978b32c4   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: jollyroger@pobox.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote:   
   > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 05:46:19 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >   
   >>> 1. Cellphone use is distracting & distractions are dangerous   
   >>> 2. Accident rates compiled over the past 50 years are reliable   
   >>> 3. Cellphone ownership skyrocketed during a certain time frame   
   >>> & we assume a percentage of owners use them while driving.   
   >>   
   >> Of course you're ignoring the many factors unrelated to cell phone use that   
   >> may decrease accident rates, because that's the only way your silly   
   >> argument can work.   
   >   
   > The elephant in the room is the fact the accident rate has not   
   > shown even the slightest blip during the meteoric cellphone   
   > ownership rise in the USA.   
      
   Irrelevant since many factors unrelated to cell phone use contribute to the   
   accident rate. You are hopelessly fixated on accident rates because it's   
   the only way your argument works.   
      
   > The onus isn't on me   
      
   Your claim that accident rates must rise if cell phone use is a factor   
   hasn't been proven. Yes, the onus is on you to prove your assertion. So far   
   you have failed.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That has already been done many times. Here is just one of those many   
   studies showing that cell phone use causes driver error that can be   
   considered dangerous in the real world:   
      
      
      
   --   
   E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.   
   I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   
      
   JR   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)