They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference

Page 2 of 16  
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:47:30 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Eloquent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Rod.
It's pure logic.
Both you and I would *think* that the following makes sense: 1. Driving is dangerous 2. Cellphones are distracting. 3. Driving while distracted by cellphones is more dangerous. 4. There are a *huge* number of cellphones used while driving. 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents.
That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents tells us something.
What does it tell you Rod?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope.

Yes.

You don’t know that.

And there are with the fools stupid enough to use their phones while driving.

You can keep spewing that bare faced lie till you are blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced lie.

Like hell it does.

That you are a bare faced liar that wouldn’t know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:31:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

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

Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.
<http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:49 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

I forgot you have to have the last word, so, I'll let you have it.
What you show me is an article akin to saying that leaving meat on a table outside for a week attracts flies - therefore - flies are created by spontaneous generation in the real world.
That you don't see your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on such, um, er, on such "logic", is amazing.
My entire argument hinges only on one fact. And, it doesn't need unproven aliens to be understood.
That one fact is that everyone *assumes* that cellphone use should be raising the accident rate in the USA - but - nobody can *find* these accidents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Translation: "I have nothing left, so I'll claim you are trying to have the last word and scatter off again like a silly cockroach in an attempt to prove it now."

Actually what is posted (which you conveniently snipped, and I have restored above) is a link to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention page on Distracted Driving, which includes statistics along with footnotes with links to numerous studies and research you desperately want to ignore and discount because the data doesn't fit your narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.

You are the one being illogical here, which is plain for all to see.

Your entire argument is flawed.

No, only you are making that wild-ass assumption. The rest of us understand that accident rates are determined by a myriad of factors, many of which are completely unrelated to cell phone use, which means there is no direct correlation between cell phone use while driving and total accident rate. The reason you are hopelessly fixated on accident rate is it is the only way you can fool yourself into believing your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Swamped by the reduction in the accidents due to the better design of cars and roads, you silly little pathological liar.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:49:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

You think better design of cars did it? Really?
They suddenly designed cars better to perfectly coincide with the absolutely stupendously huge meteoric rise in cellphones being present in cars?
Not only did they design cars suddenly better at the EXACT time that cellphones enjoyed their meteoric rise, but, this new set of design features EXACTLY canceled out the huge *number* of accidents that were being caused.
Then, it has zero effect when cellphones were suddenly at the 100% level.
Really? Wow.
That's super convenient to your argument.
However, even you must see that yours is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.
And you have none. You don't even have ordinary data to back up your claim. I'd suggest you stick with the "Aliens did it" theory.
At least that makes more sense because Aliens can manipulate the data (with their superior telepathic intelligence) so that it exactly cancels out the effect in both timing and size.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most people who aren't biased or trying to justify illogical positions recognize that a myriad of factors unrelated to cell phone use contribute to the decline or increase of total accident rates.

Yep.
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/20/2016 2:23 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

It tells me you are not looking. I personally know of two, one was my 10 year old granddaughter rear ending another car. The other was a week before Christmas on the street behind my house. Young lady was killed when she went head on into a big pickup. I've also seen people on cell phones and not driving properly.
If I know of two in my little world I'm sure there are many others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a 10 year old was driving???

the pickup driver has some responsibility.

plenty of people who don't text on cellphones don't drive properly either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/20/2016 5:12 PM, nospam wrote:

SHOULD BE 19

Really? Two lanes, no shoulder, no place to go. Were you a witness? What should he have done?

True, but the ones on phones make more mistakes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

inexperienced driver.

were you?
were either drivers driving too fast for conditions? were there other factors involved? was the driver of the truck not paying attention? did the truck cross the centerline?
drivers who don't pay attention while driving will find ways to not pay attention *without* phones.

no they don't.
a phone is just one way to be distracted.
other ways include eating, popping in a cd/tape, putting on makeup, reading a newspaper or map, turning to yell at a screaming child and many other things.
why single out only cellphones??
shitty drivers will always be shitty drivers until they learn how to be better drivers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/20/2016 8:06 PM, nospam wrote:

Truck and car were both at reasonable speed, clear day, no traffic. She drifted over in front of the truck mid-text. Evidence was on her phone. I did not see it happen, but saw the cars before the police got there.

harmless. Yes, there are many other distractions this just adds more. I've seen more cell phone users weaving than burger eaters but they exist too.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:30:14 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Nobody ever said that cellphones weren't distracting. Nobody ever said that there aren't a zillion distractions.
What was said was that nobody can find any change in the accident rate that is *required* by the cellphones-are-really-dangerous argument.
In reality, the people who are arguing that cellphones-are-very-dangerous are really just guessing.
It sounds good, to them, and that's all they need by way of facts.
That the accidents don't exist, doesn't even faze them.
Even the study itself couldn't find the accidents (and they looked for them). They looked hard.
All they could find is that the accidents that did occur (which were at no increased rate whatsoever) seemed to result in 7% more hospitalizations.
I admit, 7% is pretty big.
But how did that second order issue happen without the first order accidents? Rod Speed gave the only plausible answer - which is that the accidents that were happening, didn't happen at any greater rate, but that they were more severe.
I guess that can be a worthwhile conclusion, but, as in all science, let's see if someone else can back up their claim because something is logically fishy with the second order issue being greater than the first order instigation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/21/2016 01:08 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:

Who would be dumb enough to admit they were texting while driving?
Do the police investigate every accident to see if the driver's cellphone was in use at the time of the accident?
I doubt the insurance company lawyers even bother unless there are extreme injuries/death involving lots of money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Interestingly, "Paul M. Cook" has admitted he does just that regularly...
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:52 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

If there is a 10% chance that any particular new mistake will result in an accident, then there should be a corresponding number of additional new accidents if people are making that new mistake.
If there is only a 0.000001% chance that any particular new mistake will result in an accident, then there should be corresponding number of new accidents if people are making that new mistake.
The answer as to which is which, is clearly shown in the reliable overall accident rate data already.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:52 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Particularly when they stop looking at the road for 5 or 10 brief seconds. Time enough there to scoot past a couple of NYC blocks worth of distance, and never know what you might be running into. Or, like the kid texting while in a curve, to run into a tree because you didn't notice you ought to be straightening out again :-) .
But don't waste your time arguing with these freaks who can text with one eye on their handset while they drive faultlessly with their other eye on the road :-) . They'll be off the road soon enough, with antics like that.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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.