c9f1cd83   
   978b32c4   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:02:12 -0500, Paul M. Cook wrote:   
      
   > The onus isn't on me to explain that cellphone use has absolutely   
   > no effect on that fact, since *nothing* is changing in the accident   
   > rate, which has been kept for the past 50 years and which is   
   > reliable data.   
   >   
   > The onus is on those who "claim" that cellphones are dangerous to   
   > use in vehicles to prove that they really have an effect in the   
   > real world.   
      
   I should point out that the *trend* in the accident rate is what   
   is not changing. The trend is ever downward, due to a huge variety   
   of long-standing factors such as increased stability control and   
   roadway lighting and signage, etc.   
      
   The onus isn't on those who claim that cellphone use actually has   
   *any* effect whatsoever on either that trend or on the accident   
   rate itself, as there is no effect that anyone can find.   
      
   So, the cellphone-law proponents have to ignore basic facts in   
   order to make their argument (they have to delude themselves).   
      
   That's why they "appear" stupid to me.   
   However, as has been said, maybe they're not actually stupid.   
      
   Maybe they just can't handle facts?   
   Or maybe they have an emotional attachment to the idea?   
      
   Or maybe they are highly intuitive judgmental types who don't need   
   data to support their arguments?   
      
   Or, maybe, just maybe, they "are" stupid.   
   I don't know which it is because they all say the same thing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)