XPost: comp.mobile.android, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: spam@nospam.com   
      
   Xeno wrote:   
      
   > It is still a *distraction* from the primary function the driver should   
   > be focussed on - driving.   
      
   Hi Xeno,   
      
   The problem here is that intuition is a terrible thing when it's wrong.   
      
   I don't discuss anything with Rod Speed or Alan Baker (or Jock, who is just   
   Rod Speed by another nym, et. al), but you can comprehend basic logic.   
      
   First off, _everyone_ (including me!) would "think" that cellphones are a   
   _sufficient_ distraction to cause accidents, and, in fact, they do.   
      
   Except....   
      
   There is zero evidence of that happening, en masse, in the "good" data,   
   which is the US Census Bureau data from the 1920's to current on traffic   
   accidents in each state (individually & combined) over the years.   
      
   None. zip. nada.   
      
   The _only_ place you see this supposed increase in accidents is in the   
   bullshit data {e.g., news anecdotes, lawyer web pages, insurance company   
   web pages and police/politician web pages}.   
      
   Now maybe lawyers and especially insurance companies know more than does   
   the US Census Bureau of traffic accidents, but that's not likely. It's far   
   more likely their data is skewed. So let's ignore their skewed crap at   
   first (we can always come back to their crap when/if we need to if we want   
   to).   
      
   If we look at the best data there is for US traffic accidents, you find   
   zero effect from the very clear ownership information of cellphones in the   
   US which sky rocketed in a decade and yet accident rates didn't change a   
   blip from their general downward trend that they always had (last I checked   
   was pre-covid days but _rates_ don't depend on miles driven so I'd expect   
   no change from covid given cellphone ownership didn't change either).   
      
   No adult discussion is possible until you agree on that fact (which I don't   
   expect anyone to agree with until they check for themselves). Once they do   
   agree on that fact, then (and only then) we can progress to why.   
      
   I think I know _why_ cellphones have zero effect on the overall accident   
   rate and the reason why I think is that people who will have accidents will   
   _always_ have accidents (essentially because they're stupid people when it   
   comes to driving - but let's not go there yet). (There's a reason insurance   
   companies give discounts to intelligent people.)   
      
   The fact is that cellphones _are_ a distraction, and the fact is there are   
   plenty of bigger and smaller distractions when driving.   
      
   I don't expect anyone to understand a word I'm saying above, mainly because   
   people are stuck on the idea that cellphones _do_ cause accidents enough to   
   change the rate, but the facts show that just isn't true.   
      
   Intuition is a terrible thing when it's wrong.   
      
   Anyway, I think the reason the fact is that cellphones didn't change the   
   accident rate had nothing to do with laws (as people don't follow the law   
   and even if they did, laws were enacted at different times in different   
   states and the rates didn't show any change anyway)...   
      
   Nope.   
      
   The reason, I think cellphones didn't change the rates is that, instead of,   
   oh, say, the top ten, twenty, or fifty or even a hundred distractions that   
   "can" happen while driving, cellphones phones simply took the place of one   
   of them, oh, say, just making this up, say it's number eight.   
      
   So what happened is the previous number 8 distraction (say that was crying   
   babies) just moved to number 9, and the total number of distractions (say   
   it was 100 before, changed to 101), and that's why there's no change in   
   accident rates.   
      
   In summary, three points I make for intelligent people to discuss.   
   1. Intuition says they are a distraction and intuition then tells us that   
   this added distraction should increase accident rates...   
   2. But fact tells us this isn't happening (and never did).   
   3. Therefore, if we agree with point 1 and point 2, then it behooves us to   
   _understand_ why.   
   --   
   I don't expect anyone on this newsgroup to own the intelligence to   
   comprehend what I just said, even fewer than zero to agree with what I just   
   said - and that's OK. It just means I'm preaching to a blank stare.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)