Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA

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.