On Aug 6, 9:07*pm, gpsman wrote:

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?

Low compared to the number of wrecks we'd
see if 51%+ of all drivers
were driving while "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup".






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.

Say that all you want, but I say if 51%+ of drivers out
there were "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"
there would be a huge number of accidents and you'd
see them all over the place.





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?

Say what?




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.

Sure, it's my defect, not that you're making up crap.





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?

Again, it's YOUR strawman. YOU made the claim.
It's up to YOU to prove it, not for me to disprove it.
I could claim I have a lemon tree with purple lemons.
Now, is it up to me to prove that I have it or everyone
else to try to prove it doesn't exist, which of course
is impossible?





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.


I'm beginning to agree with KRW that there must be
something wrong with you. You're actually claiming that
the reason most people speed is because they are
distracted? Not that they know what the speed limit
is, but consciously go faster? Good grief. I can
take you down the Parkway here in NJ. Where the
speed limit is 55mph,, 90%+ of the cars are going
65+. All distracted? Of course not. They just know
that the cops give at least a 10mph leeway and
choose to go faster, with the flow of trafffic because
it's a reasonable, safe speed that feels comfortable.
I do it all the time myself and I'm not texting or updating
facebook. Do you really drive much?




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?

Geez, yet another strawman.





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.

OK, now I do agree with KRW. You're an idiot.





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?

Well one way is that the cars that I've observed not
fully stopping when making a right-on-red,
I rarely notice them "busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"
And then the ones that roll stop signs without coming
to a complete stop, where I've
followed them for a bit, the vast majority due it at
every stop sign.

Yet the fact that they see the stop
sign and react consistently to it, strongly suggests
that they are not distracted. If they were distracted,
then I would expect them to miss the stop sign and
go right through it. The fact that they slow normally
starting at a reasonable distance from the sign,
slow almost to a stop, but then make a right turn,
strongly suggests that they know exactly what
they are doing. If they were distracted, then I
would expect to see T bone crashes, rear end
collisions, hitting
curbs, running over pedestrians. Instead all I
see is them consistently failing to come to a
complete and full stop. Pretty basic in my
book.


I also don't notice *most* cars arriving at a red light
with no apparent intention of stopping. Again, if
most cars, or even a lot of cars where doing that
all the time, you'd have one hell of a lot of rear
end collisions at lights or Tbone wrecks at
intersections. I personally can't recall the last
time I saw one.



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.

Sure, my bad again.



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?

And yet another diversion into lala land. You brought up
"frequent L turns that can't be made without the room
the wrong side of the road provides". Now that has
morphed into "driving on the wrong side of the road?"

For the record, I don't see this L turn crap happening
here much at all.



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?

Again, I don't know what your point is here.





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.


No, what we have is you claiming that because being
distracted is given as the number one cause of accidents,
that it somehow shows that 51%+ of drivers are driving
distracted. Hence, the good analogy, which you obviously
don't understand.

Here's another one. Let's say most people get cancer
from smoking. Does that provide evidence that 51% of all people
smoke?



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

They sure aren't being distracted to the level claimed:

"busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating
Fecesbook or applying makeup" If you want to expand
the definition of distracted driving to include thinking about
what time you will arrive at your destination, then sure
100% are distracted. KRW made that point long ago.



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.

Well then why are you disputing that above when I
said if most people were driving distracted we should
see wrecks all over the place everywhere we go,
all the time? The fact that we don't says you're the
ignorant **** who dug himself into a hole and continues
to dig away.



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.

OK, but you quickly defended it and continue to defend it to
the point that you obviously now own it.




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.home.repair/msg/38125746a5857f02?h...

Which was in response to KRW asking for proof of this:

"most driverrs are busy texting, sexting, blogging,
twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup"

Sounds to me like you bought into the statement and
defended it as true. And that is exactly what you've
continued to do, beyond question. My first post in this
called the above statement an exaggeration. You
responded with:

"It isn't exaggeration. "

So, make up your mind.





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.

It sure as hell is. When I said the statement was an
exaggeration, you said "It isn't an exaggeration".
Geez.....