409bcad9   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote   
   > Rod Speed wrote   
      
   >> Because it isn't about OWNERSHIP.   
      
   >>> You hate good data.   
      
   >> You have no good data on CELLPHONE USE WHEN DRIVING.   
      
   > Exactly my point!   
      
   You never had a point.   
      
   > My data matches perfectly!   
      
   You have NO data on cellphone use when driving, so   
   there can be no match to anything, perfect or otherwise.   
      
   > The data doesn't match for those who   
   > claim that cellphone use is dangerous!   
      
   There is NO data on cellphone use when driving, so   
   there can be no match to anything, perfect or otherwise.   
      
   > We all can agree the only good data we have is:   
   > 1. Accident rates, and,   
   > 2. Cellphone ownership.   
      
   Pity that cellphone ownership is completely   
   irrelevant to cellphone use when driving.   
      
   > We can all agree that the really bad data is:   
   > 3. Cellphone use while driving   
      
   You don’t know whether its good or bad.   
      
   ALL you know is the lack of it.   
      
   > 4. Accidents related to cellphone use while driving   
      
   I don’t agree that that data is bad when we   
   have accurate information on when the accident   
   happened from a dashcam, GPS, break in   
   cellphone use, call to 911 etc etc etc.   
      
   > And, we may not agree, but it's clear to me the really bad data are   
   > those so-called studies which *prove* [sic] that cellphone use while   
   > driving is as dangerous as (name-your-most-headline-grabbing-disability).   
      
   Don’t need a study to realise that driving around   
   with your eyes closes is rather dangerous.   
      
   > So, finally you can see that the people who *claim*   
   > at cellphone use while driving causes accidents   
   > have zero reliable data to back up their claims.   
      
   That's a lie when we have accurate information   
   on when the accident happened from a dashcam,   
   GPS, break in cellphone use, call to 911 etc etc etc.   
      
   > Meanwhile, I claim nothing.   
      
   Another lie. You repeatedly claim that there   
   is no evidence that using a cellphone when   
   driving has had any effect on the accident rate.   
      
   > Cellphone use or not use, ownership or not ownership,   
   > doesn't matter one bit when you measure accident rates.   
      
   Because any effect cellphone use WHILE DRIVING   
   is swamped by the continuing decline in the accident   
   rate due to better road design and better car design   
   with stuff like antilock braking etc etc etc.   
      
   > You may as well measure how many people wear   
   > green shirts, to compare the effect with accident rates.   
      
   > So, my proof is obvious.   
      
   You have not a shred of proof of anything because   
   as you admit,  you have no data on what is being   
   discussed, cellphone use while driving.   
      
   > There is no effect whatsoever from cellphone ownership   
      
   Hardly surprising given that only a small subset   
   of those who own a cellphone use it while driving.   
      
   > or use since there is no effect on accidents.   
      
   You don’t know that either. ALL you know is that the   
   accident rate keeps dropping. You have absolutely no   
   idea whether it would have dropped more if cellphones   
   had never been invented.   
      
   > The onus is not on me to show what the effect   
   > of cellphone ownership or use is on accidents,   
      
   Wrong when you keep mindlessly claiming that   
   there is no visible effect of the undisputed massive   
   increase in cellphone OWNERSHIP in the accident rates.   
      
   You might as well claim that there is no visible effect   
   on the accident rate from the invention of television either.   
      
   > since I can easily see that there is no effect whatsoever.   
      
   You can in fact see nothing of the sort.   
      
   > It's those who *claim* there is an effect who   
   > need to produce the data you seek, and, we   
   > know, they'll *never* be able to produce that data.   
      
   Another lie if someone chooses to produce the stats   
   that show what the cellphone usage was from the   
   cellphone recodes when the time of the accident   
   is well known from a dashcam, GPS, break in   
   cellphone use, call to 911 etc etc etc.   
      
   > Hence, they fall back on anecdotes and those so-called "studies".   
      
   > Don't you see this?   
      
   Nothing to see except you mindlessly raving on   
   about completely irrelevant cellphone ownership.   
      
   > Or is it a whooosh for you too?   
      
   There is no whooosh, no elephant and no room either.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)