Groups > misc.phone.mobile.iphone > #202864

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

From	Maria Sophia <mariasophia@comprehension.com>
Newsgroups	misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android, alt.home.repair, rec.autos.tech, rec.autos.driving
Subject	Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?
Date	2026-09-30 09:56 -0600
Organization	BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID	<119jben$207j$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <11914ob$1qku$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <11924aq$2atp7$1@dont-email.me> <11934m5$1hlm$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <1193j81$2r1co$1@dont-email.me> <119idf1$ng0$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Chris wrote:
> Main critical question is what else is going on within the automative
> industry or elsewhere that may affect accident rates. 
> 
> Also how useful are the data being used to make conclusions? Just because
> data have been collected for a long time doesn't mean they are necessarily
> useful for the purpose at hand. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your
> data has any hope to reveal the outcomes you're looking for. For example,
> can you prove with your data that the introduction of ABS reduced
> accidents?
> 
> For example your very much lauded accident data is based on police surveys.
> Surveys are universally known to be biased and only a sample of the truth.
> Given that most "fender benders" don't involve the police, how does that
> affect your assertions. 
> 
> Many posts back I gave you the exact data required to answer your question
> reliably. Did you ever bother to see if it exists?
> 
>>> 1983 = existence.
>>> 1990s = adoption.
>>> ~2005-2010 = mass adoption.
>>> 2010s-2020s = smartphone era.
>>> 
>>> Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the
>>> cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.
> 
> That's not scientific. You're prejudging the results ahead of the
> experiment. 
> 
>>> Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies?
>>> The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused 
>>> an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile 
>>> traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred.
>>> That produces a very specific prediction, does it not:
>>> If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, 
>>> then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, 
>>> the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.
> 
> Only if no other outside factors are compensating and that you're able to
> observe the change with the methods chosen. 
> 
>>> If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then 
>>> we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.
>>> 
>>> 1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular
>>> accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend.
>>> 1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the 
>>> driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny.
>>> 1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should
>>> show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones 
>>> are causing additional accidents.
>>> 2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more 
>>> apparent if the hypothesis is substantial.
>>> 2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should 
>>> remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are 
>>> materially causing additional accidents.
>>> 2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated 
>>> with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.
> 
> You're assuming a linear and direct relationship between mobile phone
> ownership and use while driving. There are other models available. Where's
> the evidence your assumption holds. 
> 
>>> The stronger test is:
>>> Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the
>>> trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?
>>> 
>>> What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis?
> 
> The above isn't a (testable) hypothesis. It's a simply a question. 
> 
>>> If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.
> 
> Experiments do not provide facts. They generate evidence.

The claim that aliens exactly manipulated the rate for 30 years, and then
stopped, by exactly counterbalancing the accidents, is so absurd as to
indicate desperation on the part of anyone who makes that ridiculous claim.

FACTS:

1. Police-reported motor-vehicle crashes (reported for over a century)
2. Divided by FHWA annual national vehicle-miles traveled statistics
3. Over 30-years of cellphone ownership skyrocketing (~1985 to ~2015)

The data is good data.

The accident rate was simply unaffected by the skyrocketing cellphone
ownership rates during those years...

Thread

csiph-web