Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #141425 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-25 14:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-06-02 14:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-25 14:29 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-25 08:10 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-05-25 18:28 +0200
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 06:22 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-25 13:34 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 00:40 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-25 21:48 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 05:58 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-26 18:41 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-27 00:45 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-29 11:51 +0200
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:16 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-30 10:17 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 11:38 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-26 09:32 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 14:01 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-26 14:05 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 15:15 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-26 14:41 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-26 19:36 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-28 04:59 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-28 09:23 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) - 2024-05-29 00:30 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 05:05 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 08:38 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 20:43 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 05:07 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 04:34 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 02:57 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 21:10 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 17:40 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 21:57 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-05-29 19:30 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 03:36 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 06:34 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 07:36 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 19:14 +0100
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:38 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-06-01 23:02 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 08:25 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 15:22 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 11:44 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-29 09:05 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 13:21 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-29 10:34 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 14:53 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 22:39 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:14 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-29 18:31 +0200
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-29 21:31 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 22:05 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-30 00:49 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:09 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-30 10:18 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 16:44 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 12:48 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2024-05-29 13:25 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-29 14:55 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) - 2024-05-29 19:17 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 04:58 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA ollie <ollie@privacy.me> - 2024-06-18 11:17 +0200
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-29 20:31 -0500
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 05:06 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-30 09:22 -0500
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 14:57 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-30 11:43 -0500
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 17:43 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2024-05-30 15:37 -0500
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-30 21:29 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Nick Charles - 2024-05-30 18:21 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-31 16:27 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Norm <norm@slbglobal.net> - 2024-06-18 08:26 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-06-18 06:48 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-06-18 17:15 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2024-05-30 13:53 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-29 21:15 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-26 14:39 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-05-26 19:21 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-30 04:53 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-30 10:22 -0700
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-05-30 21:42 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-06-02 03:01 +0000
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA bad💽sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-06-01 23:42 -0400
Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:29 +0000
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 14:29 +0000 |
| Subject | It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA |
| Message-ID | <v2ssjo$ddd$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons? It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds, since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership in the United States? <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> What do you see? <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 08:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v2sv0f$2u1ii$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141425 |
On 2024-05-25 07:29, Andrew wrote: > How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons? > > It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA > > The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds, > since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, > namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. > > In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the > accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone > ownership in the United States? > <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> > > What do you see? > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> > > Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. > <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> > > What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? > <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> > > HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. You really know nothing about statistics...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 18:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v2t3jg$2uqe2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141427 |
On 25.05.24 17:10, Alan wrote: > On 2024-05-25 07:29, Andrew wrote: >> How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons? >> >> It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA >> >> The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds, >> since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, >> namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. >> >> In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the >> accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone >> ownership in the United States? >> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> >> >> What do you see? >> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> >> >> Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. >> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> >> >> What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? >> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> >> >> HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. > > You really know nothing about statistics... +1 -- "Alea iacta est." (Julius Caesar)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 06:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v2ukfe$1d76$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141429 |
bad������sector wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 21:43:23 -0400 : > In order to have any meaningful correlation between cell phones in cars > and their effect on accidents one would have to know how many of those > cell phones were in use while driving and also the accident rate in > those cars as compared to the others. Without this in the case of > cell-phone correlation the supplied study provides just irrelevant > statistical noise. You bring up a point that we discussed in gory detail in the past, which is that nobody knows much about the actual usage rate of cellphones. We all know people use them; but we have no reliable data on how much they're used. I covered this in gory detail where the NHTSA reports every May of every year (as I recall) on cellphone *usage* rates; but - get this - they calculate that at red lights. Yes. Red lights. They hvae a person sitting on the side peering into vehicles to note how many people are using them. Clearly this is a flawed statistic - but I do agree with you it would be one of the most important statistics for this dicussion - which we don't have. Again, this was covered in gory detail in the past, the point being that the most *reliable* statistic we have is the accident rate (which is number of accidents normalized by the number of miles driven). >> The rest was an hypothesis to potentially explain that unexpected fact. > > So we went from scientific method and statistical data to hypothetical > potentials. OK, I didn't lock in on that one, my bad :-) Of course. As I said to micky, the fact is the fact is the fact. The fact is the accident rate did not go up. It went down. But it was always going down, so the trend was unchanged. That's not *my* fact. That's *the* fact. Now the question is WHY. Hell. I don't know why. Like every other moron out there, I would have thought the accident rate would have skyrocketed and then leveled off after saturation. But what makes me different from every other moron out there is I looked for the data - and that's when I found out that the accident rate trend is unchanged. So now we're stuck with explaining why. All I have to explain why are my hypotheses. You can disagree with them all you want. That's the nature of an hypothesis. Even Albert Einstein's theory of gravitation is only a theory. Do you know that gravity isn't even a force? You can ask me why, and I will tell you why, but that doesn't make my hypothesis correct. >>> BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily >>> offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before? >> >> Guess what. The US census bureau statistics do NOT rely on that. >> So it's a non sequitur what anyone "says" about the cause of the accident. > > The cause of the accident is not likely to be recorded as having been > cell-phone use unless someone fesses up to it. > Accident investigation > does not on one hand include automatic mandatory x-checking with the > cell service providers and in many jurisdictions such would not even be > permitted on the other. I've done accident investigation in three areas > of activity and am of the opinion that quite a few reports are > misleading and not only accidentaly so ..for any number of reasons. We covered this also in gory detail. Apparently there's now a checkbox on many accident forms whether there was a cellphone in the vehicle at the time of the accident. Guess what? We covered that this box is checked almost 100% of the time. Which skews the statistics like you can't believe. Unfortunately, it's a statistic that will never be good simply because there is no good way to collect it. That's too bad. But that's just the facts. >> The actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states. > > Sidebar: is this comp.mobile.android or comp.mobile.android.us? Well, we covered that in gory detail also. In Australia, they statistics are good enough to show the same trends as the USA but paradoxically, when we looked in the UK, the trends were different. There's a reason I only discuss the USA and that's the reason. The statistics are phenomenally accurate for the USA. I can't vouch for either Australia or the UK though. So I only talk about the facts that I'm very confident of. Make sense? Nonetheless, you have a good point, so here are some searches: <https://www.google.com/search?q=accident+rate+australia+year+over+year> <https://www.google.com/search?q=accident+rate+uk+year+over+year> >>> Right, so >>> much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby >>> one can prove anything, or its exact opposite". >> >> Nobody but you said that anyone said anything after the >> accident. They could have had the accident for any number of reasons. > > I never said that anyone said anything. What I thought to have alluded > to rather unequivocally was that IF someone had used a phone and knew > that that use had lead up to the accident then that person would not > likely volunteer that information. Agree. I'll always agree with any logically sensible assessment of facts. > This may soon become unnecessary > anyway with the onset of AI helping cops catch offenders given that it > has the speed to analyse cell traffic around and entire block for > instance and alert the cop waiting at the intersection "green Honda > arriving from South leg in 45 seconds was on line while in motion for > the last ten and a half minutes". Once the pull-over happens all the > data is already printed on the ticket. This is perhaps the future... especially since police already do geofencing dragnets when there is a crime, so why not when there is an accident. > And although this thread is already way off-topic, one more tidbit: > accident prevention depends on defensive legislation AND defensive > driving. Actually, we covered that also. Turns out all the safety laws are for naught. Sadly so. The only effect of safety laws is a second-order effect on length of hospital stay. (Remember, I alluded to this when I said to someone that the second-order effects will knock your socks off). But I don't want to go there because people haven't even understood the first-order effects yet - so it's premature to move to the effect (or lack of effect) of safety laws on injuries (we even covered how much money they make - which is billions per year - on tickets for safety law violations). > It is not at all necessary for a lawmaker to KNOW that a > scientific correlation exsist between cell use and accidents, it is more > important to act with prejudice and watch for what, cell-phones > included, MIGHT cause an accident. The way to legislate is the way that > I have driven over a million clicks with no accident, if anyone wants to > argue with that, go for it. Except, sadly, that the laws have no first order effects. We can dig that one up, but it's too deep for this group when people can't even read an excel spreadsheet by one of the most reliable government agencies around. The main effect of safety laws in this realm is on revenue generation. We covered this in gory detail already. Look it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 13:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <50745j90ulcvpp3h0m3nos1cu08r1jt80g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141425 |
I was considering letting this go and not replying to your last post in the other thread, even though you didn't get the points I was trying to make. But here you bring up the same mistaken ideas. In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 14:29:13 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: >How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons? > >It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA > >The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds, More insults. In the same way I turned you off in my 3rd line above by calling your ideas mistaken, by calling them stupid, you turn off every person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. If you're a scientist, you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe. >since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, >namely (a) injury lawyers, That's silly. Injury lawyers don't benefit from statistics. It doesn't help them if 100 million accidents were caused by cellphones. The judge won't even let them offer statistics as evidence at the trial. They need to show that the other driver in *their* lawsuit was negligent, perhaps by using the cellphone when he should have been paying more attention to his driving. >(b) insurance companies Insurance companies don't benefit either. I can't give a reasonable guess how you think they do. How do you think they do? Or are they just a boogey-man to be blamed for anything relating to negligence or insurance? >(c) ticketing police. Police don't benefit either. Even you admitted that paying attention to the cell phone can cause accidents. Do you think the police should ignore someone doing that just because for *other* reasons, according to you, cellphones lower the accident rate? That's ridiculous. >In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the >accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone >ownership in the United States? > <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> > >What do you see? I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation. Google the preceding three words and maybe some webpage will explain it better than I'm about to: You admit there are hundreds of factors in determining the accident rate but then because it's going down**, you claim that proves that ONE of those hundreds is lowering it. **I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate per capita has been going up since 2010. There is a logical reason why death rate and accident rate are correlated. (No one dies in a traffic accident unless there *was* a traffic accident.) So you're probably wrong about the accident rate going down since 2010. > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> > >Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. > <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> > >What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? > <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> Two graphs at this web page show the death rate going up since 2010. One of them shows the per capita death rate going up since 2010. Hoised by your own petard. > >HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v2u0da$2hmu$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141431 |
micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 : > you turn off every > person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. I'm a scientist. I look at facts. If people can't handle facts, then they can't help me... they can't help you... and they can't help themselves. <https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acensus.gov+us+accident+rate+year+over+year> You think I don't realize most people believe in myths? Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate. <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1103.xls> They didn't. That's just a fact. <https://www2.census.gov/prod2/2011pubs/11statab/trans.pdf> Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all. <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> > If you're a scientist, > you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people > is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe. Every scientist welcomes an _adult_ discourse on the facts. However, no real scientist would dispute the facts; only fools do that. That's why they're fools. <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1113.pdf> Now I'm well aware (a) personal injury law firms, (b) insurance companies, and (c) ticketing police *love* to dispute the facts - but the facts that matter are the accident rate in the US which is reliable information that is completely outside those three agencies who make money off of the issue. <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1949/compendia/hist_stats_1789-1945/hist_stats_1789-1945-chK.pdf> >>since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, >>namely (a) injury lawyers, > > That's silly. Injury lawyers don't benefit from statistics. It doesn't > help them if 100 million accidents were caused by cellphones. The judge > won't even let them offer statistics as evidence at the trial. They > need to show that the other driver in *their* lawsuit was negligent, > perhaps by using the cellphone when he should have been paying more > attention to his driving. >>(b) insurance companies > > Insurance companies don't benefit either. I can't give a reasonable > guess how you think they do. How do you think they do? Or are they > just a boogey-man to be blamed for anything relating to negligence or > insurance? > >>(c) ticketing police. > > Police don't benefit either. Even you admitted that paying attention to > the cell phone can cause accidents. Do you think the police should > ignore someone doing that just because for *other* reasons, according to > you, cellphones lower the accident rate? That's ridiculous. > >>In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the >>accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone >>ownership in the United States? >> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> >> >>What do you see? You've apparently never looked up the subject. Did you ever look up how to do something common on the Internet and most of the hits are all shills which are trying to make money off of swaying you? Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies. Ask me how I know this - and then ask yourself why I know you don't know this? It's because I've looked this stuff up. And you have never done so. What you're saying is out of desperation that only personal injury lawyers can provide good facts - which is ridiculous. Science is all that matters. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot > I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation. Whenever a moron hates a fact, they say that, micky. You think I never took statistics? It's bullshit for you to say that without even understanding the facts. Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things: 1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States. 2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States. Those are facts. You saying "correlation is note equal to causation" is simply your desperate way to make those iron-clad facts disappear from your view. If your entire argument is to deny that facts can exist, then you have no argument. Again, only fools disagree with the facts. That's why they're fools. > Google the > preceding three words and maybe some webpage will explain it better than > I'm about to: You admit there are hundreds of factors in determining > the accident rate but then because it's going down**, you claim that > proves that ONE of those hundreds is lowering it. Again and again and again you're so desperate to make the facts go away that you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I only said one thing, which is teh accident rate is going down year after year after year and it did not go up before, during or after the meteoric skyrocketing rise in cellphone ownership rates. That's just a fact, micky. If you hate that fact, just say you hate facts, micky. You think you're the only one who hates facts? You're not. Look at the Apple newsgroup for people who hate facts, Micky. Me? I love facts. And the fact is the accident rate in the USA is steadily trending downward. 1. It was trending downward before cellphones existed. 2. It trended downward while cellphone ownership rates skyrocket. 3. And it's still trending downward after cellphones hit saturation. > **I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate > per capita has been going up since 2010. Injuries and fatalities are a second order effect, subject to even more variables than accident rates are, so you have no business going there until you understand the first-order accident rates, micky. <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-10.pdf> I can feel your desperation - but you have to first understand the facts. > There is a logical reason why > death rate and accident rate are correlated. (No one dies in a traffic > accident unless there *was* a traffic accident.) So you're probably > wrong about the accident rate going down since 2010. The accident rate has nothing to do with mortality, micky. Nothing. The accident rate would be the same with or without injuries, micky. Injuries and fatalities are a second-order effect. You're desperate to discount the facts that you don't like. Stop doing that. >> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> >> >>Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. >> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> >> >>What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? >> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> > > Two graphs at this web page show the death rate going up since 2010. One > of them shows the per capita death rate going up since 2010. > Hoised by your own petard. Again, you're desperate to ignore the accident rate is a first-order fact. Your sheer desperation is palatable. We can discuss the second order effects, by the way, of the accident rate going down, but if you think the accident rate is hard to believe, the second-order effects will knock your socks off. You're not ready for second-order effects yet. You need to understand the accident rate first, and foremost. >> >>HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. > > Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all. The accident rate is not a "total" but a normalized figure based on the number of miles driven, micky. If you don't even understand that, what can you understand? Think about that statement please. Your entire argument is that you hate the facts. That's sheer desperation, micky. That's not science. It's myth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-25 21:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cg355jh16t067k4qpiu3labfgafg5m77mb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141436 |
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 00:40:10 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: >micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 : > >> you turn off every >> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. > >I'm a scientist. I look at facts. If people can't handle facts, then they >can't help me... they can't help you... and they can't help themselves. > <https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acensus.gov+us+accident+rate+year+over+year> Again with the accident rate. The accident rate over years means nothing without more info. Didn't I already say that in other words, and yet you again cite the accident rate over years. >You think I don't realize most people believe in myths? I don't think at all that you don't think that, and it has nothing to do with what I've written. >Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate. May people who are stupid don't think that at all. Many of all sorts don't think about this at all. And you've admitted that cell phones cause accidents. But instead of letting it go at that, you insist on claiming that they prevent as many accidents as they cause, and you give the impression that you know this based on the total accident rate. And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC) you said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the accident rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused turnarounds, etc.)." More important than each of your examplles here is "If anything". This is where you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause accidents. You don't say, Yes, they cause problems but they also help. You say, *If anything* they have have a positive effect. You didn't answer when I asked you: Do you see why that seems to be a denial that their use causes accidents????? . > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1103.xls> > >They didn't. >That's just a fact. > <https://www2.census.gov/prod2/2011pubs/11statab/trans.pdf> > >Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all. The way you present facts, they have very little convincing value. It's not the facts that are the problem here, it's your "logic". > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> > >> If you're a scientist, >> you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people >> is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe. > >Every scientist welcomes an _adult_ discourse on the facts. Irrelevant. I'm not talking about your opinion of your own style of writing. I'm suggesting you ask other scientists what *they* think about your style of writing, including among other things, your use of insults. But I know you won't do it and I'm not sure you know any scientists. You would have to show them your posts here to get their opinion. >However, no real scientist would dispute the facts; only fools do that. >That's why they're fools. > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1113.pdf> > >Now I'm well aware (a) personal injury law firms, (b) insurance companies, >and (c) ticketing police *love* to dispute the facts - but the facts that Irrelevant. Above and below, you didn't address the reasons I gave why those 3 groups don't benefit from your statistics or any other statistics. You're very good at answering without addressing what the previous poster said. >matter are the accident rate in the US which is reliable information that >is completely outside those three agencies who make money off of the issue. > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1949/compendia/hist_stats_1789-1945/hist_stats_1789-1945-chK.pdf> > >>>since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, >>>namely (a) injury lawyers, >> >> That's silly. Injury lawyers don't benefit from statistics. It doesn't >> help them if 100 million accidents were caused by cellphones. The judge >> won't even let them offer statistics as evidence at the trial. They >> need to show that the other driver in *their* lawsuit was negligent, >> perhaps by using the cellphone when he should have been paying more >> attention to his driving. >>>(b) insurance companies >> >> Insurance companies don't benefit either. I can't give a reasonable >> guess how you think they do. How do you think they do? Or are they >> just a boogey-man to be blamed for anything relating to negligence or >> insurance? >> >>>(c) ticketing police. >> >> Police don't benefit either. Even you admitted that paying attention to >> the cell phone can cause accidents. Do you think the police should >> ignore someone doing that just because for *other* reasons, according to >> you, cellphones lower the accident rate? That's ridiculous. >> >>>In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the >>>accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone >>>ownership in the United States? >>> <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> >>> >>>What do you see? > >You've apparently never looked up the subject. > >Did you ever look up how to do something common on the Internet and most of >the hits are all shills which are trying to make money off of swaying you? Irrelevant. Instead of addressing my points, you bring up irrelevancies. >Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those >shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies. Oh, you're making it relevant by saying anyone who disagrees with you is a shill. >Ask me how I know this - You don't know anything, it seems. >and then ask yourself why I know you don't know >this? It's because I've looked this stuff up. And you have never done so. > >What you're saying is out of desperation that only personal injury lawyers >can provide good facts - I never said anything like that. I said that if injury lawyers want to win their cases, they have to address the actual facts of the case they are handling, and that statistics don't matter. They don't. I think I know a lot more law than you do. > which is ridiculous. > >Science is all that matters. >https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot > >> I see someone who thinks correlation equals causation. > >Whenever a moron hates a fact, they say that, micky. No they don't. This is why I posted. My criticism two lines up is fairly rare and is only offered after people make the non-sequiturs that you've made, assuming correlation equals causation. >You think I never took statistics? If you took it, you might have misunderstood parts of it, or extended it to places it cannot go. >It's bullshit for you to say that >without even understanding the facts. I do understand the facts. >Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things: >1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States. >2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into > use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States. > >Those are facts. No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to doughnuts that the accident rate has too. But even if you were right, and even if 1 and 2 were facts, which 2 is not, it's not the facts that are your problem. It's your misuse of logic which causes you to draw unsupported and probably false conclusions from your facts. >You saying "correlation is note equal to causation" is simply your >desperate way to make those iron-clad facts disappear from your view. Nope. >If your entire argument is to deny that facts can exist, Silly red herring. I never said that and of course I don't think it. >then you have no >argument. Again, only fools disagree with the facts. Only fools bring up things the other guy never said or implied. I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping the rest. When I first started using Usenet, 30 years ago, we had people of all ages and some were young enough to learn from criticism. Now everyone here is over 60, I think, and their bad habits are baked in. So I've given it a shot and you can reply if you wish but unless you come up with a new, even more silly "argument" you can have the last word. I don't promise to read your post even if you do reply. Your posts are depressing. >That's why they're fools. > >> Google the >> preceding three words and maybe some webpage will explain it better than >> I'm about to: You admit there are hundreds of factors in determining >> the accident rate but then because it's going down**, you claim that >> proves that ONE of those hundreds is lowering it. > >Again and again and again you're so desperate to make the facts go away >that you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. > >I only said one thing, which is teh accident rate is going down year after >year after year and it did not go up before, during or after the meteoric >skyrocketing rise in cellphone ownership rates. > >That's just a fact, micky. > >If you hate that fact, just say you hate facts, micky. >You think you're the only one who hates facts? > >You're not. >Look at the Apple newsgroup for people who hate facts, Micky. > >Me? I love facts. >And the fact is the accident rate in the USA is steadily trending downward. > >1. It was trending downward before cellphones existed. >2. It trended downward while cellphone ownership rates skyrocket. >3. And it's still trending downward after cellphones hit saturation. > >> **I couldn't find a statistic for the accident rate, but the death rate >> per capita has been going up since 2010. > >Injuries and fatalities are a second order effect, subject to even more >variables than accident rates are, so you have no business going there >until you understand the first-order accident rates, micky. > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/statistics/1860d-10.pdf> > >I can feel your desperation - but you have to first understand the facts. > >> There is a logical reason why >> death rate and accident rate are correlated. (No one dies in a traffic >> accident unless there *was* a traffic accident.) So you're probably >> wrong about the accident rate going down since 2010. > >The accident rate has nothing to do with mortality, micky. >Nothing. > >The accident rate would be the same with or without injuries, micky. >Injuries and fatalities are a second-order effect. > >You're desperate to discount the facts that you don't like. >Stop doing that. > >>> <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> >>> >>>Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. >>> <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> >>> >>>What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? >>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> >> >> Two graphs at this web page show the death rate going up since 2010. One >> of them shows the per capita death rate going up since 2010. >> Hoised by your own petard. > >Again, you're desperate to ignore the accident rate is a first-order fact. >Your sheer desperation is palatable. > >We can discuss the second order effects, by the way, of the accident rate >going down, but if you think the accident rate is hard to believe, the >second-order effects will knock your socks off. > >You're not ready for second-order effects yet. >You need to understand the accident rate first, and foremost. > >>> >>>HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. >> >> Looking at the total accident rate doesn't show that at all. > >The accident rate is not a "total" but a normalized figure based on the >number of miles driven, micky. > >If you don't even understand that, what can you understand? >Think about that statement please. > >Your entire argument is that you hate the facts. >That's sheer desperation, micky. > >That's not science. >It's myth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 05:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v2uj25$jgs$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141441 |
micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 21:48:21 -0400 : > Again with the accident rate. The accident rate over years means > nothing without more info. Didn't I already say that in other words, > and yet you again cite the accident rate over years. The accident rate is a first-order effect, micky. Hence, it's the most important metric of all. >>You think I don't realize most people believe in myths? > > I don't think at all that you don't think that, and it has nothing to do > with what I've written. Do you know how many people believe that high-octane gas is better than regular, micky... just because they believe in every myth sold to them? >>Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate. > > And you've admitted that cell phones cause accidents. Distractions cause accidents. Cellphones are a distraction. But they're not even the major distraction, by the way. <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/> > But instead of letting it go at that, you insist on > claiming that they prevent as many accidents as they cause, and you give > the impression that you know this based on the total accident rate. Let's be clear what I said, which is that it is a well-known fact that the accident rate trend in the USA was slowly trending downward in all fifty states before cellphones existed, and that trend remained unchanged both during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and well after saturation. > And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC) > you said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the > accident rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing > traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused > turnarounds, etc.)." > > More important than each of your examplles here is "If anything". This > is where you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause > accidents. You don't say, Yes, they cause problems but they also help. > You say, *If anything* they have have a positive effect. You didn't > answer when I asked you: Do you see why that seems to be a denial > that their use causes accidents????? The fact is the fact whether or not we know why it's a fact. The fact is that the US accident rate trend remained downward before, during and after complete saturation of cellphone ownership per vehicle. That's just a fact, just like the fact that gravity isn't a force. We first have to accept that face (only fools disagree with facts). Once we accept that fact, then we can hypothesize why that's a fact. My response to Knuttle was my own personal hypothesis; but that assessment of the fact could very well be wrong. What's not wrong is the fact. Everything else is an assessment of that fact. >>Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all. > > The way you present facts, they have very little convincing value. It's > not the facts that are the problem here, it's your "logic". The fact is the convincing value. If you don't accept the fact, then you know what that means. Adults always agree with facts (because of the nature of adults). People who can't agree with facts still think the earth is flat. >>Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those >>shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies. > > Oh, you're making it relevant by saying anyone who disagrees with you is > a shill. No. I'm saying anyone who purposefully distorts the facts to make money is a shill. Big difference. Nobody disagrees with the facts, micky. Except fools. That's why they're fools. >>You think I never took statistics? > > If you took it, you might have misunderstood parts of it, or extended it > to places it cannot go. I know the facts, micky. You want to know why? Because like every other idiot out there, I believed that high-octane gasoline was somehow inherently better than regular but what makes me different from every other fool out there is I looked it up. And then I found out that it's not. Same thing with the accident rate, micky. That's the difference between me and the morons who don't look things up. It's a fact that the accident rate in the USA shows no change in the downward trend before, during and after cellphones reached saturation. You can't disagree with that fact (I provided the cites multiple times). All you can do is disagree with my assessment of WHY that's a fact. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my assessment of facts. I do have a problem with people disagreeing with the facts. Only fools disagree with facts. That's why they're fools, after all. >>It's bullshit for you to say that >>without even understanding the facts. > > I do understand the facts. Then, if you accept the accident rate remained wholly unchanged (slowly trending downward), that is progress because only fools disagree with fact. Now... it's a much harder discussion to make to explain WHY that's the case. Rest assured I don't know why. I just have my hypothesis as to why. Those hypotheses you can reasonably disagree with. As long as you don't disagree with the facts. (Only fools disagree with facts - that's why they're fools.) >>Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things: >>1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States. >>2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into >> use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States. >> >>Those are facts. > > No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to > doughnuts that the accident rate has too. WTF? I wasn't talking about second-order effects. Injuries (and fatalities) are second-order effects. You don't even understand first-order effects yet, micky. I cited the reliable statistics on the first-order effects. The accident rate (which is normalized by miles driven) did not go up. It went down. > But even if you were right, and even if 1 and 2 were facts, which 2 is > not, it's not the facts that are your problem. It's your misuse of > logic which causes you to draw unsupported and probably false > conclusions from your facts. You don't understand that a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. It's not whether or not "I am right" when it's a fact. It's the fact that is right. Nobody disagrees with facts except fools, micky. That's why they're fools. It's not *my* fact that the accident rate trend is unchanged. It's *the* fact. > I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping > the rest. EOD. There's a reason I said only fools disagree with facts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 18:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iuc75jp2nau060082r156thevk8t9npfl3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141445 |
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 05:58:30 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: >micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 21:48:21 -0400 : > >> Again with the accident rate. The accident rate over years means >> nothing without more info. Didn't I already say that in other words, >> and yet you again cite the accident rate over years. > >The accident rate is a first-order effect, micky. >Hence, it's the most important metric of all. No, in the discussion at hand the "most important metric" is the rate of accidents caused by cell-phone distracted driving. > >>>You think I don't realize most people believe in myths? >> >> I don't think at all that you don't think that, and it has nothing to do >> with what I've written. > >Do you know how many people believe that high-octane gas is better than >regular, micky... just because they believe in every myth sold to them? Irrelevant. You said what I think when I don't think that. What some people think about high-octane gas is irreelveant to both your thoughs and my thoughs on what you said I think. Also, high octane gas has nothning to do with the accident rate or the rate of accidents caused by cellphone-distracted driving. >>>Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate. >> >> And you've admitted that cell phones cause accidents. > >Distractions cause accidents. Cellphones are a distraction. >But they're not even the major distraction, by the way. Even if you be right, it's not important. some distractions are harder to eliminate than others, and society tries to eliminate or lessen those distractions it can succeed with, whether they are "the major" one or not. > <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/> A citation that actually makes your point. Wonderful. But what does it say? >this Note contends that cell phone use does not play as prominent a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed. A comparison that does not matter to me. IL don't know how it's *typically pportrayed* and I don't much care as long as cell phone usage causes accidents. >Many other distractive stimuli pose a more significant threat, and often occur more regularly than cell phone use. So what? > Unlike cell phone use, however, these other distractive stimuli have not been characterized as negatively, or singled out by legislative bans. Maybe there is a good reason for that. But since this abstract doesn't give examples of what these other distractions are, we can only guess. >In particular, Connecticut’s legislation banning cell phone use while driving is neither a direct nor a particularly effective means of achieving its purported purpose of increasing the safety of Connecticut’s roadway It doesn't have to be *particularly* effective to be worthwhile. It only has to be somewhat effective. I guess he's put up a paper tiger (or do I mean red herring) to argue against --- end of quote and my comments on the quote --- > >> But instead of letting it go at that, you insist on >> claiming that they prevent as many accidents as they cause, and you give >> the impression that you know this based on the total accident rate. > >Let's be clear what I said, which is that it is a well-known fact that the >accident rate trend in the USA was slowly trending downward in all fifty >states before cellphones existed, and that trend remained unchanged both >during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and well after >saturation. I know you said that. You've said it 4 times at least. It doesn't prove your point, because it is about the entire accident rate, not about the rate caused by cellphones. Duh. In addition, since the death rate has been increasing since 2010, it's likely the accident rate has also, which would make your statement about "unchanged" and "well after saturation" eithert not clear or false. > > >> And in your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC) >> you said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the >> accident rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing >> traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused >> turnarounds, etc.)." >> >> More important than each of your examplles here is "If anything". This >> is where you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause >> accidents. You don't say, Yes, they cause problems but they also help. >> You say, *If anything* they have have a positive effect. You didn't >> answer when I asked you: Do you see why that seems to be a denial >> that their use causes accidents????? > >The fact is the fact whether or not we know why it's a fact. Unresponsive to what I said. When you said "If anything" you seem clearly to have denied that cellphones cause accidents. > >The fact is that the US accident rate trend remained downward before, >during and after complete saturation of cellphone ownership per vehicle. The accideent rate is NOT the isssue. The rate of accidents due to cell phone usage is the issue under discussion. > >That's just a fact, just like the fact that gravity isn't a force. No, it's nothing like gravity. >We first have to accept that face (only fools disagree with facts). >Once we accept that fact, then we can hypothesize why that's a fact. > >My response to Knuttle was my own personal hypothesis; but that assessment >of the fact could very well be wrong. Thius might be a retraction. It follows the sub-topic by several sentences so I'm not sure. >What's not wrong is the fact. >Everything else is an assessment of that fact. > >>>Only fools dispute facts; that's why they're fools after all. >> >> The way you present facts, they have very little convincing value. It's >> not the facts that are the problem here, it's your "logic". > >The fact is the convincing value. Facts without relevant arguments do not have convincing value. And more to the point, if people here are not convinced, it doesn't have convincing value, and I would venture that you have not convinced a single reader that cellphones prevent as many accidents as they cause. >If you don't accept the fact, then you know what that means. > >Adults always agree with facts (because of the nature of adults). >People who can't agree with facts still think the earth is flat. > >>>Well, try to find the accident rate in the USA without hitting those >>>shills. Most of them will be from those three agencies. >> >> Oh, you're making it relevant by saying anyone who disagrees with you is >> a shill. > >No. I'm saying anyone who purposefully distorts the facts to make money is >a shill. Big difference. > >Nobody disagrees with the facts, micky. >Except fools. That's why they're fools. Relying on insults instead of cogent, or at least relevant arguments, is not a good way for a scientist to behave. >>>You think I never took statistics? >> >> If you took it, you might have misunderstood parts of it, or extended it >> to places it cannot go. > >I know the facts, micky. You want to know why? >Because like every other idiot out there, I believed that high-octane >gasoline was somehow inherently better than regular but what makes me >different from every other fool out there is I looked it up. > >And then I found out that it's not. Huh? It is better in some situations. That's why they invented it. >Same thing with the accident rate, micky. >That's the difference between me and the morons who don't look things up. > >It's a fact that the accident rate in the USA shows no change in the >downward trend before, during and after cellphones reached saturation. Third time you're saying this in the same post. Doesn't make it persuasive. >You can't disagree with that fact (I provided the cites multiple times). >All you can do is disagree with my assessment of WHY that's a fact. No, I'm disagreeing with what you can conclude from it. From the part of it that is true. >I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with my assessment of facts. >I do have a problem with people disagreeing with the facts. > >Only fools disagree with facts. That's why they're fools, after all. > >>>It's bullshit for you to say that >>>without even understanding the facts. >> >> I do understand the facts. > >Then, if you accept the accident rate remained wholly unchanged (slowly >trending downward), that is progress because only fools disagree with fact. > >Now... it's a much harder discussion to make to explain WHY that's the >case. Rest assured I don't know why. > >I just have my hypothesis as to why. >Those hypotheses you can reasonably disagree with. > >As long as you don't disagree with the facts. >(Only fools disagree with facts - that's why they're fools.) Isn't this the fourth time you've said this in one post. I'm not going back to count but I think you need new writers. >>>Nobody said anything was a fact other than two things: >>>1. The accident rate is a reliable statistic in the United States. >>>2. It steadily went down before, during & after cellphones came into >>> use and became almost 100% in all vehicles in the United States. >>> >>>Those are facts. >> >> No, the death rate has gone up since 2010 and I'll give you dollars to >> doughnuts that the accident rate has too. > >WTF? I wasn't talking about second-order effects. >Injuries (and fatalities) are second-order effects. You should be talkign about the injuries and fatalities. They are a lot more important than crumpled fenders. >You don't even understand first-order effects yet, micky. >I cited the reliable statistics on the first-order effects. Now I'm repeating myself. The accident rate is not imporrtant here. it's the rate of accidents caused by cellphone usage. > >The accident rate (which is normalized by miles driven) did not go up. >It went down. > >> But even if you were right, and even if 1 and 2 were facts, which 2 is >> not, it's not the facts that are your problem. It's your misuse of >> logic which causes you to draw unsupported and probably false >> conclusions from your facts. > >You don't understand that a fact is a fact is a fact is a fact. >It's not whether or not "I am right" when it's a fact. > >It's the fact that is right. > >Nobody disagrees with facts except fools, micky. >That's why they're fools. > >It's not *my* fact that the accident rate trend is unchanged. >It's *the* fact. > >> I've had enough. There's no point to writing further so I'm skipping >> the rest. > >EOD. There's a reason I said only fools disagree with facts. Yes, there is. You don't have counter-arguments so you insult people for things they did not do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v30l3k$2qre$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141471 |
micky wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 18:41:37 -0400 : > No, in the discussion at hand the "most important metric" is the rate of > accidents caused by cell-phone distracted driving. It's my supposition that it's a myth that the USA accident rate went up due to the cellphone ownership saturation going from 0% to 100% in the USA. I provided data from the US Census Bureau supporting that supposition. If you disagree, simply provide data that disagrees with the Census Bureau. >>Do you know how many people believe that high-octane gas is better than >>regular, micky... just because they believe in every myth sold to them? > > Irrelevant. You said what I think when I don't think that. What some > people think about high-octane gas is irreelveant to both your thoughs > and my thoughs on what you said I think. Also, high octane gas has > nothning to do with the accident rate or the rate of accidents caused by > cellphone-distracted driving. I'll try to be nicer micky, where my main point is and was that too many people believe in myths which have no basis whatsoever in actual facts. >>Distractions cause accidents. Cellphones are a distraction. >>But they're not even the major distraction, by the way. > > Even if you be right, it's not important. some distractions are harder > to eliminate than others, and society tries to eliminate or lessen those > distractions it can succeed with, whether they are "the major" one or > not. The main idea here for adults to discuss isn't that the accident rate didn't go up when cellphones were introduced... since that is a fact. The main idea to discuss is why. >> <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/> > > A citation that actually makes your point. Wonderful. > But what does it say? First off, I am the only one who is citing reliable facts, micky. <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/> So there's no reason for you to say what you said, particularly since nobody else provided any cites that disagreed with the facts, micky. "This Note contends that cell phone use does not play as prominent a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed. Many other distractive stimuli pose a more significant threat, and often occur more regularly than cell phone use. Unlike cell phone use, however, these other distractive stimuli have not been characterized as negatively, or singled out by legislative bans." My point is most people are basically inherently incredibly stupid. Most people blindly believe in every single myth in the book of myths. Only the most intelligent people bother to look up facts behind the myths. Worse, legislators cater to these stupid people by enacting laws that make no sense when you look at the threat using intelligence & scientific data. >>this Note contends that cell phone use does not play as prominent > a role in distracted driving as is typically portrayed. > > A comparison that does not matter to me. IL don't know how it's > *typically pportrayed* and I don't much care as long as cell phone usage > causes accidents. Their point was that the government made laws based on no reliable science. You must know that is a peeve of mine, don't you? Gun laws, for example, aren't based on logic but on pure senseless emotion. So are the climate taxation laws. And many other idiotic laws. People vote for them because most people are basically inherently stupid. Which is why I'm communicating to this newsgroup not to be that stupid. >>In particular, Connecticut�s legislation banning cell phone use > while driving is neither a direct nor a particularly effective > means of achieving its purported purpose of increasing the > safety of Connecticut�s roadway > > It doesn't have to be *particularly* effective to be worthwhile. It > only has to be somewhat effective. I guess he's put up a paper tiger > (or do I mean red herring) to argue against Remember when I mentioned that if people only understood the second-order effects of all recent safety laws, it would knock their socks off? Guess what? The *only* first-order effect of dozens of recent motor vehicle safety laws was to increase the revenue of the governments making them. We discussed this in gory detail in the past, micky. *There was zero safety gained by enacting the safety laws*, micky. The only gain was to revenue. Only morons believe that these laws increased safety. Which, again, is my main point that most people are incredibly stupid. But people on this newsgroup not ready for second-order effects yet. They have to understand the first-order effects first. Most people can't delve deeply into any subject. Which is why the myth persists. >>Let's be clear what I said, which is that it is a well-known fact that the >>accident rate trend in the USA was slowly trending downward in all fifty >>states before cellphones existed, and that trend remained unchanged both >>during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and well after >>saturation. > > I know you said that. You've said it 4 times at least. It doesn't > prove your point, because it is about the entire accident rate, not > about the rate caused by cellphones. Duh. In addition, since the death > rate has been increasing since 2010, it's likely the accident rate has > also, which would make your statement about "unchanged" and "well after > saturation" eithert not clear or false. I never disagree with any perfectly valid and logically sensible point. All I can tell you is the accident rate has not shot up in the least. I can't tell you why. But anyone who says that it did shoot up, has to show us data first. Otherwise, the point is that the myth is busted. Cellphones did not cause the accident rate to change in the least. >>The fact is the fact whether or not we know why it's a fact. > > Unresponsive to what I said. When you said "If anything" you seem > clearly to have denied that cellphones cause accidents. I never said that. I said that the accident rate shows no influence whatsoever from the meteoric rise in cellphone saturation in vehicles. Notice very clearly I am stating only the facts. The question of why can only be approached after people agree on facts. That's how adult conversations work. >>The fact is that the US accident rate trend remained downward before, >>during and after complete saturation of cellphone ownership per vehicle. > > The accideent rate is NOT the isssue. The rate of accidents due to cell > phone usage is the issue under discussion. There's a reason I mentioned the good-student discount I always got. Stupid people will always have accidents, micky. It's one of the things that stupid people do. >>That's just a fact, just like the fact that gravity isn't a force. > > No, it's nothing like gravity. My point is everyone thinks gravity is a force, but that's a myth. Look it up. It's not a force. But stupid people believe in every myth in the book. Which is my main point. Stupid people never bother to check whether a myth is correct or not. >>My response to Knuttle was my own personal hypothesis; but that assessment >>of the fact could very well be wrong. > > Thius might be a retraction. It follows the sub-topic by several > sentences so I'm not sure. There is only one fact that matters and the rest is conjecture. We can't discuss the reasons why until we understand the facts first. >>The fact is the convincing value. > > Facts without relevant arguments do not have convincing value. I make the same "relevant argument" as that Connecticut cite did. I'll put it bluntly: *Only stupid people clamor for cellphone laws*. That's the main point. > And more to the point, if people here are not convinced, it doesn't have > convincing value, and I would venture that you have not convinced a > single reader that cellphones prevent as many accidents as they cause. Heh heh heh... do you want to know what the IQ is of most people here? 1. Only stupid people disagree with facts (that's why they are stupid). 2. A lot of people disagreed with the facts (which proves they're stupid). 3. Not one of them provided a single factual cite to back up their claims. (It's how stupid people act.) >>Nobody disagrees with the facts, micky. >>Except fools. That's why they're fools. > > Relying on insults instead of cogent, or at least relevant arguments, is > not a good way for a scientist to behave. It's a well known phenomenon. >>I know the facts, micky. You want to know why? >>Because like every other idiot out there, I believed that high-octane >>gasoline was somehow inherently better than regular but what makes me >>different from every other fool out there is I looked it up. >> >>And then I found out that it's not. > > Huh? It is better in some situations. That's why they invented it. I know all about the octane rating in combustible organic fuels, micky. Remember, I have taken organic chemistry where it is often discussed. I know what the octane rating is, how its measured, and why it exists. More importantly, I know what it doesn't mean. But most people are incredibly stupid when it comes to such things. I bring it up as a classic example of the myths stupid people believe. >>It's a fact that the accident rate in the USA shows no change in the >>downward trend before, during and after cellphones reached saturation. > > Third time you're saying this in the same post. > Doesn't make it persuasive. I wonder if you realize what you're saying, micky? 1. I provided reliable facts. 2. You denied every fact simply because you don't like them. 3. And then you say your belief system is based on absolutely nothing? Where are *your* cites backing up your imaginary belief system, micky? >>You can't disagree with that fact (I provided the cites multiple times). >>All you can do is disagree with my assessment of WHY that's a fact. > > No, I'm disagreeing with what you can conclude from it. From the part > of it that is true. I said many times that only a fool disagrees with the facts. That's why they're fools. I also said that the open question is why the facts are what they are. And I provided my hypothesis as to why. The hypothesis is open for discussion. The facts are not (unless you provided counter facts - which don't exist). Before you deny all facts simply because you don't like facts, why don't you provide some facts which back up your belief system?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 11:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0eajikxp5g.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #141436 |
On 2024-05-26 02:40, Andrew wrote: > micky wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:34:27 -0400 : > >> you turn off every >> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. The complete quote was: ]>> More insults. In the same way I turned you off in my 3rd line above by ]>> calling your ideas mistaken, by calling them stupid, you turn off every ]>> person who thinks cell phones cause accidents. If you're a scientist, ]>> you probably know some other scientists. Ask them if insulting people ]>> is an effective way to convince anyone of what you want them to believe. > > I'm a scientist. I look at facts. If people can't handle facts, then they > can't help me... they can't help you... and they can't help themselves. > <https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acensus.gov+us+accident+rate+year+over+year> > > You think I don't realize most people believe in myths? > Everyone who is stupid thinks cellphones raised the accident rate. > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1103.xls> scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 05:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v39240$2h8u$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141551 |
Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 11:51:28 +0200 : > scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them. Scientists provide reliable facts, which I provided, did I not? Those reliable facts have been compiled for over a hundred years, Carlos. Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean they're not facts. Worse, you denied the facts simply because you don't like the facts. That's not how scientists are supposed to act, Carlos. The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 10:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v3acb6$1phhu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141614 |
On 2024-05-29 22:16, Andrew wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 11:51:28 +0200 : > >> scientists do not insult other scientists that disagree with them. > > Scientists provide reliable facts, which I provided, did I not? 1. That is a fallacious way of defining what a scientist is. 2. No. You didn't. > Those reliable facts have been compiled for over a hundred years, Carlos. > > Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't mean they're not facts. > Worse, you denied the facts simply because you don't like the facts. > > That's not how scientists are supposed to act, Carlos. > > The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use > while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that? Everyone gets that this is Arlen, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 11:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v2v70b$pkq2$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #141425 |
Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote: > How many of you are scientists; how many of you are morons? > > It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA > > The only place that myth exists is in stupid people's minds, > since the main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain, > namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. > > In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the > accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone > ownership in the United States? > <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> > > What do you see? > <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf> > > Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year. > <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> > > What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? > <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/> > > HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. > As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. That means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive maneuvers if necessary. Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are looking at their phones. This doesn’t mean they are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their erratic driving. Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can’t stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the picture. Surely you can add more. Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what you want. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but accident rate is not the only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it’s also hard to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or some other factor. I’d wager distracted drivers caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 09:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ead2dfa7-e997-a0e1-26d7-9b783a2a9bd3@invalid.nospam> |
| In reply to | #141451 |
On 5/26/2024 7:38 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
> instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
> the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
> around them. Distracted drivers can’t stay in their lane, leading to other
> drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
> traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
> cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
> you get the picture. Surely you can add more.
>
I see that constantly. It used to be that someone who drove
slow and/or erratic was almost certainly elderly, so I'd try to be
patient. These days it's almost always the case that they're
simply on the phone.
Though yesterday I saw a lot of such people doing things like
stopping to pull a u-turn or slowing down at each side street.
I realized that most of them were tourists or non-locals in town
for a Memorial Day cookout. What a relief. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 14:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v2vfbf$mks$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141451 |
badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) : > As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that > also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me. I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200. > That > means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if > their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are > unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive > maneuvers if necessary. Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of you. > Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently > assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are > looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they are going to be an accident > statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their > erratic driving. Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did. Do you know why they give it out? I do. > Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic, > instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has > the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get > around them. Distracted drivers can't stay in their lane, leading to other > drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the > traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light > cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but > you get the picture. Surely you can add more. Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well. (See good student discount comment above.) > Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what > you want. The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts. That's why they're fools. The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably disagree with. Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each fact). But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted. > I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the > only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have > on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased > amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it's also hard > to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of > distracted driving or some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers > caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one > will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red > light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road. The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles driven. In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from 0% to almost 100%. Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact. The only question is why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v2vfin$nio$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #141454 |
Andrew wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 14:01:20 -0000 (UTC) : > Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well. > (See good student discount comment above.) Oops. Nobody ever said that driving doesn't* entail handling distractions. Bear in mind, cellphones are an added distraction that didn't exist prior. However, there are still hundreds of distractions while driving. As I said, they give good-student discounts for a reason. The adult question here isn't whether or not cellphones were such an addition that the accident rate trend changed. It didn't. That's just a fact. Nobody who is intelligent will disagree with that fact. What intelligent people need to discuss... is why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <xn0oma1306bpbsj000@reader443.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #141454 |
Andrew wrote: >badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) : > >> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, >>and that also includes the attention of the drivers >>ahead/beside/behind me. > >I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200. Yes. 2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles. https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle. Surely you have stories of your own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road. > >> That >> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to >>see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to >>know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready >>to take evasive maneuvers if necessary. > >Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of >you. That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you well know. >> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can >>confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted >>because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they >>are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a >>menace to other drivers with their erratic driving. > >Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did. >Do you know why they give it out? I do. No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong crowd in high school. Tell us why they give it out. >> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of >>traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front >>of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who >>try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't >>stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them. >>Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green >>and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again >>for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the >>picture. Surely you can add more. > >Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well. >(See good student discount comment above.) > >> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to >>say what you want. > >The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts. >That's why they're fools. > >The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with >them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably >disagree with. > >Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they >progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will >invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each >fact). > >But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted. As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over. >> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the >> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone >>drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be >>influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the >>amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of >>those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or >>some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far >>higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will >>admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red >>light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road. > >The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles >driven. > >In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip >during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from >0% to almost 100%. > >Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact. >The only question is why. Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world. -- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." ~ Voltaire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v30aaq$3k1ff$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141459 |
On 2024-05-26 08:15, badgolferman wrote: > Andrew wrote: > >> badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) : >> >>> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, >>> and that also includes the attention of the drivers >>> ahead/beside/behind me. >> >> I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200. > > Yes. 2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles. > https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh > > A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle. Surely you have stories of your > own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road. > >> >>> That >>> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to >>> see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to >>> know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready >>> to take evasive maneuvers if necessary. >> >> Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of >> you. > > That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you > well know. > >>> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can >>> confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted >>> because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they >>> are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a >>> menace to other drivers with their erratic driving. >> >> Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did. >> Do you know why they give it out? I do. > > No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong > crowd in high school. Tell us why they give it out. > >>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of >>> traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front >>> of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who >>> try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't >>> stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them. >>> Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green >>> and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again >>> for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the >>> picture. Surely you can add more. >> >> Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well. >> (See good student discount comment above.) >> >>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to >>> say what you want. >> >> The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts. >> That's why they're fools. >> >> The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with >> them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably >> disagree with. >> >> Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they >> progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will >> invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each >> fact). >> >> But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted. > > As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically > raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the > lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support > the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing > algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those > reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over. > >>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the >>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone >>> drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be >>> influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the >>> amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of >>> those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or >>> some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far >>> higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will >>> admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red >>> light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road. >> >> The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles >> driven. >> >> In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip >> during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from >> 0% to almost 100%. >> >> Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact. >> The only question is why. > > Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those > facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't > think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world. > Moreover, no "trained scientist" would ever look at just the prevalence of cellphones/smartphones and the accident rate and conclude that they can't be a problem... ...because there are too many other variables involved to draw such a conclusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-26 19:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hob75jdn71pkpqr55m0ethnlq0eepu0qrv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #141459 |
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 15:15:59 -0000 (UTC), "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote: .... >Andrew wrote. >>badgolferman wrote: > >>> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can >>>confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted >>>because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they >>>are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a >>>menace to other drivers with their erratic driving. .... > >>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of >>>traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front >>>of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who >>>try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't >>>stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them. >>>Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green >>>and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again >>>for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the >>>picture. Surely you can add more. >> >>Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well. >>(See good student discount comment above.) >> >>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to >>>say what you want. >> >>The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts. >>That's why they're fools. There is more than one way to find a fool. >>The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with >>them. > It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably >>disagree with. >> >>Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they >>progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will >>invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each >>fact). >> >>But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted. > >As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically >raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the >lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support >the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing Was the topic traffic accidents or something else? Would I be aware of a debate on whatever topic it was? What was the topic? >algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those >reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over. > >>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the >>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone >>>drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be >>>influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the >>>amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of >>>those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or >>>some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far >>>higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will >>>admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red >>>light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road. >> >>The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles >>driven. >> >>In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip >>during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from >>0% to almost 100%. >> >>Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact. >>The only question is why. > >Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those >facts, especially if those people are the government. Or manufacturers, or even devoted users. Some similarity to politicians and voters here. > If someone don't >think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world. > >-- >"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." ~ Voltaire I was going to quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and attribute that to Voltaire, but checking now it seems his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall was saying what she thought he was thinking. For a long time I was very impressed by that saying, but I thought Voltaire was standing up for somoene else. After all, it says "what you say" and "your right". But I think the issue was that people were not defending Voltaire's rigght to say what he wanted. That puts a whole new light on his devotion to free speech. Voltaire was a critic of Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, while living in a CAtholic country, and he got in trouble for it, eventually moved to Geneva to be away from them. I actually spent a month visiting a friend in Geneva but didn't learn that there was a Voltaire museum there until I had only 2 days to stay, and I had no time to visit. I might have known a lot more a lot earlier if I had, and if the exhibits were in English. Your quote might be similar, but it's better because it doesnt' appear to be defending someone else when IMO he's really thinking about himself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web