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

On 5/30/2024 12:06 AM, Andrew wrote:

sticks wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500 :
 

The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
FACT.

 Adults back up their strongly held belief systems with facts, don't they?
Yet you backed up your belief systems with only ad hominem attacks.

Says the scientist who calls everyone else a moron.

Think about that.
a. You supplied zero facts, and yet you denied all facts you didn't like.

You mean like everything I supplied showing your bullcrap to be just that?  Of course you cut everything and responded to none of it.

b. Then, worse, what you did supply was only ad hominem attacks.

Usenet is a special place.  Calling out trolls is pretty common.  You should know since you are a troll and most people know it.

I cited reliable facts which have been compiled for over a hundred years.
You cited none.

That would be proof you didn't read what I posted.

Yet you disputed all facts, simply because they don't fit your belief
system. Who does that? Think about that before responding, please.

You don't have any facts, dipshit.  That was the point of my post.

Bear in mind, nobody disputes the accident rate statistics.
Nobody. 

Except for the NHTSA.
"NHTSA recognizes that there are limitations to the collection and reporting of FARS and CRSS data with regard to driver distraction. The data collections for FARS and CRSS are based on PCRs (police crash reports) and information gathered after the crashes have occurred."
"One noteworthy challenge for collection of distracted driving data is the PCR itself. PCRs vary across jurisdictions, creating inconsistencies in reporting. Many variables on the PCR are nearly universal, but distraction is not one of those variables. Some PCRs identify
distraction as a distinct reporting field while others do not have such a field and identification of distraction is based upon the narrative portion of the report. This variation in reporting forms contributes to variation in the reported number of distraction-affected crashes. Any
national or State count of distraction-affected crashes should be interpreted with this limitation in mind due to potential underreporting in some States and overreporting in others"
That said, even if we could trust the gubmint to have reliable statistics, they're still not a fact.  Statistics are a tool. Did you miss this part too?
"A statistic is just a number. And numbers are as easily manipulatable,
incomplete, and misleading as words are. But they’re more dangerous than
words, because numbers are associated with math, and math is associated with fact."

If they did, you would have supplied a cite showing that they did.
You can't.

Don't have to.  You did.

Because nobody denies the accident rate facts who is a responsible adult.

Except the HHTSA...

The fact you simply denied that facts can exist is your entire argument.

Nope, my argument is that using statistics as if they are fact is not something a scientist should be doing.  They are no such thing.  I've pointed out why.

The adult question to ponder, once you understand it, is if cellphone use
while driving is so dangerous, why does the accident rate not show that?

round and round and round and round.
--
Stand With Israel!