On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:27:21 -0500, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 8/20/2015 5:42 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:16:18 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:56:56 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).

Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.

Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your
"scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which
is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth
arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).

Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem
at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your
intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell
everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident
rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous:
"Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers
handheld cell phone use"

This one also may apply to the problem at hand:
"Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"

This one should be directly related, if it contains good data:
"Association between cellular telephone calls and motor
vehicle collisions"

Likewise with this one:
"Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"

Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not):
"The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"

And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year,
this one may contain related data:
"2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"

Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct
information about the paradox. That you don't see that,
and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the
list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you
are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing
anything that affects people's lives.

I went thru this a few years ago with the Daytime Driving Light
fanatics. I collected all the research reports (where I was working
at the time had a research section that could get them all for me) and
went thru them all. What I found was that what you might think from
both the title and the Summaries was almost never what the data
showed. And the bottom line was that most of the studies were so
poorly done as to be worthless. They were clearly commissioned merely
to "prove" the desired political end. There were a few good ones that
had actually established CONTROLS so they could properly compare
before and after accidents. And the result was that 80% of those
studies concluded that the data did not rise to the level of
statistically sound usefulness to conclude anything. The remaining
studies showed some types of accidents increased and some types of
accidents decreased and that the net result of DRLs was at best a
wash. They were neither useful nor harmful based on accident rates
although they were clearly, based on complaints, highly irritating to
a great many drivers since they shined the cars high beams into
oncoming traffic in the daytime. They also increased the incidence of
motorcycles being hit by cars as I recall. I thin the number of
pedestrians hit went down.

In any case, what you say it true, you can't tell anything by the
titles and in my experience you can't tell anything by the research
either about 80% of the time. It would not surprise me if less then
fifty people in the world actually read the entirety of many of these
studies although millions may read some liberal arts major's newspaper
story based on them having read the (misleading) summary of the
report.

Of course what the idiot CEG says isn't true. You've accepted his
totally false premise that I or anyone else here ever said any of those
studies proved anything one way or the other with regard to the issue
of cell phone usage and accidents.

What I did say was that CEG exposed himself as an idiot by repeatedly
squawking PARADOX, while never having even looked at any of the actual studies,
what data they used, the methods, how they came up with the conclusions.
And that proves that CEG, while claiming to have a background in
science, is just the village idiot. And here you are, talking about safety Nazis, accepting his BS, lying premise, etc, also without even actually
looking at them. Good grief.

CEG presented the Paradox, he did NOT say he had the answer to it. It
is not up to him to look thru a bunch of reports YOU also haven't look
thru and that the person who posted the links ALSO had NOT looked
thru.


And how, exactly, do you know I didn't look through the links?


Did you and if so please summarize which findings solve the paradox.