XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, ca.driving

On 5/30/24 01:06, Andrew wrote:

sticks wrote on Wed, 29 May 2024 20:31:33 -0500 :

The big problem with his ridiculous speculation is calling statistics
FACT.

Adults back up their strongly held belief systems with facts, don't they?

No, facts are the basis of knowledge; meanwhile wishes, suspicions, and
to some extent statistics are the basis of beliefs. The uninsured, the criminals fearing capture, plus most of the low-damage accident actors
simply do NOT report an accident so that pool is misleading. Once you
know something it becomes a fact and gets removed from the beliefs
drawer and conversely until you know something it can be only in the
beliefs drawer. Nothing can be in both concurrently.

Overall statistical accident rates could only rise due to cell-phone use
IF all other causes remained fixed; a la-la entry in real life where all
causes have a dynamic effect so it is quite possible for electronic
bells and whistles like blind-spot alerts to reduce their part in
accidents while cell phones increase theirs resulting in no overall
statistical increase! Furthermore cell-phone use is categorised under distractions and that cause is in fact on the rise even if other causes
are decreasing.


https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving




--
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
vehicle in motion at any speed. Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free. In
the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that distance
should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5 km/h of CLOSURE speed (i.e.
no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any vehicle
approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such an
automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first pay
large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
brake-checking and tailgating should also be HANGING crimes. Any
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
to be beefed up).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, ca.driving

bad sector wrote on Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:48:14 -0400 :

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving

You're clearly not educated as a scientist is educated.
That link says NOTHING that detracts from my statement of fact.

My statement of fact is that the accident record shows absolutely no change whatsoever in the reliably reported accident rates for all fifty states in
the United States when you look at the periods before, during and after the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership from 0% to nearly 100% today.

I get it that most people believe in every myth in the book.
I get it that most people think the accident rate must have gone up.

Hell, even I, a trained scientist, would have thought it would have.
But it didn't.

The difference between stupid people and someone intelligent is that an intelligent person is able to separate baseless myths from facts.

Nobody said that distracted driving wasn't the leading cause of accidents. Nobody said cellphones were an *added* distraction.

Nobody said driving does not entails handline hundreds of distractions.

What I said was there is zero evidence that cellphones had any effect whatsoever (up or down) on the accident rate, which has been reliably
reported by the US Census Bureau since well before any of us were born.

What just happened is you're so incredibly *desperate* to believe in the baseless myth that you googled furiously and couldn't find even a single
cite of fact that disputes that fact. I knew that would happen.

While I'm surprised you did not cite bullshit insurance, lawyer and
ticketing agency cites, and while I commend you for at least citing the
NHSA, don't you think I've scoured the Internet for all known cites?

You think I'm stupid?
I'm not.

I'm extremely well educated in the sciences and in engineering.
I know full well how desperate uneducated people are to believe in myths.

You believe in a myth that has zero basis in actual fact.
You think I don't know that about you?

I knew you will never find a single reliable cite backing up your belief. Because your entire belief system isn't based on any actual facts.

You believe in a baseless myth.
You cited a site that says nothing to dispute the facts.
<https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/distracted-driving>

All it says is what nobody disagrees with, which is that driving entails handling hundreds (probably thousands!) of distractions.

Nobody said it didn't.
That NHTSA cite doesn't say anything about the facts I speak of.
That's because they *know* the facts (far better than you do, in fact).

What I said was that there is no change whatsoever in the accident rates before, during and after cellphones skyrocketed.

Which is a fact you can't deny simply because it's a well-known fact.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)