XPost: comp.mobile.android, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: spam@nospam.com   
      
   Andy Burnelli wrote:   
      
   >>> Marketing and politics takes advantage of people's emotions & intuition.   
   >>   
   >> Distracted drivers using cellphones cause accidents.   
   >   
   > Be careful when comprehending what I said, and not what you _think_ I said.   
      
   Bear in mind I made a mistake in what I said since it was off the cuff...   
      
   I looked back and I said "accidents" so please accept my apologies in that   
   I meant the accident rate, as _anything_ causes accidents (even a duck   
   waddling across the road or fiddling with the radio tuner, etc.).   
      
   I type Usenet messages off the cuff, so what I'm saying is nobody has ever   
   found in the _reliable_ data (not cherry picked lawyer web sites!) any   
   effect whatsoever on the accident rate before, during, and after cell phone   
   ownership percentages skyrocketed.   
      
   Nobody can discuss why until they agree with that fact.   
   If you disagree with that fact, all you have to do is provide the data.   
      
   But the only data you can find that meets your intuition is that from   
   insurance companies, legal companies, and government agencies that make   
   money of ticketing.   
      
   Surely if the accident rates did have an effect from cellphone ownership   
   going from zero to nearly 100% in the USA, then you should see something in   
   the accident rates, Right?   
      
   Notice may argument is very clear.   
   The accident rate in all the reliable data shows no effect whatsoever.   
      
   The question is why.   
   --   
   Note I'm well aware every moron on the planet _believes_ that cellphones   
   must have an effect on the accident rate - but I will ask them to prove it   
   without having to resort to the three types of skewed sites listed above.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)