The methods used by the NHTSA were described in the reference, and they
listed the many limitations, so, I refer you back to the paper for that
Your question brings up a *major* point, which is that people don't
understand the references.
They jump to wild and fantastic fabrications as to what the references
actually proved, and how they proved it.
That is, I suspect, one of the major components of the easily disproven yet
still immensely common myth that cellphone use "causes" appreciable
accidents in the real world (in the US and Australia).
Yep, you did just that. That one was JUST about what happens
with CARS STOPPED AT THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS, and you stupidly
made all sorts of wild claims that it said anything useful about
what drivers do with the cellphones WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED.
How odd that you haven't managed to do anything of the sort.
Even that reference you stupidly posted actually proves that
fuck all are actually stupid enough to use a cellphone while
DRIVING AT SPEED since it must be only a small percentage
of those who have been observed to use the cellphone
WHEN STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS etc, and even if say
10% of those do have an accident as a result of that stupidity,
that would mean that less than 1% of drivers would have an
accident due to the use of a cellphone WHILE DRIVING AT
SPEED and that is such a small number that that would be
completely invisible in the total accident stats in the USA.
It isnt a myth, it’s a fact with a number accidents PROVEN to have
been caused by the use of a cellphone WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED.
We know that that has happened from the accident investigation,
you silly little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a lying troll.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:03:38 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
What "other hand"? The left one is holding the device; the right one is
keying in characters (or maybe it's the other way around); what "other"
hand remains free to steer with? -- Oh, right: the back-seat driver's :-) .
Give us a break, woodja? Thanks. -- tlvp
Knees! Knees! Doesn't everybody steer with their knees? Hell! I have
seen a cop in a cruiser with his cell phone held to his right ear with
his left hand while he was taking notes with his right. All while his
car was in motion.
I can only assume he was steering with his knees, that or he had some
auto-pilot prototype police cruiser attached to his butt.
With the phone plugged in for a recharge in your ,SIRI can be
contacted by voice and she will both send and read messages for you.
I did this with my 6 today and could hear and be heard on it, lying on
the seat next to me.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:22:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Yet the state of California makes over 10 billion dollars alone over ten
years, just from the single cellphone use ticket (nominally $20 for a first
offense, which is the lowest fine in the entire country of the states that
have the laws).
New Jersey makes half of what California makes.
Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket! (<==== that's crazy!)
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:58:47 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
You always call bullshit facts you don't like.
That simply proves (again) you're (just) an idiot.
Your opinion is utterly worthless.
You could at least look it my fact before claiming it was bullshit.
Google: "Alaska ticket cellphone 10,000"
I didn't even mention the additional penalty of a year in jail, you fool.
It's A $10,000 Fine For Texting While Driving In Alaska
Texting While Driving Can Cost You $10,000 & 1 Year in Jail
Alaska Texting While Driving Penalties
Text and drive only Class A Misdemeanor up to $10,000 and 1 year in prison
Injure someone Class C Felony up to $50,000 and 5 years in prison
Seriously injure someone Class B Felony up to $100,000 and 10 years in
Kill someone Class A Felony up to $250,000 and 20 years in prison
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:49:40 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Thanks Ed, for that cite.
Rod Speed, if he's true to form, will come up with some way of
telling you that it's bullshit, a lie, or a troll.
Basically, he's wedded to his intuition, which, to him, says a cellphone
ticket can't be 10,000 dollars, so, if you actually show it to him, he will
likely never believe you anyway.
What he comes up with is all sorts of fantastic fabrications (hence my
aliens manipulated the figures analogy and the WWII bomber found on moon
example) to account for the fact that he still likely won't believe your
There are two kinds of people at least:
a. Those, like me, who are wedded to facts, not opinions, but who can change
their ideas when shown the facts, and,
b. Those, like Rod Speed, who are wedded to his own opinions, and who will
likely never change his mind, facts to the contrary be damned.
Just you wait and see...
Note: A key question is how do you intelligently deal with such people?
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
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
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.
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.