Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States

Page 4 of 6  
On 10/16/2016 2:46 AM, F Murtz wrote:

You are probably right, but for me it would be a deterrent. Even with a 90% discount the fine is stiff. First time in CT is $100.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:46:47 +1000, F Murtz wrote:

I don't know if it is ever applied, as I had simply noted it as being "crazy" when I first mentioned it (before Rod Speed went on his childish tangent).
Whether or not it's actually applied, it does seem overboard, which is, as
you'll note, why I pointed to it saying it's crazy.
What's odd, to me (and I presume to you also), is "why" Alaska voters would allow such a ridiculous law to ever get in place.
What's different about Alaska that a nominal 10,000 fine for a first offens e for texting makes any sense in terms of judicial balance?
(Anyone here understand Alaskans well enough to answer that?)
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été v?
?rifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why did you delete this stuff from the quoting ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

He didn’t say TEXTING.

And that says UP TO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After serious thinking Algeria Horan wrote :
[...]

No wonder it crashed, the pilot was probably on his cellphone and didn't notice the air-speed had dropped to zero.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:28:05 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

:)
Aviate ... navigate ... communicate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I asked for the point of your previous post but instead you just repeat your "facts". What is your conclusion? Why did you bother to recite your facts?

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.
The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based sophistry.
For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document, which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any* relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!
The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.
There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying, and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.
Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare face lie, you silly little pathological liar.

You haven't produced even one that shows that there isnt.

Nope, a very obvious one, that you are a bare faced pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

Nothing to understand with your shit except that you are a bare faced pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

Says he after doing just that with the statistics on what happens with drivers STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS etc.

None of the shit you cited does anything of the sort with relevant facts.

THERE ARE NO FACTS ON THE USE OF CELLPHONES WHEN DRIVING AT SPEED.

Because they had no FACTS ON THE USE OF CELLPHONES WHEN DRIVING AT SPEED.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your WWII Bomber is not sophistry, it is obvious nonsense. How could it be the used in the same sentence as "reason" or forestall _any_ response?

In your original post you posted the "fact" that cell phone use was a distraction and distractions can cause accidents. You even produced some research that confirms it. Now you seem to be arguing that it is safe for you to apply your lipstick while driving because no one has found any meaningful relationship between applying lipstick and accidents. You have even managed to exclude, as evidence, any accidents in which the application of lipstick and the accident happened at the same time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:47:52 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

You just stated my entire point! Science contains *details*, and therein lies the truth.
As just an example of sophistry with details, let's assume 75% of adult drivers wear corrective lenses (that's a reasonably reliable figure for the USA).
Now, what do you think the percentage of accidents might be of people who wear corrective lenses are?
I don't know the answer, but I'll guess that it's pretty close to the 75% since corrective lenses shouldn't matter.
Do you notice the sophistry I can attempt with that fact?
I could claim that 75% of all accidents are caused by people who need corrective lenses!
My point is that you need to UNDERSTAND the facts, which as you can see, many people, such as Rod Speed has exemplified in spades, do NOT understand details.
Now let's get to the details of your observation:
Your point is apropos that cellphones must contribute to the likelihood of accidents, simply because they are yet-another distraction piled upon an already existing huge set of distractions (all of which existed before cellphones ever came upon the scene).
While not every post of mine bothers to carve out that agreement, you will note that many posts of mine in this thread say as much.
So, we both agree that cellphone use must be causing at least a tiny amount of additional accidents, commensurate with the additional distraction that using cellphones actually adds.
At the same time, I have already shown that there are far more potent distractions (e.g., fatigue) which contribute to the accident rate, and even with those far more potent distractions, the actual total contribution of distractions to the accident rate was something like (offhand) ten percent or so (we could doublecheck those figures based on the 2014 NHTSA statistical survey summary already posted).
So my point is, was, or at least should have always been obvious that there is an utterly astounding difference between the following true statements:
TRUE STATEMENT 1: Cellphone use while driving, overall, does not meaningfully (aka measurably) contribute to the overall accident rate in the USA (or Australia, as the case appears to be).
TRUE STATEMENT 2: Cellphone use while driving is an additional distraction, and since distractions cause accidents, cellphone use will inevitably cause additional accidents commensurate with the amount of additional distraction that cellphone use entails.
The problem that I have with communicating these two true statements is that many people seem to consistently discount the former truth while at the same time, astoundingly hugely (utterly fantastically) overplaying the latter.
Intensification aside, how do you intelligently deal with such people?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sophistry is commonly defined as "a reason or argument that sounds correct but is actually false" <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry . It should not be confused with obvious nonsense.

False. Your original post cited <http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org.au/pages/Accident-statistics-Cont# . It "measured" cell phone use as contributing 0.9% of 340 accidents that were forensically studied. Note the use of the adjective forensically to give extra weight to _your_ numbers.

I originally asked you to explain your point. It seems that it was to explain something to an audience that does not exist.

First you have to find "such people" then, if you tell us what deal you want to make, we might be able to help you. You told us in your first post that mobile phones contributed to under 1% of serious accidents. Who disagrees with that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:55:14 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

Sophistry is a bit complex, but it stemmed from a group of people who could debate either side of the argument, using, of course, false examples, as on e technique, to sway Athenian juries (which were huge).
With respect to mobile phone arguments, sophistry abounds.
--
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été v?
?rifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wrong, as always.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Algeria Horan:

I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone.
It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report.
That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability.
Am I missing something?
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known.

no.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2016 12:01 PM, nospam wrote:

Actually, determining the approximate time of the crash should be possible: note the phone's present location in the telco's records and then work backwards to determine when it stopped moving -- the crash happened sometime after the last recorded movement. Not precise but it is a better guess than none at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise, particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites.
also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone was not the cause.
it's also possible that a *passenger* was using the driver's phone so that the driver would not be distracted, which means even if the phone was in use at the exact time of the crash, it wasn't a factor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2016 3:08 PM, nospam wrote:

Maybe. If you were arguing with your wife and hung up 30 seconds ago good chance you are still distracted.

Possible, but if the person on the other end tell the police the call ended mid sentence . . .
A young lady was killed on the street behind me. She crashed head on mid text. That was an easy one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

how is that any different than if you got into a huge fight before you even left the house or work? you'd be distracted for the entire drive.
either way, it's not *proof* of driver distraction.
not only that, but everyone has stuff on their mind while driving because driving is boring.

that's different.
if all you have are call logs with no exact time of the crash, you can't be sure what happened.

that one might have been, but others are not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.