What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?

In , nospam
wrote:

The telco records will have that information.

the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what
road hazards may have existed at the time.

Eric Steven's approach is to prove there is no elephant in the room simply
by proving there is no elephant poop in the stairwell.

While I completely understand where nospam is coming from, even if Eric
Stevens could prove that EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT from the day cellphones were
invented to now are caused by their use while driving ... that still
wouldn't fit the facts.

Just like every physics experiment on string theory seems to point to 10
dimensions, intuition won't help Eric Stevens understand the facts.

The fact is that the accident rate in the US has not shown a single blip
due to the extraordinarily huge and stupendously sudden skyrocketing rates
of cellphone ownership (and presumed use while driving).

Even if Eric Stevens could prove there is no elephant poop in the
stairwell, he'd still have to explain what that elephant is doing in the
room.

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using
the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human
input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a
pocket or bag.

I applaud nospam for his logic, where anyone who knows me, knows that
doesn't happen often - but where nospam is showing intelligence in his
statements.

Nobody is going to ever understand why cellphone use has zero effect on
accident rates nor why drinking hot coffee has no effect, nor why screaming
kids has no effect, nor why fiddling with the radio has no effect, nor why
taking a pee while driving or putting on makeup while driving has no effect
on the overall accident rate .... until ...

Until they understand two very critical things about accidents that all
insurance companies know by heart ...

HINT: What do insurance companies use to set your insurance premiums?

On 05/05/2018 8:28 PM, Bob J Jones wrote:
In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall
noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate.

You are the first person (at least chronologically in this thread) to
actually think logically about the facts.

Remember, light is both a particle and a wave, which is not intuitive, and,
which nobody would believe except that the facts show it to be the case.

But anyone who looks at the double-slit experiment has to confront facts.
They just have to confront "good data".

Intuition doesn't work in the face of "good data".

It's the same here with "accident" causes.

Intuition only carries us a short distance.
In the case of "cause of accidents", we have to seek "good data".

And the overall accident record is "good data".
People who intuit don't bother looking at "good data".

People who intuit seek out "bad data".
The worst "bad data" is anecdotal data - which is what they seek out most.
The second worst bad data are in vitro studies which can prove anything.

Do you know how many in vitro studies "prove" the strangest things?
The problem with all those studies isn't that they're bad studies.
I'm sure they're run scientifically.

The problem with those studies is that they're "in vitro" and in vitro
studies can't always (and rarely can) reproduce the complexities of the in
vivo real world.

They just can't.
And the proof is simple.

If accidents rates skyrocketed which were caused by cell phone ownership
rates skyrocketing (and presumed some measure of use), then those in vitro
studies would be in line with the data.

But remember the double-slit experiment.

Whatever theory you come up with has to account for the facts.

And, the facts are that the accident rate has slowly trended downward
individually and collectively in all 50 states with nary the slightest blip
either way due to the utter almost incomprehensibly huge effect of
cellphone ownership rates (and presumed use) - either in magnitude or in
timing.

That's good data.
Once you understand that this is a fact, only then can we explain why.

it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell
phone at the time of an accident. From this information it has been
possible to determine that you are more likely to have an accident
when using a cell phone than not. Interestingly it does not appear
that the use of hands-free makes much difference.

Once you accept the good data, and the fact that you can balance a
cellphone on the tip of your nose while driving and it still won't have any
effect on the overall accident rate, can we get down to what is really
happening.

Until people accept the facts, just like with the double-slit experiment,
they will NEVER come to the correct answer on anything related to cellphone
caused accidents.

Everyone is working on pure intuition. Not facts.


Bob Jones. You are so full of **** your eyes are brown

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"that information", as you will see if you read above, was "But it
also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone
at the time of an accident."

Think.
Really.

Think.

Even if EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT since cellphones were invented were caused by
cellphone use, that still doesn't explain the elephant in the room.

Just like in Quantum Mechanics, intuition doesn't work, your intuition
isn't going to explain away the elephant in the room.

The good data shows that there is zero effect of the astoundingly huge in
magnitude and in timeline of cellphone ownership (and presumed use while
driving) with the accident record.

Do you even comprehend what that means?

Even if you prove there is no elephant poop in the elevator, you still have
to explain what the elephant is doing in the room.

The actual answer is simple - but you can't get to even the simplest of
explanations until you realize that it doesn't matter even if you could
prove every single accident was due to cell phones.

So it's a red herring that you are frantically following.

The fact is that cellphone use does not increase the rate of accidents.
That's a fact since it's the elephant in the room.

The only question is why ... but you'll never get to why until you
understand that this is a fact.

It's like trying to explain the Higg's Boson to you when you don't yet
comprehend what a boson is.

You'll never get the answer by intuition.
You can only get to the answer with facts.

Any hypothesis you provide has to meet with the facts of good data.
(BTW, there's a ton of bad data out there - but they are easy to explain
why.)

The good data is incontrovertible fact.
There is zero effect of cellphone ownership (and presumed use) in the
accident rate.

And there is a good reason for that fact.
But you'll never get to the reason until you understand the fact.

In , nospam
wrote:

which means phones aren't a direct cause of crashes.

and why focus *only* on phones but not all of the *other* forms of
distraction, including eating food, fiddling with the radio, reading
paper maps (which is no longer common but once was) and many other
things.

bad drivers don't need phones to be bad.

In this thread, only nospam is clued in to what causes accidents.
(and it's not cellphones)

HINT: What does the insurance company use to calculate your rate?

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

Your logic is as factual as this is:
World War II Bomber Found on Moon!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport

The law is there for revenue generation and for political purposes.

There is tons of proof out there that the accident rate is wholly
unaffected by all safety laws.

These are competent studies which LOOKED extremely closely in the
statistical record, where there were ZERO first-order effects of ALL safety
related laws (cellphones just being one of them).

The ONLY first-order effect of safety related laws is revenue generation.

Bob J Jones wrote:
In news
The reason it is hard to detect the accident increase due to cell phones
is that safety features on newer cars reduce collisions.

I posit that this is not true, but you are working in the right direction.

An ambulance chaser probably has the statistics you need.

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States
is caused by texting and driving.

Texting while driving is 6x more likely
to cause an accident than driving drunk.
"

From now on, I'm keeping a 40 ouncer on the seat next
to me, as its safer.

Paul

In , Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

Bob Jones. You are so full of **** your eyes are brown

Hi Rene Lamontagne,

You just proved you have the mind of a child ... are you aware of that?
We're having an adult logical conversation.
But you're bringing to the table only the mind of a child.

I understand that you think only intuitively.
Facts, clearly, are not important to you.

But you shouldn't tell someone they're full of **** when THEY are the ones
who are only speaking facts.

I realize, Rene Lamontagne, that you're highly intuitive (apparently).
Hence, I realize, facts are (likely) meaningless to you.
I get that.

But just as intuition won't help you understand that spacetime is curved by
massenergy, and that time is not invariant, intuition won't help you
understand a basic fact here, Rene Lamontagne.

Fact: Nobody on this planet has ever found ANY relationship between
cellphone ownership (and presumed use) and accident rates in the good data,
which is the United States Census Bureau records on accidents (which have
been kept for decades and which are good data).

There's a perfectly good reason for that fact, Rene Lamontagne.

However, your childish assumption that facts are bull**** precludes you
ever getting to that stage of UNDERSTANDING why that is the case.

I realize you act like a ten year old, so, when you decide to grow up, Rene
Lamontagne, we will be here, armed with the same facts to explain why your
intuition is wrong.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall
noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But
it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell
phone at the time of an accident.

not reliably, it isn't.

The telco records will have that information.

the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what
road hazards may have existed at the time.

I never claimed they did.

actually, you did:
The telco records will have that information.

"that information", as you will see if you read above, was "But it
also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone
at the time of an accident."

again, not normally, it isn't.

simple example:

a driver could have answered a call and told the caller that he's
driving and he'll call back later.

15 seconds later, a drunk swerves into his path, resulting in a
collision.

is the cellphone the cause of the crash? no. it was the drunk driver.

the call could also have been auto-answered without the driver doing
anything, so despite there being a call log, the driver *wasn't* using
the phone.

tl;dr cellphone logs won't show that it was a drunk driver.

all the telco has is logs. they don't know what the driver was doing,
if the driver was actively using the phone, or if the fault was due to
another driver or pedestrian.

Who claimed cellphone records contain all the answers?

you did.

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

no need. he'll know it has no merit.

You should consider the terms 'balance of probabilities' or even
'reasonable doubt'. Absolute certainty is never required.

i am. you should consider the term 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

absent dashcam video, there *is* reasonable doubt. probability can't be
used to convict someone.

since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time
is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements
(if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions.

assumptions are not proof.

if it was, a ****load of people would be in jail.

... and they are.

there are plenty who are not.

even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using
the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human
input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a
pocket or bag.

I agree, it could be a passenger or even an app, but the number called
can often help sort that out.

apps don't call numbers.

You try telling my domestic power meter that.

wtf does a domestic power meter have to do with driving?

and why would it have its own cellular number? that's a huge waste of
numbers.

normally, meters are read by a truck driving by which pings the meter,
rather than someone getting out of said truck and physically reading
it.

the point is that apps running in the background on a phone in
someone's pocket could be using cellular *data* (not calling a voice
number), with zero effect on the driver.

In article , Bob J Jones
wrote:


HINT: What do insurance companies use to set your insurance premiums?

make/model of vehicle, its book value, driving record, age of the
driver, where the vehicle is parked (i.e., where the driver lives),
gaps in insurance coverage and unless prohibited, credit rating.

only one of those affects the likelihood of crashing: driving record.

there may be discounts for multiple vehicles and/or other policies or
higher premiums for additional drivers.

also note that the insurance is for the vehicle, not the driver.
someone who owns more than one vehicle must have coverage on all of
them despite being able to drive only one at a time.

In news
An ambulance chaser probably has the statistics you need.

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

"1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States
is caused by texting and driving.

Texting while driving is 6x more likely
to cause an accident than driving drunk.
"

From now on, I'm keeping a 40 ouncer on the seat next
to me, as its safer.

Hi Paul,

Thank you for trying to bring facts into the adult logical discussion.

You likely don't realize this, but very many times we have covered that
exact article *years* ago (many many times) in similar discussions on the
cellphone newsgroups since *EVERYONE* pops up that lawyer-written web page
every time the topic comes up.

Here's just one of many similar discussions referencing that article which
is very well known to all of us as are ALL the articles people dig up:
TITLE: Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
URL: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...id/jdcueDw00L0[1-25]
"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could
expect to see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the
last decade. In fact, the reverse is true."

BTW, that thread is chock full of references, which I've not put into this
thread because people have to first realize that INTUITION is never going
to explain the facts here.

Until people are ready to understand facts, they will NEVER understand why
cellphones have no effect whatsoever on the accident rate in the USA (and
Australia, where good data exists).

Remember, we're not looking for political messages from politicians, nor
messages from people who stand to FINANCIALLY benefit from the laws, but
from actual facts.

I realize that you're a factual thinker Paul, so I point you to all the
references in that thread (and many others like it).

But for this thread, I'm leaving out the references because it's clear
people aren't yet ready for facts.

It's why I keep bringing up quantum mechanics, where nobody can understand
post-Newtonian physics until they realize they have to throw out intuition
because the facts are what matter here - not intuition (which is almost
always wrong because it doesn't fit the facts).

The facts you need are the US Census Bureau statistics on accident rates in
each of the 50 states, before, during, and after the meteoric rise in
cellphone ownership (and presumed use while driving).

Just as Rutherford's gold-foil experimental results were astounding, the
good data trumps intuition every time.

Here is what Rutherford said about the gold foil experiment, where the same
thing could be said about cellphones "causing" accidents.

"Rutherford described firing the heavy alpha particles ´as firing a 15-inch
shell at a piece of tissue paper.¡ During the experiment what seemed
impossible happened: about 1 in 8000 of the alpha particles ricocheted off
the gold atoms at large angles, and some were completely deflected, heading
directly back to the source of the alpha particles."
http://atomicideas.pbworks.com/w/pag...ion =34407482

My point of constantly bringing in physics is that the facts always trump
intuition, where almost nobody on this thread is yet at the stage where
they can comprehend facts since almost everyone is in a stage I was in many
years ago, which is intuition only.

Once you get past intuition, you can figure out why the 15-inch shell
bounced back after hitting the tissue paper, and why cellphone use has
absolutely no effect on the overall accident rate.

But you can't get there with intuition, nor can you get there with bad
data.

The only way to get there is with good data.

On Sun, 6 May 2018 01:39:47 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In news wrote:

Interestingly it does not appear
| that the use of hands-free makes much difference.

There's really no reason to think it would. That's
just an excuse used by phone addicts.

Mayayana is right, where the real problem is the same problem as with the
quantum mechanics issue of "spooky action at a distance" that even Einstein
deplored.

The fact is that the "good data" shows spooky action at a distance.
You can't deny these facts because they are the "good data".

Just as with cellphones, you can't deny the "good data".
The accident rate is completely unaffected by cellphone laws.

Not quite. It is not possible to detect the effect of cellphones on
the accident rate. That is not the same as saying cellphone use has
had no effect on the accident rate.

The only effect anyone can find is a non-first order effect on length of
hospital stay to *all* (yes, all) safety related laws in the USA (and those
laws include not only cellphones, but seat belts and car seats).

So, like with quantum entanglement, it doesn't really matter what is in
"between" the two particles - they affect each other.

My point of bringing in quantum mechanics is two fold.
1. Intuition is never going to work.
2. Any theory has to fit the facts.

It's the same with "hands free" issues.
1. Intuition won't work (it turns out hands free is meaningless)
2. Any theory has to fit the facts (cellphones themselves are meaningless)

The facts are that the accident rate in the USA has not been affected one
bit by either safety laws or cellphone laws or by the use of cellphones or
by the drinking of hot coffee, screaming babies, etc.

There's a reason for this - but nobody is ready for the reason until they
accept the facts first.

Intuition is not going work here since we all (including me) intuit wrong,
just as Einstein apparently intuited wrong on quantum entanglement.

No one
says, "I want a divorce" when they're a passenger
in a car moving through an intersection. But they
might say it to someone over the phone, assuming
that the person on the other end is also talking on
the phone and not trying to do something else.

You're intuiting ... but your intuition doesn't fit the facts.

It's almost as if you're trying to say that there is no such thing as
spooky action at a distance, and yet, your statement (like Einstein's)
doesn't fit the facts.

Until you accept the facts, nothing you intuit will be correct.
I'm saying this not as a challenge - but as one adult to another.

It's only logic that I speak.

When people talk on phones they're generally not
where they are, which is a risky disconnect if they're
also trying to do something else. I see that daily with
other drivers. I don't need to see them holding a
phone to know they're on the phone. It's obvious
in the erratic behavior. They're leaving it to other
drivers to pay attention for them.

You're intuiting again.
But your intuition doesn't fit the facts.

It turns out that almost NOTHING you will do in that car will have any
effect overall on the accident rate but you won't understand the
explanation of that fact until you accept things as they really are.

If all you do is work off of intuition, you'll NEVER understand the facts
of quantum entanglement.

Likewise...

If all you do is work off of intuition, you'll NEVER understand the facts
of why cellphone use has zero effect either way on accident rates.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 03:49:08 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"that information", as you will see if you read above, was "But it
also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone
at the time of an accident."

Think.
Really.

Think.

Even if EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT since cellphones were invented were caused by
cellphone use, that still doesn't explain the elephant in the room.

Just like in Quantum Mechanics, intuition doesn't work, your intuition
isn't going to explain away the elephant in the room.

The good data shows that there is zero effect of the astoundingly huge in
magnitude and in timeline of cellphone ownership (and presumed use while
driving) with the accident record.

Do you even comprehend what that means?

Yes it means that you have failed to understand the background to the
statistics.

The problem is that there are so many badly measured data about motor
accidents that it is not possible to reach meaningful conclusions
about the role of cellphones. The bad data starts with the accident
investigation and from there it gets worse.

Even if you prove there is no elephant poop in the elevator, you still have
to explain what the elephant is doing in the room.

Is it pink? Maybe it's a halucination.

The actual answer is simple - but you can't get to even the simplest of
explanations until you realize that it doesn't matter even if you could
prove every single accident was due to cell phones.

So it's a red herring that you are frantically following.

The fact is that cellphone use does not increase the rate of accidents.
That's a fact since it's the elephant in the room.

[That's the first time of saying]

Yep. It's a halucination.

The only question is why ... but you'll never get to why until you
understand that this is a fact.

It's like trying to explain the Higg's Boson to you when you don't yet
comprehend what a boson is.

Popeye had a friend who was a boson.

You'll never get the answer by intuition.
You can only get to the answer with facts.

Any hypothesis you provide has to meet with the facts of good data.
(BTW, there's a ton of bad data out there - but they are easy to explain
why.)

The good data is incontrovertible fact.
There is zero effect of cellphone ownership (and presumed use) in the
accident rate.

[That's the second time of saying]

And there is a good reason for that fact.
But you'll never get to the reason until you understand the fact.

Please: say it one more time and then it will be true.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 06 May 2018 00:10:02 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall
noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But
it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell
phone at the time of an accident.

not reliably, it isn't.

The telco records will have that information.

the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what
road hazards may have existed at the time.

I never claimed they did.

actually, you did:
The telco records will have that information.

"that information", as you will see if you read above, was "But it
also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone
at the time of an accident."

again, not normally, it isn't.

That's because normally nobody tries. However I used to investigate
accidents for a living and I know from experience what can be learned
when you try. Suffice it to say that in this part of the world (New
Zealand) the Serious CRash Investigation Unit of the NZ Police always
obtains cellphone records if there is a cellphone in a car involved in
the crash. It's standard practice.

simple example:

a driver could have answered a call and told the caller that he's
driving and he'll call back later.

15 seconds later, a drunk swerves into his path, resulting in a
collision.

Could he have avoided the drunk if he wan't distracted by the phone
call?

is the cellphone the cause of the crash? no. it was the drunk driver.

the call could also have been auto-answered without the driver doing
anything, so despite there being a call log, the driver *wasn't* using
the phone.

That he hadn't answered would show in the log.

tl;dr cellphone logs won't show that it was a drunk driver.

It probably was if the accident occurred in Russia.

all the telco has is logs. they don't know what the driver was doing,
if the driver was actively using the phone, or if the fault was due to
another driver or pedestrian.

Who claimed cellphone records contain all the answers?

you did.

Bull****. Please give me a citation of where I said that.

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

no need. he'll know it has no merit.

You should consider the terms 'balance of probabilities' or even
'reasonable doubt'. Absolute certainty is never required.

i am. you should consider the term 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

absent dashcam video, there *is* reasonable doubt. probability can't be
used to convict someone.

It varies from one court system to another. 'Balance of probabilities'
often is all that matters in a civil action.

since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time
is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements
(if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions.

assumptions are not proof.

if it was, a ****load of people would be in jail.

... and they are.

there are plenty who are not.

even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using
the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human
input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a
pocket or bag.

I agree, it could be a passenger or even an app, but the number called
can often help sort that out.

apps don't call numbers.

You try telling my domestic power meter that.

wtf does a domestic power meter have to do with driving?

It has an app which makes and receives calls on the cellphone network.

and why would it have its own cellular number? that's a huge waste of
numbers.

normally, meters are read by a truck driving by which pings the meter,
rather than someone getting out of said truck and physically reading
it.

That's old hat. My meter also turns the hot water cylinders in my
house on or off according to instructions it receives via the
cellphone network

the point is that apps running in the background on a phone in
someone's pocket could be using cellular *data* (not calling a voice
number), with zero effect on the driver.

That they are using data will show up in the Telco's log.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 03:49:11 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

Tell that to the judge.

Your logic is as factual as this is:
World War II Bomber Found on Moon!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport

The law is there for revenue generation and for political purposes.

There is tons of proof out there that the accident rate is wholly
unaffected by all safety laws.

These are competent studies which LOOKED extremely closely in the
statistical record, where there were ZERO first-order effects of ALL safety
related laws (cellphones just being one of them).

The ONLY first-order effect of safety related laws is revenue generation.

As I have already told you, the fact that the effect of various safety
related laws could not be detected is not evidence that there is no
effect.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 6 May 2018 02:00:00 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote:

In , nospam
wrote:

The telco records will have that information.

the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what
road hazards may have existed at the time.

Eric Steven's approach is to prove there is no elephant in the room simply
by proving there is no elephant poop in the stairwell.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

While I completely understand where nospam is coming from, even if Eric
Stevens could prove that EVERY SINGLE ACCIDENT from the day cellphones were
invented to now are caused by their use while driving ... that still
wouldn't fit the facts.

Just like every physics experiment on string theory seems to point to 10
dimensions, intuition won't help Eric Stevens understand the facts.

The fact is that the accident rate in the US has not shown a single blip
due to the extraordinarily huge and stupendously sudden skyrocketing rates
of cellphone ownership (and presumed use while driving).

I wouldn't expect a blip. The uptake of cellphones has been
progressive and spread over many years.

Even if Eric Stevens could prove there is no elephant poop in the
stairwell, he'd still have to explain what that elephant is doing in the
room.

It's a halucination.

absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way
to know exactly what happened and when.

matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash
(which is what they do now) means nothing.

You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with
it.

there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless.

since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no*
way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a
possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the
crash (to call for help).

even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using
the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human
input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a
pocket or bag.

I applaud nospam for his logic, where anyone who knows me, knows that
doesn't happen often - but where nospam is showing intelligence in his
statements.

Nobody is going to ever understand why cellphone use has zero effect on
accident rates nor why drinking hot coffee has no effect, nor why screaming
kids has no effect, nor why fiddling with the radio has no effect, nor why
taking a pee while driving or putting on makeup while driving has no effect
on the overall accident rate .... until ...

Until they understand two very critical things about accidents that all
insurance companies know by heart ...

HINT: What do insurance companies use to set your insurance premiums?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens