On Aug 6, 4:21*pm, "
wrote:
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.
"Low"... compared to what?
If most
drivers were driving distracted by the likes of putting on
makeup and texting there would be wrecks every minute.
Non sequitur. Plenty of distracted driving occurs w/o crashing.
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.
Which of your arguments is the basis of that alleged straw man?
Sure, I see some
people who don't signal some times. *But is it most people that I
encounter every day? * No way.
Then you're not paying attention.
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.
Fine. Do you have any evidence of that?
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.
That's what you say.
It's because they deliberately
are choosing to speed.
I'm pretty sure any cop can tell you that's the rarest reason cited by
motorists when they get pulled over... so how did you arrive at your
conclusion?
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.
If you're not observing speed limits there's nothing to suggest you
simply aren't paying attention.
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.
How the **** do you know?
I cite the black marks all over curbs where trucks are prohibited.
Which again has nothing to do with being distracted.
Right. They're deliberately pinging off curbs.
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.
You're not paying sufficient attention.
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.
What is there to suggest that? If driving on the wrong side of the
road is not evidence of distraction, what is?
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.
Which of your arguments is the basis of those alleged straw men?
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.
That makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying smoking in bed is the
leading cause of house fires, then attempting to conclude from that
that most people smoke.
What we have instead is motorists, all of which who motor.
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.
Yes. 100% of motorists are distracted much of the time. If you're
not 100% devoted to piloting your vehicle you're distracted by
definition: "1 a : diversion of the attention"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/distraction
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".
I didn't modify it you illiterate ****. Of course if one is
distracted all the time they're probably going to crash, and pretty
quick.
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. "
I did not write that.
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.
What I first said was:
"Proof the average motorist is not fully engaged in the driving task
is
easily.... well, you can't ****ing miss it unless you have no idea of
what constitutes the task of "driving", the chance of which is far
greater than very likely."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.h...n&dmode=source
*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.
That's not my list.
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.
Obviously not. Did you ever motor and talk on the phone? Let us
assume yes. Did you crash while doing so? Let us assume no.
People are very good at dividing their attention and not crashing.
What they aren't worth a **** at is dividing their attention and
"driving". The vast majority of the time **** poor driving doesn't
result in a crash.
All one needs to do to confirm the prevalence of driver distraction is
note their internal monologues the next time they get behind the
wheel.
I taught some of the stupidest mother****ers on the planet to drive a
truck and none of them exhibited any problem understanding that they'd
previously been driving distracted their entire lives.
-----
- gpsman