On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:30:14 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Because that is the subject of this thread. Some people think they are
harmless. Yes, there are many other distractions this just adds more.
I've seen more cell phone users weaving than burger eaters but they
exist too.

Nobody ever said that cellphones weren't distracting.
Nobody ever said that there aren't a zillion distractions.

What was said was that nobody can find any change in the accident
rate that is *required* by the cellphones-are-really-dangerous
argument.

In reality, the people who are arguing that cellphones-are-very-dangerous
are really just guessing.

It sounds good, to them, and that's all they need by way of facts.

That the accidents don't exist, doesn't even faze them.

Even the study itself couldn't find the accidents (and they looked
for them). They looked hard.

All they could find is that the accidents that did occur (which were
at no increased rate whatsoever) seemed to result in 7% more hospitalizations.

I admit, 7% is pretty big.

But how did that second order issue happen without the first order accidents?
Rod Speed gave the only plausible answer - which is that the accidents
that were happening, didn't happen at any greater rate, but that they
were more severe.

I guess that can be a worthwhile conclusion, but, as in all science,
let's see if someone else can back up their claim because something
is logically fishy with the second order issue being greater than
the first order instigation.