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

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?