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	12 on this page of 132 — 24 participants

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

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

#156111

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

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

You're not giving up, then?

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

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

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

#156113

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

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

Hi Chris,

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

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

So why do people think it did?

HINT: People parrot propaganda.

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

#156123

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

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

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

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

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

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

#156127

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

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

Hi Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#156121

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#156166

From	Gordy Watt <saasce@here.now>
Date	2026-09-26 15:18 +0000
Message-ID	<1198nnp$2igis$10@news.tcpreset.net>
In reply to	#155990

Maria Sophia wrote:

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

But it's true.  Americunts are fucking stupid. If they're not playing with 
their flip phone when driving, they're fondling their gun.

It's why we're losing to Iran.

It took 10 years for Americans to learn how to change TV channels.   They 
didn't know there were other ones on their TV sets until 1965.

What do you expect from a laughing stock of a country who elected Trump 
twice?

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

#156256

From	Attila <prochoice@here.now>
Date	2026-10-03 19:04 +0000
Message-ID	<119rjk1$12q7$2@news.tcpreset.net>
In reply to	#155990

Maria Sophia wrote:

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

It's because some people belong to a cult that hates anyone who uses 
cellphones or texts behind the wheel.

They're connected to the same assholes who decided to deny our right to drink 
and drive.

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

#156257

From	Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
Date	2026-10-04 10:55 +1300
Message-ID	<119rtl8$3d05e$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156256

On 2026-10-03 19:04:33 +0000, Attila said:
> Maria Sophia wrote:
>> 
>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
> 
> It's because some people belong to a cult that hates anyone who uses
> cellphones or texts behind the wheel.
> 
> They're connected to the same assholes who decided to deny our right to drink
> and drive.

If you want to increase the chances of you injuring or killing 
yourself, that's up to you. The problem is fools who do these stupid 
things while driving often injure or kill someone else.  :-(

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

#156295

From	Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Date	2026-10-05 17:16 -0700
Message-ID	<11a1elg$1fuan$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#156256

On 2026-10-03 12:04, Attila wrote:
> Maria Sophia wrote:
> 
>>
>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
> 
> It's because some people belong to a cult that hates anyone who uses
> cellphones or texts behind the wheel.
> 
> They're connected to the same assholes who decided to deny our right to drink
> and drive.
> 
> 

If you can use your phone completely handsfree...

...I have no problem with you using it while you drive.

But even then, it is more distracting that conversing with someone in 
the car. Your passenger is at least a little aware of the driving 
situation at any moment and is also able to read the driver's voice and 
body language, and will probably go silent in moments that require the 
driver's concentration.

But using your phone to read texts off its screen?

Terrible.

Actually trying to compose a text using the onscreen keyboard?

Horrific.

Both of those take your eyes off the road for far too long.

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

#156302

From	"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date	2026-10-06 12:16 +0200
Message-ID	<nik03qFppsiU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#156295

On 2026-10-06 02:16, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-03 12:04, Attila wrote:
>> Maria Sophia wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the 
>>> USA?
>>
>> It's because some people belong to a cult that hates anyone who uses
>> cellphones or texts behind the wheel.
>>
>> They're connected to the same assholes who decided to deny our right 
>> to drink
>> and drive.
>>
>>
> 
> If you can use your phone completely handsfree...
> 
> ...I have no problem with you using it while you drive.
> 
> But even then, it is more distracting that conversing with someone in 
> the car. Your passenger is at least a little aware of the driving 
> situation at any moment and is also able to read the driver's voice and 
> body language, and will probably go silent in moments that require the 
> driver's concentration.
> 
> But using your phone to read texts off its screen?
> 
> Terrible.
> 
> Actually trying to compose a text using the onscreen keyboard?
> 
> Horrific.
> 
> Both of those take your eyes off the road for far too long.

WhatsApp on Car Auto or whatever is the name of Android phone projected 
into the car screen can read aloud messages, and can take a message by 
dictation (it often gets it wrong). However, it is incapable of just 
playing an audio message or taking an audio reply.


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

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

#156305

From	bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net>
Date	2026-10-06 10:18 -0400
Message-ID	<R7Ocnf1BIoXMnlj3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to	#156295

On 10/5/26 20:16, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-10-03 12:04, Attila wrote:
>> Maria Sophia wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the 
>>> USA?
>>
>> It's because some people belong to a cult that hates anyone who uses
>> cellphones or texts behind the wheel.
>>
>> They're connected to the same assholes who decided to deny our right 
>> to drink
>> and drive.
>>
>>
> 
> If you can use your phone completely handsfree...
> 
> ...I have no problem with you using it while you drive.

I do, and will.



> But even then, it is more distracting that conversing with someone in 
> the car. Your passenger is at least a little aware of the driving 
> situation at any moment and is also able to read the driver's voice and 
> body language, and will probably go silent in moments that require the 
> driver's concentration.
> 
> But using your phone to read texts off its screen?
> 
> Terrible.
> 
> Actually trying to compose a text using the onscreen keyboard?
> 
> Horrific.
> 
> Both of those take your eyes off the road for far too long.

Speedometer and necessary vehicle/situation information are the only 
internal visual sources that should be available to drivers. All 
controls should be tactile-identifiable and usable without looking at them.

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

#156289

From	Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Date	2026-10-05 09:11 -0700
Message-ID	<11a0i7p$13o98$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#155990

On 2026-09-17 14:28, Maria Sophia wrote:
> Why do people claim cellphone use increased the accident rate in the USA?
Because they're perceptive and well-informed?

What does that leave for you?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web

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

Contents

#156111

#156113

#156123

#156127

#156121

#156166

#156256

#156257

#156295

#156302

#156305

#156289