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

#156056

From	AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Date	2026-09-20 15:05 -0500
Message-ID	<118peaa$3e4m0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156055

On 9/20/2026 2:58 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
> 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.


Gravity is a indeed a force:

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-fundamental-forces-of-physics-2699070

Gravity
Electromagnetism
Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

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

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

#156078

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-21 12:28 +0300
Message-ID	<118qtb5$asd$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156056

AMuzi wrote:
> Gravity is a indeed a force:
> 
> https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-fundamental-forces-of-physics-2699070
> 
> Gravity
> Electromagnetism
> Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
> Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for trying to discuss, appropriately, whether gravity is a force.

People who only know about Newtonian physics and laypeople who don't know
anything about science would say that Gravity is a force, so I don't blame
you, but since about 1916, scientists have know gravity is NOT a force.

I only brought up that fact because my point about cellphones is that
almost nobody on these newsgroups knows anything about science so they
actually believe the propaganda about cellphones without checking it.

It's the same with people believing we breathe oxygen when doing a typical
<100 foot deep scuba dive, as it just seems to them it must be oxygen, even
as oxygen, alone, would be toxic once we get to any reasonable depth.

People don't think.
People have no concept of science.

It's why people parrot the propaganda that cellphones are a distraction
(and they are) and they're an added distraction (which they are) and
therefore, the accident rate must have skyrocketed simply because there's
anecdotal evidence of accidents caused by people using a cellphone while
driving (and there is).

But people are basically stupid.
They have no concept of what actually causes accidents.

Nor in what magnitude.

Back to gravity is NOT a force, while that's NOT the intent of this thread
to prove it, I simply typed "gravity is a force" into Google for you.
 <https://www.google.com/search?q=is+gravity+a+force>

 *Why is gravity not a real force?*
 <https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2022/08/05/why-is-gravity-not-a-real-force/>

My point isn't to teach people basic physics. 
My point is people don't think.

People don't question belief systems if everyone around them has them.
That's why religion endures.

-- 
Most people substitute religious thinking when they can't handle science.

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

#156074

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-21 07:09 +0000
Message-ID	<118ql71$3p71b$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156055

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

If you know it so well it would be very easy for you to evidence it
irrefutably. Which you've yet to do this time and also every other time you
bring this up.

Why? Because it doesn't exist.

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

Your attempts to make yourself sound like an authority just come across as
the boasts of a weak man. 

I invite you to respond to my experimental design questions and also
Carlos's very pertinent ChatGPT clear answers to your intentionally false
claims.

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

#156077

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-21 12:20 +0300
Message-ID	<118qssi$201j$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156074

Chris wrote:
>> I certainly know the answer to the question that I posed in this thread.
>> I knew it a decade ago. 
> 
> If you know it so well it would be very easy for you to evidence it
> irrefutably. Which you've yet to do this time and also every other time you
> bring this up.
> 
> Why? Because it doesn't exist.

Jesus Christ, Chris. Seriously. Have you no decency? I gave you the facts!

I get it you're from the iOS group so you think denying all facts makes
them go away, but I posted the evidence in this group, Read the thread.

Yes. It's boring. Not a single emoji. No 'bold new colors' either. 
But I provided the statistics and the links to where they came from.
 1. Cellphone ownership rates
 2. Miles driven
 3. Accidents

Accidents divided by miles driven over the period of cellphone
skyrocketing, and there are no changes whatsoever in the rate.

I explained my hypothesis and the data supports it.
You invented accident rates which don't exist. Now support that.

Don't support it by NOT looking at the data and saying it doesn't exist.
That's what Apple posters do all the time on the Apple newsgroups, Chris.

>> Why? 
>> Because I can think. I can do research. I can look up the data.
> 
> Your attempts to make yourself sound like an authority just come across as
> the boasts of a weak man. 
> 
> I invite you to respond to my experimental design questions and also
> Carlos's very pertinent ChatGPT clear answers to your intentionally false
> claims.

Oh my God, Chris. I get it you are from an iOS group but what Carlos posted
had absolutely nothing to do with hte statistics that I had presented.

If Carlos had pasted those statistics and their references into his vaunted
LLM and then posted the response, it may actually have taught him somthing.

But Carlos just asked chatGPT jokes.
Let's see what Carlos finds when he posts the figures asking the LLM:

 Q: Here is the statistics posted to Usenet. Are they correct? 
 A: (then what Carlos posts, which are not jokes, would be useful)
-- 
Most people have no capacity to question the propaganda that they parrot.

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

#156097

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-21 21:00 +0000
Message-ID	<118s5t2$b0bs$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156077

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>> I certainly know the answer to the question that I posed in this thread.
>>> I knew it a decade ago. 
>> 
>> If you know it so well it would be very easy for you to evidence it
>> irrefutably. Which you've yet to do this time and also every other time you
>> bring this up.
>> 
>> Why? Because it doesn't exist.
> 
> Jesus Christ, Chris. Seriously. Have you no decency? I gave you the facts!
> 
> I get it you're from the iOS group so you think denying all facts makes
> them go away, but I posted the evidence in this group, Read the thread.
> 
> Yes. It's boring. Not a single emoji. No 'bold new colors' either. 
> But I provided the statistics and the links to where they came from.
>  1. Cellphone ownership rates
>  2. Miles driven
>  3. Accidents
> 
> Accidents divided by miles driven over the period of cellphone
> skyrocketing, and there are no changes whatsoever in the rate.
> 
> I explained my hypothesis and the data supports it.
> You invented accident rates which don't exist. Now support that.
> 
> Don't support it by NOT looking at the data and saying it doesn't exist.
> That's what Apple posters do all the time on the Apple newsgroups, Chris.
> 
>>> Why? 
>>> Because I can think. I can do research. I can look up the data.
>> 
>> Your attempts to make yourself sound like an authority just come across as
>> the boasts of a weak man. 
>> 
>> I invite you to respond to my experimental design questions and also
>> Carlos's very pertinent ChatGPT clear answers to your intentionally false
>> claims.
> 
> Oh my God, Chris. I get it you are from an iOS group 

Why are you hiding behind ad hominems?

What does "being from an iOS group" even mean? If you don't want a response
from people who subscribe to ios (Ed. iphone actually) ngs you shouldn't
post in them. 

>  
>  Q: Here is the statistics posted to Usenet. Are they correct? 

It's got nothing to do with whether the "statistics" (sic) are correct or
not, it's what you're trying to infer from them that matters. 

State explicitly what the question at hand is. The CharGPT response is
correct in that you're trying to conflate two different things. Pick one.
Then, Explain clearly in terms of scientific methodology why the data
you've chosen is appropriate to the question and why you think a
correlation (or otherwise) is the best way to answer the question.

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

#156102

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-22 14:31 +1300
Message-ID	<118slpo$18ti$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156097

Chris wrote:
> State explicitly what the question at hand is.

The question is WHY do people claim cellphones increased the accident rate.

The answer was provided in this thread.
They simply made up accident rates that never existed.

Now, the question is WHY they made up those accident rates.
That, we don't know yet.

But I do know why cellphones didn't increase the accident rate.
Do you?

HINT: The accident rate is a function of what causes accidents the most.
And cellphones aren't even on the list of what causes most accidents.

Do you even know what causes most accidents, Chris? 
I do.

HINT: It's not distractions... bit it's something big. Really really big.
-- 
Most people have no knowledge of perspective so their decisions are bad.

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

#156110

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-22 08:32 +0000
Message-ID	<118teen$mjd2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156102

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> State explicitly what the question at hand is.
> 
> The question is WHY do people claim cellphones increased the accident rate.

No-one has said that. You've put that up as a strawman argument.

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

#156114

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-23 06:26 +1400
Message-ID	<118ua7v$17fv$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156110

Chris wrote:
>>> State explicitly what the question at hand is.
>> 
>> The question is WHY do people claim cellphones increased the accident rate.
> 
> No-one has said that. You've put that up as a strawman argument.

Hi Chris,

First off, you claimed the question is unknown when it's in the SUBJECT
line for God's sake, so you can't possibly have been serious in asking.

But even so, people claimed the data was bad, even as there isn't a
professional on the planet who doubts the USA accident rate data, Chris.

The problem is people believe only in the emotionally charged propaganda.
This is the point I'm making.

People religiously parrot the bullshit propaganda w/o thinking about it.
-- 
Most people don't own the mental acuity to separate propaganda from fact.

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

#156119

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-23 06:47 +0000
Message-ID	<118vsl7$1giff$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156114

Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>>>> State explicitly what the question at hand is.
>>> 
>>> The question is WHY do people claim cellphones increased the accident rate.
>> 
>> No-one has said that. You've put that up as a strawman argument.
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> First off, you claimed the question is unknown

No I didn't. 

> when it's in the SUBJECT
> line for God's sake, so you can't possibly have been serious in asking.

As I said elsewhere you're making multiple claims. If you were actually
wanting an answer you'd be specific. I know that's a big "if". 

> But even so, people claimed the data was bad, 

No-one had claim that. 

Yet another one of your straw men.

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

#156120

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-23 21:35 +1000
Message-ID	<1190dht$2qsb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156119

Chris wrote:
>> when it's in the SUBJECT
>> line for God's sake, so you can't possibly have been serious in asking.
> 
> As I said elsewhere you're making multiple claims. If you were actually
> wanting an answer you'd be specific. I know that's a big "if". 

The question is all about intelligence, Chris. 
Thinking.

I repeat, Chris, very obviously, that the topic is in the subject line.

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

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

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

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

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

#156036

From	AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Date	2026-09-19 09:04 -0500
Message-ID	<118m4p2$29rj8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156030

On 9/18/2026 11:02 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
> 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.

Frequent logical gap to an unsupported conclusion.

USA has world-high rates of autism in children. USA also had 
very high rates of childhood vaccination. Some people infer 
a link but such may or may not actually be causal.  This is 
as yet unknown; maybe, but maybe not.

Telephones _may_ cause driver incompetence when attention 
becomes critical and inattention fatal. This _may_ be 
largely offset by population level better driving habits and 
_perhaps_ by wider adoption of safety equipment (air bags 
and such).  There _may_ well be a significant difference 
between use of audio (telephone or radio) and direct visual 
engagement (games, movies, porn, texting, video telephone 
calls)  with a screen (telephone or car console).

Or none of that might be significant. I don't know and you 
don't either.

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

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

#156037

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-19 14:12 +0000
Message-ID	<118m58v$2a1q0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156036

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 9/18/2026 11:02 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Frequent logical gap to an unsupported conclusion.
> 
> USA has world-high rates of autism in children. USA also had 
> very high rates of childhood vaccination. Some people infer 
> a link but such may or may not actually be causal.  This is 
> as yet unknown; maybe, but maybe not.

It absolutely is known. It has been tested and retested many times. There
is no evidence that any vaccine causes autism in children.

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

#156041

From	AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Date	2026-09-19 11:24 -0500
Message-ID	<118md02$2dni8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156037

On 9/19/2026 9:12 AM, Chris wrote:
> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2026 11:02 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Frequent logical gap to an unsupported conclusion.
>>
>> USA has world-high rates of autism in children. USA also had
>> very high rates of childhood vaccination. Some people infer
>> a link but such may or may not actually be causal.  This is
>> as yet unknown; maybe, but maybe not.
> 
> It absolutely is known. It has been tested and retested many times. There
> is no evidence that any vaccine causes autism in children.
> 
> 

I happen to agree with you on that, but just as the 
telephones-in-autos example, absence of evidence is not 
evidence of absence.

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

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

#156046

From	Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Date	2026-09-19 22:18 +0000
Message-ID	<118n1n3$2l6po$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156041

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 9/19/2026 9:12 AM, Chris wrote:
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 9/18/2026 11:02 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> Frequent logical gap to an unsupported conclusion.
>>> 
>>> USA has world-high rates of autism in children. USA also had
>>> very high rates of childhood vaccination. Some people infer
>>> a link but such may or may not actually be causal.  This is
>>> as yet unknown; maybe, but maybe not.
>> 
>> It absolutely is known. It has been tested and retested many times. There
>> is no evidence that any vaccine causes autism in children.
>> 
>> 
> 
> I happen to agree with you on that, but just as the 
> telephones-in-autos example, absence of evidence is not 
> evidence of absence.

Except with vaccines there isn't any absence of evidence.

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

#156052

From	AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
Date	2026-09-20 11:11 -0500
Message-ID	<118p0k0$38mo6$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156046

On 9/19/2026 5:18 PM, Chris wrote:
> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2026 9:12 AM, Chris wrote:
>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2026 11:02 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Frequent logical gap to an unsupported conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> USA has world-high rates of autism in children. USA also had
>>>> very high rates of childhood vaccination. Some people infer
>>>> a link but such may or may not actually be causal.  This is
>>>> as yet unknown; maybe, but maybe not.
>>>
>>> It absolutely is known. It has been tested and retested many times. There
>>> is no evidence that any vaccine causes autism in children.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I happen to agree with you on that, but just as the
>> telephones-in-autos example, absence of evidence is not
>> evidence of absence.
> 
> Except with vaccines there isn't any absence of evidence.
> 

As with police radio and truckers on CB for decades, audio 
seems to be benign as compared to a video or text device. 
Yet legislatures make no distinction and aggregated data (as 
referenced by OP) lumps all those together.  Some large 
proportion of people believe both that there is a childhood 
vaccine and autism link ( I am not one) and that telephones 
are a crash risk while ignoring console and telephone video 
and text as unique interfaces disparate from audio.

Existing evidence has failed to sway a great many people in 
both areas.

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

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

#156068

From	Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Date	2026-09-21 10:30 +1200
Message-ID	<118pmqf$3h2bf$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156052

On 2026-09-20 16:11:42 +0000, AMuzi said:
> On 9/19/2026 5:18 PM, Chris wrote:
>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> On 9/19/2026 9:12 AM, Chris wrote:
>>>> AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/18/2026 11:02 PM, Maria Sophia wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Frequent logical gap to an unsupported conclusion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> USA has world-high rates of autism in children. USA also had
>>>>> very high rates of childhood vaccination. Some people infer
>>>>> a link but such may or may not actually be causal.  This is
>>>>> as yet unknown; maybe, but maybe not.
>>>> 
>>>> It absolutely is known. It has been tested and retested many times. There
>>>> is no evidence that any vaccine causes autism in children.
>>> 
>>> I happen to agree with you on that, but just as the telephones-in-autos 
>>> example, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>> 
>> Except with vaccines there isn't any absence of evidence.
> 
> As with police radio and truckers on CB for decades, audio seems to be 
> benign as compared to a video or text device. Yet legislatures make no 
> distinction and aggregated data (as referenced by OP) lumps all those 
> together.  Some large proportion of people believe both that there is a 
> childhood vaccine and autism link ( I am not one) and that telephones 
> are a crash risk while ignoring console and telephone video and text as 
> unique interfaces disparate from audio.
> 
> Existing evidence has failed to sway a great many people in both areas.

A quick Google search seems to indicate that using a CB radio or 
similar while driving is also illegal in some US states (exemptions of 
emergency services, etc.), but not in others.

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

#156070

From	"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-09-21 02:02 +0200
Message-ID	<vp86omxhkt.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to	#156068

On 2026-09-21 00:30, Your Name wrote:
> On 2026-09-20 16:11:42 +0000, AMuzi said:

> A quick Google search seems to indicate that using a CB radio or similar 
> while driving is also illegal in some US states (exemptions of emergency 
> services, etc.), but not in others.

Yes. Here, in Spain.

It is also illegal to wear headphones while driving, which is a problem 
for bikers. Fortunately, there are some helmets with integrated 
headphones that are legal.

You can use two way radio IF you don't hold the mike in your hands.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#156072

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-21 03:18 +0300
Message-ID	<118pt3u$1nb6$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156070

Carlos E.R. wrote:
> It is also illegal to wear headphones while driving

As I recall, here, in most states (although I can't speak for all of them),
you can cover one ear with a headphone, but not both (but we can check).

So, we need to distinguish, with headphones anyway, about number of ears.

The point being everyone thinks they know the answer, and yet, when 
we dig deeper, we find out almost nobody knows the answer "well enough".
-- 
Not even me (on all the headphone laws in Spain or even in the USA)...

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

#156044

From	Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid>
Date	2026-09-19 19:51 +0100
Message-ID	<nh83tdFtr7dU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#156030

On 19/09/2026 05:02, Maria Sophia wrote:
> 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.

No, I am an agnostic/atheist.

>        But, where's your data?

That's why I am an agnostic/atheist.


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

I don't drive.

> 
> Maybe aliens took them?
> 
> HINT: The spike in accident rates you claim, simply never existed.
>        You made it up.

Um what? I just claimed that there would be NO spike.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

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

#156118

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Date	2026-09-23 07:38 +1000
Message-ID	<118ushd$28b7$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
In reply to	#156044

Brian Gregory wrote:
>  I just claimed that there would be NO spike.

Oh, my mistake. I apologize. 

This is all good data which nobody professional could possibly deny:
 1. The years between when cellphones were introduced to saturation
 2. The number of accidents reported during those years, before & after
 3. The number of miles driven for those same periods

All this is good data.
None of it is "cherry picked".

That data shows EXACTLY what one would expect if they UNDERSTOOD what
causes vehicular accidents, which is speed, intoxication & not following
the laws, e.g., running stop signs, red lights, failure to yield, etc.).

That's what causes most accidents.
Not distracted driving.

Anyone who UNDERSTOOD the data would UNDERSTAND that first & foremost.
Furthermore, people have been handling distractions while driving since the
1920s, so adding yet another distraction is simply something new to handle.

Like you, I never once said distractions don't cause accidents.
And, like you, I never once said a cellphone isn't an added distraction. 
Only a fool says that, and I'm no fool.
Neither are you.

All I asked is why do people THINK the accident rate would be affected by
cellphones when distractions are a minor cause of accidents in the first
place, and worse, cellphone distractions are simply one more out of a
hundred that people handle every minute that they drive a vehicle.

Mostly what I got in response was people claiming, like some did, that the
data is bad, but the whole point I'm making is the data is damn good data.

So what people need to do is adjust their belief system.
Which was the main point of me writing the thread in the first place.

If we all learned something, then I'm happy, as that was my overall goal.
People need to understand, in perspective, what causes most accidents.

HINT: It's NOT distracted driving.
      So it's natural that the accident rate didn't show even a blip.

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

Page 3 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

#156056

#156078

#156074

#156077

#156097

#156102

#156110

#156114

#156119

#156120

#156036

#156037

#156041

#156046

#156052

#156068

#156070

#156072

#156044

#156118