On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:11:23 -0400, micky wrote:

No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.

Do you have *better* data than what I provided in the OP?

I've been asking for better accident rate data since this thread
started.

I'm not afraid of better data (you may be, but I am not).

No more so than accidents.

You are missing a screw if you think that a second-order issue
such as injuries and fatalities will be simpler than a first-order
issue such as accidents (which are the cause of those injuries
and fatalities).

Are you seriously arguing that the injuries and fatalities would
have happened *without* the accident happening first?

Deaths may have factors like that but injuries don't. And your
objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying
dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of
the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.

The fact you used "lying" instead of "laying" tells me you are
intelligent; so I find it hard to believe you actually believe
that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities can
possibly provide the answer to the conundrum when the first order
issue itself doesn't provide that answer.


You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.

The paradox is so clear that the only ones 'clouded' by it are those
with an agenda that isn't supported by the data.

It's very clear:
1. Most of us (me included) believe that the skyrocketing ownership
of cellphones in the USA must mean a concomitant skyrocketing
*use* of those cellphones while driving; which itself, should
indicate a concomitant increase of driving-while-distracted cases.

2. Most of us (me included) have seen the scary studies which show
that the use of a cellphone while driving is distracting, and,
most of us (me included) conclude that driving while distracted
should be increasing the accident rate in the USA.

3. Yet, the best data shown here indicates that the accident rate
in the USA is not going up (in fact, it's going down).

Most of us would say that this is a paradox.
So far, six answers have been provided to satisfy that paradox.

Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarily linearly
proportional to accidents.

You can't be serious if you want to use fatalities and injuries
as your justification while wholly ignoring the accidents that
*caused* those fatalities and injuries.

Fatalities and injuries have ten times the factors that the
accidents have - so - if accidents are too complex for you to
handle details about to support your arguments - there is no
way fatalities and injuries will support your argument.

The only person who would leap over accident rates to go to
fatalities and injuries, is a person who has cherry picked some
data which isn't supported by the accident rate, and wants to
stick with that cherry-picked data come hell or high water,
to support a bogus argument.

As I said many times, anyone with reliable accident rate data
is welcome to post it - as this thread is about accident rates,
pure and simple.