In news wrote:

I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones
while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching
a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his
son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone
the whole time, treating the game of catch as a
"manageable distraction". I suppose he probably
would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him,
but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he
was doing.

Hi Mayayana,

Q: Where are the accidents?
A: They don't exist.

Warning: OFF TOPIC!
I only speak fact.

I'm posting this because I like you and because I respect you.

So I am posting this FACT as one adult to another.

I realize this is completely off topic, where, as you know, I try to stay
on topic because I ask questions that have technical answers and then I
leave, so I don't use the chitchat model of Usenet that most others use (I
use the Q&A model).

While I agree with you on the father:son football catch, that he should
give his undivided attention to his child, and I too found the guiding
hands punchlines hilarious, I have to point out to you a FACT.

Yup. A fact.

Just like intuition doesn't work with quantum mechanics, intuition doesn't
work with accident rate statistics either.

The fact is that nobody on this entire planet (and, trust me, everyone has
looked) can find any relationship whatsoever (up, down, or otherwise) in
the overall accident rate in each of the 50 states of the USA (together or
separately) to the absolutely astoundingly utterly huge explosion in
cellphone ownership rates when cellphone existence (and presumed use) in
vehicles skyrocketed from 0 percent to almost 100% in just a few years -
and which has plateued (due to saturation).

Sure, everyone intuitively thinks a LOT of things.
I can name scores of things that people intuit that are simply wrong.

The fact is that nobody on this planet has ever found anything in the
accurate statistics, overall, for each state, which have been gathered
since before WWII so they're good data, for accident rates.

Some explanations of this fact (I call it the "elephant in the room").

1. I say *accident rates*, because that's the first-order factor.
Everyone loves to choose other statistics because they can't find anything
in the actual accident rate that proves what they intuit (because what they
intuit is actually wrong - but that's for you to understand).
Accident rates are an accepted way to judge "accidents" because rates
normalize for number of miles driven which is due to a complex set of
environmental and economic fluctuations such as cost of driving and travel
and number of miles driven, etc.
Also accidents are reported faithfully to the government both from police
and from insurance companies (where, for example, in California, it's the
law that both parties must report accidents, even minor ones, over a
certain nominal value of damage) and accidents have been faithfully
reported for decades, so the numbers are accurate and statistically sound.

*Hence, _accident rate_ is good data (in the USA anyway).*
Anyone who doesn't use accident rate, is usually trying to scam you (but
we'd have to look at every argument to be sure).

2. I say cell phone _ownership_ has skyrocketed, but I don't discuss "use"
except to tell you that nobody knows that number and everyone has a pet
method for obtaining it. In fact, the NHTSA runs a study in May of every
year, but if you knew how that "use rate" study is done, you'd laugh (it's
done at stop lights ... yes. ... at stop lights).

So *nobody* has good numbers on cellphone use, and anyone who tells you
they do, is almost always likely scamming you since nobody has that data.

What can you assume? You can assume two things about use which is that
almost every vehicle on the road in the USA today has a cellphone in it,
and that "some" percentage of those miles, in some cars, the phone is being
used.

Since even a small percentage of use would be a big number of miles driven,
it's important to note the elephant in the room, which is that nobody on
this planet has ever found ANY relationship to accident rates in all 50
states, individually or together, due to the explosion of cellphone
ownership rates (and, we can presumed, "some use") while driving.

3. Notice I don't talk injuries or fatalities or length of hospital stay,
etc., simply because they are second-order effects. Nobody has ever found
any first order effect of cellphone ownership rates with accident rates in
the USA, so second order effects are something you worry about later (if at
all).

4. Notice I don't talk about anecdotal evidence, which, by the way,
EVERYONE loves to talk about - but anecdotes aren't science. Accidents will
occur, and every one has a reason, where most, I'm sure, are due factors
that are common, such as distractions, which, I posit, we have hundreds of
thousands of in every 100 miles of driving, all of which we handle with
aplomb - but which some people don't handle well - so accidents due to
distractions have always occurred and will always occur - until you either
eliminate the driver or you eliminate driving altogether.

Bear in mind, I've heard all the anecdotes, just as you have - but
anecdotes are not science. They're just stories. Worse, they don't seem to
be backed up by facts in the overall statistical record (which is good
data).

5. Rest assured I've seen as many in vitro studies as you have, which
"prove" that cellphone driving is as distracting as teasing a Trex with a
chicken. The fact is that if these studies were actually indicative of in
vivo results, then any scientist with a grain of logic would have to ask:
*Q: Where are the in vivo accidents predicted by these in vitro studies?*

I'm not saying the studies are bad. I'm saying that you can't always
predict real world results from in vitro studies, and, I'm saying something
else - which is that if the studies were actually true - then the accident
rate would have to reise.

6. I hate to even have to mention #6 but every moron on the planet, when
shown these facts, complains that the absence of proof isn't proof of
absence, and that correlation doesn't mean causation, to which I simply
shake my head in dismay and posit that the only way their intuition can
possibly be correct is if some clever alien manipulated the good data to
not only exactly match cell phone ownership rates to exactly cancel out the
accidents, but that this manipulation has to be timed perfectly such that
not a single blip of effect shows up in the accident rates which, I must
repeat, is the only good data we have.


In summary, the elephant in the room is this question:
Q: Where are the accidents that people intuit are caused by cellphone use?

Nobody on the planet can find these accidents in the statistical record.
That's good data from the US Census Bureau.

Nobody can find these accidents in the good data.
The only accidents people find are in bad data.

Experts have already claimed they can't find the accidents.

That's a fact.

End of off-topic conversation of fact to our friend Mayayana, because I
care about facts.