On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:

> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
> driving
>
> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>
> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/

Get it done and implemented.

We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
watching videos or having animated conversations.

There was a repeat violator negro with no drivers license on a zoom call
court appearance with a judge while he was driving.

These people need to be stopped, pulled from their vehicles and beaten
sufficiently to put them in the hospital for 30 days at their expense.

The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
emergency calls.

On 6/9/24 00:20, Klyde wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>> driving
>>
>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>
>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>
> Get it done and implemented.
>
> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>
> There was a repeat violator negro with no drivers license on a zoom call
> court appearance with a judge while he was driving.
>
> These people need to be stopped, pulled from their vehicles and beaten
> sufficiently to put them in the hospital for 30 days at their expense.
>
> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
> emergency calls.
>

I wonder if it would suppress a call to AAA or 911?

This is the way we handle it in Nevada:
https://ticketbusters.com/nrs-484b-165-texting-while-driving/

...first violation is a $50 fine. If another violation
occurs within seven years of the first one then another
civil penalty of $100 will be enacted. Additional violations
will generate fines of $250.

And our cops LOVE to collect taxes!

Klyde wrote:

> JAB wrote:
>
>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>> driving
>>
>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>
> Get it done and implemented.

How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?

On 6/9/24 03:20, Klyde wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>> driving
>>
>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>
>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>
> Get it done and implemented.

Totally agree, bluetooth included. And since I often equate bad drivers
with dangerous gun owners my view is that both guns and cars should
involve *yearly psychological evaluations*. As a tool to sharpen my
instinct and maintain my accident-free million-mile status I very often
watch youtube 'road' videos and try to spot what will happen and where.
I am horrified by the state of some people behind the wheel, one exotic
monkey recorded his continuous brain-diarrhea while cutting off and
brake-checking another. It was truly depressing.

In over 65 years of driving I've seen far too many families stretched
out like rats under blankets along side of the road and I hope that
Statefarm makes a killing with their patent ...at least until the
incorporation of even more stringent algorithms become mandatory.

--
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).

> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>
> There was a repeat violator negro with no drivers license on a zoom call
> court appearance with a judge while he was driving.
>
> These people need to be stopped, pulled from their vehicles and beaten
> sufficiently to put them in the hospital for 30 days at their expense.
>
> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
> emergency calls.
>

On 6/9/2024 4:15 AM, Andy Burns wrote:

>>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>>>
>>
>> Get it done and implemented.
>
> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>

It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.
Sounds like a good idea. So many people just can't imagine turning
off their cellphone. But if there's a big difference in insurance
costs they'll have a motivator.

Many states now ban handheld cellphones. It makes little
difference. And the cops who should enforce it are busy on
their own phones. Or they're busy giving out tickets for
speeding or "rolling stops". Why? It's a lot easier to just
stand around waiting to hand out another ticket. And nearly
every road has an unrealistically low speed limit. So it's catching
fish in a barrel. Catching people using cellphones is not
so easy.

But that still leaves the issue of talking on a bluetooth
connection without holding the cellphone, or using maps
apps with the cellphone in a holder. I routinely get stuck
behind people driving erratically, looking at their map program
on the dashboard. The phone should be disabled, period,
except for 911 calls, as long as the car is moving... Though
of course it would mean that some people would have to learn
how to read a map. Maybe the ticket fees could be used to
fund free courses. :)

On 6/9/24 08:52, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 4:15 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>>>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>>>
>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>
>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>>
>
>   It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
> car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.
> Sounds like a good idea. So many people just can't imagine turning
> off their cellphone. But if there's a big difference in insurance
> costs they'll have a motivator.
>
>   Many states now ban handheld cellphones. It makes little
> difference. And the cops who should enforce it are busy on
> their own phones. Or they're busy giving out tickets for
> speeding or "rolling stops". Why? It's a lot easier to just
> stand around waiting to hand out another ticket. And nearly
> every road has an unrealistically low speed limit. So it's catching
> fish in a barrel. Catching people using cellphones is not
> so easy.
>
>   But that still leaves the issue of talking on a bluetooth
> connection without holding the cellphone, or using maps
> apps with the cellphone in a holder. I routinely get stuck
> behind people driving erratically, looking at their map program
> on the dashboard. The phone should be disabled, period,
> except for 911 calls, as long as the car is moving... Though
> of course it would mean that some people would have to learn
> how to read a map. Maybe the ticket fees could be used to
> fund free courses. :)

Necessity is the mother of invention, I think we could be amazed at what
drivers are capable of if they have no choice (like stringent
hosting-language examinations BEFORE landed status and not after). The
ticketing will become very fast and could even be autamted via AI. As
for our dearest insurers I see their game already: whip the topic up
real high, raise the rates accordingly, but then keep them there after
the lawmakers have cleaned up the scene :-)

On Jun 9, 2024 at 8:52:11 AM EDT, "Newyana2" <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> On 6/9/2024 4:15 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>>>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>
>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>>
>
> It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
> car, which makes sense.

Trivially easy to get around. Besides, its not like State Farm is the only
place to get auto insurance.

Newyana2 wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>
> It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
> car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.

Don't couples share cars over there?

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 4:15 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>
>>>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>
>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>>
>
> It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
> car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.
> Sounds like a good idea. So many people just can't imagine turning
> off their cellphone. But if there's a big difference in insurance
> costs they'll have a motivator.
>
> Many states now ban handheld cellphones. It makes little
> difference. And the cops who should enforce it are busy on
> their own phones. Or they're busy giving out tickets for
> speeding or "rolling stops". Why? It's a lot easier to just
> stand around waiting to hand out another ticket. And nearly
> every road has an unrealistically low speed limit. So it's catching
> fish in a barrel. Catching people using cellphones is not
> so easy.
>
> But that still leaves the issue of talking on a bluetooth
> connection without holding the cellphone, or using maps
> apps with the cellphone in a holder. I routinely get stuck
> behind people driving erratically, looking at their map program
> on the dashboard. The phone should be disabled, period,
> except for 911 calls, as long as the car is moving... Though
> of course it would mean that some people would have to learn
> how to read a map. Maybe the ticket fees could be used to
> fund free courses. :)
>

You sound like a bicycle devotee.

On 6/9/2024 12:20 AM, Klyde wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>
>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>> driving
>>
>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>
>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>
> Get it done and implemented.
>
> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>
> There was a repeat violator negro with no drivers license on a zoom call
> court appearance with a judge while he was driving.
>
> These people need to be stopped, pulled from their vehicles and beaten
> sufficiently to put them in the hospital for 30 days at their expense.
>
> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
> emergency calls.
>

What conceivable reason would cause you to stop passengers in a car from
using their phone, or the drivers phone?

Klyde wrote:

> There was a repeat violator with no drivers license on a zoom call
> court appearance with a judge while he was driving.

In later news reports it turned out that the guy actually had a valid
drivers license but the government screwed up in reporting it.

> These people need to be stopped...

In my younger days (60's) I operated a mobile ham radio CW (morse code)
rig in the car while driving cross country. (Code is like a second
language that can be read in your head without writing it down. I
generally went 20-40 WPM.) Lots of fun. Makes using a mobile cell these
days seem seem like duck soup... :-O

> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
> emergency calls.

Yup. And tape also needs to be applied to all passenger's mouths...

On 09/06/2024 13:52,

.... the Luddite ...

> Newyana2 wrote:
>
>   Many states now ban handheld cellphones.

Here in the UK, it's an offence to be using a handheld phone while driving.

> It makes little
> difference. And the cops who should enforce it are busy on
> their own phones. Or they're busy giving out tickets for
> speeding or "rolling stops". Why? It's a lot easier to just
> stand around waiting to hand out another ticket. And nearly
> every road has an unrealistically low speed limit. So it's catching
> fish in a barrel. Catching people using cellphones is not
> so easy.

Here in the UK, there are plenty of CCTV cameras around the towns, and
many have number plate recognition.

>   But that still leaves the issue of talking on a bluetooth
> connection without holding the cellphone, or using maps
> apps with the cellphone in a holder. I routinely get stuck
> behind people driving erratically, looking at their map program
> on the dashboard.

Probably their driving would be far more erratic if they were looking at
a printed map. An onscreen map can alter the scale to suit the
circumstances, update automatically as the car moves, and issue verbal
instructions as junctions are approached, a printed map is stuck at,
usually, quite a low resolution scale which may need glasses to read,
and every time you look at it you have to work out anew where the car is
now, and it can't warn you that you are approaching a junction where you
need to turn off.

I regularly use my phone to navigate for me, it's bloody useful having
that help, leaving me to concentrate more on the actual driving, and
thus be a safer driver.

> The phone should be disabled, period,
> except for 911 calls, as long as the car is moving...

No, using the navigation app on my phone allows me to concentrate more
on the actual driving, and thus makes me a safer driver.

> Though
> of course it would mean that some people would have to learn
> how to read a map. Maybe the ticket fees could be used to
> fund free courses. :)

We had to do orienteering exercises as part of CCF at school, so I can
read a map perfectly well, but I can't safely when I'm driving, because
it takes your attention too long off the road ahead, and I need glasses
to read the map, but not to drive.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 6/9/24 11:42, AJL wrote:
> Klyde wrote:
>
>> There was a repeat violator with no drivers license on a zoom call
>> court appearance with a judge while he was driving.
>
> In later news reports it turned out that the guy actually had a valid
> drivers license but the government screwed up in reporting it.
>
>> These people need to be stopped...
>
> In my younger days (60's) I operated a mobile ham radio CW (morse code)
> rig in the car while driving cross country. (Code is like a second
> language that can be read in your head without writing it down. I
> generally went 20-40 WPM.) Lots of fun. Makes using a mobile cell these
> days seem seem like duck soup...  :-O

Them days meant a totally different environment all around. Gas was 20
cents a gallon and I don't remember EVER having heard of anyone
brake-checking OR refusing (just because they had the right of way) to
let in someone who for any number of reasons ended up merging too late!
I got my first license in '58 I think and the only requirement was to be
tall enough to be seen over the counter as you reached up to give the
two dollar fee to the clerk at city-hall. I got me an unlimited license
good for any road-train configuration, like all farmer boys did as a
matter of necessity. Then over the years the stinking bean-counters
degraded it to just an ordinary car in recognition of a lifetime of
accident-free defensive driving because I wouldn't even cough up the
big-rig fees now over $200.

>> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
>> emergency calls.
>
> Yup. And tape also needs to be applied to all passenger's mouths...

They mostly know when to shut the F up, but some might go into shrieking
fits in a tight spot and that don't help any :-)

On 6/9/2024 10:43 AM, Bob F wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 12:20 AM, Klyde wrote:
>> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
>> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>>> driving
>>>
>>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>>
>>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>>
>> Get it done and implemented.
>>
>> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
>> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>>

>> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
>> emergency calls.
>>
>
> What conceivable reason would cause you to stop passengers in a car from
> using their phone, or the drivers phone?
>

I can see using it if they gave me a big discount on the premium. Doubt
it would ever be mandated.

OTOH, I'm told years ago people did not have phones in cars but that was
in ancient times.

On 6/9/2024 9:51 AM, bad sector wrote:
> On 6/9/24 11:42, AJL wrote:

>> In my younger days (60's) I operated a mobile ham radio CW (morse
>> code) rig in the car while driving cross country. (Code is like a
>> second language that can be read in your head without writing it
>> down. I generally went 20-40 WPM.) Lots of fun. Makes using a
>> mobile cell these days seem seem like duck soup... :-O

> Them days meant a totally different environment all around. Gas was
> 20 cents a gallon and I don't remember EVER having heard of anyone
> brake-checking OR refusing (just because they had the right of way)
> to let in someone who for any number of reasons ended up merging too
> late!

In my burg (metro area of the 5th largest city in the US) when some
drivers get pissed off they just start shooting at the perceived
offender. It's called road rage. I try not to piss anyone off...

> I got my first license in '58 I think and the only requirement was to
> be tall enough to be seen over the counter as you reached up to give
> the two dollar fee to the clerk at city-hall.

Mine in '57. We had both a written and a driving test. Parallel parking
scared me the most. Still does.

>> Tape also needs to be applied to all passenger's mouths...

> They mostly know when to shut the F up, but some might go into
> shrieking fits in a tight spot and that don't help any :-)

It's just not passengers these days. I talk to my car and it talks back
after doing what I asked...

On 6/9/2024 1:42 PM, Ed P wrote:
> On 6/9/2024 10:43 AM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 12:20 AM, Klyde wrote:
>>> On 23 Apr 2024, JAB <here@is.invalid> posted some
>>> news:v08acm$1kbd2$2@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while
>>>> driving
>>>>
>>>> State Farm has filed a patent for a system that suppresses calls and
>>>> notifications to a driver's phone while they are operating a motor
>>>> vehicle, according to patent documents recently published by the
>>>> United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-f
>>>> or-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving/
>>>
>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>>
>>> We see prople driving along holding cell phones up to their face and
>>> watching videos or having animated conversations.
>>>
>
>>> The only calls that should be permitted from a moving vehicle are
>>> emergency calls.
>>>
>>
>> What conceivable reason would cause you to stop passengers in a car from
>> using their phone, or the drivers phone?
>>
>
> I can see using it if they gave me a big discount on the premium. Doubt
> it would ever be mandated.
>
> OTOH, I'm told years ago people did not have phones in cars but that was
> in ancient times.

I must be ancient! I remember when many phones didn't even have dials.
They had a crank you turned to get the attention of the operator in the
local central office. You told the operator the number of the party you
wanted to speak with and the connection was made manually on a huge
switchboard with lots of wires, plugs and sockets. And all lines were
shared with other patrons ("party lines") where everyone else sharing
the same circuit could listen in to every one else's conversation. The
circuit could only make a single connection at a time and sometimes you
would have to wait a long time before the circuit was available for your
call - both outgoing and incoming.

Ed P wrote:
> I'm told years ago people did not have phones in cars

https://youtu.be/Y_uRAp5q07M?t=114

Java Jive wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:44:37 +0100 :

>> � Many states now ban handheld cellphones.
>
> Here in the UK, it's an offence to be using a handheld phone while driving.

When I researched the hell out of driving statistics a few years back, I
could only find reliable statistics for the USA and Australia, where,
paradoxically, the statistics in the UK were skewed the opposite of both
the USA and Australia.

Based on reliable *government* statistics (see caveat below):
1. Cellphones had no effect on the accident rate in the USA
2. Cellphones had no effect on the accident rate in the USA
3. Yet, paradoxically, the opposite was in the UK government reports!

Luckily, I live in the USA where the census bureau statistics on accident
rates is never questioned as it has been reported the same way since the
1920s so it's unfallible data that cellphones had no effect (up or down) on
the accident rate in all fifty states, alone, and in the aggregate.

They just didn't.
That's a fact.

Why it's a fact is up to conjecture and further analysis if you like.

But I have no desire to get into another discussion as to the facts that
ticketing cellphone users has zero effect on safety but certainly a direct
effect on increasing revenues....

But I will simply mention it, as most people believe things which have no
basis in actual facts, where the three entities which LOVE to promote
punishment of offenders are the following (as I've stated in the past).

1. Insurance companies
2. Government ticketing agencies
3. Personal injury lawyers

I realize most people are sheep who don't think, so I just put out the
statement that anyone who looks for the accident rate to have been affected
by cellphones during the period that they went from 0% in cars to nearly
100% in cars in the USA, will find that they can't find any reliable
agencies showing any facts that disagree with that statement.

What they will find though, are those three agencies spewing propaganda.
Why?

Because they make money off of it.

In summary, people who claim cellphones raised the accident rate have NEVER
looked it up, and when they do, they can only find those three agencies
claiming it, and it's clear to anyone sensible WHY those three do it.

But they can't find a single reliable agency that says otherwise, although
people like Chris have tried but he never looked at the entire record.

He cherry picked one anomaly while completely ignoring the entire record.

NOTE: I will not respond to anyone who hasn't shown he has read the US
Census excel spreadsheets who claims that the US Census Bureau is wrong.

On 06/09/2024 9:05 AM, bad sector wrote:
> On 6/9/24 08:52, Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 6/9/2024 4:15 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>>>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>>>>
>>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>>
>>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>>>
>>
>>    It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
>> car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.
>> Sounds like a good idea. So many people just can't imagine turning
>> off their cellphone. But if there's a big difference in insurance
>> costs they'll have a motivator.
>>
>>    Many states now ban handheld cellphones. It makes little
>> difference. And the cops who should enforce it are busy on
>> their own phones. Or they're busy giving out tickets for
>> speeding or "rolling stops". Why? It's a lot easier to just
>> stand around waiting to hand out another ticket. And nearly
>> every road has an unrealistically low speed limit. So it's catching
>> fish in a barrel. Catching people using cellphones is not
>> so easy.
>>
>>    But that still leaves the issue of talking on a bluetooth
>> connection without holding the cellphone, or using maps
>> apps with the cellphone in a holder. I routinely get stuck
>> behind people driving erratically, looking at their map program
>> on the dashboard. The phone should be disabled, period,
>> except for 911 calls, as long as the car is moving... Though
>> of course it would mean that some people would have to learn
>> how to read a map. Maybe the ticket fees could be used to
>> fund free courses. :)
>
>
> Necessity is the mother of invention, I think we could be amazed at what
> drivers are capable of if they have no choice (like stringent
> hosting-language examinations BEFORE landed status and not after). The
> ticketing will become very fast and could even be autamted via AI. As
> for our dearest insurers I see their game already: whip the topic up
> real high, raise the rates accordingly, but then keep them there after
> the lawmakers have cleaned up the scene :-)
>
Laws do not change behavior. We have laws concerning immigration that
are ignored and we have more number of illegal immigrants today that
ever before, we have laws about murder, murder rates are at an all time
high in some places; ................................
It you look at the safety devices required to be put into automobiles
over the last 100 years, each going to reduce traffic accidents by 10%,
we have no accidents today because of the improvement.

On 6/9/2024 10:13 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>>
>> It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
>> car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.
>
> Don't couples share cars over there?
>

We insure a specific car for a specific driver. Anyone in my
house must also be on the policy, and their driving history will
affect my insurance rate. I live with a woman. We both have
our own cars. We both list each other as 1% users. Otherwise
if I did something like backing her car out and happened to
get hit, it wouldn't be covered. So I guess whoever is driving
would have to ID their phone with the ignition? I suppose
people like Tyrone might then buy a burner phone to use as
ID, protecting their right to be killed in a car accident.

And I could lend my car to someone else. Would they be covered?
Would they have to register their cellphone when starting? I don't
know. But in theory I don't see any reason this policy can't be
implemented.

I suppose Apple will probably come up with a facial ID version,
you won't be able to drive your car unless you have an iPhone,
and they'll sue State Farm, saying that the State Farm cellphone
blocking device has illegal rounded corners. But I think we could
work it out. :)

Andrew wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:42:09 -0000 (UTC) :

> Based on reliable *government* statistics (see caveat below):
> 1. Cellphones had no effect on the accident rate in the USA
> 2. Cellphones had no effect on the accident rate in the USA
> 3. Yet, paradoxically, the opposite was in the UK government reports!

oops. Correction... "Australia" was omitted by accident.

Based on reliable *government* statistics (see caveat below):
1. Cellphones had no effect on the accident rate in the USA
2. Cellphones had no effect on the accident rate in *Australia* also
3. Yet, paradoxically, the opposite was in the UK government reports!

Why only in the UK are reliable cites showing an increase in accident rates
is not something that I care to explain because I live in the USA where
reliable statistics have existed since well before cellphones were
invented.

It's only those making money off it who claim otherwise.

On 6/9/24 14:50, knuttle wrote:
> On 06/09/2024 9:05 AM, bad sector wrote:
>> On 6/9/24 08:52, Newyana2 wrote:
>>> On 6/9/2024 4:15 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.repairerdrivennews.com/2024/04/22/state-farm-files-patent-for-system-to-suppress-calls-and-text-while-driving>
>>>>>
>>>>> Get it done and implemented.
>>>>
>>>> How does it distinguish between driver and passenger?
>>>>
>>>
>>>    It seems to say that a cellphone would be linked to a specific
>>> car, which makes sense. Insurance companies insure specific cars.
>>> Sounds like a good idea. So many people just can't imagine turning
>>> off their cellphone. But if there's a big difference in insurance
>>> costs they'll have a motivator.
>>>
>>>    Many states now ban handheld cellphones. It makes little
>>> difference. And the cops who should enforce it are busy on
>>> their own phones. Or they're busy giving out tickets for
>>> speeding or "rolling stops". Why? It's a lot easier to just
>>> stand around waiting to hand out another ticket. And nearly
>>> every road has an unrealistically low speed limit. So it's catching
>>> fish in a barrel. Catching people using cellphones is not
>>> so easy.
>>>
>>>    But that still leaves the issue of talking on a bluetooth
>>> connection without holding the cellphone, or using maps
>>> apps with the cellphone in a holder. I routinely get stuck
>>> behind people driving erratically, looking at their map program
>>> on the dashboard. The phone should be disabled, period,
>>> except for 911 calls, as long as the car is moving... Though
>>> of course it would mean that some people would have to learn
>>> how to read a map. Maybe the ticket fees could be used to
>>> fund free courses. :)
>>
>>
>> Necessity is the mother of invention, I think we could be amazed at
>> what drivers are capable of if they have no choice (like stringent
>> hosting-language examinations BEFORE landed status and not after). The
>> ticketing will become very fast and could even be autamted via AI. As
>> for our dearest insurers I see their game already: whip the topic up
>> real high, raise the rates accordingly, but then keep them there after
>> the lawmakers have cleaned up the scene :-)
>>
> Laws do not change behavior.  We have laws concerning immigration that
> are ignored and we have more number of illegal immigrants today that
> ever before,  we have laws about murder, murder rates are at an all time
> high in some places; ................................
> It you look at the safety devices required to be put into automobiles
> over the last 100 years, each going to reduce traffic accidents by 10%,
> we have no accidents today because of the improvement.

OK, I should have said laws & enforcement which I postulate is what is
normaly meant by 'laws'. There are laws against drug trafficking too but
nothing will change until you start shooting dealers on capture. $5000
fines for tailgating, brake-checking or cellphone use could produce
miracles within months.

knuttle wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:50:58 -0400 :

> Laws do not change behavior.

Again, I've shown the reliable cites in the past, where it was shown in the
twenty-five year period which included cellphone laws being enacted one by
one in many USA states, the laws had no first-order effect on safety.

Since the twenty-five year period aggregate studies included *all*
driver-related motor-vehicle safety laws being enacted, you can't pull out
seatbelt laws versus cellphone laws versus baby-seat laws, etc.

But what they concluded from looking at probably thousands of studies (I
don't remember how many they looked at) there was zero effect on safety
from enacting and/or enforcing the laws - in every state in the USA.

Strangely though, they found one second-order effect, which was in length
of hospital stay - which they noted was the only statistically valid result
of their study of all fifty states - but it was only, as I recall, in
number of hours spent in the hospital following accidents.

Note that fatality rates were wholly unaffected by ticketing laws.

On 6/9/2024 10:30 AM, Cameo wrote:

>
> You sound like a bicycle devotee.
>
I haven't ridden a bike in 30+ years. Too dangerous.
Too many halfwits busy looking at their cellphones. Too many
inconsiderate drivers. Too crowded. Too many other cyclists
whizzing by, doing 40mph, with rearview mirrors, flashing lights,
and a special cycling suit that makes them look like a skinny
bumblebee.

I can sympathize a bit with bicycle riders,
but the roads are simply not safe for them. They need to go
somewhere to ride. And it shouldn't be on sidewalks. At least
that applies to urban and suburban areas.

What I'm seeing is more and more bike lanes, more and more
arrogant bicyclists who feel superior because they're not
polluting, and more bicyclists riding on sidewalks illegally,
putting old ladies in danger because they don't feel safe in
their bike lane. It's not a tenable situation.

As a driver and
frequent walker, I'd like to see bikes restricted to special
paths, just as dogs are only allowed off-leash in special areas.
Maybe that seems extreme, but things just don't work the
way they used to. Everyone thinks they have a right to go
first. Everyone thinks they're morally superior. Pedestrians step
out into the street without looking. Bicyclists cut in front of drivers.
In most cases those people technically have the right of way,
but they're ignoring their own responsibilities, like "Look both
ways before crossing". So, I'm an equal opportunity curmudgeon.
I'm so outrageous that I firmly believe everyone has a duty to
be a good citizen, wait their turn, and practice common courtesy. :)

bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:02:21 -0400 :

> OK, I should have said laws & enforcement which I postulate is what is
> normaly meant by 'laws'. There are laws against drug trafficking too but
> nothing will change until you start shooting dealers on capture. $5000
> fines for tailgating, brake-checking or cellphone use could produce
> miracles within months.

It wouldn't change accident rates nor fatalities, but it might statically
decrease the length of hospital stays after an accident by a few hours.

We covered this long ago in gory detail, so I'm not even going to look it
up as people who believe in myths will always believe in myths, sans facts.