Re: How will the police find me.

micky wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 00:46:56 -0400 :

There are three questions above and afaict you didn't answer any of
them.  Maybe somewhere in your text you have answers, but I didn't see
them, so do me a favor and answer each of the 3 questiosn above.

What I'm saying is based on facts, not myth.
 

I'll fully phrase them individually, and add one:
 
Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their
cellphone while driving?

Of course not. Nobody said that.

Are you saying no one does anything on his cell phone that take takes
his attention away from his driving?

Of course not. Nobody said that.

If you agree that they do do things that take their attention, are you
saying it's not dangerous?

Of course not. Nobody said that.
 

Are you saying it doens't cause accidents?

Of course not. Nobody said that.

Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
>
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the

 
You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still
be a danger.   That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
at the top.

I'm a scientist.

It's good that you understand a few things which is that the accident rate
is based on a variety of things - but what you have to understand is the
accidents that are caused by cellphones would have happened anyway in the
statistical record.

You will NEVER understand that statement, if you don't understand why I
kept advising you that all cellphones did was replace an existing
distraction out of the top ten that was already causing most accidents.

Cellphones merely pushed number 10 of the top ten, into number 11.
Cellphones accomplished nothing else that would raise the accident rate.

And, on the flip side, they lowered the accident rate in many ways.
It's not a simple 1 + 1 = 2 equation.

But anyone who claims the accident rate went up, is a fool.
Because that is a myth.

At least in the USA it is, as the reliable data shows otherwise.

What you have here is a fact. The accident rate is unchanged.
What you need to figure out is why.

 
I just want to figure out what you're saying.

I'm a scientist. I base assessments on facts. Not myths.
a. I completely understand that cellphones are a distraction.
b. I completely understand they didn't exist and now they're everywhere.
c. I completely understand why people believe the myth.

But when you look at the reliable data, the accident rate remained
unchanged (steadily trending down) in each of the 50 states before, during
and after the sky rocketing cellphone ownership rates.

The difference between a scientist and a moron is a moron believes the
myths without checking them but the scientist looks for the facts first.
 

The fact is simple (as only fools dispute facts).
The why isn't so simple - but there are reasons why.
>
But until you agree with the fact, you have no business working on the why.

 
I'm not working on the why; I'm not working on any fact.  I'm only
asking what you are saying.

Simple. The reliable records show no effect of cellphones on accidents if
you look at the reliable accident rate statistics of the USA by the CB.

What happened was there were always distractions while driving.
And there were always a top ten (or whatever) cause of accidents.

My hypothesis on the why is all cellphones did was displace one of the top
ten. As such, they had no effect on the accident rate.

But it's open to your assessment as to the why.
Thanks for asking questions - as I'm a scientist so I welcome questions.

Most people just believe in myths without ever checking the data.