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

Page 6 of 6  
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 02:23:45 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Yup. And when the police shoot an unarmed man "in the torso", which means, "in the back".
Or when Commissioner Davis hailed as a "ferocious firefight" the "gun battle" with an unarmed, unresisting, and prostrate Boston bomber, hiding i n the hull of a boat.
Or, when Governor Cuomo haled what amounts to a cowardly sniper as a "hero" , so as to take public scrutiny away from the fact that the officer committed
what amounts to a criminal act of sniping.
--
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
Per FromTheRafters:

"News" is not news anymore... it's strictly entertainment and they have dropped all pretenses to the contrary.
Here's a great example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH68bSJXGE8

--
Pete Cresswell

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

Yep, a very good example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:04:07 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Heh heh heh ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH68bSJXGE8

Congresswoman discusses government task for that recommends that the NSA stop collecting phone records, and the Washington DC msnbc correspondent breaks in saying "Right now, in Miami, Justin Bieber...let's watch".
Heh heh heh ...
We're doomed. :(
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

which doesn't exist. that's the point.
it's an *asusmption* that call records showing activity around the time of the *assumed* time of collision is a factor.
it might be related, or it might not. nobody knows exactly what happened except those involved in the collision and they're not going to admit it's because of a phone or they're incapable of admitting anything, i.e., dead.

that doesn't make driving any less boring. there's really not a lot to do, which is why shitty drivers manage to avoid crashing all the time.

actually, it hasn't been proven.

that's the fault of the driver. stupid drivers will always exist.
autonomous vehicles can't happen fast enough.

that's only because cellphones are visible, plus you can't tell if they're using a speakerphone.
people do all sorts of things while driving, such as:

i see people eating/drinking food very frequently.

that's the point. none are acceptable, but people only focus on phones being a factor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Its not that hard with voice calls, bit harder with SMS, particularly if they are preparing the first one and haven't sent it yet.

Sure, but that isnt the only way to know that.

Yes and that isnt that hard to do. And to do it the other way in this country. The authoritys do know what phone SIMs you have unless you go out of your way to get an anonymous one which is rather harder to do in this country.

Fraid not.

Yep.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2016 08:50 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is that generic or just me?
--
Cheers, Bev
Always carry a length of fiber-optic cable in your pocket. Should
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, iphones have both the time and date of calls and texts.

Obviously others that use your model phone get the same result.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you have a shitty phone. i haven't seen a phone that doesn't give the call time *and* duration in a really, really long time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:18:20 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

"Call details" give date, time, duration, whether incoming or outgoing, &c. (Android 2.3.5 as embodied in antique Moto Droid X2.) Not clear whether "time" shows time call began or time call ended; nor what TZ is in use.
HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:01:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:

The real bull elephant in the room is the fact that the accident rates are entirely unaffected in both Australia and in the United States by the use of cellphones (we can presume NHTSA numbers of 5% for handheld and 2% for texting) while driving.
The female elephant in the room is the fact that cellphones are likely to be at least as common in cars as drivers with eye-correction (glasses or contacts).
That is to say, they're nearly ubiquitous, so, of course they're gonna be found "in use" during an accident in a huge number of situations.
For example, about 75% of American adults apparently wear eye correction (either near or far sighted or both): http://glassescrafter.com/information/percentage-population-wears-glasses.html
Therefore, we'd expect about 75% of all accidents to "involve" a driver who needs corrective devices.
Notice how horrible a statistic I can make news out of if I want to?
I could get a Salem-Witch-Trial McCarthyism-Red-Scare style news story out the door simply by fomenting the concept that people needing corrective devices "cause" 75% of all the accidents!
My point is that it's entirely the wrong approach to simply see if the cellphone was being _used_ at the time of the accident, just as it would be the wrong approach to see if corrective lenses were being used at the time of the accident.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:50:25 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

You're approaching the problem the hard way. The facts don't make the news because the facts aren't scary.
With cellphone use almost ubiquitous in both Australia and in the USA, nearly 100% of all crashes "involve" cellphones - just like nearly 100% of all crashes involved people wearing socks.

They do it anonymously, as reported in the papers I already cited, but even so, you're approaching the problem in the wrong direction.
It's like you're trying to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster by finding people who took pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, which you must concede is an unreliable approach by all accounts.

You're missing the accidents.
Where are the accidents? They don't exist.
The record in both Australia and in the United States shows that extremely clearly!
These are facts which Rod Speed intimates that mysteriously clever aliens must have manipulated so as to EXACTLY cancel out the astoundingly huge increase in accidents he fabricated in his own mind must have occurred: http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1109.xls https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#
If you're asking _why_ the accident rate, in the real world, isn't affected one bit by the explosion of cellphones, it's NOT because people aren't using them.
People are using cellphones, for millions and millions of miles driven! https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812326 "the _use_ of cellphones is consistently at about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while driving (with visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent)"
The most obvious reason why cellphone use isn't causing accidents is so simple, most people don't want to believe it.
The reason is simply that the additional distraction of cellphone use is simply added to an already long list of (far more important) distractions, as the NHTSA says so themselves: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812260 ..
So what we have is the cellphone is no more distracting than talking to a passenger: Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/1/196.abstrac
I realize all this doesn't make the news, simply because none of what I'm telling you is the slightest bit scary. And not scary doesn't make news.
But you have to read more than the "scary" news to understand boring facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.