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! (
There are some things where people trust their intuition more than they trust facts.
I'm never going to change your intuition, unless you yourself, are able to discuss facts.
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 data?
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.
Pretty much Gas would burn faster but we all know jets are faster than gas powered piston planes so therefore. . . draw an incorrect conclusion.
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?
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.
Both are fine.
I asked for the point of your previous post but instead you just repeat your "facts". What is your conclusion? Why did you bother to recite your facts?
That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.
The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.
The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based sophistry.
For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document, which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any* relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!
The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.
There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying, and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.
Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.
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).
Algeria Horan wrote
More of your bare faced lies.
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 f*ck 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.
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.
Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more concentration. I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation to the detriment of driving . Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible user would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject talking on the phone?
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 f***ed 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
Algeria Horan wrote
Yes, that is indeed f*ck all, as I said.
BULLSHIT.
And every firearm is "high powered" Or Assault rifle when it is not.
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.
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.
Sheeesh. Does anyone on this ng have any brains?
I stated you form your opinions sans facts while I only use facts.
In fact, I quoted NHTSA annual studies while you quoted absolutely nothing.
Where do YOU get your opinions from then?
Pilots are taught: Aviate, navigate, communicate.
I don't know what a cute corollary is for driving, but the concept is universal to operating any dangerous machinery.
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.
REF: It's A $10,000 Fine For Texting While Driving In Alaska
HomeOwnersHub website 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.