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

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Newsgroups	comp.mobile.android, alt.home.repair, misc.phone.mobile.iphone, rec.autos.tech, rec.autos.driving
Subject	Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
Date	2026-09-25 05:40 +1200
Organization	BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID	<1193na2$su4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <1190vf4$1u1pb$1@dont-email.me> <11914ob$1qku$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <11924aq$2atp7$1@dont-email.me> <11934m5$1hlm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <1193j81$2r1co$1@dont-email.me>
Cross-posted to 5 groups.
Show all headers | View raw
bp@www.zefox.net wrote:
> Your summaries are persuasive that crashes per vehicle mile have gone
> down over the span of cellphone adoption. That does not suggest cellphone
> use is benign while driving, rather that other innovations have been more
> influential. Adoption of ABS is one counterpoise to distracted and 
> unskilled driving.

Hi Bob Prohaska, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

csiph-web