"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article vs%tk.42$jE1.24@trnddc03, "Mike"
wrote:


You claim others don't know how to "analysis(sic) risks" and you post
this
blather? You obviously understand very little about cause and effect.

That's the best you can come up with? a typo complaint? What are you,
12?

I wasn't complaining about your typo. You sure jump to a lot of conclusions
for a person who pretends to be an expert at analytical thought.


I don't believe NTHSA even tracks total accidents by number.

Well, you are wrong. Table 3, page 17 of TSF2006FE.pdf.

Can you explain why the accident rate hasn't dramatically
increased during the time period when cellphone usage has
exploded? (I used accident rate, because injury or fatality rates
are affected by such things as medical improvements, seat belts,
airbags, and such - but what improvements for preventing accidents
have there been during time we have seen the rapid increase in
cellphone usage?)

By simply pointing to the accident rates one can't draw such conclusions
either way. Attempting to do so is childish.

The HCRA does "analysis(sic) risks" and their study
speaks for itself.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/fil...nalysis_study_
on_cell_phones.pdf

It speaks for itself? What does it say? did you read it? Did the study
indicate at all how they arrived at their conclusions?

"But because the data on cell phone use by motorists are still limited,
the
range of uncertainty is wide. The estimate of fatalities ranges between
800 and
8,000, and the estimate of injuries is between 100,000 and 1 million."

"³While there is still a lot of uncertainty, the central values indicate
that,
in economic terms, a ban on the use of cell phones by drivers would be a
wash
when comparing the benefit of reducing crashes against the cost of
eliminating
those calls,² Cohen said."

Try reading this passage a bit more carefully and note the term "in economic
terms".


Is there anywhere in that document you referenced that indicated an
analysis
of the probability that a driver easily distracted by a cellphone wouldn't
have
been also easily distracted by something else if the cellphone wasn't
being
used?

Is there anything to indicate it wasn't? A competent risk analysis would
certainly take into account those factors and I have no reason to suspect
theirs wasn't a competent analysis. This is precisely why I prefer letting
people like you do their own research. When proof is provided, you want to
poke holes in it by bringing up countless what if scenarios that are
irrelevant, if not to the point of ridicule. It simply shows that when
faced with evidence you can't refute on a reasonable level, you will just
resort to the unreasonable. It's certainly not going to change your mind.
So why should I waste my time providing proof of something you're never
going to accept anyway?


You won't even bother with a simple google
search which a child could perform because it might go against what
you've
already made up your mind about.

You don't have a clue wrt my motivations.

Nor do I care really.


Show my some actual evidence not some popular myth and I'll be happy
to support appropriate restrictions on cellphone usage.

Personally I could care less what you do or don't support. Not once have I
advocated banning or not banning cell phones, so neither do you have a clue
about my motivations or what I support or don't.