Trouble is that you can't stop the other person from continuing to say
what they were saying and any test needs to put the driver in the situation
where they can't just ignore the phone, they need to have to be able to
repeat what the other person on the phone was saying so they can't just
ignore the phone when they need to.
That is the trouble with the test, it is slanted,sensible users would
ignore phone in difficult circumstances, but they want the test to show
dangers so that they can make laws for the lowest common denominator and
make it sound reasonable to the masses.
In one way I suppose they have to cater for the minute number of phone
related accidents, but I wish they did not have to make it difficult for
The cell phone in the hand is not what I see first.
What I see first is the wandering from lane-to-lane... *Then* I take a
look to see what's going on and see the phone. I can't ever recall
seeing a person being conversed with... it's always the phone.
I remind folks of the quotes in the OP...
"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could expect to
see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the last decade. In fact,
the reverse is true."
"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of a
fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both legally
or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."
"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can
result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile
phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."
===========The same is true in the United States, when one looks at *facts*.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 01:29:10 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
You mean this? -- While *facts* are a real distraction in the car and their
use can result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that
use of *facts* does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities.
You must be out of your mind :-0 . Cheers, -- tlvp
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
There are some things where people trust their intuition more than they
I'm never going to change your intuition, unless you yourself, are able to
We can discuss intuition until the cows come home, and we'd get absolutely
nowhere, since opinions are as common as body parts.
For example, many people have an "opinion" that glass flows in farmhouse
windows such that it's thicker on the bottom. Fact is, nobody on this planet
has ever shown any proof that this happens. Nobody. In fact, it can't
happen. Yet you don't know how many people have the opinion that it does,
simply because they know enough data (it's an amorphous solid, for example),
to be dangerous.
As another example, many people have an "opinion" that you get colds in cold
weather because it's cold. Fact is, nobody on this planet has ever shown any
proof that this happens. Nobody. In fact, it can't happen. Yet you don't
know how many people have the opinion that it does, simply because they know
enough data (there's a flu season, for example, which is in the winter
months), to be dangerous.
As one more example, many people have an "opinion" that their brake-related
vibration is due to their disc brake rotors "warping" (think potato chip).
Fact is, nobody on this planet has ever shown any proof that this happens at
any appreciable rate on close-to-stock street vehicles. Nobody. In fact, it
can't happen. Yet you don't know how many people have the opinion that it
does, simply because they know enough data (disc brake rotors can get red
hot, for example), to be dangerous.
Your intuition is telling you that cellphones are an added distraction, and
I agree with that assessment of your intuition. So neither one of us
disagrees that cellphones *are* "a" distraction.
Your intuition should also tell you that there is an already long list of
distractions that people handle every single day while driving, and that
many accidents were caused by drivers distracted by *those* (non-cellphone
related) distractions in the past, before cellphones ever existed. I would
agree with that also.
The only thing that's "new", is that cellphones came on the scene, but the
accident rate never changed.
So you and I have to look at that fact (keeping Rod Speed's clever aliens
out of the argument if we can).
How does your intuition account for the fact that the accident rate in both
the United States and in Australia shows absolutely zero effects of the
explosion in cellphone ownership in both countries?
Do you simply ignore that inconvenient fact?
Do you explain it away (as Rod Speed does) by saying aliens manipulated the
If cellphone distractions were as bad as your model seems to predict, why
didn't the accident rate change the moment they came on board, and why
didn't the accident rate zoom up at a rate consistent with the number of
cellphones and why even today does the accident rate not show any effect
whatsoever from cellphone use?
How does your intuition handle that inconvenient fact?
Fair enough but when it comes to facts, we have to look at the facts.
There are no accidents.
What are you going to do about *that* fact?
NOTE: I'm not talking freak accidents, nor anecdotal accidents - I'm talking
overall accident rates in both Australia and the United States.
The accidents don't exist.
If you and I can't look at *that* fact, then we may as well start discussing
religion instead. Or maybe that WWII Bomber found on the Moon. :)
Fair enough. But what you're forgetting is that the accidents don't exist,
yet cellphones are ubiquitous.
That means a lot of things - but one of the things it means is that the
distraction from a cellphone isn't anywhere nearly as dire as many people
would have you believe.
If the distraction *was* as dire as many people would have you believe, then
there would be accidents.
Where are the accidents?
I don't think there is a person on this planet who doesn't agree that
cellphones are yet another distraction in a long list of distractions that
US and Australian drivers face every single day.
However, there isn't anyone on this planet who can *find* any chnage in the
accident rate in either Australia or the United States due to the fact that
a huge number of people own cellphones and a given percentage of those
people are using them while driving every single day.
The fact that millions of miles of driving occur while people are looking at
cellphones *should* change the accident rate.
But it does not.
What does that tell you?
NOTE: Rod Speed is gonna bring up those mathematically clever aliens who
exactly and precisely hid the huge number of accidents that are caused by
people using cellphones from the overall real world record.
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:22:42 -0500, Joe Friday wrote:
OMG. Not that idiotic so-called reference again.
It's a freakin' ADVERTISEMENT, for heaven's sake!
From Edgar Snyder & Associates?
A Law Firm Representing Injured People
That blatant ad has so many buzzwords purposefully placed in it that it's
the first hit on Google, for heaven's sake.
Does anyone on this ng have any brains?
Trouble with that one is that it just states the stats and doesn’t
provide a link that shows the original report that makes the claim,
so it isnt possible to see how viable the statistical collection was
on what the cause of the accident was.
And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident statistics,
because so few are actually stupid enough to do that, and even a
terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have noticed that even if
say half of those who are that stupid do have an accident as a result
of that terminal stupidity, that would be swamped by the significant
reduction in the accident and fatality rate due to much better roads
with fully divided freeways and much better design of cars with
seat belts, air bags, anti lock braking etc etc etc.
<reams of your broken record pathetic excuse for
trolling and bare faced lies flushed where it belongs>
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:22:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
This is the first adult-like thing you've said in this thread, so I will
respond in like manner.
If we assume that the annual studies by the NHTSA are correct, then we have
to assume that 5% and 2% of all miles driven in the United States are done
while actually holding the phone and texting on it, respectively.
It would be interesting to break that number down by miles driven, so if
someone has a number for the number of miles driven by the approximately 275
million cars in the United States, that would be useful data.
The lack of accidents is the elephant in the room which has to be accounted
for, and mathematically clever aliens are too amorphous for us to rely on
them to give us that answer.
Since 95% of the time people are NOT holding cellphones while they're
driving and 98% of the time they're not texting, the lack of accidents due
to cellphone causing them _could_ be due to the fact that so few people
actually _use_ them while driving.
NOTE: The NHTSA annual statistic does not count people using the cellphone
without headgear and without actually holding it in their hands, so, we can
assume that 7% is greater if we want to include all people _using_ the
cellphone (e.g., via bluetooth speakersets).
You just went for more lies and pathetic excuse for trolling.
Mad assumption given that it is only collected from a subset of
vehicles STOPPED at lights etc. That will grossly over estimate the
percentage of those who actually are that stupid WHEN DRIVING.
They have no idea what so ever about miles driven. ALL
they do is count actual vehicles STOPPED at the lights etc.
And is completely useless with texting. Plenty might well text
when STOPPED at the lights who are not actually stupid enough
to do that while actually driving with the car in motion at speed.
Not even possible to do that.
But not even possible to get that data.
There is no lack of accidents. And even if those figures
were accurate and they clearly cannot be since they
were collected about cars STOPPED AT LIGHTS ETC,
if say 10% of those stupid fools actually had an accident
as a result, even you should be able to work that that
is fuck all accidents caused by the use of a cellphone.
There is no elephant and no room either.
Not when we have seen a dramatic reduction in
driving fatalitys due to better roads and better cars
and when accidents don’t all get reported anymore.
<reams of your lying trolling flushed where it belongs>
You have no idea what the numbers are when
actually driving at speed except that they are absolutely
guaranteed to be lower than when stopped at the lights etc.
Of course they are both that and the safer roads and cars.
You cant even assume that given that those completely useless stats are
ONLY THOSE USING THEIR PHONE WHEN STOPPED AT THE LIGHTS ETC.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:44:03 +1000, F Murtz wrote:
On my Android phone, when I'm in handsfree mode, when a call comes in, it
says "call from (contact)", say "answer or ignore".
If I say Answer, it answers. If not, it doesn't answer it.
This all goes over bluetooth on my visor-mounted speaker.
Pretty simple stuff.
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été v?
?rifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:54:43 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
How would folks text on a cellphone "without actually holding it in their
hands", eh? And with what, "holding it in their hands", would they control
the steering wheel? Earth to A,H., earth to A.H., come in, please ... :-) .
Cheers, -- tlvp
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.