On 2024-12-11 17:13:54 +0000, Andrew said:

> 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.

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.

--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good driver"
and "good student" discounts my whole life.

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.

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.

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

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:13:54 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andys@nospam.com> 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.
>
>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

those that live by the sword rule the world ... divine right of kings
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=stand+for+the+flag+kneel+for+the+cross+meme
(substitute the american flag with any other national flag and voila)

the bible calls this world the great winepress, east of eden, under the
sun, lake of fire, gehenna, second death, generations, resurrection etc.
so we mere mortals are lucky that anything works in this flawless place

it's the same everywhere . . . . soylent population centers of activity
where nothing changes yet everything evolves, and human nature is fixed
because it's genetic: they worship mammon because they were born for it

regards the state . . . state of the union . . . state of human affairs
nothing changes > > > can't fight city hall < < < nothing changes

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.
>
> 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.
'The findings of the present study confirmed the impairments associated
with the use of mobile phones among young drivers leading to poor
control of the vehicle. '

<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8297239/>

'As a result of meta-analysis Prepared for Foundation for Traffic Safety
by Caird et al., 2018, the general conclusion on the effects of mobile
phone use while driving suggested by White et al., 2004 is that both the
use of handheld and hands-free mobile sets significantly increased the
risk of having a car accident. They found that the use of different
phone types was associated with an increase of approximately 40% of
reaction time and an accident risk multiplied by 4. According to
Billieux et al., 2008 it seems that mobile phone use while driving is
related to a high level of dangerous behaviors.'

<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850723001401>

Shall I go on?

On 2024-12-11 20:52:37 +0000, Andrew said:

> 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).

? 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.

> 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.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 20:52:37 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote:
>super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
>> 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.

troll farm operatives are insiders, only doing what they were born to do,
i.e. "defending" the universal system within which they are mortally and
immortally entrapped, materially, mentally, and spiritually . . (there's
no getting out, no going back, so there is no possibility of retreat nor
advance) . . it's like the bible says, the chasm is fixed and impassable,
confined in actual limbo, in a mobius loop of perpetual living and dying,
what old-timers called the mark of cain or what goes around comes around
so they continue to troll the usenet newsgroups in vain . . c'est la vie

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.

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.
--
Good student. Good driver discount. Over a million miles of driving.

On 2024-12-11 20:09, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

BGM: you want to let this bullshit pass?

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?

On 2024-12-11 21:38, Andrew wrote:
> 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,

Are you getting it yet, BGM?

Continue to disagree...

>
> 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.

....and you will be declared a non-adult.

>
> 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?

Well?

Do you?

Andrew wrote:

>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?

First let me say I use two different newsreaders, NewsTap and Xananews.
When I reply to one of your crossposted messages with mobile NewsTap,
it will not send to that many groups and I must remove them in my
reply. My desktop Xananews has no such limitation.

There's an old adage which you may have heard before: "Scientists have
discovered that people will believe anything when you claim scientists
have discovered it."

Since I work in the science field and actually have seen how the
sausage is made, I take with a grain of salt "consensus scientific
facts" much of the time. It's not the actual data gathering which is
suspect, it's how the data is processed and the inherent biases of the
scientists and researchers which are tasked with presenting the data to
the scientific community.

One example is how you often hear the current administration has
deported more illegal aliens than the previous administration. This
statistic is used to justify border policies. Taken in a vacuum with
no other input it sounds great, but when reading other news sources or
listening to the people on the ground you find out that is a misleading
statistic. Maybe the "fact" is true, but it ignores other facts that
vastly higher multitudes of illegal aliens are being let through the
borders unchecked. The sheer frustration of citizens in blue states
which flipped red this election cycle is a good indication of how
people don't believe official government statistics. The jobs,
inflation and economic statistics are yet other examples of misleading
reports.

We all have inherent biases which make us look at "facts" in a
different way. I do not deny that my own biases shaped by my
experiences cause me to doubt distracted cell phone use doesn't lead to
additional accidents, as you contend. The "fact" that distracted
drivers affect the rest of us on the road cannot be denied either.

I am now ready to hear your theory of why the accident rate of cell
phone distracted driving has not skyrocketed.

"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message
news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 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.

On 12/11/24 23:11, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

'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.

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

On 12/12/24 10:09, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message
> news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> 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

"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message
news:OGednZ8P_OlMisb6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 12/12/24 10:09, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message
>> news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> 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

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.

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
--
Marvin L Jones | Marvin | W3DHJ.net | linux
38.238N 104.547W | @ jonz.net | Jonesy | FreeBSD
* Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm

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.

Why has cellphones NOT increased the accident rate?

There are complex answers for that reason, but I'll just hint at one of the
answers which is that cellphones actually make driving safer at times.

Take the case of routing while driving in an unfamiliar city.
Which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning
b. Paper maps
c. Cellphones
(Pick one.)

Likewise, let's say you just missed a turn and you have no idea how to fix
that mistake. Which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning
b. Paper maps
c. Cellphones
(Pick one.)

Let's say there's traffic ahead so which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning (with or without FM/AM radio traffic reports)
b. Paper maps (with or without FM/AM radio traffic reports)
c. Cellphones

Notice there are multiple reasons why cellphones did NOT increase the
accident rate, one of which is that, at times, they actually make driving
safer; but that's not the only reason.

Think about what Scout astutely said, for example:
1. Distractions (hundreds of them) are part of driving
2. People too stupid to handle distractions have always had accidents
3. Distractions are not the major cause of accidents - but they're up there
4. And of course, a cellphone can certainly be a distraction

If you're intelligent, you'll instantly understand that people who are
intelligent have comprehensive systems in place to handle distractions.

Adding yet another distractions to a hundred existing distractions changes
nothing for people who are intelligent enough to handle distractions.

bad sector wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 07:28:53 -0500 :

>> 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.

Once you discount science in favor of your own personal religion, nothing
more can be said (since you own an arbitrary belief system).

And that's OK.

Plenty of people are uneducated in math & sciences so they believe whatever
it is that they want to believe - and that's OK. Most people are stupid.

Having said it's OK to be stupid like most people are, I prefer to
understand the math and science involved, instead of just guessing like you
do.

And that's OK too.

As I said, only one in a million is intelligent enough to understand most
topics which aren't what they appear to be to the ignorant unwashed masses.

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I am now ready to hear your theory of why the accident rate of cell
> phone distracted driving has not skyrocketed.

Don't bother. As usual he'll make lots of claims about data, but never
actually present the data. His claim that there's data since 1923 is false
because that organisation (census bureau) stopped reporting the accident
rate about 10 years ago. Maybe earlier, I forget.

A newer org (NTA?) publishes other up to date stats which do show an
increase in accidents/million miles and also deaths.

I've shown this to Arlen several times and he refuses to acknowledge any of
it. He's blinkered and biased.

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.
>
> Jonesy

My post wasn't made to any ham radio newsgroup. Sorry

"Andrew" <andys@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vjfjms$2jgh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> 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.

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.

Scout wrote on Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:00:01 -0600 :

>>> 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.

Agree with you that it's all about being able to handle distractions.

Driving *always* involved handling distractions. Out of hundreds (if not
thousands), what's one more distraction going to do if you can handle them?

Nothing.

Which is what the accident rate shows.

What's revealing is that intuition is always wrong.
a. The sun revolves around the earth. Busted.
b. Gravity is a force. Busted.
c. Cellphones raised the accident rate. Busted.

In this case, everyone (including me!) would intuit that the accident rate
must have skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.

And yet... they didn't.

For anyone who still claims cellphones raised the accident rate, then just
tell us how much you feel the accident rate was raised.

Do they feel it's ten times as many accidents per mile driven?
Twenty? Fifty? A hundred times the accidents? What?