Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to
use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands- free accessories.
David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :'The findings of the present study confirmed the impairments associated
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed
to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via
hands-
free accessories.
Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend (because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to
use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands- >> free accessories.
Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend >(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific >evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect >whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the >period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been >reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect. >Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was >happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident >rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is >zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is >not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that >you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist. >Likewise with the idiots out there who love to claim "correlation does not >imply causation" instantly wipes out all the good data that you simply do
not like, then again, show evidence of your claim that the accident rate >skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.
You have plenty of data in the US Census Bureau figures becaue they list
them for every year since the 1920's for every state and for the USA as a >whole.
So you can watch every state and list when the cellphone laws went into >effect and you can see that there is ZERO evidence of a rise (or fall) in >accidents due to the astoundingly huge and precipitously sudden rise in >cellphone ownership rates.
For those who are slightly intelligent who claim (reasonably so) that
nobgody has reliable statistics for whether, given the thousands of
accidents a year, whether the cellphone itself was the cause, that's true.
So live with it. Don't fantasize that it caused it when you don't know. >Likewise, for those who are a bit more reasonable, who claim that we can't >even tell when a cellphone is being used in a car given the thousands of >accidents per year, that's also true. So live with that lack of data.
Don't make it up simply because your friend of your sister had a cellphone >and then there was an accident.
Back to the ignorant, the fact that you can find an anecdotal case of a >cellphone causing an accident is meaningless in terms of statistics. Yes, I >know, you can't handle math so you think 1 is the same a 1 million, but
stop fantasizing that every sensational news storey is what happens in the >statistics.
I'm sure very moron out there can dig up one accident out of the hundreds
of thousands over the years which *was* caused by a cellphone. For sure.
But that's ridiculous to make a law based on that. You may as well make a
law that crying kids and wife arguing should be made illegal simply because >each of them has caused one accident by your Aunt Mary with your uncle Jim. >In summary, the law is baseless.
Mainly it's political because 3 agencies love to make money on this law:
1. Insurance
2. Police
3. Lawyers
David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to use >> a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-free >> accessories.
Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend (because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is >> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that >> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of
evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these
accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are
needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is >>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that >>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes >vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion >distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle >those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe >thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise. >In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a >"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this >conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good >driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not brain-free, argue with that.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).
? You make no sense. Or if that was an attempt at wit you failed.
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed. >>Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle >> those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe >> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise. >>
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a >> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
I only have a 10% "claim free" discount. I've been driving for over 50
years without being involved in any kind of accident for almost that
long. My latest premium was $271 for 12 months and that's probably a
lot cheaper than most are paying (bundled with the house though).
Oh yeah, I don't own a cellphone and if I did I'd turn it off when on the road.
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:17:10 -0600 :
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes >>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your
world).
? You make no sense. Or if that was an attempt at wit you failed.
Thank you for agreeing that your own argument made absolutely no sense.
Even to you.
This is your argument:
Anecdotally, a red car with blue toys in it hit a tree.
Therefore, the blue toy caused the accident.
Hence, we must ban blue toys while driving.
All I did was switch your own argument around:
Anecdotally, a red car with blue toys in it hit a tree.
Therefore, the red car caused the accident.
Hence, we must ban red cars while driving.
The point, if you don't get it, is your entire argument is patently absurd.
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are
needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to
handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds
(maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or
otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a
license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount
and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
I only have a 10% "claim free" discount. I've been driving for over 50
years without being involved in any kind of accident for almost that
long. My latest premium was $271 for 12 months and that's probably a
lot cheaper than most are paying (bundled with the house though).
Oh yeah, I don't own a cellphone and if I did I'd turn it off when on
the road.
The cellphone doesn't raise the accident rate for a variety of complex reasons, but most people are too uneducated to understand any of them.
All they see is the scary cellphone, and/or the scary propaganda from
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
All of whom make money from cellphone use laws.
Not one person can find a single cite showing that the accident rate skyrocketed in the USA between the time nobody had a cellphone to the time (almost) everyone had them.
That's because they made it up.
It didn't happen.
It's a myth.
It's busted.
The *reason* cellphones don't raise the accident rate are interesting. Especially since everyone agrees they are an extra distraction.
Why do you think that's the case?
Do you know why?
I (think I) do.
Three reasons, in fact.
I don't believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused by using cell phones hasn't led to more accidents. I can see with my own eyes how people are extremely dangerous to be around with their erratic driving, excessively large gaps between themselves and the car in front of them, and their eyes pointing down rather than ahead. I don't care what the
statistics say because as a motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what
drivers around me are doing and I make it a point to look inside their cars to ensure their attention is on the road. And then there are the people around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid or pass
the distracted driver.
Then there is the epidemic of people driving with their high beams on in
town and blinding the rest of us. Unfortunately I can't see if they're looking at their phones because I can't see anything from the glare they're producing.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
badgolferman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:13:38 -0000 (UTC) :
I don't believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused by
using
cell phones hasn't led to more accidents. I can see with my own eyes how
people are extremely dangerous to be around with their erratic driving,
excessively large gaps between themselves and the car in front of
them, and
their eyes pointing down rather than ahead. I don't care what the
statistics say because as a motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what
drivers around me are doing and I make it a point to look inside their
cars
to ensure their attention is on the road. And then there are the people
around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid or pass
the distracted driver.
Then there is the epidemic of people driving with their high beams on in
town and blinding the rest of us. Unfortunately I can't see if they're
looking at their phones because I can't see anything from the glare
they're
producing.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Hi badgolferman,
This is an interesting topic which I hzve researched deeply over the years. Most people don't research anything; they just guess at everything.
But not me. I don't trust my own intuition; so I check the data.
Only after I check the data do I form a conclusion based on the evidence. That's what I was taught as an engineer and as a scientist.
You should also.
Hence, I converse with you as a normal adult, where I don't need to dumb
down the message, nor repeat it with you since you own normal comprehensive skills - so you can handle a topic that is complex and nuanced.
Usenet isn't really the best medium to discuss topics of import which are actually far more complex than most people think - especially since only
one out of a million people checks their data before assuming a conclusion.
So I want to start by saying I UNDERSTAND why you think the way you do.
In fact, many years ago (more than a decade or so), I had long ago already fully and completely understood your point of view, because not only
have I studied this topic extensively, but yours is the exact same point
of view
of most people. So how could I not be aware of your point of view, right?
I know what 999,999 out of a million people think.
And I know why they think it.
And that's fine.
But there's a problem with "assuming" things.
It's just a guess when people "assume" things.
Just as much a guess as the earth is flat is people "assuming" things.
Most people guess that gravity is a force.
But when you check the data, you find out gravity is NOT a force.
My point is I know and you know and everyone knows what everyone assumes.
But that assumption is merely a guess.
Nobody has ever *checked* their assumptions against the reliable data. Everyone assumes their guess is 100% right all the time.
In other words, they feel their intuition is 100% perfect all the time.
And yet, it's not.
For thousands of years people assumed the sun revolves around the earth.
it's a great guess. Most people guessed the same thing.
But when smart people checked the data, they found out the guess was wrong. So rest assured I'm aware that 999,999 out of a million people just guess.
They assume that (a) cellphones are a distraction, and (b) distractions
cause accidents, so (c) cellphone distractions must cause accidents to
the point that (d) the accident rate should skyrocket when cellphones appeared.
I have the same intuition as you do, and I have the same intuition that everyone has, so I would have assumed the same thing as you and everyone
else did had I not had a specific trait which makes me a great scientist.
Had I not checked the data.
Guess what I found when I checked the data?
Yup. The accident rate remained unchanged between the three critical
periods of (1) before cellphones from 1920 onward, to (2) the meteoric
rise of cellphone ownership rates, and then (3) the plateau since then.
Huh?
WTF?
What happened?
Note I never once said that cellphone use doesn't cause accidents.
Nor have I ever said that cellphones aren't a distraction while driving.
Nobody disputes that. Least of all me.
But give me credit for being intelligent. Please. In giving me that
credit, you need to know I've *researched* this and I found out what
appears to be happening which is keeping the well-documented accident
rate from rising.
There are three fundamental reasons, I believe, why there is no evidence whatsoever in the reliable accident rate statistics of the US Census
Bureau (which has been keeping reliable accident-rate statistics for a hundred years!) of the cellphone accident rate skyrocketing during the
period of cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketing.
Three reasons.
But nobody here is ready for those reasons since they already assumed
that gravity is a force and that the earth is flat and that the sun
revolves around the earth - simply because they assumed all those things without doublechecking the facts.
It's only when you doublecheck the facts that you find out there are
very interesting reasons (three of them) which explain why the cellphone accident rate is essentially unchanged between the three critical periods:
a. Accident rate in each state *before* cellphones existed
b. Accident rate during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership c.
Accident rate after we reached almost 100% cellphone ownership
Science isn't intuitive.
People are often wrong when they assume things sans any reliable data.
Without data, all assumptions are simply guesses.
Rest assured, had I not checked my assum;ptions, I too would have thought
a. Cellphones are a huge distraction
b. Distractions must be causing accieents
c. So, I would have "assumed" that the accident rate skyrocketed
And yet it did not.
It didn't even change.
It has been trending downward before, during & after.
Why is that?
I (think I) know why.
But you have to understand the fundamentals before we can talk about why.
Do you want to discuss those fundamentals first?
bad sector wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:11:56 -0500 :
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
The joke about people who are stupid shouldn't get a licence is partly true in that driving has *always* involved (thousands of) distractions.
Those who can't handle distractions will *always* have accidents.
The cellphone simply displaced an existing distraction, and, by most accounts, the cellphone is not even the biggest distraction while driving.
But you can *predict* the accident rate would not change with increased cellphone usage simply by knowing that there are plenty of distractions already. Adding one more changes nothing in the whole scheme of things.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.
Like you, I've also driven a million miles in my many decades of driving (I started when I was a young teen, well before I could get a license).
Not one accident.
Good student discount on insurance for when I was a student (which happened to be a very long time given I went to university for graduate degrees).
Good driver discount too.
People who have been in an accident have no right to even be in this discussion as the fact they couldn't avoid that accident is indicative that they're bad drivers (as you should be able to predict most accidents).
Anyway, nobody can find a single cite that backs up their religious fabrication that cellphones had a huge effect on the accident rate in the USA. That's because there was no effect whatsoever from cell phones.
Zero.
There are good reasons for that, given cellphones are certainly an "added distraction" to the hundreds (if not thousands!) of existing distractions.
HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.
On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence >>>> is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents >>>> that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a chain >>> reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm willing to
bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your
world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are
needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to
handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds
(maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or
otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and
a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good driver"
and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not brain-free, argue with that.
"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence ofI saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile
evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these
accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist. >>>>
friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight,
causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the
hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes >>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your
world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are
needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to
handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds
(maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or
otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a
license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount
and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a
good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.
On 12/12/24 10:09, Scout wrote:
"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of
evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these
accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to
exist.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend >>>>> crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using
Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your
world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are
needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to
handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds
(maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or
otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a
license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount
and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a
good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one. >>>>
--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but
virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.
bullshit
On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed
to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via
hands-free accessories.
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but >>> virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.
bullshit
As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.
HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.
'been here before; defensive driving isn't based on statistics but on suspicion, paranoia and prejudice, thank you very much. I couldn't care
less whether phones have effect on stats, the roads and conditions have changed, statistics have never stopped a single accident from happening
and are thus irrelevant.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:55:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed
to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via >>>> hands-free accessories.
I've yet to learn how this impacts amateur radio operators.
Jonesy
Scout wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:09:36 -0600 :
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed,
but virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very
well.
bullshit
As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is
your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.
Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone use in vehicles.
As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is
your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.
Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone >> use in vehicles.
Then why is hands free not a real issue? Oh, because it's not about multitasking but rather failing to watch what is going on in front of you. Which is something else entirely.
Further I believe I covered that under your needing to prioritize your multitasking. I mean if what you said had any problems.. then audio systems would never be installed in cars, because according to you someone could
only drive or listen to music but not both at the same time.
On 2024-12-12 12:00, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:55:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed >>>>> to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via >>>>> hands-free accessories.
I've yet to learn how this impacts amateur radio operators.
My post wasn't made to any ham radio newsgroup. Sorry
On 12/12/2024 7:09 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of
evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these
accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to
exist.
I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile
friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight,
causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the
hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using
Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your
world).
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are
needed.
Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to
handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds
(maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or
otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a
license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount
and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a
good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one. >>>>
--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time.
You cannot intelligently think of even *one* thing at a time, scooter.
You cannot intelligently think of even *one* thing at a time, scooter.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:57:55 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,604 |