On Aug 6, 11:59*am, gpsman wrote:
On Aug 6, 10:25*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 6, 9:57*am, gpsman wrote:
Try it from the other side: What is there to suggest the vast majority
of motorists aren't distracted...?
Try it this way. *YOU are making the claim. *It's up to YOU
to prove it, not for someone else to disprove it. * That's the
way things work in my world.
This isn't your world. *In the real world there is a word in use you
should learn:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
Again, that is NOT how it works. *YOU made the claim.
YOU provide the proof. *It would be a very strange and impossible
world for the burden of proof to be on others to disprove every
ridiculous claim made. * Your obvious problem is that you've
dug yourself a hole and have no referencel.
Be that as it may, there is nothing preventing you from citing your
evidence most motorists are not distracted.
The best evidence is the low rate of accidents. If most
drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.
To support my argument I cite their lack of signaling. *Do you want to
argue most motorists signal, or need a cite for that? *Chances are
99.9% you don't signal yourself.
Strawman.
Sure, I see some
people who don't signal some times. But is it most people that I
encounter every day? No way. And of course it really
is another diversion, because it doesn't say anything
about whether they are distracted or not. I would think
that most people who don't signal do it because they
are poorly trained, lousy drivers, and they do it all
the time, not because they are distracted by texting,
etc.
I cite their speeds. *Nothing there to suggest they are paying
attention. *Do you want to argue most motorists are in compliance with
speed limits?
Again strawman and you're wandering off here. Sure people speed
but I would say in the vast majority of cases it's not
because they are distracted. It's because they deliberately
are choosing to speed. Can you find someone once in a
while that happens to go over the speed limit because they
went from a 55 to a 40 and were distracted so they didnt
realize it? Sure, but it's not most drivers who speed.
I cite their failures to come to a complete stop at stop signs and
before making right turns and the common practice of arriving at a red
light with no apparent intention of stopping.
Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.
I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.
Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.
I cite their frequent forays into... hell, just my lane. *Motorists,
as attentive as you may think they are, often can't even seem to
maintain their lanes. *If you fail to notice the frequent failure of
motorists to maintain their lanes you probably can't maintain your
lane yourself.
Finally you have something that very likely is due to being
distracted. Now, I don't know where you live. But I live in NJ
where I think we have some of the worst drivers. Do I see
someone drifting into my lane? Sure, once in a while.
Maybe a couple times a month. Now if MOST drivers
on the road were driving distracted, I would expect to see
it many times an hour.
I cite their frequently L turns that seemingly can't be made without
the room the wrong side of the road provides.
Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.
I cite their failures to stop behind stop bars, and stay there.
I cite the red light running that continues to occur with great
frequency where red light cameras and the required signs warning of
them are in place.
I cite the speeding that continues to occur with great frequency where
speed cameras and the required signs warning of them are in place.
I can do this all day.
What you're doing is setting up strawmen, one after the other
most of which have nothing to do with being distracted.
I cite the half of motorists that must be "below average".
I cite the most common excuse for crashes, "I didn't see...".
I have already cited evidence distractions have been found to be the
leading cause of crashes, and that ~200M motorists report to police
-6M crashes per year.
But surely you realize that has nothing to do with your
claim that most drivers are driving distracted by texting,
putting on makeup, etc. It's like saying smoking in bed
is the leading cause of house fires and then saying
that means most people smoke in bed.
What evidence have you got...?
All you need is to note your own internal monologue the next time you
drive.
Let's look at the specific list again
of distracted driving examples you gave that started this:
"texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook
*or applying makeup"
Those are serious distractons. *All with the possible
exception of chatting involve physical activities too.
Now you want to make it
include a driver just thinking about anything at all
that is not their immeadiate driving task?
What do you think "not fully involved in the driving task" means?
In your attempt to justify MOST people driving while
distracted it would have to include ordinary things like
thinking about what you have to do when you get where
you're going. Or what's for dinner tonight. And as
KRW said, if you go there, then 100% of drivers are
distracted.
Like what
time they may arrive where they are going?
How nuts is that? *By that definition, as KRW pointed out,
100% of drivers are distracted.
Exactly. *Not all the time, but we all know the evidence is
overwhelming that the vast majority of motorists do not consciously
endeavor to focus on driving.
You may believe that, but I disagree. And you're waffling
here by now including the modifier "not all the time".
If you said, most drivers are distracted at one time
or another while driving, I would agree with that.
But again, what you said was:
"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe
this
is actually a good idea. "
The tendency of the mind to wander of its own accord is never
considered a factor by the very vast majority of motorists so they
can't be expected to make a conscious effort to prevent it.
Combined with the mountain of evidence they don't drive for ****, the
conclusion that at any particular time the majority of motorists are
not fully engaged in the driving task is perfectly reasonable.
Not that I even agree with that, but again that isn't even close
to what you first said.
*The
evidence they are nearly perfectly oblivious to the conditions that
might suggest they are expending anything other than the least
attention to driving is overwhelming... unless one is suffering near
total unconscious incompetence and has no idea how to interpret what
is occurring before their eyes.
The relatively low number of accidents that happen
per thousands and thousands of miles driven suggest
to me that *most* people out there are not distracted by
the likes of the serious distractions on your list.
If they were, accidents would be
happening at 100 times the rate they are.
Sure, once in a while someone is texting, putting
on makeup and winds up causing an accident.
But if that were most drivers cars would be
crashing on the roads everywhere.