On 6/9/2024 11:44 AM, Java Jive wrote:

> Here in the UK, it's an offence to be using a handheld phone while driving.
>
Same here. It doesn't help.

> Here in the UK, there are plenty of CCTV cameras around the towns, and
> many have number plate recognition.
>
Yes. That doesn't fly so well in the US. Extreme surveillance
and ninny oversight probably wouldn't work the way it does
in the UK. Though there are some states that now have red-ligght
cameras sending out automated tickets.

> Probably their driving would be far more erratic if they were looking at
> a printed map.

Let me see... How do I manage to look at a map? Oh, yeah,
I pull over. :) If you could navigate safely with your phone map
that would be fine, but you can't. I regularly see drivers in front
of me splitting their attention between dasboard device and the road.
Delivery drivers and Uber/Lyft drivers are the worst. They don't
know where they are. They don't know where they're going. They're
always trying to figure out their next move, while I, also, try to
figure out their next move.

On 6/9/2024 1:42 PM, Ed P wrote:

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

That's true. People used to die of exposure walking to
the supermarket and they wouldn't be found for days.
Imagine... No phone. No helmet. Just out in raw reality.

Funny thing... One of my favorite ways to relax is to
be out on my own, unreachable, timeless, with no one
knowing where I am. I'm told that for people under 40,
having no contact with other humans for a full day would
drive them over the edge and they'd have to add an
anti-psychotic to their regular SSRI prescription.

On 6/9/24 15:07, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

You are fixating on accident rates which are meaningless; as only one
example hydroplaning 500 feet or more before impact is never cited
either, what is often the blanket attribution is 'loss of control',
period. How many reports cite irresponsible tire ads as the cause when
they show cars climbimg walls and cruising on ceilings, something that's
actually possible but not with consumer cars. Of the reports I have seen
maximum about 5% were worth reading.

On 09/06/2024 20:13, Newyana2 wrote:
>
> On 6/9/2024 11:44 AM, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> Probably their driving would be far more erratic if they were looking
>> at a printed map.
>
>    Let me see... How do I manage to look at a map? Oh, yeah,
> I pull over. :)

Trying to be a smart arse just makes you look a jerk. There are many,
many driving situations where you can't just pull over to the side of
the road.

--

Fake news kills!

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

bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:41:02 -0400 :

>> 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.
>
> You are fixating on accident rates which are meaningless;

Like I said, people believe in the myth that an accident that didn't happen
can still cause injuries and fatalities... because of a cell phone somehow.

> as only one
> example hydroplaning 500 feet or more before impact is never cited
> either, what is often the blanket attribution is 'loss of control',
> period.

I'm extremely well educated in the science & engineering fields and
therefore I am well aware that certain things can be buried in the
aggregate statistics.

However...

If cellphone use while driving is as bad as people say it is, why can they
never find any reliable statistics that back up that myth they spout
(especially when cellphones went from 0% to nearly 100% in cars in only a
handful of years).

People who are dumb believe in myths (I call it "Bro Science").
People who are smart check the facts.

Probably one out of a hundred people are smart.

> How many reports cite irresponsible tire ads as the cause when
> they show cars climbimg walls and cruising on ceilings, something that's
> actually possible but not with consumer cars. Of the reports I have seen
> maximum about 5% were worth reading.

Most "tire ads" are bullshit. They play on emotion. And fear.

As everyone knows here, I buy my tires online and I have them shipped to my
home where I mount and balance them myself, at home, using home tire
mounting and balancing machines, where the one thing I can do well is read
the side of a tire wall to judge how safe it is likely to be.

Just like with passenger brake pads in the USA, the way to choose a safe
passenger-vehicle tire (or a safe passenger-vehicle brake pad) is printed
right on the outside of every tire (and brake pad) sold in the USA.

If you know science & engineering, you'll have no problem making good
decisions; but if all you know is marketing bullshit - then you're doomed.

Java Jive wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:52:37 +0100 :

>> �� Let me see... How do I manage to look at a map? Oh, yeah,
>> I pull over. :)
>
> Trying to be a smart arse just makes you look a jerk. There are many,
> many driving situations where you can't just pull over to the side of
> the road.

A classic situation is when you've just missed a turn, where the phone says
that you missed the turn and it's recalculating for you so you can easily
recover without even needing to look back to see how you just missed it.

There is a huge safety advantage in recovering from missed turns alone, not
to mention the safety advantage of NOT missing the upcoming turn as the
phone will often audibly warn you that a turn is coming up and it will even
audibly advise which specific lanes you can use to make that upcoming turn.

The safety advantages of phones in use while driving are tremendous.

On 6/9/24 15:55, Andrew wrote:
> bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:41:02 -0400 :

>> as only one
>> example hydroplaning 500 feet or more before impact is never cited
>> either, what is often the blanket attribution is 'loss of control',
>> period.
>
> I'm extremely well educated in the science & engineering fields and
> therefore I am well aware that certain things can be buried in the
> aggregate statistics.
>
> However...
>
> If cellphone use while driving is as bad as people say it is, why can they
> never find any reliable statistics that back up that myth they spout
> (especially when cellphones went from 0% to nearly 100% in cars in only a
> handful of years).
>
> People who are dumb believe in myths (I call it "Bro Science").
> People who are smart check the facts.
>
> Probably one out of a hundred people are smart.
>
>> How many reports cite irresponsible tire ads as the cause when
>> they show cars climbimg walls and cruising on ceilings, something that's
>> actually possible but not with consumer cars. Of the reports I have seen
>> maximum about 5% were worth reading.
>
> Most "tire ads" are bullshit. They play on emotion. And fear.

Of course they are, and stupid people try to drive on them expecting
friction that is non-existant i.e. the ads modify their driving
behavior. How many of your accident reports cite tire ads as the cause?
Everyone watches tire ads yet there seems to be no increase in accident
rates. Accidents and rate changes MUST be correlated else they are just
statistical noise plus no one will admit that they were on the phone
just before an accident and most won't even be aware that 500 feet
earlier they were hydroplaning because they weere on the phone which
they will deny anyway.

bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:08:44 -0400 :

>> Most "tire ads" are bullshit. They play on emotion. And fear.
>
> Of course they are, and stupid people try to drive on them expecting
> friction that is non-existant i.e. the ads modify their driving
> behavior.

Just as the coefficient of friction is stamped on every passenger brake pad
sold in the USA, the straightline wet/dry asphalt/concrete friction rating
is stamped on every passenger vehicle tire sold in the United States.

> How many of your accident reports cite tire ads as the cause?

My main point about advertisements was only that most people believe in
myths because advertising is the only information they get about things.

For example, the iPhone has the most exploits of any smartphone, but Apple
never advertises that fact - and so people believe in the Apple myths.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

Most Apple users get all their "facts" from (brilliant) Apple marketing.
Just like most people get their tire "facts" from tire advertisements.

> Everyone watches tire ads yet there seems to be no increase in accident
> rates. Accidents and rate changes MUST be correlated else they are just
> statistical noise plus no one will admit that they were on the phone
> just before an accident and most won't even be aware that 500 feet
> earlier they were hydroplaning because they weere on the phone which
> they will deny anyway.

If you're trying to say that the astronomical increase in accident rates
that you predicted from cellphone use was somehow covered up in the
numbers, then all you're really saying is you believe in every myth.

Think about this observation before you respond with more myths...

Given cellphone use in vehicles went from 0% to almost 100% in a meteoric
rise in just a handful of years, why does the accident rate increase that
you predict show a _decrease_ in accident rate over that same time period?

If your claim is that "something else" was as astronomically high during
EXACTLY the same time period (including levelling off at EXACTLY the same
time), then what is that "something else" please?

The fact is most people are incredibly stupid in that they believe myths.
Their entire belief system isn't backed up by even a _single_ fact!

On 6/9/24 17:31, Andrew wrote:
> bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:08:44 -0400 :
>
>>> Most "tire ads" are bullshit. They play on emotion. And fear.
>>
>> Of course they are, and stupid people try to drive on them expecting
>> friction that is non-existant i.e. the ads modify their driving
>> behavior.
>
> Just as the coefficient of friction is stamped on every passenger brake pad
> sold in the USA, the straightline wet/dry asphalt/concrete friction rating
> is stamped on every passenger vehicle tire sold in the United States.

There is no such thing as "the" coefficient of friction because that
varies with conditions. The advertised one is under specified conditions
only but it will vary almost infinitely with the JBI index applicable
under the environmental variables.

>> How many of your accident reports cite tire ads as the cause?
>
> My main point about advertisements was only that most people believe in
> myths because advertising is the only information they get about things.

And my main point with tire ads was that misleading ads adversely modify
driving behavior, serving as an example of how cell-phones do the same.

>> Everyone watches tire ads yet there seems to be no increase in accident
>> rates. Accidents and rate changes MUST be correlated else they are just
>> statistical noise plus no one will admit that they were on the phone
>> just before an accident and most won't even be aware that 500 feet
>> earlier they were hydroplaning because they weere on the phone which
>> they will deny anyway.
>
> If you're trying to say that the astronomical increase in accident rates
> that you predicted from cellphone use was somehow covered up in the
> numbers, then all you're really saying is you believe in every myth.

You are the only one who brings up accident rates, everyone else or at
least most others talk about cell-phones being dangerous regardles of
accident rates.

> Think about this observation before you respond with more myths...
>
> Given cellphone use in vehicles went from 0% to almost 100% in a meteoric
> rise in just a handful of years, why does the accident rate increase that
> you predict show a _decrease_ in accident rate over that same time period?

Do you have evidence that without cellphones the accident rate would not
be in a nosedive so that even a steady rate could well hide monumental
cell-phone causality?

> If your claim is that "something else" was as astronomically high during
> EXACTLY the same time period (including levelling off at EXACTLY the same
> time), then what is that "something else" please?

I do not claim anything in term of accidents or accident rates, what I
do is express the not at all humble opinion that hand-held or bluetooth
cell-phone use while driving is very dangerous and should be totally
outlawed or very strictly limited.

> The fact is most people are incredibly stupid in that they believe myths.
> Their entire belief system isn't backed up by even a _single_ fact!

The myth is that with tire brand X you can drive in a continuous drift
and on walls, and that cell-phone or visual display use while driving is
as safe as being focused and on mental high-beam every minute while
driving. THESE are the myths.

On 09 Jun 2024, Klyde <invalid@none.org> posted some
news:7b9e8ad3d9acb56777d5d492610334c8@dizum.com:

> 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.

I like this idea.

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

+1

On 09 Jun 2024, T <T@invalid.invalid> posted some
news:v43n5j$2orfn$8@dont-email.me:

> 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?

There would have to be a way to permit select numbers during testing.
They could set it up.

> 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!

Yes they do.

On 09 Jun 2024, bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> posted some
news:r_mdnRWEmNlKPPj7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com:

> 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.

Not to mention the "hands-off" driving capabilities being touted by
commercials on TV targeting the worst offenders of it now. Telsa, Audi,
GMC, Cadillac. That needs to be removed from all vehicles. Never
should be allowed ever.

On 09 Jun 2024, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> posted some
news:v44f3c$3c8h5$1@dont-email.me:

> 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?

Passengers are not driving. What part of "while driving" was not clear
to you?

On 09 Jun 2024, Retirednoguilt <HapilyRetired@fakeaddress.com> posted
some news:v44rr4$3m920$2@dont-email.me:

> 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-pate
>>>>> nt-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.

Party lines. They really were "party" and nothing was private.

On 6/9/24 19:34, gus wrote:
> On 09 Jun 2024, bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> posted some
> news:r_mdnRWEmNlKPPj7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> 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.
>
> Not to mention the "hands-off" driving capabilities being touted by
> commercials on TV targeting the worst offenders of it now. Telsa, Audi,
> GMC, Cadillac. That needs to be removed from all vehicles. Never
> should be allowed ever.

It's gonna be an uphill battle because the SYSTEM seeks profits before
everything else and people gone for a thousand mile ride have the nerve
to sabotage the SYSTEM not only while sleeping and not consuming any
profit generating goods or services but they also add to it another
twelve hours. Why, that's being AWOL from the appointed menu. You cannot
have such anarchy when even in death you have to generate profits for
someone! Much better to get them all into self driving coffins in
duckfile at 200 mph five feet apart which means fewer roads needed and
yet another parasite expense elliminated. The fortunate occupants can
then spend all that time buying things on amazon instead, gobbling ads
for viagra ten-packs, wasting life on facesbook or watching pornos lest
humanist values percolate back into society. Too bad if a spec of
fly-shit lands on a five dollar chinese chip and 500 families pile up in
a compression ridge like the Himalayas, just as stiff. That's what
insurance is for after all; no accidents and no one wants to insure
anymore, right? Better yet, if you have the misfortune of really rubbing
some barbie-boy in the neonobility the wrong way then one button on some
laptop in Dubai when you're crossing a bridge and your car takes a dive.

On 6/9/2024 7:34 PM, gus wrote:
> On 09 Jun 2024, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> posted some
> news:v44f3c$3c8h5$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> 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?
>
> Passengers are not driving. What part of "while driving" was not clear
> to you?

If you put something in the car to affect the driver, would it not
affect other phones in the car? Give us the details.

On Jun 9, 2024 at 10:21:51 PM EDT, "bad💽sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net>
wrote:

> It's gonna be an uphill battle because the SYSTEM seeks profits before
> everything else and people gone for a thousand mile ride have the nerve
> to sabotage the SYSTEM not only while sleeping and not consuming any
> profit generating goods or services but they also add to it another
> twelve hours. Why, that's being AWOL from the appointed menu. You cannot
> have such anarchy when even in death you have to generate profits for
> someone! Much better to get them all into self driving coffins in
> duckfile at 200 mph five feet apart which means fewer roads needed and
> yet another parasite expense elliminated. The fortunate occupants can
> then spend all that time buying things on amazon instead, gobbling ads
> for viagra ten-packs, wasting life on facesbook or watching pornos lest
> humanist values percolate back into society. Too bad if a spec of
> fly-shit lands on a five dollar chinese chip and 500 families pile up in
> a compression ridge like the Himalayas, just as stiff. That's what
> insurance is for after all; no accidents and no one wants to insure
> anymore, right? Better yet, if you have the misfortune of really rubbing
> some barbie-boy in the neonobility the wrong way then one button on some
> laptop in Dubai when you're crossing a bridge and your car takes a dive.

WTH are you babbling about?

On 6/9/2024 3:52 PM, Java Jive wrote:

>>     Let me see... How do I manage to look at a map? Oh, yeah,
>> I pull over. :)
>
> Trying to be a smart arse just makes you look a jerk.  There are many,
> many driving situations where you can't just pull over to the side of
> the road.
>

Just a bit of humor. Prior to a few years ago, everyone
used maps. It worked. I still use maps. If I can't pull over then
I wait until I can. Not rocket science. Believing that a cellphone
is safer is just fooling yourself.

I've been in a car where people were using driving directions
exactly twice. One was Google. I think the other was a Mapquest
printout. Google told us to take a crazy route that would have
wasted an hour. It appeared sensible to a visitor, but as a local
I knew it would have been a disastrous choice.

Mapquest had the right route, but had the direction wrong.
It told us to take route x north when it should have been south.
Both trips would have been easy to plan via map before leaving
the house. I don't mind if people can't read maps and want to use
Google or Mapquest, but if you really need to look at your cellphone,
you should pull over. If you follow Google and then your passenger
squeals that the directions are wrong, don't panic. Don't make any
sudden move or veer into another lane. Don't slam on the brakes.
Keep driving until you have a chance to pull over safely and consult
a map. :)

On 6/9/2024 4:34 PM, gus wrote:
> On 09 Jun 2024, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> posted some
> news:v44f3c$3c8h5$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> 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?
>
> Passengers are not driving. What part of "while driving" was not clear
> to you?

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

bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:31:20 -0400 :

>> Just as the coefficient of friction is stamped on every passenger brake pad
>> sold in the USA, the straightline wet/dry asphalt/concrete friction rating
>> is stamped on every passenger vehicle tire sold in the United States.
>
> There is no such thing as "the" coefficient of friction because that
> varies with conditions. The advertised one is under specified conditions
> only but it will vary almost infinitely with the JBI index applicable
> under the environmental variables.

You just proved to be an idiot, bad sector, as the basic rule for fools is:
"Nobody intelligent disputes facts; only fools do - that's why they're
fools"

You're like the Apple fools who deny facts simply because they don't even
bother to look them up before denying everything they're unaware of exists.

Read this before you show how much further of a fool you are, bad sector:
<https://brakepower.com/brake-pad-friction-coefficient.htm>

HINT: You didn't even look it up before you denied the facts, and I'm sure
you'll stutter and hem and haw like the Apple morons do, trying to explain
why you're such a smart guy and yet you know nothing about friction codes.

>>> How many of your accident reports cite tire ads as the cause?
>>
>> My main point about advertisements was only that most people believe in
>> myths because advertising is the only information they get about things.
>
> And my main point with tire ads was that misleading ads adversely modify
> driving behavior, serving as an example of how cell-phones do the same.

When Toyota shows their SUV on top of a mountain, only fools believe they
can do that with a street vehicle. However, lots of fools exist.

Like fools who deny that the friction coefficient range is stamped on every
American passenger vehicle brake pad perhaps.
>>> Everyone watches tire ads yet there seems to be no increase in accident
>>> rates. Accidents and rate changes MUST be correlated else they are just
>>> statistical noise plus no one will admit that they were on the phone
>>> just before an accident and most won't even be aware that 500 feet
>>> earlier they were hydroplaning because they weere on the phone which
>>> they will deny anyway.
>>
>> If you're trying to say that the astronomical increase in accident rates
>> that you predicted from cellphone use was somehow covered up in the
>> numbers, then all you're really saying is you believe in every myth.
>
> You are the only one who brings up accident rates, everyone else or at
> least most others talk about cell-phones being dangerous regardles of
> accident rates.

Most people are stupid, bad sector. I'm not.

I'm at least of average intelligence, so I'm well aware that you can't have
second-order injuries or fatalities for first-order motor vehicle accidents
that didn't happen.
>> Think about this observation before you respond with more myths...
>>
>> Given cellphone use in vehicles went from 0% to almost 100% in a meteoric
>> rise in just a handful of years, why does the accident rate increase that
>> you predict show a _decrease_ in accident rate over that same time period?
>
> Do you have evidence that without cellphones the accident rate would not
> be in a nosedive so that even a steady rate could well hide monumental
> cell-phone causality?

Do you realize how desperate you are to defend your myths?

You're like the desperate Apple morons who are desperate to deflect from
the facts that their beloved Apple devices are more exploited than Android.
<https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

Why don't you look up the accident rate in the USA under the US Census
Bureau before you continue to claim that they've been reporting it all
wrong since the 1920s.

>> If your claim is that "something else" was as astronomically high during
>> EXACTLY the same time period (including levelling off at EXACTLY the same
>> time), then what is that "something else" please?
>
> I do not claim anything in term of accidents or accident rates, what I
> do is express the not at all humble opinion that hand-held or bluetooth
> cell-phone use while driving is very dangerous and should be totally
> outlawed or very strictly limited.

Look bad sector, I'm not stupid. I *know* what people believe.
Most people are stupid. Don't be stupid.

Most people believe anything you tell them to believe. Hell, most Apple
owners believe Apple's hotfix support is the best in the world and yet,
it's clearly the worst when you look at the facts.

Why are they so wrong?
Because they only believe what Apple's brilliant advertising told them.

None of them ever looked up the facts, which is Apple support sucks.
*Apple will provide a minimum of five years of iPhone security updates*
<https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/6/24172843/apple-iphone-minimum-five-years-security-updates>

Apple support is five years and a single operating system version.
<https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

*Google and Samsung provide a minimum of seven years with seven updates*
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and-security-updates-to-7-years/>

In addition, Google updates Android 10+ phones over the Internet monthly.
<https://www.androidheadlines.com/2022/01/google-monthly-changelog-play-system-updates.html>

Why do most Apple owners believe that Apple support is better?
Answer: They, like you, never bother to check the facts.

They believe every myth that is fed to them by (brilliant) advertising.

>> The fact is most people are incredibly stupid in that they believe myths.
>> Their entire belief system isn't backed up by even a _single_ fact!
>
> The myth is that with tire brand X you can drive in a continuous drift
> and on walls, and that cell-phone or visual display use while driving is
> as safe as being focused and on mental high-beam every minute while
> driving. THESE are the myths.

Do you know that most people believe that "Premium" gasoline will give
their vehicle better performance?

Why do they believe that myth?

Do you think any of them understand what an octane rating indicates?
They think it means more "power", now don't they?

Do they understand why high-compression engines use higher-octane-rated
fuels (e.g., airplanes user kerosene, for an example)?

Did you ever try to burn kerosene versus gasoline, bad sector?
Does it have "more power"?

People are incredibly stupid.
Advertising takes advantage of that.

Don't be incredibly stupid, bad sector.
If I say a fact, check it out first before you brazenly deny it.

The fact is that cellphones didn't affect the accident rate.
That's just a fact.

Once you *accept* that fact, only then can you discuss why.
It's like accepting the fact the earth is round.

Once you accept that fact, only then can you discuss why all the planets
are round too. There's a *reason* for that roundness; but you have to
accept the fact first (like the fact that gravity isn't a force).

Once you accept the fact that gravity isn't a force, only then can you
begin to understand what gravity truly is (e.g., Einstein figured it out).

Please don't be like the Apple morons who only believe in advertisements.
Check your facts before you believe in every myth spewed out by

1. Insurance companies
2. Ticketing agencies
3. Personal injury lawyers

The myth is that cellphone use drastically increased the accident rate.
The fact is they had no effect whatsoever on the accident rate.

There are reasons for that fact; but you have to accept the fact first,
before you can even begin to understand the effect of cellphones on
accident rates.

Newyana2 wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:04:23 -0400 :

> Believing that a cellphone is safer is just fooling yourself.

And yet, cellphones had absolutely no effect on the USA accident rate.

Andrew <andrew@spam.net> wrote:
> Newyana2 wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 23:04:23 -0400 :
>
>> Believing that a cellphone is safer is just fooling yourself.
>
> And yet, cellphones had absolutely no effect on the USA accident rate.
>

This is such a hearsay as the one that claims that old drivers cause the
majority of car accidents and therefore their driver licenses should not be
renewed above a certain age. Actually, the statistics show that yunger
drivers cause the majority of accidents.

On 6/10/24 02:56, Andrew wrote:

> The myth is that cellphone use drastically increased the accident rate.

Please quote verbatim the person here who allegedly subscribes to such a
myth. No one claims ANYTHING involving 'accident rates', you're the ONLY
one who keeps regurgitating the topic of accident rates continuously
diverting the discussion to accident rates that no one beside you even
mentions. Are you a cell-phone lobbyist by any chance tasked to disrupt
any thread threatening the zillions of dollars made by associated
hardware, software or datamining interests?

> The fact is they had no effect whatsoever on the accident rate.

Their effect on accident rates is NOT known (yet). It will maybe be
known after a decade or more of legislation forcing providers to track
and record all cell-phone traffic in moving cars and police to
cross-check, correlate if applicable and reference such database info
when writing every single accident report the world over.

> There are reasons for that fact; but you have to accept the fact first,
> before you can even begin to understand the effect of cellphones on
> accident rates.

Accident stats including rates may include some but are NOT, never were
nor will ever be all the facts or the facts, not even close.

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:
>
>
> Get it done and implemented.

On re-reading the article I think insurance might be an inappropriate
jurisdiction. Legislation could force cell providers to continuously
monitor cell traffic in moving phones, isolate those in cars belonging
to the owner etc. and automatically transfer data to police who could
then also autamatically issue the official Darwin award. This may sound
complex but is actually perfect AI turf producing resolutions in
milliseconds. All you need is large fines and three strikes to lose
license. It's doable, so is a mandatory self-disabling feature in phones
that senses running engines in proximity and doppler closure-rates
regardless of whether the phone is in a car or in the hands of some
walking zika-barbie. Thousands of applications become possible all of
them a walk in the park for AI; for example electronically tagged
crosswalks that cause all cellphones within XYZ feet to shut up.

bad sector wrote on Mon, 10 Jun 2024 06:53:09 -0400 :

> Please quote verbatim the person here who allegedly subscribes to such a
> myth. No one claims ANYTHING involving 'accident rates', you're the ONLY
> one who keeps regurgitating the topic of accident rates continuously
> diverting the discussion to accident rates that no one beside you even
> mentions. Are you a cell-phone lobbyist by any chance tasked to disrupt
> any thread threatening the zillions of dollars made by associated
> hardware, software or datamining interests?

What do YOU think an "accident rate" is?
Tell us.

What's an accident rate, to you?

HINT: It's a first-order metric, without which any other metric is
meaningless because you can't have injuries/death without accidents.

>> The fact is they had no effect whatsoever on the accident rate.
>
> Their effect on accident rates is NOT known (yet).

WTF?

There are (and were) accidents since the 1920s that are accurately measured
in the USA even to this day; and then there were accidents when cellphones
were 1%, 10%, 50% and up skyrocketing to nearly 100% in use in cars while
people are driving in the USA.

If you claim cellphones caused increased accidents, why is that myth not
reflected in the accurate accident rate statistics of the Census Bureau?

> It will maybe be
> known after a decade or more of legislation forcing providers to track
> and record all cell-phone traffic in moving cars and police to
> cross-check, correlate if applicable and reference such database info
> when writing every single accident report the world over.

If cellphone use was as horrific as you seem to think it is, then why is
there zero evidence in the reliable record that the accident rate was
affected by the skyrocketing change in ownership from 0% to nearly 100%?

>> There are reasons for that fact; but you have to accept the fact first,
>> before you can even begin to understand the effect of cellphones on
>> accident rates.
>
> Accident stats including rates may include some but are NOT, never were
> nor will ever be all the facts or the facts, not even close.

There's no way to discuss facts with you when your entire belief system is
based on zero facts - which is why you strongly believe in a baseless myth.