They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference

[Jack Black]

Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
accidents!

Here is the quote!

Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
of Public Health.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-while-driving-does-banning-it-make-a-difference/

[Gordon Shumway]

Wow! Give me a second, I gotta text this to my... Oh, Shit!!
Screeeeech, Crash, Tickle, Tinkle.

Son-of-a-bitch, there goes my insurance rates.

[Your Name]

In article
<dc889$569d4085$43da7656$12...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Jack

It's been known for many years that playing with a mobile phone is the
cause of some accidents. It's only selfish dumbasses that don't want to
believe it so they can keep doing whatever they want to do ... until it
happens to them or someone they actually care about.

[Lewis]

In message <dc889$569d4085$43da7656$12...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>

Jack Black <Jack-...@example.com> wrote:
> Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
> accidents!

You are very confused.

> Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
> versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
> of Public Health.

Global Warming prevents piracy. News at 11.

--
Q: how do you titillate an ocelot? A: you oscillate its tit a lot.

[Vlad Lescovitz]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0800, Jack Black wrote:

> Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
> accidents!

You are confused.
They couldn't find any direct relationship to accidents whatsoever!
Says so right in the article.
They were grasping at straws trying to find something (anything) related.

[chris]

On 19/01/2016 04:17, Lewis wrote:
> In message <dc889$569d4085$43da7656$12...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>
> Jack Black <Jack-...@example.com> wrote:
>> Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
>> accidents!
>
> You are very confused.
>
>> Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
>> versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
>> of Public Health.
>
> Global Warming prevents piracy. News at 11.

You're the one who's confused. The study mentioned is not based on
correlations, unlike the jokey (negative) correlation between Global
Warming and piracy (at sea) you're alluding to.

The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
different factors have an affect on car crash related hospitalisations.
They found that texting bans, handheld bans, seatbelt laws and graduate
licensing laws all had a measurable and significant decrease in the
hospitalisation rates.

Likewise high speed limits and illegal blood alcohol levels had
significant increases in hospitalisation rates.

Gas prices, per capita income and unemployment rates had no effect.

All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is here:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302537

[chris]

Nope. They tested explicitly whether certain factors affected car crash
related hospitalisations. The texting ban as well as seatbelt laws had a
significant effect in reducing hospitalisations.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote:

> The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
> different factors have an affect on car crash related hospitalisations.
> They found that texting bans, handheld bans, seatbelt laws and graduate
> licensing laws all had a measurable and significant decrease in the
> hospitalisation rates.

What's strange is that they found no relationship whatsoever to
accidents.

Methinks there is a smell emanating from the data.

For example, just having a cellphone could mean that you can call for
an ambulance which will take you to the hospital even if you were
just scratched up a bit.

If you didn't have the cell phone, you wouldn't easily have that
ambulance, which means you wouldn't have that ride to the hospital.

You might just walk home, or drive home, or take a longer time
to get "official" help (like from police or ambulance).

So, BECAUSE they can't find ANY relationship to accidents,
they can only find a relationship to hospital visits, but
that could just be BECAUSE it was convenient.

Any study that can't find any relationship to accidents is
nearly worthless.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:29:14 +0000, chris wrote:

> Nope. They tested explicitly whether certain factors affected car crash
> related hospitalisations. The texting ban as well as seatbelt laws had a
> significant effect in reducing hospitalisations.

But there was absolutely no relationship to ACCIDENTS!

I wonder if the answer is as simple as those accidents that had no
cell phone in the vehicle were unable to easily summon the ambulance.

We all know that millions upon millions of people go to the hospital
after an accident simply because they want to establish that their
neck hurt (especially if they were the ones rear ended).

We'd have to look but I wonder if simply having the phone in the
car made all the difference to the data but AFTER the accident.

Anyway, it's moot really, because they could find NO EVIDENCE of
increased accidents, so, they're just bullshitting the data because
without accidents, you have no injuries.

[Rod Speed]

"chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n7lglv$43c$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 19/01/2016 04:17, Lewis wrote:
>> In message
>> <dc889$569d4085$43da7656$12...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>
>> Jack Black <Jack-...@example.com> wrote:
>>> Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
>>> accidents!
>>
>> You are very confused.
>>
>>> Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
>>> versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American
>>> Journal
>>> of Public Health.
>>
>> Global Warming prevents piracy. News at 11.
>
> You're the one who's confused. The study mentioned is not based on
> correlations, unlike the jokey (negative) correlation between Global
> Warming and piracy (at sea) you're alluding to.
>
> The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
> different factors have an affect on car crash related hospitalisations.
> They found that texting bans, handheld bans, seatbelt laws and graduate
> licensing laws all had a measurable and significant decrease in the
> hospitalisation rates.
>
> Likewise high speed limits and illegal blood alcohol levels had
> significant increases in hospitalisation rates.
>
> Gas prices, per capita income and unemployment rates had no effect.

When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because
that must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads.
Yes, plenty of traffic like to and from work will continue anyway,
but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from
work, they will be more car sharing and use of public transport
with the higher gas prices.

> All of which makes perfect sense.

Not the gas prices.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> chris wrote

>> The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
>> different factors have an affect on car crash related hospitalisations.
>> They found that texting bans, handheld bans, seatbelt laws and graduate
>> licensing laws all had a measurable and significant decrease in the
>> hospitalisation rates.

> What's strange is that they found no relationship whatsoever to
> accidents.

Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents.

> Methinks there is a smell emanating from the data.

There certainly is with the claim that gas prices
have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes.

> For example, just having a cellphone could mean that you can call for
> an ambulance which will take you to the hospital even if you were
> just scratched up a bit.

But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether
there is a ban on texting while driving wont have any effect
on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident.

> If you didn't have the cell phone, you wouldn't easily have that
> ambulance,

That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no
one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident.

> which means you wouldn't have that ride to the hospital.

> You might just walk home, or drive home, or take a longer
> time to get "official" help (like from police or ambulance).

Or get someone else with a cellphone to call an ambulance.

> So, BECAUSE they can't find ANY relationship to accidents,
> they can only find a relationship to hospital visits,

Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is.

> but that could just be BECAUSE it was convenient.

No.

> Any study that can't find any relationship to accidents is
> nearly worthless.

But it clearly finds a relationship to the more
serious accidents that produce hospitalisation.

A more important criticism of the study is that
no relationship was found with gas prices which
is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic
volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious
accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly
involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to
accept.

[Tekkie®]

Gordon Shumway posted for all of us...

What did your dash cam show? Oh, you didn't have a dash cam...

--
Tekkie

[chris]

Possibly, but there was no difference between states that had a texting
ban vs those which didn't. Which is what was being measured. Any effect
of price was uniform between them.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:42:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because that
> must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads. Yes, plenty of
> traffic like to and from work will continue anyway,
> but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from work, they
> will be more car sharing and use of public transport with the higher gas
> prices.
>
>> All of which makes perfect sense.
>
> Not the gas prices.
>
>> The original article is here:
>> http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302537

This is a good point, that the study, the only one ever reported that
tries to show an effect on *real world* numbers, can't even get that
right.

There *is* no deleterious effect from cellphone use in the *real world*.

This study, as flawed as it was, couldn't even *find* accident rates
being affected, which is the *first* thing anyone would look for.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:23:39 +0000, chris wrote:

> Possibly, but there was no difference between states that had a texting
> ban vs those which didn't. Which is what was being measured. Any effect
> of price was uniform between them.

That's a good point, although, just to the point of price, there *is* a
huge (possibly static?) difference in price state-to-state for gas at
any one time.

Why California Drivers Pay Highest Gas Prices
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/11/19/why-california-drivers-pay-highest-gas-prices/

Californians seem to be paying higher gas prices than anywhere else
in the country.

According to AAA, the current national average is $2.12 per gallon.
Here is a look at the gas prices from around the country:
NATIONAL AVERAGE PRICES
State Gallon
Colorado $2.00
Florida $2.15
Illinois $2.08
Massachusetts $2.13
Minnesota $2.09
Montana $2.34
New Jersey $1.86
North Carolina $2.01
Pennsylvania $2.32
Texas $1.90
Washington State $2.50
Source: AAA

In California, drivers pay an average of $2.78 a gallon,
60 cents above the national average.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:50:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents.

Like *all* arguments for restrictions on cellphone use while driving,
they *require* additional *highly unproven* assumptions.

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest answer is the best
answer until/unless we know otherwise.

The simplest answer is that they could find absolutely zero
increase in accidents, period.

However, I do agree, that the data stinks because of other
issues (like who cares about hospital visits if the accidents
aren't happening in the first place, and, if the accidents
are happening, then they'd have to prove they are worse for
us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack.

> There certainly is with the claim that gas prices
> have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes.

I have to agree with you there. Lower prices would mean greater
miles, which should mean greater accidents. We don't need to
look further for second-order issues, but, since the study could
find no first-order indications, those greater accidents would
likely result in greater numbers of hospital visits.

But, without the accidents, they're just shooting blind.

> But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether
> there is a ban on texting while driving wont have any effect
> on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident.

Good point. I was trying to figure out *why* they couldn't
find accidents, yet, they found more hospital visits?????

Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said, but, 'cmon,
they can't even find the accidents, let alone prove they're
worse.

> That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no
> one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident.

OK. I understand that single-vehicle accidents would be in
a minority.

But, then, how come they can't find accidents, but they
can find hospital visits?

Something stinks in the data.

> Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is.

I understand your point, which is this, in effect:
1. Cell phone use
2. Causes not more accidents, but,
3. Causes same number of accidents, which
4. Are more serious.

While I agree *that* would account for the data, seems to me
that it's pretty clear that the *rate* of accidents didn't
change.

But, it seems *fishy* that the hospital visits did change.

> A more important criticism of the study is that
> no relationship was found with gas prices which
> is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic
> volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious
> accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly
> involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to
> accept.

Yes. I agree. Gas prices lowering should increase miles
driven which should increase accidents period.

Something is fishy in this data, but, one takeaway that
was unintended, I'm sure, is that the accident rate
itself certainly didn't increase or decrease.

Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE conclusion
that they would have wanted to prove, so, that it wasn't
proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:55:11 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> It's been known for many years that playing with a mobile
> phone is the cause of some accidents.

Except nobody can find the accidents that you say are *caused*.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote:

> All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is here:
> http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302537

Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused*
by driving while using a cell phone?

The *accidents* don't seem to exist.

[Your Name]

In article
<d869e$569ebeeb$b5722d9a$15...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>, Paul

M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 05:42:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
> >

> > When gas prices didnšt, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because that

Oh goody, another brainless and selfish moron to add to the killfile.
:-\

[Rod Speed]

"chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:n7mcs6$rqa$1...@dont-email.me...

Absolutely certainly, you can see that in the stats.

> but there was no difference between states that had a texting ban vs those
> which didn't. Which is what was being measured. Any effect of price was
> uniform between them.

You said gas prices had no effect.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because that
>> must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads. Yes, plenty
>> of traffic like to and from work will continue anyway,

>> but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from work, they
>> will be more car sharing and use of public transport with the higher gas
>> prices.

>>> All of which makes perfect sense.

>> Not the gas prices.

>>> The original article is here:
>>> http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302537

> This is a good point, that the study, the only one ever reported that
> tries
> to show an effect on *real world* numbers, can't even get that right.

That is overstated, it may be a problem with the methodology which is quite
different.

> There *is* no deleterious effect from cellphone use in the *real world*.

That is a lie. There is a real difference between the states which have a
ban on texting and those that don’t. What is less clear is whether that
measured difference is actually due to the different demographics of
those states which is also the reason for the ban on texting or lack of one.

> This study, as flawed as it was, couldn't even *find* accident rates
> being affected, which is the *first* thing anyone would look for.

But clearly did find a difference with accidents that
are serious enough to result in hospitalization.

It isnt even clear if they have useful stats on the total accident rate
and I'm not going to pay the substantial cost to find out by reading
the original article.

[Porky Pig]

How would anyone ever know?
Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident?

Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents.

> Like *all* arguments for restrictions on cellphone use while driving,
> they *require* additional *highly unproven* assumptions.

Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that
texting while driving is absolutely guaranteed to
be harder to do than driving without texting at all.

> Occam's razor

Is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

> tells us that the simplest answer is the best
> answer until/unless we know otherwise.

Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort.

> The simplest answer is that they could find
> absolutely zero increase in accidents, period.

BULLSHIT when its obvious that texting while driving
is much harder to do than driving without texting.

> However, I do agree, that the data stinks because
> of other issues (like who cares about hospital visits
> if the accidents aren't happening in the first place,

They obviously are happening to get a hospital admission.

> and, if the accidents are happening,

No if about it.

> then they'd have to prove they are worse for
> us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack.

Wrong on both counts. Nothing unlikely about it.

>> There certainly is with the claim that gas prices
>> have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes.

> I have to agree with you there. Lower prices would mean
> greater miles, which should mean greater accidents.

More accidents, actually.

> We don't need to look further for second-order issues,

Corse we do when trying to decide if texting while driving
produces more accidents that are serious enough to result
in hospitalisation.

> but, since the study could find no first-order indications,

Another lie.

> those greater accidents would likely result
> in greater numbers of hospital visits.

We aren't talking about hospital VISITS, we are
talking about HOSPITALIZATION if the original
paper has been accurately reported.

> But, without the accidents, they're just shooting blind.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Nothing
blind about it and no shooting at all either.

>> But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether

>> there is a ban on texting while driving won't have any effect

>> on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident.

> Good point. I was trying to figure out *why* they couldn't
> find accidents, yet, they found more hospital visits?????

It looks like they could find accidents but the rate of those
that required HOSPITALIZATION, didn’t vary between the
states that ban texting and those that didn’t, if chris has
summarised the paper accurately.

> Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said,
> but, 'cmon, they can't even find the accidents,

That’s a lie.

> let alone prove they're worse.

And so is that. The rate of hospitalization proves that
they are worse in the states that don’t ban texting.

>> That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no
>> one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident.

> OK. I understand that single-vehicle accidents would be in
> a minority.

> But, then, how come they can't find accidents,

They can.

> but they can find hospital visits?

Hospitalization, not hospital visits. That may well be because
the data on HOSPITALIZATION is much more reliable than the
data on accidents, no matter how minor that don’t even get
reported to anyone.

> Something stinks in the data.

That doesn’t.

>> Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is.

> I understand your point, which is this, in effect:
> 1. Cell phone use
> 2. Causes not more accidents,

I didn’t say that.

> but,
> 3. Causes same number of accidents, which

Or that. They JUST said that there is no variation
on that between the states which ban texting
while driving those that don’t if chris has
reported what the paper says accurately.

> 4. Are more serious.

> While I agree *that* would account for the data, seems to me
> that it's pretty clear that the *rate* of accidents didn't change.

You don’t know that either.

> But, it seems *fishy* that the hospital visits did change.

Not if that data is much more reliable and it likely is.

>> A more important criticism of the study is that
>> no relationship was found with gas prices which
>> is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic
>> volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious
>> accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly
>> involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to
>> accept.

> Yes. I agree. Gas prices lowering should increase miles
> driven which should increase accidents period.

> Something is fishy in this data, but, one takeaway
> that was unintended, I'm sure, is that the accident
> rate itself certainly didn't increase or decrease.

You don’t know that either.

> Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE
> conclusion that they would have wanted to prove,

But they may not have reliable data on all accidents, particularly
those that aren't bad enough to get reported to anyone because
the driver just swerves all over the road etc and doesn’t actually
hit any other car or any stationary object.

> so, that it wasn't proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study.

But may be an unavoidable consequence of the lack of
anything like as good data on the total accident rate.

[Rod Speed]

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:b1792$569ec2c6$b5722d9a$15...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

Bullshit they can't. Plenty of them have the driver
admit that that was the cause of the accident.

[Your Name]

In article <569ee5f1$0$39227$b1db1813$6557...@news.astraweb.com>,

The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so
couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get
cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use)
at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 1/19/2016 10:06 PM, Your Name wrote:

>>
>> Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
>> I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.
>
> The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so
> couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get
> cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use)
> at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already.
>

In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she still
had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on.

[Your Name]

In article <wcCdnej50a0IYQPL...@giganews.com>, Ed

In a TV advert here, the person on the other end of the phone call
hears the crash.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and
thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous.

I reckon next time they go to their doctor, the doc should TXT while
examining them. I'm sure that won't lead to any misdiagnoses ;-)

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:01:52 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Bullshit they can't. Plenty of them have the driver admit
> that that was the cause of the accident.

It's simple logic (something which most people can't understand).

If cellphones in use were actually causing accidents, then
with more cellphones in use, there would be more accidents.

The accident rate is steadily going *down* in the USA, year
after year after year (with or without cellphones).

If it was going up, someone would have found evidence of that.
Nobody can find it.

Because it's not happening.

And yes, you can make up all sorts of unproven scenarios where the
huge increase in accidents is exactly offset by an exactly matched
huge "combination" of other factors, which are perfectly tuned to
exactly counterbalance the predicted sudden and huge rise in accidents
that isn't happening - but that is stretching the imagination to
believe because it has to offset an absolutely HUGE force in both
timing and numbers.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that texting while driving is
> absolutely guaranteed to be harder to do than driving without texting at
> all.

Look. Eating a banana is harder to do while texting, but you can still
do it without slipping on the floor.

Driving is so easy that almost every single person can do it.
Driving while distracted is impossible NOT to do.

Nobody has ever driven a single mile without some distraction.
There are literally thousands of distractions every mile you drive.

You handle them.

For most stupid people, they'd *think* cellphone are a *big* distraction.
So, with *huge* increases in cellphone ownership, you'd expect a
correspondingly huge increase in cellphone use, where you'd expect
a correspondingly huge increase of distractions, where you'd expect a
correspondingly huge increase in the accident rate.

I would too.
It *sounds* logical.

But nobody on the planet can *find* these new accidents.
Not even this biased study can find them.

What does *that* tell you?

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort.

What does Occam's Razor mean, to you?

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> BULLSHIT when its obvious that texting while driving is much
> harder to do than driving without texting.

Rod.

It's pure logic.

Both you and I would *think* that the following makes sense:
1. Driving is dangerous
2. Cellphones are distracting.
3. Driving while distracted by cellphones is more dangerous.
4. There are a *huge* number of cellphones used while driving.
5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents.

That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents tells us something.

What does it tell you Rod?

[Rod Speed]

Porky Pig <pork...@butt.fat> wrote
> Paul M. Cook wrote

>> chris wrote

>>> All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is here:
>>> http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302537

>> Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by
>> driving while using a cell phone?

>> The *accidents* don't seem to exist.

> How would anyone ever know?

By checking whether they were texting at the time of the accident,
particularly with those who only have the driver in the car at the time.

> Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident?

They don’t have any choice in that in some situations.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:41:51 -0500, Porky Pig wrote:

>> Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused*
>> by driving while using a cell phone?
>>
>> The *accidents* don't seem to exist.
>
> How would anyone ever know?
> Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident?
>
> Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
> I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.

How would anyone ever know?

Are you crazy?

If there were more accidents, they'd show up in the accident reports.
Accident reports have been compiled accurately in the USA for decades.

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:01:52 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Bullshit they can't. Plenty of them have the driver admit
>> that that was the cause of the accident.
>
> It's simple logic (something which most people can't understand).
>
> If cellphones in use were actually causing accidents, then
> with more cellphones in use, there would be more accidents.

Bullshit. The fact is accident rates are determined by *many* things that
are *not* related to cell phone use, which means rates can decline due to
other factors even as cell phone use rises. Total accident rates are not a
reliable measure, yet you are hopelessly fixated on them because you
desperately want to convince yourself that the distraction of using a cell
phone while you should be driving is perfectly safe, which is asinine.

> And yes, you can make up all sorts of unproven scenarios where the
> huge increase in accidents is exactly offset by an exactly matched

Anyone with a brain who is honest knows it doesn't have to be huge, more
does it need to exactly match to skew the results either way. The fact is
there are multiple factors contributing to accident rates that can skew the
total rate in either direction. You want the rest of us to ignore that.
Nope. Not happening.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Paul M. Cook]

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:18:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she still
> had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on.

I can probably find a case where eating a banana caused an accident
where the driver was found with a banana in her hand.

Your anecdote is just that. An anecdote.
It's "bro science" for the masses.
Not real science.

Read this:
How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

Or this:
Seeing is Not Always Believing: Why Anecdotal Evidence is Not Proof
http://osmosis-online.com/2010/01/09/seeing-is-not-always-believing-why-anecdotal-evidence-is-not-proof/

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:14:15 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> In a TV advert here, the person on the other end of the phone call
> hears the crash.

So what?

I can find a case where someone had an accident with a cup of coffee
in her hand.

Anecdotes are nothing more than fun things to read.
They make the news because they don't normally happen.
They're "new" and unusual (otherwise they wouldn't make the news).
News is entertainment.
Not science.

Read this instead.

Seeing is Not Always Believing: Why Anecdotal Evidence is Not Proof
http://osmosis-online.com/2010/01/09/seeing-is-not-always-believing-why-anecdotal-evidence-is-not-proof/

Or this:

How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:14:15 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
>> In a TV advert here, the person on the other end of the phone call
>> hears the crash.
>
> So what?
>
> I can find a case where someone had an accident with a cup of coffee
> in her hand.

Both eating/drinking and cell phone use distract from the task of driving;
so there's no surprise there. What you can't dispute is that all such
distractions have a detrimental effect on driver awareness and reaction
time which has been sciency proven.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Bullshit they can't. Plenty of them have the driver
>> admit that that was the cause of the accident.

> It's simple logic

We'll see...

> (something which most people can't understand).

You clearly can't.

> If cellphones in use were actually causing accidents, then
> with more cellphones in use, there would be more accidents.

Not if the accident rate is dropping even faster for other reasons
like better designed roads and better designed cars that avoid
any injury to the individuals in the car in some of the accidents.

> The accident rate is steadily going *down* in the USA,
> year after year after year (with or without cellphones).

Because of designed roads and better designed cars that avoid
any injury to the individuals in the car in some of the accidents.
Everywhere in the modern first and second world, not just in the US.

> If it was going up, someone would have found evidence of that.

We have, the number of accident that have been found to have
been due to the use of a cellphone by the driver at the time of
the accident by checking the cell tower data for that phone.

> Nobody can find it.

That is a bare faced lie.

> Because it's not happening.

That is a bare faced lie.

> And yes, you can make up all sorts of unproven scenarios

Nothing unproven about an accident that happened at the
time the only person in the car was using their cellphone.

> where the huge increase in accidents is exactly offset

There is no exactly offset when the accident rate keeps dropping most years.

> by an exactly matched huge "combination" of other factors, which
> are perfectly tuned to exactly counterbalance the predicted sudden
> and huge rise in accidents that isn't happening

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> - but that is stretching the imagination to believe because it has
> to offset an absolutely HUGE force in both timing and numbers.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that texting while driving is
>> absolutely guaranteed to be harder to do than driving without texting at
>> all.

> Look.

Nothing to look at except more of your mindless
silly stuff, bare faced lies and denial.

> Eating a banana is harder to do while texting,
> but you can still do it without slipping on the floor.

Driving a car in traffic is just a tad harder to do that
eating a banana and much more likely to produce
an accident that requires hospitalisation too.

> Driving is so easy that almost every single person can do it.

And it is now the single biggest cause of death
for those between the ages of 15 and 70.

> Driving while distracted is impossible NOT to do.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> Nobody has ever driven a single mile without some distraction.
> There are literally thousands of distractions every mile you drive.

> You handle them.

Texting is much harder to handle than any other distraction except
possibly the kids killing each other in the back of the car.

> For most stupid people, they'd *think* cellphone are a *big* distraction.

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

> So, with *huge* increases in cellphone ownership, you'd
> expect a correspondingly huge increase in cellphone use,

Not when hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to text while driving.

> where you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase of distractions,
> where you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase in the accident rate.

Not when hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to text while driving.

> I would too.
> It *sounds* logical.

> But nobody on the planet can *find* these new accidents.

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> Not even this biased study can find them.

You're lying thru your teeth, again.

> What does *that* tell you?

That you are a bare faced pathological liar.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort.

> What does Occam's Razor mean, to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> BULLSHIT when its obvious that texting while driving
>> is much harder to do than driving without texting.

> Rod.

> It's pure logic.

Nope.

> Both you and I would *think* that the following makes sense:
> 1. Driving is dangerous
> 2. Cellphones are distracting.
> 3. Driving while distracted by cellphones is more dangerous.

Yes.

> 4. There are a *huge* number of cellphones used while driving.

You don’t know that.

> 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents.

And there are with the fools stupid enough to use their phones while
driving.

> That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents

You can keep spewing that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced lie.

> tells us something.

Like hell it does.

> What does it tell you Rod?

That you are a bare faced liar that wouldn’t know
what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.

[Rod Speed]

"Paul M. Cook" <pmc...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:484ec$569f36e3$60325d75$16...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...

> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:41:51 -0500, Porky Pig wrote:
>
>>> Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused*
>>> by driving while using a cell phone?
>>>
>>> The *accidents* don't seem to exist.
>>
>> How would anyone ever know?
>> Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident?
>>
>> Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
>> I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.

> How would anyone ever know?

By checking if the phone was being used at the time of the accident, stupid.

> Are you crazy?

No need to ask if your are a bare faced liar, the answer is obvious.

> If there were more accidents,

There are.

> they'd show up in the accident reports.

They do.

> Accident reports have been compiled accurately in the USA for decades.

And the increase in accidents due to those actually stupid enough
to use their phones while driving has been swamped by the reduction
in accidents due to the better design of the roads and the rate of
injury to those in the car by the better design of the cars.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Ed Pawlowski wrote

>> In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she
>> still had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on.

> I can probably find a case where eating a banana caused an
> accident where the driver was found with a banana in her hand.

You can certainly find plenty that were due to someone
actually stupid enough to eat while driving.

> Your anecdote is just that. An anecdote.

Wrong, it’s a fact.

> It's "bro science" for the masses.
> Not real science.

Wrong, as always.

> Read this:
> How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
> Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-anecdotal-evidence-can-undermine-scientific-results/

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> Or this:
> Seeing is Not Always Believing: Why Anecdotal Evidence is Not Proof
> http://osmosis-online.com/2010/01/09/seeing-is-not-always-believing-why-anecdotal-evidence-is-not-proof/

Ditto.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:41:31 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> But clearly did find a difference with accidents that
> are serious enough to result in hospitalization.
>
> It isnt even clear if they have useful stats on the total accident rate
> and I'm not going to pay the substantial cost to find out by reading
> the original article.

Both your points are valid, in that:

a) They found 'something' (i.e., hospitalization)
b) They didn't find anything useful on overall accident rate

I agree that the hospitalization is an oddity in that, as you proposed,
there may not be any more accidents caused by cellphone use than their
would have been without cellphone use (since nobody can find these
accidents); but the accidents that are caused (which would have happened
anyway, as the data shows), seem to result in more hospitalization.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

> I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and
> thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous.

Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course
there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving.

The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is,
essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do.

So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted.

Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives,
and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while
driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle
distractions.

That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially
why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today.

However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected
by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership
numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions),
simply means exactly what it shows.

That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other
distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:30:34 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Bullshit. The fact is accident rates are determined by *many* things that
> are *not* related to cell phone use, which means rates can decline due to
> other factors even as cell phone use rises.

You totally ignore the astoundingly huge number of cellphones in cars today!

> Total accident rates are not a reliable measure.

Accident rates are the *only* reliable PRIMARY measure.

In fact, the study alludes to that, in that they can only find SECONDARY
data that supports their hypothesis, and yes, they use TOTAL HOSPITAL
admittances as their datum.

> yet you are hopelessly fixated on them because you
> desperately want to convince yourself that the distraction of using a cell
> phone while you should be driving is perfectly safe, which is asinine.

You fail to comprehend English, because you have an agenda that goes
against logic, which is fine (many people are like you are).

The logic I have stated is so obvious that you can only ignore logic
to not see it.

1. We *all* would naturally *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous.
2. We *all* would naturally assume that cellphone use is distracting!
3. We all assume those distractions would result in accidents.

The fact that #3 does *not* happen, should be cause for concern.

What Rod Speed would say, and what is the conclusion of that study, is:
1. We *all* would naturally *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous.
2. We *all* would naturally assume that cellphone use is distracting!
3. Nobody can find increased rates of accidents (because it isn't happening),
but that study found that the accident itself (that isn't happening)
is causing more hospitalizations (which is happening).

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:08:36 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Not if the accident rate is dropping even faster for other reasons
> like better designed roads and better designed cars that avoid
> any injury to the individuals in the car in some of the accidents.

Or if aliens have been manipulating the system, causing the accident
rate to decrease at exactly the same level and numbers and timing
as the cellphone ownership rates increased!

[Paul M. Cook]

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

> And it is now the single biggest cause of death
> for those between the ages of 15 and 70.

As it was before cellphones existed.

[Paul M. Cook]

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.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:27:43 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

>>> Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort.
>
>> What does Occam's Razor mean, to you?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Yup. What most of you try to do, because you are extremely uncomfortable
with facts that don't fit your preconceived notion of what you feel
should be, is that you all *invent* reasons (all unproven) for the facts
being as they are.

You may as well invent aliens who are manipulating the data.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:31:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

>> 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents.
>
> And there are with the fools stupid enough to use their phones while
> driving.

Where are the accidents?

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:06:20 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Both eating/drinking and cell phone use distract from the task of driving;
> so there's no surprise there. What you can't dispute is that all such
> distractions have a detrimental effect on driver awareness and reaction
> time which has been sciency proven.

Jolly Roger.
Can you read?
Are you intelligent?
Can you UNDERSTAND what you read?

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs
reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g.
<http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it>

But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that
magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than
others.
Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would
never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_
people'. _You're_ special :-)

I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage
feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take
responsibility...

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> It's simple logic

Does anyone else find it more than a little amusing and indicative of a
profound lack of self awareness, that Paul is trying to suggest he is
the logical one? :-)

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:50:33 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Wrong, it’s a fact.

There is one fact that gets you all caught up in your panties.

That fact is that the accident rate trajectory did not change
(either way) due the introduction of cell phones.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:34:38 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> By checking if the phone was being used at the time of the accident, stupid.

While I admit that's easier to do now than ever, the
fact is that there are roughly a few hundred thousand
accidents per year in the USA and nobody is checking
each of those accidents for whether a cell phone was
in actual use during the exact time of said accident.

So your answer is merely cherry picking, and hence,
useless for an overall idea of what is going on.

It's as if you're a fifteen century philosopher who
notices maggots on meat and proclaims spontaneous
life has formed on your meat.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:15:32 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

> Does anyone else find it more than a little amusing and indicative of a
> profound lack of self awareness, that Paul is trying to suggest he is
> the logical one?

Jamie.
You'll notice that I have refrained from insinuating your intelligence
in this thread.

What you have insinuated is that you feel I am not logical.

What you propose is akin to proposing that flies arise from meat merely
by the act that you see them (spontaneous generation, if you will).

While I *completely* understand your logic arises out of your lack
of ability to understand facts, you really shouldn't belie mine, as
in all my arguments, I have been reasonable (i.e., I don't think
aliens manipulated the data, which is akin to what Rod Speed
proposes when he says the data is hidden by other effects).

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:12:46 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

> It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs
> reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g.
> <http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it>

I can easily leave a piece of meat outside and flies will be growing
on it, so, as in your "study" above, I've "proven" the point that
flies like meat.

So what?

The fact is:

[Michael Eyd]

Great idea, when will you finally start to doublecheck your
(oversimplified) assumptions? So many people here in this discussion
(and the previous one to the same topic) showed you more than enough
reason to reconsider...

I will not repeat all of those reasons, but just state one (very
obvious) fact: Life is very complicated, and certainly much more
complicated than your logic (as shown by your over and over repeated
'obvious facts') can handle.

Best regards,

Michael

[chris]

On 20/01/2016 01:33, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n7mcs6$rqa$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 19/01/2016 18:42, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "chris" <ithi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n7lglv$43c$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 19/01/2016 04:17, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message
>>>>> <dc889$569d4085$43da7656$12...@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>
>>>>> Jack Black <Jack-...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
>>>>>> accidents!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are very confused.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7
>>>>>> percent
>>>>>> versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American
>>>>>> Journal
>>>>>> of Public Health.
>>>>>
>>>>> Global Warming prevents piracy. News at 11.
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who's confused. The study mentioned is not based on
>>>> correlations, unlike the jokey (negative) correlation between Global
>>>> Warming and piracy (at sea) you're alluding to.
>>>>
>>>> The study make several explicit regression models to test whether
>>>> different factors have an affect on car crash related
>>>> hospitalisations. They found that texting bans, handheld bans,
>>>> seatbelt laws and graduate licensing laws all had a measurable and
>>>> significant decrease in the hospitalisation rates.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise high speed limits and illegal blood alcohol levels had
>>>> significant increases in hospitalisation rates.
>>>>
>>>> Gas prices, per capita income and unemployment rates had no effect.
>>>
>>> When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because
>>> that must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads.
>>> Yes, plenty of traffic like to and from work will continue anyway,
>>> but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from
>>> work, they will be more car sharing and use of public transport
>>> with the higher gas prices.
>>
>> Possibly,
>
> Absolutely certainly, you can see that in the stats.

Which stats?

>> but there was no difference between states that had a texting ban vs
>> those which didn't. Which is what was being measured. Any effect of
>> price was uniform between them.
>
> You said gas prices had no effect.

In this study. Which was looking at the difference in hospitalisation
rates between states with or without bans on texting while driving.
Presumably fuel prices would change more or less in sync in all states
and so would have no differential effect between the ban or no-ban states.

[Muggles]

I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the
names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your
last comment, here.

Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones
are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be
more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger
distraction to them than say listening to a radio?

--
Maggie

[Frank Slootweg]

Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:

> On 1/19/2016 10:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
> >> Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
> >> I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.
> >

> > The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so
> > couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get
> > cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use)
> > at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already.

>
> In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she still
> had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on.

Like today: Van driver texting, swerving all over the road,
accelerating and slowing down all the time. But nah, that's not
dangerous at all! He just needed two lanes instead of one and he just
*nearly* hit me, so that doesn't count! So what the heck are we whinging
about!?

And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not
affect accident statistics in a negative way, just like ABS doesn't
affect them in a positive way! It's all BS! So listen to Mr. Kook and
STFU!

[Tony Hwang]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 10:06 PM, Your Name wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Yes officer, the accident was all my fault.
>>> I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road.
>>
>> The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so
>> couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get
>> cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use)
>> at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already.
>>
>
> In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she still
> had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on.

I am not sorry for her at all. That was her choice and consequence is
hers. I am just frustrated when careless/distracted driving kills
innocent people. Today's cars have technology to take care of cellphone
traffics hands free. Voice command works well too. If Apple product is
sync.d to the vehicle Siri works as well. I carry cell phone, I only
turn it on when I need it.

[SeaNymph]

I don't think so. The distraction is in your brain, not in how fast you
can text. While listening to the radio can be distracting, you don't
have to look at it to do it. If they aren't watching the road, that's
just an accident waiting to happen.

[nospam]

In article <200120161606322027%Your...@YourISP.com>, Your Name

<Your...@YourISP.com> wrote:

>
> The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so
> couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get
> cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use)
> at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already.

if the exact time of the crash can't be determined (and it usually
can't), then there's no way to know if a phone was in use at the time
of the crash. it also could have been used by a passenger.

[nospam]

In article <dg9rfu...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg

<th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>
> Like today: Van driver texting, swerving all over the road,
> accelerating and slowing down all the time. But nah, that's not
> dangerous at all! He just needed two lanes instead of one and he just
> *nearly* hit me, so that doesn't count! So what the heck are we whinging
> about!?

he might have (and probably would have) done the same thing without a
phone.

shitty drivers don't need phones to be shitty drivers.

> And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not
> affect accident statistics in a negative way,

his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating,
reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the
influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on
cellphones and not the other stuff.

the problem is distracted driving.

> just like ABS doesn't
> affect them in a positive way! It's all BS! So listen to Mr. Kook and
> STFU!

actually, it doesn't. that's yet another myth.

with abs, people think that abs will save them, so they tend to drive
in a more risky manner and end up in bad situations more often. the net
effect is no real change in crash rates.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per nospam:

>
>
>his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating,
>reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the
>influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on
>cellphones and not the other stuff.

Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is
only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time.

Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff -
including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the
conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver
attention.

OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end
expects continuous attention from the driver.

But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident
statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving
is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.".

I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many
anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments.

One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at
driving while doing other things and I am not.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Zaidy036]

On 1/18/2016 2:44 PM, Jack Black wrote:
> Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes
> accidents!
>

> Here is the quote!

>
> Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent
> versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal
> of Public Health.
>

> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-while-driving-does-banning-it-make-a-difference/
>

Another article:
<
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20160119/program-at-business-academy-in-new-haven-opens-students-eyes-about-texting-and-driving?source=email
>

[Tony Hwang]

Driving is total attention business needing all 5 senses. Our store is
next door to Starbuck coffee shop. Seeing thru the windows in the shop,
all people sitting there is texting burying their face into the
smart phones. After finishing coffee, comes out into their parked cars,
again texting with car's engine running. What in the world do they have
so much to text? Nowadays it is rare sight people doing eyeball
conversations. Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats,
non-productive junks. It is as bad as drug addictions.

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:30:34 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. The fact is accident rates are determined by *many* things that
>> are *not* related to cell phone use, which means rates can decline due to
>> other factors even as cell phone use rises.
>
> You totally ignore the astoundingly huge number of cellphones in cars today!

Nope; but you certainly want to ignore the myriad of other factors
unrelated to cell phone use that contribute to the accident rate.

>> Total accident rates are not a reliable measure.
>
> Accident rates are the *only* reliable PRIMARY measure.

Nope. Many factors unrelated to cell phone use contribute to the accident
rate, which means there is no direct correlation between cell phone use and
accident rates. And there are plenty of ways to measure cognitive function
using scientific methods. You just want to ignore them because they don't
fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is supposedly
perfectly safe.

> 3. We all assume those distractions would result in accidents.
>
> The fact that #3 does *not* happen

That's a lie. All sorts of distractions cause accidents every day, and you
know it. You just don't want to admit it because it doesn't fit your silly
narrative that cell phone use while driving is supposedly perfectly safe.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:08:36 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Not if the accident rate is dropping even faster for other reasons
>> like better designed roads and better designed cars that avoid
>> any injury to the individuals in the car in some of the accidents.
>
> Or if aliens

As usual, you ignore all factual assertions that do not support your silly

[Tony Hwang]

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per nospam:
>>
>>
>> his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating,
>> reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the
>> influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on
>> cellphones and not the other stuff.
>
> Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is
> only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time.
>
> Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff -
> including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the
> conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver
> a

>

> OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end
> expects continuous attention from the driver.
>
> But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident
> statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving
> is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.".

Driving is non-challenging activity? Really?

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

The fact is many accidents are caused by distracted driving which naturally
includes cell phone use, and you have been shown the data numerous times
right here in this news group. But you continually ignore or discount the
data and claim they don't exist because it doesn't fit your silly narrative

[Jolly Roger]

Jamie Kahn Genet <jam...@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> It's simple logic
>
> Does anyone else find it more than a little amusing and indicative of a
> profound lack of self awareness, that Paul is trying to suggest he is
> the logical one? :-)

He often claims everyone who disagrees with his asinine assertions is
lacking in intelligence. It's his modus operandi.

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

False. You can't prove that either way since accident rate is influenced by
a myriad of factors many of which have absolutely nothing to do with cell
phone use.

[Jolly Roger]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:15:32 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
>
>> Does anyone else find it more than a little amusing and indicative of a
>> profound lack of self awareness, that Paul is trying to suggest he is
>> the logical one?
>
> Jamie.
> You'll notice that I have refrained from insinuating your intelligence
> in this thread.

You do it constantly with anyone who disagrees with you, liar.

> What you have insinuated is that you feel I am not logical.

That's the truth.

[Jolly Roger]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <dg9rfu...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not
>> affect accident statistics in a negative way,
>
> his point is that it's not *just* cellphones

He can't even admit that much.

> the problem is distracted driving

Yes, and cell phone use is a distraction.

[Muggles]

It is addictive, or maybe it just becomes a habit that is just normal
for people in this digital age. My kids all text and do Facebook, so I
text and check up on their FB's, too, even though I don't really post to
FB much at all. I think that's just what they grew up into using as the
technology became available - they embraced it.

--
Maggie

[Chris]

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> Wrote in message:

> Per nospam:
>>
>>
>>his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating,
>>reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the
>>influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on
>>cellphones and not the other stuff.
>
> Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is
> only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time.
>
> Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff -
> including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the
> conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver
> attention.
>
> OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end
> expects continuous attention from the driver.
>
> But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident
> statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving
> is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.".
>
> I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many
> anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments.

It's simple coincidence or lack thereof. You need a specific set
of circumstances before mobile phone use has a measurable effect
on the accident rate. Per mile covered, driving is a generally
safe activity with accidents being relatively rare. so those
special circumstances are also rare.

I would posit that most non-phone using drivers are aware enough
to help avoid an accident eg by serving or slowing down. Given
that, it still doesn't mean using a phone while driving is
safe.

> One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at
> driving while doing other things and I am not.

Studies have shown that isn't the case.

--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[SeaNymph]

There's nothing wrong with embracing technology, understanding it and
being able to use it. Like others have mentioned though, driving
requires the attention of the driver.

I don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device.

[Frank Slootweg]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <dg9rfu...@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg
> > <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not
> >> affect accident statistics in a negative way,
> >
> > his point is that it's not *just* cellphones
>
> He can't even admit that much.
>
> > the problem is distracted driving
>
> Yes, and cell phone use is a distraction.

And *texting* - *which is the subject of this thread* - (and similar
use) is a distraction which is *incomparable* to *any* other
distraction, because the length in time of the distraction is *much*
longer.

In the example I gave - the texting van driver - the duration of the
distraction was at least [1] 10km, *8 minutes*. Perhaps the 'texting
while driving is prefectly safe!' nuts in this thread would care to show
another distraction, which last *that* long.

[1] By that time, I managed to - somewhat - safely pass him. If I could
have done anything about it/him, without creating even more danger, I
would have.

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote

>> But clearly did find a difference with accidents that
>> are serious enough to result in hospitalization.

>> It isnt even clear if they have useful stats on the total
>> accident rate and I'm not going to pay the substantial
>> cost to find out by reading the original article.

> Both your points are valid, in that:

> a) They found 'something' (i.e., hospitalization)
> b) They didn't find anything useful on overall accident rate

> I agree that the hospitalization is an oddity in that, as you
> proposed, there may not be any more accidents caused
> by cellphone use than their would have been without
> cellphone use (since nobody can find these accidents);

That last has always been a bare faced lie.

> but the accidents that are caused (which would
> have happened anyway, as the data shows),

It shows nothing of the sort.

> seem to result in more hospitalization.

So it does makes sense to not text when driving.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:31:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents.
>>
>> And there are with the fools stupid enough to use their phones while
>> driving.
>
> Where are the accidents?

Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your
silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.

<http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html>

[Tony Hwang]

Locally there was an incident a teenage boy was playing with smart phone
in bed and fell asleep in the night, some how the phone started burning
under blanket causing injury to the boy. Anyone who says using handhelp
device while driving is safe is an idiot. Sooner or later distracted
driving will kill self or some one or if lucky will come out alive from
accident caused by distraction. I encourage and give my kids cars with
manual shift which requires more attention. I always drive using paddle
shift on my vehicle. Is there such thing as forever lucky? Monkeys do
fall from trees.... Some parts of Canada fine for distracted driving is
700.00 and they still do. It's an addiction. My route to downtown from
home is via freeway or ring road. I see guys/gals reading, doing make
ups, drinking coffee/eating, yakking/texting on cell phone, etc. They
are menace on the road.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:34:38 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> By checking if the phone was being used at the time of the accident, stupid.
>
> While I admit that's easier to do now than ever, the
> fact is that there are roughly a few hundred thousand
> accidents per year in the USA and nobody is checking
> each of those accidents for whether a cell phone was
> in actual use during the exact time of said accident.

Bullshit. The research is being done, but you refuse to acknowledge it

because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while
driving is perfectly safe.

<http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html>

> It's as if you're a fifteen century philosopher who
> notices maggots on meat and proclaims spontaneous
> life has formed on your meat.

Projection.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:44:47 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> Or if aliens
>
> As usual, you ignore all factual assertions that do not support your silly
> narrative that cell phone use while driving is supposedly perfectly safe.

No. You missed my point because I interjected humor (sarcasm?).

Rod Speed was trying to tell me the obvious, which is that he could
manufacture a ton of reasons why the accident rate didn't blip when
the cellphones came onto the scene, and I agreed with him that it
could happen, but that it was illogical to pin his entire argument
on that actually happening.

He might as well have pinned his hopes on aliens manipulating the
accident rate data.

Sure. it "could" happen (that's *his* argument, not mine).

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:44:46 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

>> You totally ignore the astoundingly huge number of cellphones in cars today!
>
> Nope; but you certainly want to ignore the myriad of other factors
> unrelated to cell phone use that contribute to the accident rate.

Oh no. Not another one who believes in Alien intervention affecting
the accident rate!!!!!!!

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:44:46 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Nope. Many factors unrelated to cell phone use contribute to the accident
> rate, which means there is no direct correlation between cell phone use and
> accident rates.

You and Rod pin your ENTIRE argument on the fact that you *assume* some
unknown and unaccounted for myriad set of happenstances that EXACTLY
cancel out the also unknown and wholly unaccounted for accidents that
aren't happening yet you insist they are.

I agree, it "can" happen, but to pin your ENTIRE ARGUMENT on that hope
that there are a very interesting (and almost impossible) set of
counter effects that exactly mirror and counteract in both timing and
in number for all states in the USA for all years and then it tails
off at exactly the same rate as phone ownership is.

That your entire argument hinges on this ridiculous point makes me
wonder if you actually know that it's illogical.

It's perhaps more logical to just assume aliens did it.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:07:41 +0100, Michael Eyd wrote:

> I will not repeat all of those reasons, but just state one (very
> obvious) fact: Life is very complicated, and certainly much more
> complicated than your logic (as shown by your over and over repeated
> 'obvious facts') can handle.

Where have you presented a single verifiable fact in this discussion?

Oh? What's that? Facts confuse you?

Hmmmmmmm....

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:06:01 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> He often claims everyone who disagrees with his asinine assertions is
> lacking in intelligence. It's his modus operandi.

You're just lacking in facts.

Your ENTIRE argument, since it has no facts, actually HINGES UPON an
unproven assertion that something akin to aliens conspired to change
the fact such that the huge rise in accident rates was entirely
offset (in both timing and size) and continues to be offset by
an unknown unstated unproven unlisted set of counter forces.

Yeah. At least I was trying to tell you that your argument would
do better if you attributed it to intelligent alien beings, instead
of your unproven/unknown/unaccounted-for list of counter factors.

I only present one fact that you can't escape:

FACT: There are no accidents.
- You can't find them.
- Nobody can find them.

What does that fact tell you?

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:49 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your
> silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.

I forgot you have to have the last word, so, I'll let you have it.

What you show me is an article akin to saying that leaving meat
on a table outside for a week attracts flies - therefore - flies
are created by spontaneous generation in the real world.

That you don't see your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on such, um, er,
on such "logic", is amazing.

My entire argument hinges only on one fact.
And, it doesn't need unproven aliens to be understood.

That one fact is that everyone *assumes* that cellphone use should
be raising the accident rate in the USA - but - nobody can *find*
these accidents.

[Paul M. Cook]

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:13:06 -0500, nospam wrote:

> if the exact time of the crash can't be determined (and it usually
> can't), then there's no way to know if a phone was in use at the time
> of the crash. it also could have been used by a passenger.

Also, they can be using the phone to do a zillion things that
don't leave a time print.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:06:01 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> He often claims everyone who disagrees with his asinine assertions is
>> lacking in intelligence. It's his modus operandi.
>
> You're just lacking in facts.

No, you are projecting again. I and plenty of others here have presented
research and data supporting the fact that cell phone use, along with
other distractions, do cause accidents. You continually ignore or
discount that data because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that
using cell phones while driving is perfectly safe.

> I only present one fact that you can't escape:
>
> FACT: There are no accidents.
> - You can't find them.
> - Nobody can find them.

False. The accidents exist, but you refuse to acknowledge them because
your mind is already made up.

<http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html>

> What does that fact tell you?

The facts show your conclusions are illogical.

[nospam]

In article <7agv9bpv0efsddisa...@4ax.com>,

(PeteCresswell) <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:

> >his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating,
> >reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the
> >influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on
> >cellphones and not the other stuff.
>
> Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is
> only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time.

and that's all you see.

where are the campaigns against eating, reading newspapers, putting on
makeup, fumbling with cd/tapes, driving while tired or under the
influence of medications and many other common distractions?

> Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff -
> including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the
> conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver
> attention.
>
> OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end
> expects continuous attention from the driver.

the person on the other end might expect it but they aren't guaranteed
it.

nothing stops the driver from tossing the phone onto the seat and
concentrating on driving, should the situation warrant it.

> But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident
> statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?"

it hasn't.

cellphone use has skyrocketed while the collision and fatality rate
continues to drop.

> and "Driving
> is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.".

it can be, such as on a highway where there's little to do other than
maintain speed and lane.

on the other hand, there are situations where it's not simple, such as
stop & go city driving with heavy traffic, pedestrians, etc.

unfortunately, too many drivers get themselves into situations that
they can't handle.

for instance, many people drive too fast for conditions, particularly
in snow or ice. if they get into a skid, they panic and crash. a better
driver won't get into that situation in the first place, and if they
do, they know how to handle skids and can maintain control if it does
happen.

it boils down to the majority of drivers being bad drivers.

> I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many
> anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments.

it's a near *hit*, not a near miss. a near miss means you actually hit.
a complete miss means no collision occurred.

> One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at
> driving while doing other things and I am not.

that's definitely the case, as it is with everything.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:49 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your
>> silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.
>>

>> <http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html>

>
> I forgot you have to have the last word, so, I'll let you have it.

Translation: "I have nothing left, so I'll claim you are trying to have
the last word and scatter off again like a silly cockroach in an attempt
to prove it now."

> What you show me is an article

Actually what is posted (which you conveniently snipped, and I have
restored above) is a link to the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention page on Distracted Driving, which includes statistics along
with footnotes with links to numerous studies and research you
desperately want to ignore and discount because the data doesn't fit
your narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.

> That you don't see your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on such, um, er,
> on such "logic", is amazing.

You are the one being illogical here, which is plain for all to see.

> My entire argument hinges only on one fact.

Your entire argument is flawed.

> That one fact is that everyone *assumes* that cellphone use should be
> raising the accident rate

No, only you are making that wild-ass assumption. The rest of us
understand that accident rates are determined by a myriad of factors,
many of which are completely unrelated to cell phone use, which means
there is no direct correlation between cell phone use while driving and
total accident rate. The reason you are hopelessly fixated on accident
rate is it is the only way you can fool yourself into believing your

silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.

[Muggles]

On 1/20/2016 1:32 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:

> Locally there was an incident a teenage boy was playing with smart phone
> in bed and fell asleep in the night, some how the phone started burning
> under blanket causing injury to the boy. Anyone who says using handhelp
> device while driving is safe is an idiot. Sooner or later distracted
> driving will kill self or some one or if lucky will come out alive from
> accident caused by distraction. I encourage and give my kids cars with
> manual shift which requires more attention. I always drive using paddle
> shift on my vehicle. Is there such thing as forever lucky? Monkeys do
> fall from trees.... Some parts of Canada fine for distracted driving is
> 700.00 and they still do. It's an addiction. My route to downtown from
> home is via freeway or ring road. I see guys/gals reading, doing make
> ups, drinking coffee/eating, yakking/texting on cell phone, etc. They
> are menace on the road.

I've seen similar things going on when people were driving. It's crazy
when they're going 70mph on the interstate and trying to put on mascara!
I don't get why people need to use a cell phone by hand, either, when a
hands free device and wi-fi technology allows people to still function
and keep both hands on the steering wheel.

I don't think people are going to stop using cell phones while driving,
either, so at least they could be required to use the safest options out
there. There are constant distractions aside from cell phone use, so
we're already used to being distracted. Having a conversation with a
passenger, or even listening to a radio is equally distracting as using
a cell phone to carry on a conversation.

IF we're going to debate about how cell phone use is dangerously
distracting, why aren't we making a fuss about the technology being put
in new cars where our phones can be synced with the radios so people can
use hands free voice calls more safely? Isn't that distracting, too, but
evidently not enough to warrant banning it's implementation into new
vehicles.

People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted
by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally
ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology,
or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive.

--
Maggie

[Rod Speed]

Paul M. Cook <pmc...@gte.net> wrote

> Jamie Kahn Genet wrote

>> I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road
>> and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous.

> Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course
> there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving.

> The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is,
> essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

In fact car accidents are the main cause
of death between the ages of 1 and 70 now.

> So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

> Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives,

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while
> driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle
> distractions.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

> That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially
> why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today.

Nope, the reason for that is better designed roads
and cars which make accidents much more survivable.

> However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the
> absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers

You can keep spewing that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced lie.

> (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions),
> simply means exactly what it shows.

Just another bare faced lie.

> That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other
> distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day.

Just another bare faced lie. Most aren't
actually stupid enough to text while driving.

[nospam]

In article
<n7oq7f$viv$1...@q3we6trx-9687742-y01txzbbn.eternal-september.org>,

Muggles <cou...@wn2new.years> wrote:

> People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted
> by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally
> ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology,
> or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive.

the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do
whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far
safer than any human can do.

[Muggles]

While autonomous vehicles may be practical in the future, it'll be quite
a few years before that technology is advanced enough for practical
implementation. Maybe it'll be something we can actually practically
use within the next 20 or 30 years.

Until that happens, though, the best technology that's out there is only
installed on new vehicles, and not everyone can actually buy those cars.
I don't have any research numbers, but I'd guess a very small
percentage of people can actually afford to even buy vehicles with the
current smart technology.

I'd also want to know how those people involved in developing the
technology have addressed the possibility of maliciously hacking
vehicles, and all the issues involved when software is in charge of
controlling a 2000 pound rolling weapon?

--
Maggie