On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:26:05 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Anyone with even half a clue knows that
texting while driving is a BIG distraction.

Rod, I know you can read.

So, let's try this again, since, you must be also intelligent.

If you can't *understand* what I'm writing, it's either you're
not intelligent enough to understand, or you don't want to
understand.

I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious.
Let's repeat (but you really need to be able to read).

1. All of us (including me) would assume that distractions are dangerous.
2. All of us (including me) would assume that cellphones are distracting.
3. All of us (including me) would assume that they're a BIG distraction!
4. All of us (including me) would assume that will result in accidents!

That none of us (including you and that study) can find these accidents
should be cause for all of us to doublecheck our assumptions.

That most of us (including you but not including me) simply *assume*
unproven external forces (aliens should be added to that list) are
"manipulating" or "changing" the data is patently ridiculous, but, if
you (or anyone) can *show* that manipulation of the data, I'm all ears.

What you constantly refuse to do is read and understand the facts
when they don't completely fit your assumptions.

Most people are like that.

The facts are all that matter.

1. The study couldn't find the increased accidents (no study can because
the accidents don't exist).
2. The study did NOT resort to what you resorted to though, to explain
that (you may as well tell me aliens are manipulating the data).
3. The study did find increased HOSPITALIZATIONS, which is interesting
as that has to be a second-order effect.

So, what I find interesting is that, while the study could not find
increased accidents, they found increased hospitalizations.

Your conjecture is apropos, given *those* facts, which is something like:
A. The cellphone distraction may not be causing any increased accidents,
B. But the accidents that were already happening "may" be more severe.

That's a reasonable take on the data.