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	2026-09-26 15:18 +0000
Articles	20 on this page of 118 — 21 participants

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

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

#156147

From	bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net>
Date	2026-09-25 07:41 -0400
Message-ID	<pwCdnepCcvVKwCv3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#156128

On 9/24/26 6:32 AM, Black Republican wrote:
> On 9/23/26 17:45, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> There's no doubt that distractions cause a minor number of accidents.
>> I don't think anyone doubts that, but what's the major cause of 
>> accidents?
>>   a. Speeding
>>   b. Intoxication
>>   c. Failure to yield
> 
> d. spike protein
> 
> 
> Turns out spike protein causes organ damage. The brain is an organ. You 
> do the math.
> 

Culture has a lot to do with it too, another brain function.

"Between 2011 and 2021, U.S. traffic fatalities surged by roughly 33%, 
while Canada experienced an 18% decline"

I've driven many times over 1000 clicks without hearing a single horn 
and without seeing anyone block a badly planned merge just because the 
*monkey had the right of way*. U-tube is full of such Darwin laureates! 
Defensive driving is a science and an art, it means not being involved 
in an accident even if someone wants to provoke one. Nor do you drive 
like you were on a F1 circuit because all kinds of people use the roads; 
some with only one eye, some with bad legs, some just returning from the 
funeral of a loved one, some from the doctor's with the worst possible 
news to digest.....

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

#156148

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-25 20:01 +0530
Message-ID	<11960jo$1983$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156147

bad sector wrote:
> Culture has a lot to do with it too, another brain function.
> 
> "Between 2011 and 2021, U.S. traffic fatalities surged by roughly 33%, 
> while Canada experienced an 18% decline"
> 
> I've driven many times over 1000 clicks without hearing a single horn 
> and without seeing anyone block a badly planned merge just because the 
> *monkey had the right of way*. U-tube is full of such Darwin laureates! 
> Defensive driving is a science and an art, it means not being involved 
> in an accident even if someone wants to provoke one. Nor do you drive 
> like you were on a F1 circuit because all kinds of people use the roads; 
> some with only one eye, some with bad legs, some just returning from the 
> funeral of a loved one, some from the doctor's with the worst possible 
> news to digest.....

My main point has been made which is that people parrot propaganda without
bothering to understand that the propaganda is simply religious zealotry.

The main cause of accidents has always been the same, which is mostly
 a. Speeding
 b. Intoxication
 c. Failure to yield

We'd all intuit that cell phones added another distraction to the thousands
of existing distractions, so naturally we'd all posit that the accident
rate should have spiked when cellphones were introduced due to what is
emotionally publicized by the entities who have a bias in their propaganda
 a. law firms
 b. political figures
 c. insurance companies
 d. news media (e.g., man bites dog is more interesting than dog bites man)

So the fact the accident rate didn't even show a blip, and, in fact, the
accident rate fell on the same level it has been falling, tell us much?

Of course, it tells us that distracted driving isn't the cause of most
accidents, and, anyone logical already inherently understands we handle
thousands of distractions, so adding one more may or may not be meaningful.

But what it really tells us is that most people simply parrot propaganda.
They don't understand that which they parrot.

If it sounds intuitive, they parrot it forever... without even thinking.

They even begin to believe the propaganda, and worse, they begin to
viciously defend propaganda to the death, no matter what, facts be damned.

That's religion.
That's marketing.
That's political slogans.

What does this proven observation then tell us about the nature of people?

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

#156001

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-18 07:40 +0000
Message-ID	<118iptv$12evt$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#155990

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?

Oh god! Not this again...

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.

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

#156002

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-18 10:58 +0300
Message-ID	<118iquo$kp0$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156001

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]

#156034

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-19 13:11 +0000
Message-ID	<118m1l4$2879u$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156002

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> 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.

Your hypothesis is that mobile/smartphone adoption by the general
population has had no effect on the US car accident rate. That's your null
hypothesis. In order to reject the null - under the NHST - and accept the
alternative (i.e. mobiles to affect the accident rate) you need to find
data that compares driving with a mobile vs driving without a mobile
*whilst keeping all variables constant*. 

Does that data exist? And where?

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

That's not stronger. Only different as this is a temporal assessment of
change not a binary one that your overall premise expects. 

This test requires different data, but also requires that other potentially
confounding factors are controlled. 

Does this data exist? And where?

Please answer directly to this post so we can all the information
consistently in one place.

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

#156005

From	Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com>
Date	2026-09-18 16:23 +0800
Message-ID	<118ise9$13b4l$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#155990

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.
> 

Familiar to what interface? Apple? Stock Android? Samsung? Nothing Phone?

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

#156011

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-18 18:07 +0300
Message-ID	<118jk33$l5e$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156005

Woozy Song 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.
>> 
> 
> Familiar to what interface? Apple? Stock Android? Samsung? Nothing Phone?

Hi Woozy Song,

Thanks for asking about that thread on beat sonic device screen mirroring.

While that thread talked about all the cellphone-to-dashboard automotive
methods, mirroring of the exact phone on the dash should be familiar to the
phone owner, since it's his/her phone that is being mirrored exactly.
 <https://www.beatsonicusa.com/collections/smartphone-mirroring-system>
 <https://www.podofo.com/>
 <https://www.atotodirect.com/>
 <https://carlinkitcarplay.com/>
 <https://naviks.com/?> 
 <https://gromaudio.com/> 
 etc.

Like this mirroring I do every day, all day, to operate my iOS and Android
devices using the PC keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers & clipboard.
 <https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring

It's familiar because it's literally the driver's exact phone on the dash.

Just as it's my exact phone about two feet tall on my monitor in this shot.
<https://i.postimg.cc/tgvzsMRm/scrcpy25.jpg> Connect over Wi-Fi sans USB

But this thread is designed to make people think about why there is no
change in the accident rate in USA records which have been dutifully
collected every year for every state for just a bit over a century.

For anyone to claim those well-respected records are "cherry picked",
without providing any corollary records, is just a religious gripe.

What they're really saying is they hate the facts because those facts don't
line up with their religious beliefs about cellphone use while driving.

The goal in this thread will be clear, where it is obvious I'm the only one
who is actually providing facts (with cites, links, assessments & data).

The rest are clinging to their religious beliefs, which they feel, because
they're religious, they can't be proven wrong when they claim all facts
about cellphone use while driving must only come from biased propaganda.

I prefer the government data that has been collected for over a century.
 The number of accidents divided by the number of miles = accident rate

If cellphone use had *any* effect whatsoever, our hypothesis would be that
there should be a spike or jump in the accident rate during those years.
 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

The data is convincing. But religious zealots won't be swayed by facts.
Propaganda is a well-known ferociously fierce competition to science.
-- 
Usenet works because knowledgeable people take the time to help others.

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

#156012

From	AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Date	2026-09-18 10:18 -0500
Message-ID	<118jko1$1dd91$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156011

On 9/18/2026 10:07 AM, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Woozy Song 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.
>>>
>>
>> Familiar to what interface? Apple? Stock Android? Samsung? Nothing Phone?
> 
> Hi Woozy Song,
> 
> Thanks for asking about that thread on beat sonic device screen mirroring.
> 
> While that thread talked about all the cellphone-to-dashboard automotive
> methods, mirroring of the exact phone on the dash should be familiar to the
> phone owner, since it's his/her phone that is being mirrored exactly.
>   <https://www.beatsonicusa.com/collections/smartphone-mirroring-system>
>   <https://www.podofo.com/>
>   <https://www.atotodirect.com/>
>   <https://carlinkitcarplay.com/>
>   <https://naviks.com/?>
>   <https://gromaudio.com/>
>   etc.
> 
> Like this mirroring I do every day, all day, to operate my iOS and Android
> devices using the PC keyboard, mouse, monitor, speakers & clipboard.
>   <https://i.postimg.cc/k5gv0yw8/vysor34.jpg> Apple iOS & Android mirroring
> 
> It's familiar because it's literally the driver's exact phone on the dash.
> 
> Just as it's my exact phone about two feet tall on my monitor in this shot.
> <https://i.postimg.cc/tgvzsMRm/scrcpy25.jpg> Connect over Wi-Fi sans USB
> 
> But this thread is designed to make people think about why there is no
> change in the accident rate in USA records which have been dutifully
> collected every year for every state for just a bit over a century.
> 
> For anyone to claim those well-respected records are "cherry picked",
> without providing any corollary records, is just a religious gripe.
> 
> What they're really saying is they hate the facts because those facts don't
> line up with their religious beliefs about cellphone use while driving.
> 
> The goal in this thread will be clear, where it is obvious I'm the only one
> who is actually providing facts (with cites, links, assessments & data).
> 
> The rest are clinging to their religious beliefs, which they feel, because
> they're religious, they can't be proven wrong when they claim all facts
> about cellphone use while driving must only come from biased propaganda.
> 
> I prefer the government data that has been collected for over a century.
>   The number of accidents divided by the number of miles = accident rate
> 
> If cellphone use had *any* effect whatsoever, our hypothesis would be that
> there should be a spike or jump in the accident rate during those years.
>   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
> 
> The data is convincing. But religious zealots won't be swayed by facts.
> Propaganda is a well-known ferociously fierce competition to science.


Please explain the improvement in driver awareness, reaction 
time and overall safety on the public roads when changing 
from playing a video game on a telephone to playing a video 
game on the dash console.

If there's some advantage there, it escapes me.

Ditto for movies, porn and hot texting battles.

-- 
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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

#156017

From	kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Date	2026-09-18 14:44 -0400
Message-ID	<118k0q5$fe6$1@panix2.panix.com>
In reply to	#156012

In article <118jko1$1dd91$2@dont-email.me>, AMuzi  <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>Please explain the improvement in driver awareness, reaction 
>time and overall safety on the public roads when changing 
>from playing a video game on a telephone to playing a video 
>game on the dash console.

People are experts at multitasking.  They have no problem having one hand
on the wheel, one hand holding their sandwich, and one hand on their beer.
It's all perfectly safe.  So how could anyone possibly be at risk just because
they are paying attention to the person on Facebook whose political beliefs
are clearly wrong instead of to the road?  The road can take care of itself.
And turn signals?  Those other people have no business knowing where you're
going.  They should keep to themselves.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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

#156020

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-19 00:11 +0300
Message-ID	<118k9dj$1k82$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156017

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>Please explain the improvement in driver awareness, reaction 
>>time and overall safety on the public roads when changing 
>>from playing a video game on a telephone to playing a video 
>>game on the dash console.
> 
> People are experts at multitasking.  They have no problem having one hand
> on the wheel, one hand holding their sandwich, and one hand on their beer.
> It's all perfectly safe.  So how could anyone possibly be at risk just because
> they are paying attention to the person on Facebook whose political beliefs
> are clearly wrong instead of to the road?  The road can take care of itself.
> And turn signals?  Those other people have no business knowing where you're
> going.  They should keep to themselves.

Hi Scott,
I wonder if you even realize how absurd your argument is, to a scientist?
You're attempting to ridicule your absurd distortion of the argument.

That's called beating a strawman.
And claiming victory.

Stop it.
Be scientific please.

 a. You claim cellphones are a distraction (and they are)
 b. Out of, oh, there are about a hundred the government listed
 c. And then you claim, unilaterally, it's NUMBER ONE in that hundred????
 d. When, clearly, it's not???? WTF?
 e. Worse, you seem to claim distractions are the ONLY cause of accidents!
    WTF? Not speed? Not drunken driving? WTF? 

Who makes such absurd arguments by ridiculing the facts? 
No scientist would say what you just said, Scott. None.

Cellphones are not the major cause of accidents.
They're not even the major distraction in accidents, in fact.

It's not even in the top ten for God's sake.

People have been handling distractions while driving since driving started.
What's different now?

What is the claim that people are making here given nobody is claiming
there aren't a zillion distractions while driving that everyone feels.

We covered, years ago, all the major distractions (there were about 100).

Cellphones barely made the top ten, and then it depended, as others have
said, on what the driver was doing with the cell phone at any given time.

If cellphone use had *any* effect whatsoever, our hypothesis would be that
there should be a spike or jump in the accident rate during those years.
 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

Nobody ever said cell phones aren't one of the hundreds of distractions.
What is your claim about the accident rate changes during that period? 

The accident rate is the number of accidents divided by miles driven.
 a. FHWA gives annual USA vehicle-mile-traveled from 1900 through 2024.
 b. That's our denominator.
 c. NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES) began in 1988 and was 
    specifically designed to estimate the number of USA police-reported
    motor-vehicle crashes that had any damage or injury. 
 d. That's our numerator.

This is good data. 
It's not cherry picked.

What do YOU think it tells us about crashes during the cellphone period?
-- 
Most people know so little science they can't understand an hypothesis.

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

#156023

From	Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>
Date	2026-09-19 00:08 +0100
Message-ID	<118kg8l$1no1g$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156020

On 2026-09-18, Maria Sophia wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>Please explain the improvement in driver awareness, reaction 
>>>time and overall safety on the public roads when changing 
>>>from playing a video game on a telephone to playing a video 
>>>game on the dash console.
>> 
>> People are experts at multitasking.  They have no problem having one hand
>> on the wheel, one hand holding their sandwich, and one hand on their beer.
>> It's all perfectly safe.  So how could anyone possibly be at risk just because
>> they are paying attention to the person on Facebook whose political beliefs
>> are clearly wrong instead of to the road?  The road can take care of itself.
>> And turn signals?  Those other people have no business knowing where you're
>> going.  They should keep to themselves.
>
> Hi Scott,
> I wonder if you even realize how absurd your argument is, to a scientist?
> You're attempting to ridicule your absurd distortion of the argument.
>
> That's called beating a strawman.
> And claiming victory.

If anything, I believe it's called reductio ad absurdum.

<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SPmxsRDSmTc/maxresdefault.jpg> and
<https://enwp.org/WP:SARC> may also apply.

>
> Stop it.
> Be scientific please.
>
>  a. You claim cellphones are a distraction (and they are)
>  b. Out of, oh, there are about a hundred the government listed
>  c. And then you claim, unilaterally, it's NUMBER ONE in that hundred????
>  d. When, clearly, it's not???? WTF?
>  e. Worse, you seem to claim distractions are the ONLY cause of accidents!
>     WTF? Not speed? Not drunken driving? WTF? 
>
> Who makes such absurd arguments by ridiculing the facts? 
> No scientist would say what you just said, Scott. None.

Yeah, because no scientist would use sarcasm, ever.

> Cellphones are not the major cause of accidents.
> They're not even the major distraction in accidents, in fact.
>
> It's not even in the top ten for God's sake.
>
> People have been handling distractions while driving since driving started.
> What's different now?

The history of driving went through different stages, especially before
lobbies to give cars priority, and before advances in achievable speed,
so variation is so much that trying to argue something like "since
driving started" looks blatantly wrong. You're either making it up or
you're ignoring essential details, because when driving started it was
in no way like it's today.

And then even today you have different driving settings, you have
segregated motorways where you can assume simplifications in the
environment, and you have the other settings with other road users than
vehicles, and with vehicles having to yield. So even sticking to current
times making absolute statements about this reeks of it not being
factually correct.

> What is the claim that people are making here given nobody is claiming
> there aren't a zillion distractions while driving that everyone feels.
>
> We covered, years ago, all the major distractions (there were about 100).
>
> Cellphones barely made the top ten, and then it depended, as others have
> said, on what the driver was doing with the cell phone at any given
> time.

Maybe hold yourself to the same standard you hold others at
comp.mobile.android and stop talking so much before you show concrete,
reliable references with data you can base this on.

> If cellphone use had *any* effect whatsoever, our hypothesis would be that
> there should be a spike or jump in the accident rate during those years.
>  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

First, these reference-less numbers need to be contextualized in the
driving population. Can you assume there was an increase in the same
proportion among drivers? Why?

Second, this assumes cell phones didn't replace anything else. If they
did replace other sources of distractions (magazines? radio? smoking?
eating?), the numbers might not change much.

Third, it looks to me you also need to look at when phones started being
widely usable to do more than just calls and texts, and look for
variations there too.

>
> Nobody ever said cell phones aren't one of the hundreds of distractions.
> What is your claim about the accident rate changes during that period? 
>
> The accident rate is the number of accidents divided by miles driven.
>  a. FHWA gives annual USA vehicle-mile-traveled from 1900 through 2024.
>  b. That's our denominator.
>  c. NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES) began in 1988 and was 
>     specifically designed to estimate the number of USA police-reported
>     motor-vehicle crashes that had any damage or injury. 
>  d. That's our numerator.
>
> This is good data. 
> It's not cherry picked.
>
> What do YOU think it tells us about crashes during the cellphone period?

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#156035

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-19 13:11 +0000
Message-ID	<118m1mo$2879u$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156023

Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-09-18, Maria Sophia wrote:
> 
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Please explain the improvement in driver awareness, reaction 
>>>> time and overall safety on the public roads when changing 
>>>> from playing a video game on a telephone to playing a video 
>>>> game on the dash console.
>>> 
>>> People are experts at multitasking.  They have no problem having one hand
>>> on the wheel, one hand holding their sandwich, and one hand on their beer.
>>> It's all perfectly safe.  So how could anyone possibly be at risk just because
>>> they are paying attention to the person on Facebook whose political beliefs
>>> are clearly wrong instead of to the road?  The road can take care of itself.
>>> And turn signals?  Those other people have no business knowing where you're
>>> going.  They should keep to themselves.
>> 
>> Hi Scott,
>> I wonder if you even realize how absurd your argument is, to a scientist?
>> You're attempting to ridicule your absurd distortion of the argument.
>> 
>> That's called beating a strawman.
>> And claiming victory.
> 
> If anything, I believe it's called reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> <https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SPmxsRDSmTc/maxresdefault.jpg> and
> <https://enwp.org/WP:SARC> may also apply.
> 
>> 
>> Stop it.
>> Be scientific please.
>> 
>> a. You claim cellphones are a distraction (and they are)
>> b. Out of, oh, there are about a hundred the government listed
>> c. And then you claim, unilaterally, it's NUMBER ONE in that hundred????
>> d. When, clearly, it's not???? WTF?
>> e. Worse, you seem to claim distractions are the ONLY cause of accidents!
>> WTF? Not speed? Not drunken driving? WTF? 
>> 
>> Who makes such absurd arguments by ridiculing the facts? 
>> No scientist would say what you just said, Scott. None.
> 
> Yeah, because no scientist would use sarcasm, ever.

Can confirm. Am on way back home following a couple of weeks of conferences
and scientific meetings. No sarcasm nor irony used at any time. Nuh-uh.

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

#156085

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-21 13:05 +0300
Message-ID	<118qvh6$26ot$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156035

David Higton wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> > If cellphone use "caused" accidents, why are there no consistent
>>> > increase in accidents in the USA (where the data is good) during the
>>> > years that cellphone ownership skyrocketed from 0% to nearly 100% while
>>> > driving?
>>> 
>>> Data in Europe contradicts you, and it is forbidden to touch the phone 
>>> while driving. Even touching the GPS device is prohibited, with serious 
>>> sanctions. All backed by hard data.
>> 
>> Hi Carlos,
>> 
>> If you have the data, I'll take a look, but I don't need you to look
>> because I searched extensively years ago, and that data didn't change.
>> 
>> We went through all the data at the time, where I do agree that, in the UK,
>> surprisingly, supposedly the "evidence" showed an uptick in accident rates.
>> 
>> However, in the USA there was decidedly no uptick in accident rates, which
>> is the point, since the USA has kept excellent data since the 1920s.
> 
> You're looking at it from the wrong direction.
> 
> It's very difficult to ascribe a change in rates of anything like this
> where there are multiple causes.  You would have to remove all the
> confounding factors.  It's pretty much impossible in the case of road
> accidents.
> 
> What is very clear, though, is that significant numbers of accidents
> are caused by drivers who are distracted by their mobile phones.  There
> have been so many in the UK alone.  I find it distressing to read about
> them in the news, and even more distressing to see in-vehicle video
> leading up to the point just before what would have been a horrific
> accident.
> 
> You can count me as a firm supporter of the laws against use of mobile
> phones while driving.

Hi David,

I live in California where I'm familiar with the nanny state mindset.

We can't even buy real windshield wiper fluid where I live. 
It's illegal (because of the VOCs).

But back to your point, you're likely the only one out of a dozen
respondents or so, who looked at this from the standpoint of logic.

Everyone else looked at it purely emotionally, as in "My sister's best
friend's mother was hit by a guy using a cellphone while driving".

1. Note that I never once said cellphones aren't a distraction.
2. I never once said cellphones aren't an added distraction.
3. And I never once said distractions don't cause a number of accidents.

But do you know what is the major cause of accidents?

HINT: It's not even close... 

What I said was if people test their hypothesis that the skyrocketing
cellphone ownership rates caused a spike in the USA accident rate (where
good data has been collected for more than a century), they won't find it.

What I'm asking people to do is think.
Think about the propaganda and check it against the data.

That's all I'm, asking people to do.
Instead of taking everything on religious faith, look at it like science.

Instead of parroting that "premium gas makes my Honda Civic more powerful",
think about what an octane rating really means.

Instead of parroting that "orbiting astronauts are weightless", think about
where weight comes from, even as gravity itself is not a true force.

Instead of parroting that scuba divers "breathe oxygen a <100 foot depths",
think about the known toxicity of oxygen at those pressures.

My point is that people parrot what sounds believable to them, but they
don't bother to check if what they're parroting has any basis in science.

What do you think the major cause of accidents is, anyway?
HINT: It's not distractions. 
-- 
Only after you compare the claims versus the data do you know the answer.

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

#156021

From	Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid>
Date	2026-09-18 23:03 +0100
Message-ID	<nh5qpsFint2U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#155990

On 17/09/2026 22:28, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?

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.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

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

#156022

From	Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Date	2026-09-19 10:08 +1200
Message-ID	<118kcp4$1n4u6$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156021

On 2026-09-18 22:03:40 +0000, Brian Gregory said:
> On 17/09/2026 22:28, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
> 
> 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.  :-(

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

#156024

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-19 02:35 +0300
Message-ID	<118khr3$1ekk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156022

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 � FHWA 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... 
-- 
Most people believe whatever the propaganda is that is fed to them	.

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

#156029

From	Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid>
Date	2026-09-19 04:51 +0100
Message-ID	<nh6f69FlreiU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#156024

On 19/09/2026 00:35, Maria Sophia wrote:
> 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?

But you can't just assume no other factor.
Why would you think you could??

How can you possibly say that as mobile phones gradually became more 
popular other factors weren't, at the same time, reducing the accident rate?

You can't, well not unless you're stupid anyway.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

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

#156030

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-19 07:02 +0300
Message-ID	<118l1hi$2slo$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156029

Brian Gregory wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> But you can't just assume no other factor.
> Why would you think you could??
> 
> How can you possibly say that as mobile phones gradually became more 
> popular other factors weren't, at the same time, reducing the accident rate?

I agree. 
      Your God works in mysterious ways that even you, can't explain.

But you still believe very deeply in your staid religious views, don't you. 
      But, where's your data? 

Let's look at it. 
      What are you claiming happens to all your missing accidents? 

Maybe aliens took them?

HINT: The spike in accident rates you claim, simply never existed.
      You made it up.
-- 
People with religious views always claim God works in mysterious ways.

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

#156032

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-19 09:28 +0000
Message-ID	<118lkke$22r2v$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156030

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> 
> HINT: The spike in accident rates you claim, simply never existed.
>       You made it up.

HINT: that's *your* strawman argument. You still haven't fully evidenced
your actual argument in a single post. As per usual you scattergun your
information across multiple making it very difficult to follow your thought
process.

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

#156055

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-20 22:58 +0300
Message-ID	<118pdt0$30cb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156032

Chris wrote:
> Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
>> 
>> HINT: The spike in accident rates you claim, simply never existed.
>>       You made it up.
> 
> HINT: that's *your* strawman argument. You still haven't fully evidenced
> your actual argument in a single post. As per usual you scattergun your
> information across multiple making it very difficult to follow your thought
> process.

Hi Chris,

I certainly know the answer to the question that I posed in this thread.
I knew it a decade ago. 

Why? 
Because I can think. I can do research. I can look up the data.

So I knew cellphones had zero measurable effect on accident rate.

So why did I make the thread, again, after ten more years of data?
I am making a very clear point that nobody who responded knows it.

The hypothesis of most people is premium gasoline gives their Honda Civic
more power, just because of the propaganda they parrot that they're fed.

Likewise, people parrot the incorrect information that astronauts are
'weightless' in space, right, or, that gravity is a force, right?

Why?
I know why.

People don't think.
If it "sounds" plausible, they believe it.

Most people got C's or maybe B's in school because they couldn't think.
Most people simply do not own the mental capacity to think things through.

So most people believe all the bullshit that a politician or marketing
spiel tells them to believe - and they don't even *think* to question it.

That's one reason I love the Mythbusters TV series, as they tested them.
Who knew, for example, that a lit cigarette doesn't light a puddle of gas.

That's the problem here.

Most people are claiming that, by Golly, since cellphone use rocketed up
during only a handful of years, accidents *must* have followed the trend.

And yet, they didn't.

HINT: I'll bring this up, again, a decade from now, and guess what... 
      Nobody will have learned a damn thing. That's rather sad.
-- 
To comprehend good posts requires a modicum of adult cognitive skills.

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

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

csiph-web

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

Contents

#156147

#156148

#156001

#156002

#156034

#156005

#156011

#156012

#156017

#156020

#156023

#156035

#156085

#156021

#156022

#156024

#156029

#156030

#156032

#156055