question is WHY didn't cellphones increase the accident rate?*
> 
> If we don't know why, then we know almost nothing about the problem set.
> 
> HINT: I gave an hypothesis for why, a decade ago, which was based on facts.

I suspect some people can safely drive with a cellphone in one hand and 
a double cheeseburger in the other and steer with their knees.

Other people can't seem to drive at all.

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

#156290

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-10-05 13:25 -0300
Message-ID	<11a0j1t$jlc$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156276

Black Republican wrote:
>>   *So the question is WHY didn't cellphones increase the accident rate?*
>> 
>> If we don't know why, then we know almost nothing about the problem set.
>> 
>> HINT: I gave an hypothesis for why, a decade ago, which was based on facts.
> 
> I suspect some people can safely drive with a cellphone in one hand and 
> a double cheeseburger in the other and steer with their knees.
> 
> Other people can't seem to drive at all.

That's close. People handle distractions all the time. They've been
handling thousands of distractions since the 1920s. Some better'n others.

What's one more distraction?
Try having a screaming kid in the car to learn how to handle them better.

Or, a cute girl is walking down the street just as you're supposed to make
a turn or watch out for the bicyclist on the side of the road crossing it.

The cell phone actually *lowered* the accidents in some ways, most likely
though, so that has to be accounted for in addition to causing accidents.

For example, people get advanced notice of the next turn, traffic backups,
which lane to be in, what lane to turn into, etc., so they reduced
accidents at the same time they may have contributed to accidents.

People who believe only in propaganda don't take those advantageous factors
into account when they claim that cellphones in cars is only dangerous.

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

#156223

From	Black Republican <black.republican@jury.duty>
Date	2026-10-01 06:26 -0400
Message-ID	<6abe356c$0$21$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
In reply to	#156219

Sterile Cockpit Rule - it's a thing, y'all.

AI Overview

The sterile cockpit rule is a safety regulation that requires pilots to 
limit their activities to essential flight duties and avoid 
non-essential conversations during critical phases of flight. In the 
United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced the 
formal rule in 1981 following accidents caused by crew distractions.


When the Rule Applies

• Altitude: All operations conducted below 10,000 feet (except during 
level cruise flight).

• Flight Phases: Taxiing, takeoff, landing, and all ground operations.
Prohibited Activities

• Casual, non-essential conversation or joking ("chit-chat").

• Eating meals or drinking non-essential beverages.

• Reading material, books, or newspapers unrelated to the flight.

• Using personal electronic devices, mobile phones, or tablets for 
non-operational tasks.

• Non-urgent communication from the cabin crew or company.


Permitted Activities

• Communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC).

• Running checklists and making mandatory callouts.

• Monitoring instruments, weather, and traffic.

• Emergency or safety-related communication.

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

#156048

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-09-20 13:45 +0200
Message-ID	<rjt4omxl05.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to	#155990

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

Q: Someone on internet is wrong (this is a joke ;-) )

He claims there is no proof that driving while using a phone is not
dangerous, that no data supports the prohibition of using a phone while
driving.

Can you tell me what to tell him? :-)

A: Oh, this is a beautiful opportunity for a **“citation required”**
response. 😄

The key distinction is that there are really **two claims**:

1. **“Using a phone while driving is dangerous.”** There is
substantial evidence for this.
2. **“Phone-use prohibitions demonstrably reduce crashes.”** The
evidence for the _effect of the laws themselves_ is more mixed. That
second claim should not be overstated.

For the first claim, the evidence is pretty hard to miss:

- A large naturalistic-driving study using data from **3,500 drivers
and 35 million miles of driving** found that handheld cellphone use was
associated with about **3.6× the crash risk** of ordinary driving.
Talking on a handheld phone was associated with about **2.2× the risk**,
while texting was about **6.1×**. NHTSA

{<https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

- Another analysis of the same broad naturalistic-driving dataset found
handheld-phone use significantly associated with crash involvement;
visual-manual tasks such as texting had an even stronger association. NHTSA

{<https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

- The **WHO** currently states that drivers using mobile phones are
approximately **four times more likely to be involved in a crash**, and
notes slower reaction times and poorer lane/following-distance control.
It also says hands-free phones are not much safer. World Health
Organization

{<https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

- A systematic review/meta-analysis of naturalistic-driving studies
found that phone tasks requiring drivers to look away from the
road—dialling, locating the phone, texting, etc.—increase the risk of
safety-critical events. PubMed

{<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26724505/>}
{Safety-critical event risk associated with cell phone tasks as measured
in naturalistic driving studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis }

And there's an especially amusing response to the **“there's no
data”** part: the U.S. road-safety agency NHTSA literally publishes the
underlying crash-risk estimates and cites the studies behind them. 😄
NHTSA+1

{<https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/countermeasures/legislation-and-licensing/cell?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

{<https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

### The scientifically fair comeback

You could tell him:

> **“You can argue about whether a particular phone-use law is
effective, but ‘there is no data showing phone use while driving is
dangerous’ is simply not a defensible claim. Naturalistic-driving
studies, crash analyses, systematic reviews and WHO/NHTSA evidence all
find substantially elevated crash risk. The interesting debate is about
which laws reduce that risk most effectively—not whether the underlying
distraction exists.”**

And if you want the **slightly more internet-y version**:

> **“My brother in Christ, the data exists. 😄 NHTSA's
naturalistic-driving data puts handheld-phone use at \~3.6× crash risk,
talking at \~2.2×, and texting at \~6.1×. WHO says roughly 4× overall.
You can debate whether a particular prohibition works—that evidence is
considerably messier—but ‘no data’ is doing some heroic lifting
there.”** NHTSA+1

{<https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures-that-work/distracted-driving/understanding-problem?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

{<https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries?utm_source=chatgpt.com>}

One important caveat, though: **don't let him successfully change the
subject from “is phone use dangerous?” to “do phone bans reduce
crashes?”** Those are different empirical questions. A systematic review
of 32 studies found the evidence for _penalties/laws_ was weaker and
somewhat inconsistent, although it pointed toward reductions in phone
use and potentially fatalities from some types of bans. PubMed

{<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32229534/>}

So, annoyingly for both sides of an internet argument, the
intellectually honest position is: **the danger is very well supported;
the effectiveness of any particular prohibition is a separate and more
complicated empirical question.** 😄

--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

Page 5 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

#156125

#156129

#156131

#156135

#156137

#156205

#156207

#156212

#156213

#156219

#156222

#156232

#156233

#156252

#156260

#156268

#156276

#156290

#156223

#156048