Re: How will the police find me.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:

Chris wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:22:34 -0000 (UTC) :

Silent snip noted. Arlen is clearly unhappy about being found out to be
wrong on multiple occasions.

Assessment of that fact:
Those accident rate reports are accurate.

 
Based on what? How are you defining accuracy? Is it post hoc justification
because those numbers match your bias?

 
You're the one with the "bias" becsaue you quoted zero facts.

Also noted that you haven't answered the question.

Unlike you, I've said many times that I too would have believed the ignrant
myth about cellphones & accident rates had I not checked the facts in the
reliable records like any well-trained scientist should do,.
 
I know the facts.
You are just guessing.

I haven't made any statements.

Hence, you're the one holding on to the myth without checking the facts.
 
People who are not ignorant & uneducated *have* looked at the myth though.
 <https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/8/>
 
Look at the US Census Accident Rate statistics by year, for example.
 <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
 
What do you see, Chris?
 <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>

I see very old and patchy data.

Look at first-order effects, Chris... i.e., the accident rate per year.
 <https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
 
What do you see happening during the skyrocketing cellphone days, Chris?
 <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
 
HINT: Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.

Only one of those links is for accidents. The others are deaths, which
you've claimed for years are not meaningful.