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

Page 5 of 6  
On 10/15/2016 3:35 PM, nospam wrote:

I did not say proof, but a possibility. If you left the house in a rage, driving is not boring. My only point is, had you not used the phone and got into (or continued) the argument you'd have a different frame of mind.
Another false argument is talking on the phone is no different than talking to a person in the car. It is. Also depends on the conversation. To give a quick call "I'm on my way home" takes away less brain power that to try and give technical instructions on how to install a piece of equipment.
When talking to the person next to you it is easy to stop talking if traffic suddenly needs your attention but not as easy on the phone. Human nature of how we work.
I'm not against using phone while driving, but you have to be careful and at times NOT use it. Every situation of both traffic and call are different. Most of us have seen distracted driving from phone use. Like the driver in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit with phone in hand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you can't charge a person with a crime based on a possibility. you can't base statistics on possibilities either.
you *must* have proof.

driving is very boring. people sometimes fall asleep while driving.

it's not false at all.
talking to someone sitting next to you is exactly the same as talking to someone through a phone. in both cases, your mind is focused on the conversation more than it is the traffic.

same with a phone call.
simply say "can't talk" and toss the phone on the seat.

just like anything.

who is to say he woudn't have done that without a phone?
stupid drivers have existed since long before there ever were cellphones.
what about the person driving with an unfolded paper map, or reading the newspaper, or eating breakfast and drinking coffee?
they even made pads of paper to stick on the windshield so you could *take notes* while driving.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:24:56 -0400, nospam wrote:

In support of that perfectly valid argument, notice this sentence from an abstract titled "Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving" ( http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/1/196.abstract ).
"There was a similar pattern of results for passenger and cell phone conversations"
Even the NHTSA says that the additional distraction of cellphones is just another distraction added to an already long list of distractions that drivers handle every single day.
The only reliable measure is the real world, where the accident rate hasn't been affected one bit by the explosion in cellphones (and their use) while driving. http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1109.xls https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#
The most obvious question to ask is if adding the cellphone distraction is so bad, how come the accident rate in the real world is entirely unaffected?
NOTE: Rod Speed's fantastic allegations of alien influence notwithstanding.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even sillier than you usually manage. The difference is that when you are talking to someone sitting next to you, that other person will usually have enough of a clue to stop talking when they see that you are about to run into something or run a little kid over etc.
So isnt exactly the same at all.

Wrong, as always.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:09:54 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

The difference between you and me is that you seem to trust your intuition more than you do facts, whereas I clearly trust facts more so than I trust my intuition. (Myers-Briggs stuff)
I quoted a fact from a published paper (albeit, all papers have to be properly *parsed*, because science is all about the details - and in vitro science is particularly dangerous due to the potential to mis-parse the details).
I also quoted a fact from the NHTSA statistical report.
My opinion comes directly from *those* facts.
Where'd you get your opinion from?
HINT: Without a reputable cite, please do not respond because we know the answer already anyway. So respond only after you dig up a cite that supports your view.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2016 4:24 PM, nospam wrote:

Agree

Seriously, if you just had an argument with your wife would you fall asleep from boredom? Yes, there are times you could, but that is not one of them.

No, its not and has been proven.

That would be good, but it is not what happens.

Actual experience. It is very rare under normal conditions, but more often I see drivers on the phone not paying attention to tieir surroundings.

They exist too, but less than the phone idiots. In the past month, from personal experience, I saw three on the phone, one reading what may have been a map. None are acceptable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:53:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue" as a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.
So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the "industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their effects for news-worthy reasons.
For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is to artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...
EXAMPLE 1: http://www.wartimepress.com/archive-article.asp?TID=Bulletin%20Board%20of%20Naval%20Interest&MIDh&q 5&FIDt8 "six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging inferno."
Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much fuel (in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!
EXAMPLE 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/pardo-bruce.htm "police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."
Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?
Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.
EXAMPLE 3: http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/16/nyregion/blaze-at-stouffer-s-described-as-arson.html The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of ''a high-octane'' gasoline.
I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not high-octane gasoline.
----------- In all these examples, the news (or the DA) attempts to "intensify" the scare power of "gasoline"; so my warning here is to be on the lookout for similar intensification efforts when it comes to McCarthyism, Salem Witch Trials, and cellphone related distractions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2016 8:45 PM, Algeria Horan wrote:

Of course.

Even better is when jet fuel is involved. It is is for jets it must be super powerful even though it is essentially kerosene.

I agree, but they do exist, as does applying makeup, eating lunch, reading maps. Phones are gaining in numbers though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:16:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I agree with you, as I've seen that "intensification" of scare value all over the place, and not only with respect to cellphone-related accidents.
Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially teh same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.
Is that intuition correct?
If so, then I'd intuit that kerosene (all types listed above) would likely be a bit *less* scary as an accelerant for arson purposes than would gasoline.
I'm not sure what to look up to confirm that intuitive assumption (and the Google Police would duly note that I made that search, I'm sure), so I wonder out loud here these two somewhat related musings:
Q1: Is kerosene & diesel fuel & jet fuel the same when it comes to starting fires?
Q2: Is kerosene/dieselfuel/jetfuel less (what's the adjective?) for burning down things?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2016 9:29 PM, Algeria Horan wrote:

Pretty much Gas would burn faster but we all know jets are faster than gas powered piston planes so therefore. . . draw an incorrect conclusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:00:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Your example is PERFECT!
What you just displayed was a sophism (aka, a false argument, often by way of example).
Sophisms abound when people on this ng try to "explain" away the fact there are no accidents.
Most people here can't "parse" a scientific statistic properly, so they fall prey to the sophists who are (apparently) trying to "intensify" the scare effect.
With respect to the three high-octane quotes, for a reader to correctly ascertain both the true and intended meaning of the 3 examples, I wonder if the process they must employ is that they must:
a. Parse the sentence so as to actively focus on the "high octane" modifier; b. Consciously realize that the modifier was artificially inserted; c. Ascertain the reason was to falsely "intensify" the danger; d. Recognize that this false intensification of danger is a "sophism"; e. Resulting in the reader not being overly alarmed (wrt normal gasoline).
Does that five-step process hold water with the group as the basic process that must be followed in order for the reader to "properly" understand the given 3 examples?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. Jet fuel is deliberately designed to be less of a problem for arson, because that makes plane crashes safer.

They are certainly not as easy to ignite, particularly with jet fuel.
Not that the average arsonist would have any access to jet fuel anyway.

You clearly fucked that up as comprehensively as you did with the stats you flagrantly dishonestly waved around.

Nope, jet fuel is deliberately made less volatile for a reason.
And there is no such thing as high octane jet fuel.

Useful effective

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 01:29:08 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:

I don't know. But according to Exxon, in "About octane ratings", see <https://www.exxon.com/en/octane-rating , "Octane rating is a measure of a fuel's ability to resist 'knock'. ... The higher the octane number the greater the fuel's resistance to knocking or pinging during combustion."
'Zat help? Cheers (and YvW), -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tlvp presented the following explanation :

That doesn't tell much, because it resists pinging by changing the way it ignites, especially under pressure. Kind of like an adjustment of the attack portion of an ASDR envelope waveform. As a freely vaporizing fluid I think the overall energy released is nearly the same no matter the octane or cetane rating.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Corse they do when someone fills a container with high octane gasoline.

Sure, but the high octane bit is just more detail, not meant to imply that that makes it worse.

Its not exactly the same, but clearly it makes no useful difference if you are using to set fire to a house.
House just one house away from mine was burnt out that way just a few months ago now, by a loony. Fortunately the owners were away at the time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:07 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

The 3 high-octane authors used sophistry to falsely make the reader feel a greater danger than actually existed: a. The authors realized their audience wouldn't parse properly; b. Therefore, the authors artificially inserted the false modifier; c. Their intent was to intensify the danger perceived by the reader; d. Where the non-parsing reader would fail to identify the sophism; e. Therefore perceiving greater danger than truthfully existed.
My point is that we must be on guard for both the "intensification" and the "sophistry" in similar cellphone scares, just as we should have been on guard during the McCarthy Era and the Salem Witch Trials.
Mass hysteria is powerful, and my argument is that this is why people "perceive" such a huge danger from cellphones, when, in fact, the danger is non existent (as proven by the very real and valid overall accident record).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No such animal and none of the authors you cited are anything special author wise.

Nope, used an extra adjective when describing a particular fuel.

The didn’t do that either.

There is no parsing what so ever involved in what they wrote.

It isnt a modifier and it isnt false either, at most not necessary.

There actual intention was to have more than the most mundane description.

There is no parsing involved and there is no sophism involved either.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

You never had a point and there was no "intensification" involved either.

There is none of that involved either.

What there actually is with cellphone use while driving is the FACT that doing that distracts the driver more than not doing that does.
Same with eating while driving, etc etc etc too, particularly when it is something that you have to keep in your hand like a burger etc.

Nothing like in fact.

Who is doing "intensification" now ? You are, that's who.

Who is doing "intensification" with that use of the word HUGE now ? You are, that's who.

More of your bare faced lies.

More of your bare faced lies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Algeria Horan wrote:

And every firearm is "high powered" Or Assault rifle when it is not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:15:21 +1000, F Murtz wrote:

Good point. And the Boston police commissioner Davis called it a "ferocious firefight" with the unarmed Boston Bomber suspect lying prostrate in the bottom of a boat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Algeria Horan has brought this to us :

Another example is when reporters describe an ongoing 40 MPH "High Speed Chase" and give a 'play by play' of the action describing close calls of sideswiping or crashing when the viewer can plainly see the 'high speed' was reduced to around five MPH as the perpetrator navigated around slower or outright stopped vehicles.
I call it 'sensationalism' as do many others. I think they go to school to learn how to do this. I've also noticed a trend recently toward starting a newscast with >>>BREAKING NEWS<<<< about yesterday's accident which they still have no further information about.
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.