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

The question is WHY do people claim cellphones increased the accident rate.

The answer was provided in this thread. They simply made up accident rates that never existed.

Now, the question is WHY they made up those accident rates. That, we don't know yet.

But I do know why cellphones didn't increase the accident rate. Do you?

HINT: The accident rate is a function of what causes accidents the most. And cellphones aren't even on the list of what causes most accidents.

Do you even know what causes most accidents, Chris? I do.

HINT: It's not distractions... bit it's something big. Really really big.

Hi Scott,

Hoooray!

You're the first person to begin to understand what's happening!

If we remove the specific details (of LE being involved), the major cause of accidents is speeding (i.e., not being in control) where the cellphone distraction effect is dwarfed by the fact the person couldn't control the vehicle when "something happens" which ended up in an on-record accident.

People forget that distractions are NOT even close to the major accident cause (in terms of the accident rate), which is why the rate didn't change.

Depending on whom we ask, the three major causes of accidents are 1. speed 2. impairment 3. failure to yield right of way (i.e., breaking the rules)

Distractions pale in comparison.

Which explains why the accident rate had no effect (either way) when cellphones became one more of over a thousand known distractions.

And that's why we know texting and driving causes NO ACCIDENTS. Because there's only anecdotal evidence.

That goes for watching p*rn, or drinking and driving. There is no evidence they cause accidents.

AI Overview: The use of cell phones has been shown to have NO EFFECT on the probability of car accidents. Period. The End.

Utter bollocks.

Utter bollocks.

Idiotic AI is completely useless for anything, and like silly "studies" can 'prove' whatever you want it to 'prove' ...

AI Overview: Yes, using a cell phone while driving significantly increases the risk of a car accident. Research shows that talking on a phone multiplies the risk of a crash by roughly four times, while texting or reading messages can increase the chance of crashing by up to 20 times or more.

Here's another example of the uselessness of the idiotic AI gimmick ... ask Mr Google "does using a cellphone cause people to sneeze", and you get:

AI Overview: Yes, using a cell phone can indirectly cause you to sneeze. Cell phones collect common household allergens like pet dander, mold fragments, and dust on their surfaces. Holding the phone close to your face transfers these particles near your nose and triggers allergic reactions.

Another moronic looney for the killfile. :-\

No-one has said that. You've put that up as a strawman argument.

You're not giving up, then?

And you haven't explained why it is useful and relevant. For some reason you think correlating mobile phone ownership with a survey of police accident reports is indicative of something. Explain. You may think it's obvious, but it isn't and won't become clear until you understand the parameters of your datasets and the limitations of correlations.

Hi Chris,

1. We know EXACTLY when cell phones came into being, Chris. 2. We know EXACTLY what the accident rate is before, during & after.

The fact the accident rate shows NO CHANGE from the downward trend simply tells us that the cellphone didn't change the accident rate.

So why do people think it did?

HINT: People parrot propaganda.

Hi Chris,

First off, you claimed the question is unknown when it's in the SUBJECT line for God's sake, so you can't possibly have been serious in asking.

But even so, people claimed the data was bad, even as there isn't a professional on the planet who doubts the USA accident rate data, Chris.

The problem is people believe only in the emotionally charged propaganda. This is the point I'm making.

People religiously parrot the bullshit propaganda w/o thinking about it.

Oh, my mistake. I apologize.

This is all good data which nobody professional could possibly deny: 1. The years between when cellphones were introduced to saturation 2. The number of accidents reported during those years, before & after 3. The number of miles driven for those same periods

All this is good data. None of it is "cherry picked".

That data shows EXACTLY what one would expect if they UNDERSTOOD what causes vehicular accidents, which is speed, intoxication & not following the laws, e.g., running stop signs, red lights, failure to yield, etc.).

That's what causes most accidents. Not distracted driving.

Anyone who UNDERSTOOD the data would UNDERSTAND that first & foremost. Furthermore, people have been handling distractions while driving since the

Like you, I never once said distractions don't cause accidents. And, like you, I never once said a cellphone isn't an added distraction. Only a fool says that, and I'm no fool. Neither are you.

All I asked is why do people THINK the accident rate would be affected by cellphones when distractions are a minor cause of accidents in the first place, and worse, cellphone distractions are simply one more out of a hundred that people handle every minute that they drive a vehicle.

Mostly what I got in response was people claiming, like some did, that the data is bad, but the whole point I'm making is the data is damn good data.

So what people need to do is adjust their belief system. Which was the main point of me writing the thread in the first place.

If we all learned something, then I'm happy, as that was my overall goal. People need to understand, in perspective, what causes most accidents.

HINT: It's NOT distracted driving. So it's natural that the accident rate didn't show even a blip.

No I didn't.

As I said elsewhere you're making multiple claims. If you were actually wanting an answer you'd be specific. I know that's a big "if".

No-one had claim that.

Yet another one of your straw men.

The question is all about intelligence, Chris. Thinking.

I repeat, Chris, very obviously, that the topic is in the subject line.

Q: *Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?* A: ?

I'm making a point that people parrot emotional propaganda w/o thinking. Most people simply do not understand what has always caused most accidents. a. Speeding b. Intoxication c. Failure to yield the right of way

Because of emotional propaganda, people lost sight of the magnitude of how little distractions cause accidents, and how adding a new distraction to the thousands of existing distractions, didn't cause measurable changes to the accident rate as measured before, during and after the cellphone spike.

Most people religiously parrot the propaganda w/o even thinking about it. Why?

Why did I ask this question of cellphone & automotive newsgroups?

Q: *Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate?* A: ?

I'm making a point that people parrot emotional propaganda w/o thinking. Most people simply do not understand what has always caused most accidents. a. Speeding b. Intoxication c. Failure to yield the right of way

Because of emotional propaganda, people lost sight of the magnitude of how little distractions cause accidents, and how adding a new distraction to the thousands of existing distractions, didn't cause measurable changes to the accident rate as measured before, during and after the cellphone spike.

Most people religiously parrot the propaganda w/o even thinking about it. Why?

Ok, please try.

Thanks for reading,

bob prohaska

Why does a correlation of those numbers have any meaning? You're assuming that the before, during and after are directly comparable. Are they? Has nothing else changed in that period?

You've only shown three numbers. That's nowhere near enough to make any categorical statements. Either one way or the other.

Hi Bob Prohaska,

Many years ago, I too read all the emotionally charged propaganda about cellphones causing horrific accidents, so I simply did what adults do.

I looked it up. Whoa? What? No way.... They lied?

Almost everything online about cellphones causing horrific accidents is clickbait, where the articles *never* reference what really matters.

Almost all the clickbait is from four extremely biased clickbait entities: 1. News media (man bites dog being more interesting than dog bites man) 2. Insurance 3. Politicians (and police) 4. Lawyers

Almost *everything* online about cellphone related accidents is from them. Nobody else (for the most part). Just them.

Just try to find something (anything!) about this subject for the USA accident rate caused by cellphones (not injuries as that's 2nd order).

You certainly can't have injuries without the 1st order accident first.

They make it sound like distractions are the major cause of accidents. But the data is easy to check, and it simply did not support the claims. a. The number of accidents has been recorded for over a century b. As has the number of miles driven (although methods have changed) c. We take the number of accidents divided by miles to get the rate

And, of course, we look at three periods, which are extremely well known: i. Before cellphones existed ii. During the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership iii. After the cellphone ownership plateau

OMG! Nothing? Seriously? Absolutely no effect whatsoever?

The accident rate in the USA, which is extremely good data, doesn't even show so much as a blip during the skyrocketing rise of cellphone ownership.

Hmmmm... They lied. There is no evidence at all that the accident rate is at all affected...

So what is the real effect of cellphones, given they're certainly an added distraction and distractions must cause *some* accidents in the USA, right?

Remember, people handle thousands of distractions while driving, and have done so for a century (some handle it better'n others, but that's why they give me a good-driver and good-student discount on my insurance premiums).

Then it hit me WHY cellphones had no effect on the USA accident rate. A. Speeding is the major cause of accidents in the USA B. Intoxication is the second leading cause of accidents in the USA C. Failure to yield is the third leading cause of accidents in the USA The rest pale in comparison in terms of being a leading cause of accidents.

So now that we have the data, you see why I brought up people believing gravity is a force, or people believing saints caused miracles or people believing premium gasoline gives their Honda Civic more power, etc...

Most people simply parrot the propaganda without even thinking to check. Most people don't own the mental acuity to separate propaganda from fact.

Q: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate? A: Most people don't own the mental capacity to comprehend the facts.

They believe (and parrot!) *every* single thing that they told to believe.

Hi Chris,

The whole point of this thread is to force people to challenge propaganda.

You bring up good questions, where something mysterious might have happened (where I joke it must be intelligent aliens) to EXACTLY counter the astoundingly sudden spike in accidents that the common hypothesis predicts.

Mysteriously, this counteraction a. EXACTLY counters EXACTLY the cellphone ownership rise and plateau b. EXACTLY in time, duration, and in numbers

Amazing. It's so amazing that I claim only very intelligent Aliens could do it.

In fact, your claim is so amazing as to be utterly absurd. Why can't you accept the fact that the accident rate did NOT spike, Chris?

What's wrong with the data? The data is good data. Nobody professional objects to the data, Chris.

That data is very reliable. a. Number of accidents b. Divided by miles driven

Those who claim that's "cherry picked data" are simply showing that they own a religious belief system that can't handle it's basic good data.

Now, I'm like anyone, where I read that cellphones were an added distraction, but what makes me different than most, is that I can think.

I looked for the accident rate to spike. It didn't.

Why not? I think I know why, but that's not the question in this thread.

If cellphones had any measurable effect on the accident rate, show it. So the question in this thread is why do people believe that it did?

There's no doubt that distractions cause a minor number of accidents. I don't think anyone doubts that, but what's the major cause of accidents? a. Speeding b. Intoxication c. Failure to yield

Cellphones had no effect on those accidents, which form the bulk of the accidents and which were, presumably, wholly unaffected by cell phone use.

In addition, cellphones were an added distraction to the already long list of over a thousand known distractions while driving, but if you read the news, you'd think cellphones caused this horrid spike in the accident rate.

It didn't. There wasn't even a blip.

Which is the point of this thread. People believe the propaganda w/o question who believe that it did.

I wrote this thread so that intelligent people could question their religious belief system, which was fed to them by these biased entities: 1. News media (man bites dog being more interesting than dog bites man) 2. Insurance 3. Politicians (and police) 4. Lawyers

Notice NOBODY can show the USA accident rate even so much as showed a blip. Hence, anyone who claims otherwise, is espousing a purely religious belief.

Devoid of fact.