Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?

Hi Andrew,

Look up "gravity is not a force". Tell us what you found.

You're conflating two different frameworks.

In Newtonian mechanics, gravity is indeed modeled as a force. But in General Relativity, gravity is not a force in that sense since freely falling objects follow geodesics in curved spacetime, and what we call "gravitational acceleration" is the result of spacetime geometry rather than a force acting on the object.

Also, physics does not have "four forces" in the same theoretical sense. The Standard Model describes three fundamental interactions a. electromagnetism, b. the strong interaction, c. and the weak interaction While General Relativity describes gravity geometrically rather than as a quantum force within the Standard Model.

And the 1919 eclipse observations were an important early test of GR's prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun, but calling them "dispositive proof" is much too strong by modern standards. They provided early evidence consistent with GR and hundreds of thousands of subsequent observations and experiments have subjected the theory to vastly more stringent tests.

So my point that "gravity is not a force" was specifically in the General Relativistic sense, not a denial that gravity is conventionally called a force by people who only know of Newtonian physics of centuries ago.

However.... this isn't a physics lesson, because people who claim that aliens must have EXACTLY manipulated the accident rate to cancel out an astronomical spike they predicted in both timing & magnitude, have not shown that they have reached the level of understanding general relativity.

My main point was that people own a religious belief system that, when you try to explain to them the facts, using statistics, such as the accident rate which has been calculated in the USA rather accurately for decades, that they come up with a pithy excuse that "they feel" negates all facts.

Since I also took statistics when I took science & engineering courses, I know all the aphorisms that people use to negate facts that THEY NEVER EVEN LOOKED AT EVEN ONCE! (Note that this is what ALWAYS happens!).

a. People have a religious belief system which is NOT based on facts b. When provided statistics which challenge that belief system... c. They use one of the pithy aphorisms below to make the facts "go away".

And yet, they *never* even *L@@KED* at the facts before claiming... a. "Correlation isn't causation." True, but often used as though it means correlation tells us nothing. b. "Statistics can prove anything." Usually a way of avoiding asking which statistics, from what data, using what method? c. "Numbers don't lie; liars use numbers." A rhetorical escape hatch rather than an analysis of the numbers. d. "You can make statistics say whatever you want." Sometimes true of bad analysis but it's not an argument against a particular analysis. e. "That's just a statistic." As though aggregation somehow makes measurements cease to be evidence. f. "I don't need statistics as I have common sense." Particularly useful when the question is precisely whether intuition matches reality. g. "My experience says otherwise." An anecdote promoted to the status of a representative sample. h. "I've never seen that happen." A one-person observation treated as evidence about a population. i. "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." A wonderfully reusable way of declining to investigate what the statistics actually show. j. "You can't reduce everything to numbers." Often correct, but irrelevant when the question is specifically quantitative. k. "Statistics don't tell the whole story." They generally don't but the interesting question is what part of the story they do tell. l. "That's just an average." As if distributions, confidence intervals, sample sizes, etc. don't exist. m. "The sample size is only X." Sometimes an excellent objectionx but sometimes merely a number repeated without considering whether X is actually inadequate for the effect being measured. n. "Who funded the study?" A legitimate question about conflicts of interest that can also be deployed as a conversation-ending genetic fallacy. o. "Scientists have been wrong before." Technically irrefutable and almost completely nonresponsive. p. "There are studies on both sides." Treating the mere existence of opposing studies as evidence that the evidence is evenly balanced. q. "Show me a study that proves it." Often sneaks an impossible standard of absolute proof into an empirical question. r. "That's not statistically significant, therefore there's no effect." A particularly technical version of the same mistake. s. "It could just be chance." A possibility is not a probability estimate. t. "That's an outlier." Sometimes correct but sometimes an attempt to throw away an inconvenient observation without a principled criterion. u. "Statistics are manipulated by whoever collects them." Possible, but again doesn't establish that these particular data were manipulated. v. "People aren't statistics." True and entirely compatible with statistics being about populations. w. "The data are cherry-picked." Sometimes an important criticism, but it needs to identify what relevant data were omitted and why their inclusion would change the conclusion. x. "That's not what the numbers really mean." A wonderfully convenient assertion when one doesn't want to say what the numbers actually mean instead. y. "You can find a study to support anything." The existence of a bad or contrary study doesn't establish that the available evidence is evenly divided. z. "Well, that's just your interpretation of the data." Sometimes legitimate, but often used without offering an alternative analysis of the data or explaining why the original interpretation is wrong.

You are just dead wrong about that.

Current syllabus for MIT Physics:

Corrected it for you. :-p

A quick Google search seems to indicate that using a CB radio or similar while driving is also illegal in some US states (exemptions of emergency services, etc.), but not in others.

Yes. Here, in Spain.

It is also illegal to wear headphones while driving, which is a problem for bikers. Fortunately, there are some helmets with integrated headphones that are legal.

You can use two way radio IF you don't hold the mike in your hands.

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for bringing up that question, even as it was just an example that most people understand almost nothing about anything.

Gravity being one of those things almost nobody who isn't a scientist can possibly understand (since they think that gravity is a force).

When we understand science, we realize the simplifications are wrong.

There's nothing wrong with that elementary lecture on Newtonian physics.

Nobody doubts that, in Newtonian physics, gravity is treated as a force (even as Newton himself, cast seriously strong doubts).

The issue that you need to separate is what, while nobody doubts Newtonian physics treats gravity as a force, the whole point I was brining up is that NOBODY who understands GR would do so.

General Relativity gives a fundamentally different description of gravity, which was my point that the hoi polloi have no idea that gravity isn't a force since they don't understand science.

You have to realize Newtonian physics is an approximation of reality because it was formalized centuries ago when we didn't know about spacetime but it's great that you know something (anything!) about physics, so I congratulate you for at least being able to hold an erudite conversation requiring a modicum of scientific learning.

It's shocking to find anyone on these newsgroups who knows even the slightest thing about physics (or any science for that matter), so I welcome a conversation with you on this topic, as long as you realize i was bringing up gravity not being a force to point out that most people have never thought about what they're told, and whether it's true.

My point was people thinking we're weightless in space while in orbit are simply wrong, but they don't own the intellectual tools to question it.

Astronauts in a space station "seem" weightless to them, so, they simply believe, without questioning the observation, that they're weightless.

It's the same with gravity not being a force.

To call gravity a force in the Newtonian sense is fine, but it's NOT a force once you look at it after 1916, where it turns out to be caused by the warpage of spacetime near mass-energy (which I'll call mass here, but mass and energy are interchangeable but I don't want to always repeat it).

I told you to look it up, so I'll provide random hits for you to click. DOE Explains...Gravity

etc.

As I recall, here, in most states (although I can't speak for all of them), you can cover one ear with a headphone, but not both (but we can check).

So, we need to distinguish, with headphones anyway, about number of ears.

The point being everyone thinks they know the answer, and yet, when we dig deeper, we find out almost nobody knows the answer "well enough".

If you know it so well it would be very easy for you to evidence it irrefutably. Which you've yet to do this time and also every other time you bring this up.

Why? Because it doesn't exist.

Your attempts to make yourself sound like an authority just come across as the boasts of a weak man.

I invite you to respond to my experimental design questions and also Carlos's very pertinent ChatGPT clear answers to your intentionally false claims.

Nice one!

Jesus Christ, Chris. Seriously. Have you no decency? I gave you the facts!

I get it you're from the iOS group so you think denying all facts makes them go away, but I posted the evidence in this group, Read the thread.

Yes. It's boring. Not a single emoji. No 'bold new colors' either. But I provided the statistics and the links to where they came from. 1. Cellphone ownership rates 2. Miles driven 3. Accidents

Accidents divided by miles driven over the period of cellphone skyrocketing, and there are no changes whatsoever in the rate.

I explained my hypothesis and the data supports it. You invented accident rates which don't exist. Now support that.

Don't support it by NOT looking at the data and saying it doesn't exist. That's what Apple posters do all the time on the Apple newsgroups, Chris.

Oh my God, Chris. I get it you are from an iOS group but what Carlos posted had absolutely nothing to do with hte statistics that I had presented.

If Carlos had pasted those statistics and their references into his vaunted LLM and then posted the response, it may actually have taught him somthing.

But Carlos just asked chatGPT jokes. Let's see what Carlos finds when he posts the figures asking the LLM: Q: Here is the statistics posted to Usenet. Are they correct? A: (then what Carlos posts, which are not jokes, would be useful)

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for trying to discuss, appropriately, whether gravity is a force.

People who only know about Newtonian physics and laypeople who don't know anything about science would say that Gravity is a force, so I don't blame you, but since about 1916, scientists have know gravity is NOT a force.

I only brought up that fact because my point about cellphones is that almost nobody on these newsgroups knows anything about science so they actually believe the propaganda about cellphones without checking it.

It's the same with people believing we breathe oxygen when doing a typical <100 foot deep scuba dive, as it just seems to them it must be oxygen, even as oxygen, alone, would be toxic once we get to any reasonable depth.

People don't think. People have no concept of science.

It's why people parrot the propaganda that cellphones are a distraction (and they are) and they're an added distraction (which they are) and therefore, the accident rate must have skyrocketed simply because there's anecdotal evidence of accidents caused by people using a cellphone while driving (and there is).

But people are basically stupid. They have no concept of what actually causes accidents.

Nor in what magnitude.

Back to gravity is NOT a force, while that's NOT the intent of this thread to prove it, I simply typed "gravity is a force" into Google for you.

My point isn't to teach people basic physics. My point is people don't think.

People don't question belief systems if everyone around them has them. That's why religion endures.

Hi Chris,

Carlos posted jokes. They're funny.

But they had nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is why do people persist in believing the propaganda without ever once questioning it?

Ask Carlos, or anyone, to take the posts in this thread which do contain the statistics, and links to where they came from, to ask the LLM this...

Q: Dear LLM, here are the statistics someone posted to Usenet to back up his claim that most people are stupid in that they believe the propaganda that the cellphone caused the USA accident rate to spike. Did it? A: (Let's see what Carlos gets out of that, instead of just posting jokes.)

Hi David,

I live in California where I'm familiar with the nanny state mindset.

We can't even buy real windshield wiper fluid where I live. It's illegal (because of the VOCs).

But back to your point, you're likely the only one out of a dozen respondents or so, who looked at this from the standpoint of logic.

Everyone else looked at it purely emotionally, as in "My sister's best friend's mother was hit by a guy using a cellphone while driving".

1. Note that I never once said cellphones aren't a distraction.
2. I never once said cellphones aren't an added distraction.
3. And I never once said distractions don't cause a number of accidents.

But do you know what is the major cause of accidents?

HINT: It's not even close...

What I said was if people test their hypothesis that the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates caused a spike in the USA accident rate (where good data has been collected for more than a century), they won't find it.

What I'm asking people to do is think. Think about the propaganda and check it against the data.

That's all I'm, asking people to do. Instead of taking everything on religious faith, look at it like science.

Instead of parroting that "premium gas makes my Honda Civic more powerful", think about what an octane rating really means.

Instead of parroting that "orbiting astronauts are weightless", think about where weight comes from, even as gravity itself is not a true force.

Instead of parroting that scuba divers "breathe oxygen a <100 foot depths", think about the known toxicity of oxygen at those pressures.

My point is that people parrot what sounds believable to them, but they don't bother to check if what they're parroting has any basis in science.

What do you think the major cause of accidents is, anyway? HINT: It's not distractions.

Typical reaction to a pertinent post. Attacking the messenger rather than deal with the facts.

Picking just the first example from NHTSA. Where do you disagree with the facts?

There's a 12x increased risk of an accident when dialling a phone number and 6.6x increased risk when texting.

These are results from scientific studies done with the appropriate data, not random police statistics.

I have to commend Chris... on being the first person to act like an adult.

Chris is the first person in this thread to even attempt to reconcile the facts scientifically that the accident rate was completely unchanged in the decades before, during and after the skyrocketing rate of cellphone ownership, where we can presume added a new distraction to the thousands of distractions facing every driver since the 1920s when automobiles became common.

Nobody disputes the accident rate trend was unchanged, so every hypothesis as to why cellphones caused nary a blip on the accident rate must incorporate that fact into the accident rate, which is the total number of accidents divided by the number of miles driven, which is accurate data compiled in the USA for almost a century which nobody disputes.

So before I respond to Chris, I need to commend him for "trying" to reconcile with the facts that cellphones had no effect on accident rates.

Notice I don't disagree with science. I never, in my decades on Usenet, have *ever* disagreed with facts.

Only a fool does that. That's why they're fools.

I'm no fool. I know what that article says.

The problem is a high conditional risk ratio for a particular behavior doesn't tell us that the behavior is a major cause of crashes at the population level. Show me the population-attributable fraction, using a defensible causal methodology.

Does anyone here even know what the major cause of accidents happens to be? Anyone? Nobody?

LOL.

Skimmed over your post a bit, it is foolish, not worth it to answer.

Why are you hiding behind ad hominems?

What does "being from an iOS group" even mean? If you don't want a response from people who subscribe to ios (Ed. iphone actually) ngs you shouldn't post in them.

It's got nothing to do with whether the "statistics" (sic) are correct or not, it's what you're trying to infer from them that matters.

State explicitly what the question at hand is. The CharGPT response is correct in that you're trying to conflate two different things. Pick one. Then, Explain clearly in terms of scientific methodology why the data you've chosen is appropriate to the question and why you think a correlation (or otherwise) is the best way to answer the question.

The only person giving up is you. Don't let the door hit you on your backside on the way out...

Hi Chris, The only person who supplied any data, is me.

Everyone else said they heard that their sister's best friend's mother was in an accident where a cellphone was involved, so that's all they know.

1. Nobody said cellphones aren't a distraction.
2. Nobody said cellphones aren't an added distraction
3. Nobody said there aren't a billion distractions
4. Of which, cellphones are only one.

Think about that.

Do you know the major cause of accidents? I do.

HINT: It's not distractions.