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

d. spike protein

Turns out spike protein causes organ damage. The brain is an organ. You do the math.

Hi Bob,

I've never made a statement that isn't backed up in facts, in decades of posting to Usenet, so rest assured, everything I said has references.

The references are already in this thread, which I repeat below for your convenience...

====< #1 cut here for the next reference post >==== Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.driving,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate? Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:35:00 +0300 Message-ID: <118khr3$1ekk$ snipped-for-privacy@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Your Name wrote:

Hi YourName,

Assuming no other factor was involved to cancel the arguments that people are claiming, if their hypothesis is cell phones cause accidents, then the accident rate should have skyrocketed at some point during the introduction of cellphones, right?

What's intuitively obvious is most accidents are NOT caused by cell phones. Speed and drunken driving are, almost certainly, vastly great represented.

Even so, given we know exactly when cellphones were introduced into the USA, those who argue cellphones meaningfully increased the USA accident rate have merely to show us valid USA statistics which back up their claim.

U.S. cell phones, crashes, miles, and crash rate - 1988-2024 Crash rate = NHTSA estimated police-reported crashes ??WA VMT x 100 million.

Year Wireless connections* Police-reported crashes VMT (billion) Crashes / 100M VMT

1988 2.07 M 6,886,800 2,026 339.9 1989 3.51 M 6,652,815 2,096 317.4 1990 5.28 M 6,471,202 2,144 301.8 1991 7.56 M 6,117,359 2,172 281.6 1992 11.03 M 6,000,310 2,247 267.0 1993 16.01 M 6,105,915 2,296 265.9 1994 24.13 M 6,495,988 2,358 275.5 1995 33.79 M 6,699,415 2,423 276.5 1996 44.04 M 6,769,583 2,500 270.8 1997 55.31 M 6,624,149 2,568 257.9 1998 69.21 M 6,334,573 2,645 239.5 1999 86.05 M 6,279,036 2,707 232.0 2000 109.48 M 6,393,624 2,764 231.3 2001 128.37 M 6,322,963 2,813 224.8 2002 140.77 M 6,315,708 2,874 219.8 2003 158.72 M 6,327,955 2,909 217.5 2004 182.14 M 6,181,027 2,982 207.3 2005 207.90 M 6,159,350 3,009 204.7 2006 233.04 M 5,973,213 3,034 196.9 2007 255.40 M 6,024,008 3,049 197.6 2008 270.33 M 5,810,846 2,993 194.1 2009 285.65 M 5,505,180 2,976 185.0 2010 296.29 M 5,419,445 2,985 181.6 2011 315.96 M 5,337,829 2,965 180.0 2012 326.48 M 5,615,045 2,969 189.1 2013 335.65 M 5,686,891 2,988 190.3 2014 355.45 M 6,064,284 3,040 199.5 2015 377.92 M 6,296,134 3,110 202.4 2016 ~387 M 6,821,129 3,174 214.9 2017 ~392 M 6,452,598 3,225 200.1 2018 ~413 M 6,734,681 3,255 206.9 2019 ~435 M 6,756,084 3,276 206.2 2020 ~461 M 5,251,006 2,917 180.0 2021 ~491 M 6,103,213 3,154 193.5 2022 ~515 M 5,930,697 3,197 185.5 2023 ~558 M 6,138,474 3,247 189.0 2024 ~? 6,180,241 3,294 1 8

*Wireless figures are connections/subscriptions, not unique people. CTIA's historical series gives the exact 1988-2015 numbers/ For example, 1990 was 5,283,055 and 2015 was 377,921,241.

? Later CTIA reporting uses slightly different reported connections.

The crash figures through 2020 come from NHTSA's national GES/CRSS series. NHTSA's historical table explicitly starts at 1988 and gives 6,886,800 total crashes for that year.

The 2023 and 2024 numbers are from NHTSA's latest national estimates.

FHWA provides the national VMT series, including every year from 1988 through 2024.

Note sample designs changed between 2015 & 1016 for NASS GES & CRSS estimates. That doesn't invalidate the table. But it does mean that we should not interpret the jump from 202.4 in 2015 to 214.9 in 2016 as necessarily a real-world increase without looking closer at it.

Guess what? Yup. You guessed it.

Just like everyone intuitively believes "premium gas" gives their Honda Civic "more power", everyone believes the accident rate must have skyrocketed during the period that cell phones were introduced & after.

And yet... The numbers we can compare within the same GES system are valid:

Wireless connections:

1990 -> 5.3 million 2000 -> 109.5 million 2010 -> 296.3 million

Crash rate:

1990 -> 301.8 / 100M VMT 2000 -> 231.3 / 100M VMT 2010 -> 181.6 / 100M VMT

So while wireless connections increased roughly 56-fold from 1990 to 2010, the national police-reported-crash rate went down, not up.

Think about that fact...

====< #2 cut here for the next reference post >====

Newsgroups: alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate? Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:41:15 +0300 Message-ID: <118ki6q$1lni$ snipped-for-privacy@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

AMuzi wrote:

Assuming no other factor was involved to cancel the arguments that people are making, if their hypothesis is "cell phones cause accidents," then the accident rate should have increased substantially at some point during the introduction and widespread adoption of cell phones, right?

What's intuitively obvious is that most accidents are NOT caused by cell phones. Speed, alcohol, weather, road conditions, vehicle conditions, driver experience, etc. are all potential causes.

Even so, given that we know approximately when cell phones were introduced into the USA, those who argue that cell phones meaningfully increased the USA accident rate have merely to show us valid USA statistics which support that claim.

Here are the national numbers.

U.S. CELL PHONES, CRASHES, MILES & CRASH RATE

1988-2024

Crash rate = NHTSA estimated police-reported crashes / FHWA VMT x 100 million.

Year Wireless Police-reported VMT Crashes/ connections* crashes billion 100M VMT

----------------------------------------------------------------

1988 2.07 M 6,886,800 2,026 339.9 1989 3.51 M 6,652,815 2,096 317.4 1990 5.28 M 6,471,202 2,144 301.8 1991 7.56 M 6,117,359 2,172 281.6 1992 11.03 M 6,000,310 2,247 267.0 1993 16.01 M 6,105,915 2,296 265.9 1994 24.13 M 6,495,988 2,358 275.5 1995 33.79 M 6,699,415 2,423 276.5 1996 44.04 M 6,769,583 2,500 270.8 1997 55.31 M 6,624,149 2,568 257.9 1998 69.21 M 6,334,573 2,645 239.5 1999 86.05 M 6,279,036 2,707 232.0 2000 109.48 M 6,393,624 2,764 231.3 2001 128.37 M 6,322,963 2,813 224.8 2002 140.77 M 6,315,708 2,874 219.8 2003 158.72 M 6,327,955 2,909 217.5 2004 182.14 M 6,181,027 2,982 207.3 2005 207.90 M 6,159,350 3,009 204.7 2006 233.04 M 5,973,213 3,034 196.9 2007 255.40 M 6,024,008 3,049 197.6 2008 270.33 M 5,810,846 2,993 194.1 2009 285.65 M 5,505,180 2,976 185.0 2010 296.29 M 5,419,445 2,985 181.6 2011 315.96 M 5,337,829 2,965 180.0 2012 326.48 M 5,615,045 2,969 189.1 2013 335.65 M 5,686,891 2,988 190.3 2014 355.45 M 6,064,284 3,040 199.5 2015 377.92 M 6,296,134 3,110 202.4 2016 ~387 M 6,821,129 3,174 214.9 2017 ~392 M 6,452,598 3,225 200.1 2018 ~413 M 6,734,681 3,255 206.9 2019 ~435 M 6,756,084 3,276 206.2 2020 ~461 M 5,251,006 2,917 180.0 2021 ~491 M 6,103,213 3,154 193.5 2022 ~515 M 5,930,697 3,197 185.5 2023 ~558 M 6,138,474 3,247 189.0 2024 -- 6,180,241 3,294 187.6

• Wireless figures are connections/subscriptions, NOT unique people. A person can have multiple connections, so these numbers should not be interpreted as "percentage of Americans who own a phone."

The historical CTIA series gives the exact annual wireless connection numbers for the earlier period. For example:

1990 = 5,283,055 2000 =109,476,000 (approximately) 2010 =296,293,000 (approximately) 2015 =377,921,241

CTIA:

NHTSA's national crash series begins in 1988. It is based on the National Automotive Sampling System's General Estimates System (GES), which estimated the number of police-reported crashes in the USA.

NHTSA:

For the later years, NHTSA uses the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS).

NHTSA:

FHWA provides the national vehicle-miles-traveled series.

FHWA:

There is a methodological break between GES and CRSS in 2016. NHTSA states that the estimates from the two systems are not directly comparable because their sampling designs differ.

Therefore, don't interpret the change from 2015 to 2016 as necessarily representing a real-world change in crashes.

The much cleaner comparison is entirely within the GES period:

WIRELESS CONNECTIONS

1990 5.3 million 2000 109.5 million 2010 296.3 million

CRASHES / 100M VMT

1990 301.8 2000 231.3 2010 181.6

So from 1990 to 2010, wireless connections increased approximately

56-fold.

During that same period, the national police-reported crash rate declined from approximately 302 crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles to approximately 182.

That's a decline of about 40%.

This does NOT prove that cell phones never cause individual accidents. Obviously, a driver can be distracted by a cell phone and crash.

It does, however, create a very simple empirical question for anyone claiming that cell phones caused a substantial increase in the overall U.S. accident rate:

Where is the corresponding increase in the NATIONAL ACCIDENT RATE?

The phones went from essentially nothing to hundreds of millions of connections.

The miles driven went up.

And the national crash rate, during the clean 1990-2010 GES period, went DOWN substantially.

Think about that fact.

====< #3 cut here for the next reference post >==== Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving,alt.home.repair Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate? Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2026 02:56:33 +0300 Message-ID: <118kj3g$1k8h$ snipped-for-privacy@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Nick Charles wrote:

Hi Nick,

If phones are causing a great number of accidents, we would expect it to show up in the USA statistics on the number of accidents per mile during the period just before, during & after the cellphone skyrocketing.

1. Pre-cellular baseline 1937-1982 No commercial US cellular service
2. Cellular introduced 1983 First commercial cellular service began
3. Early adoption 1984-1989 Cell phones existed but were still rare
4. Rapid adoption 1990-1999 Cellular subscriptions exploded
5. Mass adoption 2000-2004 >100 million U.S. wireless connections
6. Essentially ubiquitous 2005-2010 ~208M -> 296M wireless connections
7. Smartphone era 2011-present Smartphones become dominant

Yet, the accident rate went down, just as it had been trending for decades, and still trends downward, which needs to be explained if someone is claiming that skyrocketing cell phone ownership caused concomitant skyrocketing cellphone related accidents which wouldn't have been caused otherwise, right?

But we just showed the rates went down in the data for the United States which has been compiled very accurately over decades in use.

Bear in mind there is one important limitation in that the NHTSA's nationally estimated total-crash series begins in 1988.

For 1983-1987, we have federal national traffic data, but not the same GES total-crash series, so, for sure, we need to understand the data.

What we can put together cleanly is this:

1983-2010: NATIONAL U.S. PICTURE

Period Year Wireless Crashes VMT Rate connections billion /100M

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cellular introduced 1983 ~0.2 M -- 1,653 -- Early adoption 1984 ~0.3 M -- 1,720 -- Early adoption 1985 0.34 M -- 1,775 -- Early adoption 1986 ~0.68 M -- 1,835 -- Early adoption 1987 ~1.2 M -- 1,921 -- Early adoption 1988 2.07 M 6,886,800 2,026 339.9 Early adoption 1989 3.51 M 6,652,815 2,096 317.4 Rapid adoption 1990 5.28 M 6,471,202 2,144 301.8

1991 7.56 M 6,117,359 2,172 281.6 1992 11.03 M 6,000,310 2,247 267.0 1993 16.01 M 6,105,915 2,296 265.9 1994 24.13 M 6,495,988 2,358 275.5 1995 33.79 M 6,699,415 2,423 276.5 1996 44.04 M 6,769,583 2,484 272.6 1997 55.31 M 6,624,149 2,578 257.0 1998 69.21 M 6,334,573 2,632 240.7 1999 86.05 M 6,279,036 2,691 233.3 Mass adoption 2000 109.5 M 6,393,624 2,767 231.0 2001 128.4 M 6,322,963 ~2,801 225.7 2002 140.8 M 6,315,708 ~2,874 219.8 2003 158.7 M 6,327,955 ~2,910 217.5 2004 182.1 M 6,181,027 ~2,982 207.3 Essentially ubiquitous 2005 207.9 M 6,159,350 ~3,009 204.7 2006 233.0 M 5,973,213 ~3,034 196.9 2007 255.4 M 6,024,008 ~3,049 197.6 2008 270.3 M 5,810,846 ~2,993 194.1 2009 285.7 M 5,505,180 ~2,976 185.0 Essentially ubiquitous 2010 296.3 M 5,419,445 ~2,985 181.6

The VMT figures for 1983-2000 are available directly from the Federal Highway Administration's historical series. FHWA:

The national crash estimates beginning in 1988 come from NHTSA's GES series. The 1988 estimate is 6,886,800 crashes. The 2000 estimate is 6,393,624.

NHTSA:

The wireless numbers for the early-adoption period and 1990s come from the historical CTIA series.

Notice that this is the really important part when analyzing the dataset.

If we start the clean comparison at 1988, the progression is:

1988 2.1 million wireless connections 340 crashes / 100M VMT 1990 5.3 million 302 crashes / 100M VMT 2000 109.5 million 231 crashes / 100M VMT 2005 207.9 million 205 crashes / 100M VMT 2010 296.3 million 182 crashes / 100M VMT

So during the period when wireless connections went from roughly

2 million --> 296 million the national police-reported crash rate went from approximately 340 --> 182 crashes per 100 million miles. That's about a 46% decline in the crash rate.

And that's not using fatalities as a proxy. These are total estimated police-reported crashes where you can't have a

From 1983-1987 is a bit harder because the dataset changed..

We have excellent national VMT:

1983: 1.653 trillion miles 1984: 1.720 trillion 1985: 1.775 trillion 1986: 1.835 trillion 1987: 1.921 trillion FHWA:

But for those years, it's harder to get comparative crash reports.

Luckily, 1988 is still extremely early in cellular adoption where only about 2 million U.S. wireless connections existed, so we can then follow the same national crash series through the explosion to hundreds of millions of connections.

1. 1937-1982 -- Pre-cellular Historical baseline/context.
2. 1983 -- Cellular introduced First commercial U.S. cellular service.
3. 1984-1989 -- Early adoption Still extremely few subscribers.
4. 1990-1999 -- Rapid adoption ~5M --> ~86M connections.
5. 2000-2004 -- Mass adoption ~109M --> ~182M connections.
6. 2005-2010 -- Essentially ubiquitous ~208M --> ~296M connections.
7. 2011-present -- Smartphone era.

For the actual crash-rate calculation, however, we have to start around 1988, because that's where the nationally estimated NHTSA total-crash series begins.

1988: 2.1M phones / 340 crashes per 100M miles 1990: 5.3M / 302 crashes per 100M miles 2000: 109.5M / 231 crashes per 100M miles 2010: 296.3M / 182 crashes per 100M miles

That is the cleanest first-order comparison of cellular adoption versus total crash rate that the national data give us, where the trend is clearly going down, not up.

So the hypothesis that cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing caused accident rates to skyrocket, is busted, don't you think?

====< #4 cut here for the next reference post >==== Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate? Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2026 10:58:17 +0300 Message-ID: <118iquo$kp0$ snipped-for-privacy@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

Chris wrote:

Hi Chris,

It's a perfectly valid question, especially since most people own purely religious belief systems which are not based on solid USA government facts.

Let's approach this problem, which, since most people only believe in the propaganda, clearly needs to be revisited, and with all the new valid data.

Let's look at the assessment by enumerating two sets of accurate facts. A. Census gives us the accident numerator since at least way back to 1937. B. FHWA has annual USA vehicle-miles-traveled all the way back to 1900. C. The accidents divided by the miles driven gives us the accident rate.

While the overall trends matter, for the first-order assessment, we only need to look at the statistics during the time period of the cell phone.

1. Pre-cellular baseline 1937-1982 No commercial US cellular service
2. Cellular introduced 1983 First commercial cellular service began
3. Early adoption 1984-1989 Cell phones existed but were still rare
4. Rapid adoption 1990-1999 Cellular subscriptions exploded
5. Mass adoption 2000-2004 >100 million U.S. wireless connections
6. Essentially ubiquitous 2005-2010 ~208M -> 296M wireless connections
7. Smartphone era 2011-present Smartphones become dominant

Hence, I posit it's reasonable for us to look the accident rate from January 1, 1983 (which we can reasonably define as the cellular era).

Here is more granular detail on the total USA wireless subscribers.

Roughly...

1990: 5.283 million wireless subscriber connections 1993: 16.009 million wireless subscriber connections 1994: 24.134 million wireless subscriber connections 1995: 33.786 million wireless subscriber connections 1996: 44.043 million wireless subscriber connections 1997: 55.312 million wireless subscriber connections 1998: 69.209 million wireless subscriber connections 1999: 86.047 million wireless subscriber connections 2000: ~109.5 million wireless subscriber connections 2001: ~128.4 million wireless subscriber connections 2002: ~140.8 million wireless subscriber connections 2003: ~158.7 million wireless subscriber connections 2004: ~182.1 million wireless subscriber connections 2005: ~207.9 million wireless subscriber connections By 2005, that's roughly 70% of the U.S. population in subscriber connections. By 2010 there were about 296 million wireless subscriber connections.

Questions we might ask ourselves BEFORE making any assessments, are Q1: What was happening to the accident rate before cellular phones existed? Q2: What happened to the accident rate during the 1983-2000 adoption curve? Q3: What happened to the accident rate after cellular phones became commonplace?

1983 = existence. 1990s = adoption. ~2005-2010 = mass adoption. 2010s-2020s = smartphone era.

Since we're being scientific, what's our hypothesis if we BELIEVE that the cell phone caused accidents that wouldn't have happened prior to cell phones.

Is this the hypothesis we will strive to prove/disprove in our studies? The introduction and increasing prevalence of cell phones caused an increase in the rate of motor-vehicle accidents per vehicle-mile traveled, above the rate that would otherwise have occurred. That produces a very specific prediction, does it not: If cell phones cause accidents that would not otherwise have occurred, then, as cell-phone use spreads through the driving population, the accident rate should increase relative to the pre-cellular baseline.

If, what almost everyone believes is true, is born out by facts, then we should reasonably expect something like this in accident rate facts.

1937-1982 During this period we can perhaps establish the pre-cellular accident-rate baseline and its natural variation/trend. 1983-1989 A change should begin to appear as cellular phones enter the driving environment, although adoption is initially tiny. 1990-1999 As subscribers increase from ~5M to ~86M, accident rate should show an upward departure from the pre-cellular trend if phones are causing additional accidents. 2000-2004 With >100M connections, the upward effect should be more apparent if the hypothesis is substantial. 2005-2010 With ~208M -> ~296M connections, the accident rate should remain elevated or increase further if cell phones are materially causing additional accidents. 2011-now With smartphones becoming dominant, any effect associated with mobile-device distraction should at least persist.

The stronger test is: Q: Did the accident rate after cellular adoption depart from the trajectory that was already occurring before cellular adoption?

What do folks think about that being the starting point hypothesis? If we proceed on that hypothesis, we should be able to assess the facts.

While it's trivial to compare crash data to cellphone ownership trends by simple arithmetic, where we only need to account for the well reported a. Total number of accidents b. Divided by total number of miles driven c. For the periods before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed

A lot of the data is clouded by "injuries" and "fatalities", which are second-order effects (as the accident has to happen for their to be them).

Not only does an accident have to happen to have injuries and fatalities, but many other factors play a role, such as the speed at which emergency services arrives, and the availability of local medivac transport, etc.

Nonetheless, we get some idea of what actually causes accidents in this "copyright 2026 National Safety Council" report on

*Distracted Driving*

And

*Improper Driving and Road Rage*

Which reports: Speed too fast or unsafe ¡V 18.8% Failure to yield right-of-way ¡V 8.4% Careless driving ¡V 7.6% Improper lane usage ¡V 5.2% But bear in mind those are for *fatal* crashes, which, while useful and while interesting, my argument is about crashes, which are first-order.

While it's notoriously difficult to ascertain how much any given driver is using a cellphone while driving, pertinent is this statement "Over the last 10 years, the prevalence of drivers using hand-held cell phones at any given daylight moment has decreased from 3.8% of drivers in 2015 to 1.9% in 2024."

"The percentage of drivers manipulating hand-held electronic devices has increased 104%, from 2.2% in 2015 to 4.5% in 2024. Among other activities, this observation includes text messaging. Drivers observed with visible headsets remain low at 0.5% in 2024."

The main problem is *how* they collect that data, which I've reported in the past (a decade or more ago) was done by red-light observations.

For those who wish to look at 2nd-order effects (e.g., fatalities), this reference breaks down the cause of fatalities state by state.

*Fatality Facts 2024, State by state*

Please bear in mind fatalities are NOT what I'm talking about, because, while they're important, they're a 2nd-order effect which has many more statistical complications (e.g., how long it takes an ambulance to arrive) than just 1st-order crashes.

Your summaries are persuasive that crashes per vehicle mile have gone down over the span of cellphone adoption. That does not suggest cellphone use is benign while driving, rather that other innovations have been more influential. Adoption of ABS is one counterpoise to distracted and unskilled driving.

Thanks for writing,

bob prohaska

Hi Bob Prohaska,

Thanks for responding like an adult, which is rare on these newsgroups. I opened the thread, on purpose, to open people's eyes to the obvious.

Note that I never said distractions can't be the cause of accidents. I said that cellphone distractions don't show up in the accident rate.

That's good data. Very good data. In fact, it's extremely good data. So nobody reasonable can refute it just by waving their hands around it.

We could look to see WHY but anything that exactly cancels the cellphone has to be done by Aliens because the staggeringly huge sudden input has to be EXACTLY negated in both time and dimension, which is sim0ply absurd to blame on other facts. It's too absurd to even be tenable, by the way.

I've heard it before, which is why I joke Aliens, very intelligent Aliens in fact, are the only ones would could EXACTLY negate the supposed accidents.

Suffice to say there is no factor that negated the cellphone accident rate. It just doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying ABS (and other things) don't lower accidents. Far from it.

We could look at ABS introduction to see if it changed the accident rate.

My hypothesis is that ABS should show a decreased accident rate but the problem is measuring when ABS was introduced per model, so we'd likely want to look at the accident rate, per model, which is data I don't have.

At least cellphones are independent of vehicles so they affect all at once.

BTW, thanks for asking for and looking at the data, which is first-order data, so it's so simple as nobody could possibly claim it's cherry picked.

1. I took the number of accidents per year, which is good data
2. And divided by the number of miles driven, also which is good data
3. For the period before, during & after cellphones skyrocketed

It's not complicated. There's really no way possible for that first-order data to be skewed. [Note that 2nd-order data can more easily be skewed (see details below).]

But first-order data is so simple we can only attack the measurement methods, but, we can't because nobody professional doubts those measures.

*Number of accidents divided by number of miles driven = accident rate* There was a downward trend in the accident rate, overall, but which had already been there well before and is still there well after cellphones.

Now, let's talk about that fact, because a decade ago, when cellphone laws were all the rage, I L@@K@D for the accident rate change & it didn't exist.

Hmmm.... Why would adding a brand new distraction NOT increase the accident rate?

My hypothesis, a decade ago, was that cellphones are simply an added distraction to the list of a thousand existing distractions, and, that there are concepts of "good driver discounts" and "good student discounts" which I got on my insurance when I was a kid BECAUSE I could handle them.

Some people are smart enough to handle distractions. Others are not.

It was my hypothesis at that time that THOSE PEOPLE will have accidents no matter what, and, in fact, those are the same people, I theorized, who hit animals, as I've never hit an animal while driving in my entire life because I'm aware of my driving (and no, it jumped out right in front of me doesn't count as an excuse except with the insurance company it might).

Nobody can consider themselves a "good driver" in my opinion if they hit anything in their entire life,l and I'm not caring about fault, either.

A "good driver", IMHO, can avoid any damn thing that happens out there. If they can't, that's fine. They're just not a good driver, that's all. They're average.

Average drivers will have more accidents, was my hypothesis, due to them sucking at driving, but those are already aggregated in the statistics.

Anyway, be careful to note that I never said distractions do not cause accidents, as they must. All I'm saying is it doesn't show in the rate.

Here's more details which cover other causes of accidents, but bear in mind these are 2nd-order statistics which are skewed by a vast array of factors.

---- < cut here > ---- Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.home.repair,comp.mobile.android,rec.autos.tech,rec.autos.driving Subject: Re: Why do people claim cellphone use increased the USA accident rate? Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2026 00:42:28 +1200 Message-ID: <11935rk$19ch$ snipped-for-privacy@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>

While it's trivial to compare crash data to cellphone ownership trends by simple arithmetic, where we only need to account for the well reported a. Total number of accidents b. Divided by total number of miles driven c. For the periods before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed

A lot of the data is clouded by "injuries" and "fatalities", which are second-order effects (as the accident has to happen for their to be them).

Not only does an accident have to happen to have injuries and fatalities, but many other factors play a role, such as the speed at which emergency services arrives, and the availability of local medivac transport, etc.

Nonetheless, we get some idea of what actually causes accidents in this "copyright 2026 National Safety Council" report on

*Distracted Driving*

And

*Improper Driving and Road Rage*

Which reports: Speed too fast or unsafe ¡V 18.8% Failure to yield right-of-way ¡V 8.4% Careless driving ¡V 7.6% Improper lane usage ¡V 5.2% But bear in mind those are for *fatal* crashes, which, while useful and while interesting, my argument is about crashes, which are first-order.

While it's notoriously difficult to ascertain how much any given driver is using a cellphone while driving, pertinent is this statement "Over the last 10 years, the prevalence of drivers using hand-held cell phones at any given daylight moment has decreased from 3.8% of drivers in 2015 to 1.9% in 2024."

"The percentage of drivers manipulating hand-held electronic devices has increased 104%, from 2.2% in 2015 to 4.5% in 2024. Among other activities, this observation includes text messaging. Drivers observed with visible headsets remain low at 0.5% in 2024."

The main problem is *how* they collect that data, which I've reported in the past (a decade or more ago) was done by red-light observations.

For those who wish to look at 2nd-order effects (e.g., fatalities), this reference breaks down the cause of fatalities state by state.

*Fatality Facts 2024, State by state*

Please bear in mind fatalities are NOT what I'm talking about, because, while they're important, they're a 2nd-order effect which has many more statistical complications (e.g., how long it takes an ambulance to arrive) than just 1st-order crashes.

Culture has a lot to do with it too, another brain function.

"Between 2011 and 2021, U.S. traffic fatalities surged by roughly 33%, while Canada experienced an 18% decline"

I've driven many times over 1000 clicks without hearing a single horn and without seeing anyone block a badly planned merge just because the

*monkey had the right of way*. U-tube is full of such Darwin laureates! Defensive driving is a science and an art, it means not being involved in an accident even if someone wants to provoke one. Nor do you drive like you were on a F1 circuit because all kinds of people use the roads; some with only one eye, some with bad legs, some just returning from the funeral of a loved one, some from the doctor's with the worst possible news to digest.....

My main point has been made which is that people parrot propaganda without bothering to understand that the propaganda is simply religious zealotry.

The main cause of accidents has always been the same, which is mostly a. Speeding b. Intoxication c. Failure to yield

We'd all intuit that cell phones added another distraction to the thousands of existing distractions, so naturally we'd all posit that the accident rate should have spiked when cellphones were introduced due to what is emotionally publicized by the entities who have a bias in their propaganda a. law firms b. political figures c. insurance companies d. news media (e.g., man bites dog is more interesting than dog bites man)

So the fact the accident rate didn't even show a blip, and, in fact, the accident rate fell on the same level it has been falling, tell us much?

Of course, it tells us that distracted driving isn't the cause of most accidents, and, anyone logical already inherently understands we handle thousands of distractions, so adding one more may or may not be meaningful.

But what it really tells us is that most people simply parrot propaganda. They don't understand that which they parrot.

If it sounds intuitive, they parrot it forever... without even thinking.

They even begin to believe the propaganda, and worse, they begin to viciously defend propaganda to the death, no matter what, facts be damned.

That's religion. That's marketing. That's political slogans.

What does this proven observation then tell us about the nature of people?

Main critical question is what else is going on within the automative industry or elsewhere that may affect accident rates.

Also how useful are the data being used to make conclusions? Just because data have been collected for a long time doesn't mean they are necessarily useful for the purpose at hand. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your data has any hope to reveal the outcomes you're looking for. For example, can you prove with your data that the introduction of ABS reduced accidents?

For example your very much lauded accident data is based on police surveys. Surveys are universally known to be biased and only a sample of the truth. Given that most "fender benders" don't involve the police, how does that affect your assertions.

Many posts back I gave you the exact data required to answer your question reliably. Did you ever bother to see if it exists?

That's not scientific. You're prejudging the results ahead of the experiment.

Only if no other outside factors are compensating and that you're able to observe the change with the methods chosen.

You're assuming a linear and direct relationship between mobile phone ownership and use while driving. There are other models available. Where's the evidence your assumption holds.

The above isn't a (testable) hypothesis. It's a simply a question.

Experiments do not provide facts. They generate evidence.

The claim that aliens exactly manipulated the rate for 30 years, and then stopped, by exactly counterbalancing the accidents, is so absurd as to indicate desperation on the part of anyone who makes that ridiculous claim.

FACTS:

1. Police-reported motor-vehicle crashes (reported for over a century)
2. Divided by FHWA annual national vehicle-miles traveled statistics
3. Over 30-years of cellphone ownership skyrocketing (~1985 to ~2015)

The data is good data.

The accident rate was simply unaffected by the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates during those years...

The fact you're having to resort to the absurd to answer straightforward question tells us you're unwilling and/or incapable of having a rational discussion.

That's simply an opinion.

You've not demonstrated that.

You're the one claiming something absolutely fantastical changed the data. Not me.

What do you think would change the data EXACTLY like anti-matter would?

heh heh heh... You're desperate when you call simple data NOBODY disputes, an "opinion".

You simply hate that you can't find any facts that back up your point of view because your point of view isn't based on facts. It's your religion.

It's amazing, actually, how you show your desperation in every sentence.

You hate that there is no good data on the planet that backs up your point of view, which means, obviously, your point of view isn't based on fact.

There's a reason nobody can have a scientific discussion with religious people & that reason is that your entire belief system is simply made up.

Remind me. Who keeps bringing up aliens?

If you can't cope with normal scientific inquiry then stop pretending this is anything more than self-serving axe-grinding on your part.

Carlos highlighted several scientific studies which provided a lot of evidence of the harms of mobile phone use while driving.

Of course you ignored them. You're simply wilfully ignorant which is worse than being an idiot.

C'mon, Chris.

You claiming all data is wrong is not you acting scientific in any manner. 1. The number of accidents and the accident rate in the USA are good data 2. For you to claim it's not good data, is patently absurd. 3. Especially as you don't back up WHY you think it's not good data.

Your claim that "something EXACTLY canceled out the accidents" for the period before, during and after cellphones, is so absurd that it's akin to you claiming aliens exactly manipulated the data to cancel it exactly out.

Look Chris, remember you said you had a PhD in the biological sciences and I pointed out there's no way you could because you ridiculed statements that anyone trained in basic immunology and virology would be shocked?

Remember that? No?

Allow me to remind you then: a. subunits of viral SARS-COV-2 RNA genomes b. immunological vehicles

Maybe you don't have a good memory, Chris... but I do.

Remember Chris, highly intelligent people must have a good memory because they have to put together thousands of facts in order to make assessments.

One of those facts is I said, many times, a decade ago and recently, that I too "would have" thought cellphones being a distraction, & distractions causing accidents, "should" have skyrocketed the accident rate.

They should. But they didn't.

Now what does a true scientist do with that information? a. Do they cling to their old beliefs anyway (i.e., religion), or, b. Do they come up with a new hypothesis as to why it didn't happen?

Note: I'm a scientist. I gave you my hypothesis then, and recently, why it didn't happen.

Remember?

Sterile Cockpit Rule - it's a thing, y'all.

AI Overview

The sterile cockpit rule is a safety regulation that requires pilots to limit their activities to essential flight duties and avoid non-essential conversations during critical phases of flight. In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced the formal rule in 1981 following accidents caused by crew distractions.

When the Rule Applies

• Altitude: All operations conducted below 10,000 feet (except during level cruise flight). • Flight Phases: Taxiing, takeoff, landing, and all ground operations. Prohibited Activities • Casual, non-essential conversation or joking ("chit-chat"). • Eating meals or drinking non-essential beverages. • Reading material, books, or newspapers unrelated to the flight. • Using personal electronic devices, mobile phones, or tablets for non-operational tasks. • Non-urgent communication from the cabin crew or company.

Permitted Activities

• Communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC). • Running checklists and making mandatory callouts. • Monitoring instruments, weather, and traffic. • Emergency or safety-related communication.

Let us all openly see your counterargument to the good data please.

Either you agree with the data, or you give what you consider better data.

Otherwise, nobody has refuted the scientific facts of a. The accident rate remained on the same downward curve b. Before, during and after cellphones c. Which means cellphones did not affect the accident rate

Now, nobody said cellphones weren't an added distraction to the thousand of distractions drivers incur every day, so the real question is why not?

Q: Why didn't the cellphone have any effect on the accident rate? A: ?

HINT: I think I know why and I proposed it ten years ago. DOUBLEHINT: My hypothesis fits the data.

Address the studies Carlos highlighted. They provided strong evidence that mobile phones are dangerous.

I mean literally everyone here has. The fact you refuse to respond to genuine questions means you don't understand the limitations of your own assertions.

Indeed. Even if I wrote with humour or in jest, the links I provided are real serious. I just don't want to get involved myself.

I have never disagreed with anyone who claims something logically tenable. Never.

In decades of being on Usenet, I never disagree with fact-based statements. Not even once.

However, being intelligent scientists means we UNDERSTAND what was claimed. And what was NOT claimed.

NOBODY said cell phones shouldn't have increased accidents. Not me. Not anyone.

And yet, they didn't increase the accident rate. That's all we said.

Those are facts. Anyone disputing those facts is a fool because they're good data.

*So the question is WHY didn't cellphones increase the accident rate?*

If we don't know why, then we know almost nothing about the problem set.

HINT: I gave an hypothesis for why, a decade ago, which was based on facts.

I suspect some people can safely drive with a cellphone in one hand and a double cheeseburger in the other and steer with their knees.

Other people can't seem to drive at all.