|
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 23:12:46 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it I can easily leave a piece of meat outside and flies will be growing on it, so, as in your "study" above, I've "proven" the point that flies like meat. So what? The fact is: 1. All of us (including me) would assume that distractions are dangerous. 2. All of us (including me) would assume that cellphones are distracting. 3. All of us (including me) would assume that they're a BIG distraction! 4. All of us (including me) would assume that will result in accidents! That none of us (including you and that study) can find these accidents should be cause for all of us to doublecheck our assumptions. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 20/01/2016 01:33, Rod Speed wrote:
"chris" wrote in message ... On 19/01/2016 18:42, Rod Speed wrote: "chris" wrote in message ... On 19/01/2016 04:17, Lewis wrote: In message dhosting.com Jack Black wrote: Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes accidents! You are very confused. Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal of Public Health. Global Warming prevents piracy. News at 11. You're the one who's confused. The study mentioned is not based on correlations, unlike the jokey (negative) correlation between Global Warming and piracy (at sea) you're alluding to. The study make several explicit regression models to test whether different factors have an affect on car crash related hospitalisations. They found that texting bans, handheld bans, seatbelt laws and graduate licensing laws all had a measurable and significant decrease in the hospitalisation rates. Likewise high speed limits and illegal blood alcohol levels had significant increases in hospitalisation rates. Gas prices, per capita income and unemployment rates had no effect. When gas prices didn’t, the entire 'analysis' is dubious because that must have some effect on the traffic volume on the roads. Yes, plenty of traffic like to and from work will continue anyway, but some traffic is optional and even with travel to and from work, they will be more car sharing and use of public transport with the higher gas prices. Possibly, Absolutely certainly, you can see that in the stats. Which stats? but there was no difference between states that had a texting ban vs those which didn't. Which is what was being measured. Any effect of price was uniform between them. You said gas prices had no effect. In this study. Which was looking at the difference in hospitalisation rates between states with or without bans on texting while driving. Presumably fuel prices would change more or less in sync in all states and so would have no differential effect between the ban or no-ban states. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Paul M. Cook wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving. The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is, essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do. So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted. Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives, and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle distractions. That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today. However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions), simply means exactly what it shows. That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day. It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than others. Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_ people'. _You're_ special :-) I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? -- Maggie |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/19/2016 10:06 PM, Your Name wrote: Yes officer, the accident was all my fault. I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road. The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use) at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already. In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she still had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on. Like today: Van driver texting, swerving all over the road, accelerating and slowing down all the time. But nah, that's not dangerous at all! He just needed two lanes instead of one and he just *nearly* hit me, so that doesn't count! So what the heck are we whinging about!? And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not affect accident statistics in a negative way, just like ABS doesn't affect them in a positive way! It's all BS! So listen to Mr. Kook and STFU! |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/19/2016 10:06 PM, Your Name wrote: Yes officer, the accident was all my fault. I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road. The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use) at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already. In the case of the girl killed on the street behind my house, she still had the phone in her hand. Went into a Ford F250 head on. I am not sorry for her at all. That was her choice and consequence is hers. I am just frustrated when careless/distracted driving kills innocent people. Today's cars have technology to take care of cellphone traffics hands free. Voice command works well too. If Apple product is sync.d to the vehicle Siri works as well. I carry cell phone, I only turn it on when I need it. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 10:22 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: Paul M. Cook wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving. The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is, essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do. So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted. Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives, and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle distractions. That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today. However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions), simply means exactly what it shows. That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day. It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than others. Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_ people'. _You're_ special :-) I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? I don't think so. The distraction is in your brain, not in how fast you can text. While listening to the radio can be distracting, you don't have to look at it to do it. If they aren't watching the road, that's just an accident waiting to happen. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article , Your Name
wrote: The driver doesn't have to admit it, and in some cases they're dead so couldn't even if they wanted to. It's quite easy for police to get cellphone connection times and see the phone was in use (and what use) at the time of the accident - it's been done in numerous cases already. if the exact time of the crash can't be determined (and it usually can't), then there's no way to know if a phone was in use at the time of the crash. it also could have been used by a passenger. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article , Frank Slootweg
wrote: Like today: Van driver texting, swerving all over the road, accelerating and slowing down all the time. But nah, that's not dangerous at all! He just needed two lanes instead of one and he just *nearly* hit me, so that doesn't count! So what the heck are we whinging about!? he might have (and probably would have) done the same thing without a phone. ****ty drivers don't need phones to be ****ty drivers. And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not affect accident statistics in a negative way, his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating, reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on cellphones and not the other stuff. the problem is distracted driving. just like ABS doesn't affect them in a positive way! It's all BS! So listen to Mr. Kook and STFU! actually, it doesn't. that's yet another myth. with abs, people think that abs will save them, so they tend to drive in a more risky manner and end up in bad situations more often. the net effect is no real change in crash rates. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Per nospam:
his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating, reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on cellphones and not the other stuff. Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time. Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff - including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver attention. OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end expects continuous attention from the driver. But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.". I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments. One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at driving while doing other things and I am not. -- Pete Cresswell |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/18/2016 2:44 PM, Jack Black wrote:
Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes accidents! Here is the quote! Overall, the hospitalization rate in those states declined by 7 percent versus states with no bans, the researchers report in the American Journal of Public Health. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texting-...-a-difference/ Another article: http://www.nhregister.com/general-ne...g?source=email |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: Paul M. Cook wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving. The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is, essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do. So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted. Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives, and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle distractions. That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today. However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions), simply means exactly what it shows. That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day. It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/texting-while-driving-how-dangerous-is-it But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than others. Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_ people'. _You're_ special :-) I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? Driving is total attention business needing all 5 senses. Our store is next door to Starbuck coffee shop. Seeing thru the windows in the shop, all people sitting there is texting burying their face into the smart phones. After finishing coffee, comes out into their parked cars, again texting with car's engine running. What in the world do they have so much to text? Nowadays it is rare sight people doing eyeball conversations. Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats, non-productive junks. It is as bad as drug addictions. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per nospam: his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating, reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on cellphones and not the other stuff. Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time. Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff - including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver a OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end expects continuous attention from the driver. But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.". Driving is non-challenging activity? Really? I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments. One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at driving while doing other things and I am not. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:50:33 +1100, Rod Speed wrote: Wrong, its a fact. There is one fact that gets you all caught up in your panties. That fact is that the accident rate trajectory did not change (either way) due the introduction of cell phones. False. You can't prove that either way since accident rate is influenced by a myriad of factors many of which have absolutely nothing to do with cell phone use. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
nospam wrote:
In article , Frank Slootweg wrote: And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not affect accident statistics in a negative way, his point is that it's not *just* cellphones He can't even admit that much. the problem is distracted driving Yes, and cell phone use is a distraction. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 11:39 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? Driving is total attention business needing all 5 senses. Our store is next door to Starbuck coffee shop. Seeing thru the windows in the shop, all people sitting there is texting burying their face into the smart phones. After finishing coffee, comes out into their parked cars, again texting with car's engine running. What in the world do they have so much to text? Nowadays it is rare sight people doing eyeball conversations. Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats, non-productive junks. It is as bad as drug addictions. It is addictive, or maybe it just becomes a habit that is just normal for people in this digital age. My kids all text and do Facebook, so I text and check up on their FB's, too, even though I don't really post to FB much at all. I think that's just what they grew up into using as the technology became available - they embraced it. -- Maggie |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:39 AM, Tony Hwang wrote: Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? Driving is total attention business needing all 5 senses. Our store is next door to Starbuck coffee shop. Seeing thru the windows in the shop, all people sitting there is texting burying their face into the smart phones. After finishing coffee, comes out into their parked cars, again texting with car's engine running. What in the world do they have so much to text? Nowadays it is rare sight people doing eyeball conversations. Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats, non-productive junks. It is as bad as drug addictions. It is addictive, or maybe it just becomes a habit that is just normal for people in this digital age. My kids all text and do Facebook, so I text and check up on their FB's, too, even though I don't really post to FB much at all. I think that's just what they grew up into using as the technology became available - they embraced it. There's nothing wrong with embracing technology, understanding it and being able to use it. Like others have mentioned though, driving requires the attention of the driver. I don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Jolly Roger wrote:
nospam wrote: In article , Frank Slootweg wrote: And by the way, Mr. Kook is quite right, cell phone use does not affect accident statistics in a negative way, his point is that it's not *just* cellphones He can't even admit that much. the problem is distracted driving Yes, and cell phone use is a distraction. And *texting* - *which is the subject of this thread* - (and similar use) is a distraction which is *incomparable* to *any* other distraction, because the length in time of the distraction is *much* longer. In the example I gave - the texting van driver - the duration of the distraction was at least [1] 10km, *8 minutes*. Perhaps the 'texting while driving is prefectly safe!' nuts in this thread would care to show another distraction, which last *that* long. [1] By that time, I managed to - somewhat - safely pass him. If I could have done anything about it/him, without creating even more danger, I would have. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
"(PeteCresswell)" Wrote in message:
Per nospam: his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating, reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on cellphones and not the other stuff. Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time. Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff - including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver attention. OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end expects continuous attention from the driver. But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.". I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments. It's simple coincidence or lack thereof. You need a specific set of circumstances before mobile phone use has a measurable effect on the accident rate. Per mile covered, driving is a generally safe activity with accidents being relatively rare. so those special circumstances are also rare. I would posit that most non-phone using drivers are aware enough to help avoid an accident eg by serving or slowing down. Given that, it still doesn't mean using a phone while driving is safe. One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at driving while doing other things and I am not. Studies have shown that isn't the case. -- ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:31:10 +1100, Rod Speed wrote: 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents. And there are with the fools stupid enough to use their phones while driving. Where are the accidents? Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
SeaNymph wrote:
On 1/20/2016 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 11:39 AM, Tony Hwang wrote: Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? Driving is total attention business needing all 5 senses. Our store is next door to Starbuck coffee shop. Seeing thru the windows in the shop, all people sitting there is texting burying their face into the smart phones. After finishing coffee, comes out into their parked cars, again texting with car's engine running. What in the world do they have so much to text? Nowadays it is rare sight people doing eyeball conversations. Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats, non-productive junks. It is as bad as drug addictions. It is addictive, or maybe it just becomes a habit that is just normal for people in this digital age. My kids all text and do Facebook, so I text and check up on their FB's, too, even though I don't really post to FB much at all. I think that's just what they grew up into using as the technology became available - they embraced it. There's nothing wrong with embracing technology, understanding it and being able to use it. Like others have mentioned though, driving requires the attention of the driver. I don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device. Locally there was an incident a teenage boy was playing with smart phone in bed and fell asleep in the night, some how the phone started burning under blanket causing injury to the boy. Anyone who says using handhelp device while driving is safe is an idiot. Sooner or later distracted driving will kill self or some one or if lucky will come out alive from accident caused by distraction. I encourage and give my kids cars with manual shift which requires more attention. I always drive using paddle shift on my vehicle. Is there such thing as forever lucky? Monkeys do fall from trees.... Some parts of Canada fine for distracted driving is 700.00 and they still do. It's an addiction. My route to downtown from home is via freeway or ring road. I see guys/gals reading, doing make ups, drinking coffee/eating, yakking/texting on cell phone, etc. They are menace on the road. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:34:38 +1100, Rod Speed wrote: By checking if the phone was being used at the time of the accident, stupid. While I admit that's easier to do now than ever, the fact is that there are roughly a few hundred thousand accidents per year in the USA and nobody is checking each of those accidents for whether a cell phone was in actual use during the exact time of said accident. Bull****. The research is being done, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html It's as if you're a fifteen century philosopher who notices maggots on meat and proclaims spontaneous life has formed on your meat. Projection. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:49 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. I forgot you have to have the last word, so, I'll let you have it. What you show me is an article akin to saying that leaving meat on a table outside for a week attracts flies - therefore - flies are created by spontaneous generation in the real world. That you don't see your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on such, um, er, on such "logic", is amazing. My entire argument hinges only on one fact. And, it doesn't need unproven aliens to be understood. That one fact is that everyone *assumes* that cellphone use should be raising the accident rate in the USA - but - nobody can *find* these accidents. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:13:06 -0500, nospam wrote:
if the exact time of the crash can't be determined (and it usually can't), then there's no way to know if a phone was in use at the time of the crash. it also could have been used by a passenger. Also, they can be using the phone to do a zillion things that don't leave a time print. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote: his point is that it's not *just* cellphones, it's many things (eating, reading newspaper, fumbling with cd/tape player, driving under the influence of alcohol or other medication, etc.), so why focus *only* on cellphones and not the other stuff. Implicit in the question is the incorrect assumption that the focus is only on cell phones. I see advertisements against DUI all the time. and that's all you see. where are the campaigns against eating, reading newspapers, putting on makeup, fumbling with cd/tapes, driving while tired or under the influence of medications and many other common distractions? Other than DUI, one reason is that, with much of that other stuff - including CB conversations - there is no reason not to interrupt the conversation or activity if/when driving matters require driver attention. OTOH, with a cell phone conversation, the person at the other end expects continuous attention from the driver. the person on the other end might expect it but they aren't guaranteed it. nothing stops the driver from tossing the phone onto the seat and concentrating on driving, should the situation warrant it. But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" it hasn't. cellphone use has skyrocketed while the collision and fatality rate continues to drop. and "Driving is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.". it can be, such as on a highway where there's little to do other than maintain speed and lane. on the other hand, there are situations where it's not simple, such as stop & go city driving with heavy traffic, pedestrians, etc. unfortunately, too many drivers get themselves into situations that they can't handle. for instance, many people drive too fast for conditions, particularly in snow or ice. if they get into a skid, they panic and crash. a better driver won't get into that situation in the first place, and if they do, they know how to handle skids and can maintain control if it does happen. it boils down to the majority of drivers being bad drivers. I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments. it's a near *hit*, not a near miss. a near miss means you actually hit. a complete miss means no collision occurred. One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at driving while doing other things and I am not. that's definitely the case, as it is with everything. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On 2016-01-20, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:49 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: Everywhere - you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html I forgot you have to have the last word, so, I'll let you have it. Translation: "I have nothing left, so I'll claim you are trying to have the last word and scatter off again like a silly cockroach in an attempt to prove it now." What you show me is an article Actually what is posted (which you conveniently snipped, and I have restored above) is a link to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention page on Distracted Driving, which includes statistics along with footnotes with links to numerous studies and research you desperately want to ignore and discount because the data doesn't fit your narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. That you don't see your ENTIRE ARGUMENT hinges on such, um, er, on such "logic", is amazing. You are the one being illogical here, which is plain for all to see. My entire argument hinges only on one fact. Your entire argument is flawed. That one fact is that everyone *assumes* that cellphone use should be raising the accident rate No, only you are making that wild-ass assumption. The rest of us understand that accident rates are determined by a myriad of factors, many of which are completely unrelated to cell phone use, which means there is no direct correlation between cell phone use while driving and total accident rate. The reason you are hopelessly fixated on accident rate is it is the only way you can fool yourself into believing your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 1:32 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Locally there was an incident a teenage boy was playing with smart phone in bed and fell asleep in the night, some how the phone started burning under blanket causing injury to the boy. Anyone who says using handhelp device while driving is safe is an idiot. Sooner or later distracted driving will kill self or some one or if lucky will come out alive from accident caused by distraction. I encourage and give my kids cars with manual shift which requires more attention. I always drive using paddle shift on my vehicle. Is there such thing as forever lucky? Monkeys do fall from trees.... Some parts of Canada fine for distracted driving is 700.00 and they still do. It's an addiction. My route to downtown from home is via freeway or ring road. I see guys/gals reading, doing make ups, drinking coffee/eating, yakking/texting on cell phone, etc. They are menace on the road. I've seen similar things going on when people were driving. It's crazy when they're going 70mph on the interstate and trying to put on mascara! I don't get why people need to use a cell phone by hand, either, when a hands free device and wi-fi technology allows people to still function and keep both hands on the steering wheel. I don't think people are going to stop using cell phones while driving, either, so at least they could be required to use the safest options out there. There are constant distractions aside from cell phone use, so we're already used to being distracted. Having a conversation with a passenger, or even listening to a radio is equally distracting as using a cell phone to carry on a conversation. IF we're going to debate about how cell phone use is dangerously distracting, why aren't we making a fuss about the technology being put in new cars where our phones can be synced with the radios so people can use hands free voice calls more safely? Isn't that distracting, too, but evidently not enough to warrant banning it's implementation into new vehicles. People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology, or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive. -- Maggie |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
Jamie Kahn Genet wrote I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving. The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is, essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do. Even sillier than you usually manage. In fact car accidents are the main cause of death between the ages of 1 and 70 now. So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted. Even sillier than you usually manage. Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives, Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle distractions. Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage. That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today. Nope, the reason for that is better designed roads and cars which make accidents much more survivable. However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers You can keep spewing that bare faced lie till you are blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced lie. (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions), simply means exactly what it shows. Just another bare faced lie. That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day. Just another bare faced lie. Most aren't actually stupid enough to text while driving. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article
, Muggles wrote: People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology, or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive. the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far safer than any human can do. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 2:26 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Muggles wrote: People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology, or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive. the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far safer than any human can do. While autonomous vehicles may be practical in the future, it'll be quite a few years before that technology is advanced enough for practical implementation. Maybe it'll be something we can actually practically use within the next 20 or 30 years. Until that happens, though, the best technology that's out there is only installed on new vehicles, and not everyone can actually buy those cars. I don't have any research numbers, but I'd guess a very small percentage of people can actually afford to even buy vehicles with the current smart technology. I'd also want to know how those people involved in developing the technology have addressed the possibility of maliciously hacking vehicles, and all the issues involved when software is in charge of controlling a 2000 pound rolling weapon? -- Maggie |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: Paul M. Cook wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving. The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is, essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do. So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted. Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives, and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle distractions. That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today. However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions), simply means exactly what it shows. That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day. It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features...g-how-dangerou s-is-it But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than others. Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_ people'. _You're_ special :-) I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? In my personal and unscientific experience those who have grown up with the technology are often more adept and comfortable with firing off a quick TXT as they drive. A previous younger girlfriend in her 20's was very comfortable with this, but comfort doesn't equal safe. However as she was very quick at TXTing one handed while driving, I suppose she lessened the danger time compared to worse TXTers. Still, given her age she lacked the experience of older drivers that has been shown to improve their responses to dangerous situations, so I still wouldn't have said she was safer at TXTing and driving. And the last couple jackasses to try to run me down while TXTing were over 30. But I see as many over 30's TXTing while driving as I do younger drivers. Though the more scientific tests I've read show _anyone's_ reaction time is affected by TXTing, even the most familiar and comfortable with the tech. The difference between passively listening to radio and TXTing, is TXTing requires removing a hand from the vehicle's controls, and some amount of looking at the mobile device instead of the driving conditions. Tests I've read have shown listening to the radio can also affect concentration and reaction time if the driver doesn't retain focus on driving, but not to the same degree as TXTing. A comparable distraction would be fiddling with tapes and CDs as one drives, in that a hand is removed from the wheel and the eyes from the road. -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 2:36 PM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: Paul M. Cook wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:59:18 +1300, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. Driving isn't an inherently safe thing to do, so, sure, of course there are myriad distractions inherent in the mere act of driving. The fact that almost anyone can drive means that driving is, essentially, in the scope of the easiest tasks humans can do. So, it's *easy* to drive and *not safe* to be distracted. Since most of us never have a single accident in our entire lives, and yet, most of us have been distracted a billion times while driving, what that means is that we constantly safely handle distractions. That *some* people can't handle distractions is probably partially why the accident rate remains at the low level that it is today. However, the fact that this accident rate was wholly unaffected by the absolutely astoundingly huge increase in cellphone ownership numbers (hence, most people assume, in cellphone use distractions), simply means exactly what it shows. That is, cellphone use is not any more distracting than any other distraction that most drivers handle safely every single day. It is simplicity itself to demonstrate that TXTing while driving impairs reaction times, as many have shown, for many years now e.g. http://www.caranddriver.com/features...g-how-dangerou s-is-it But continue to deny that you are affected by distractions, and that magically you are a better driver and better able to multitask than others. Of course an accident resulting from distractions such as TXTing would never happen to _you_! That is only something that happens to '_other_ people'. _You're_ special :-) I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? In my personal and unscientific experience those who have grown up with the technology are often more adept and comfortable with firing off a quick TXT as they drive. A previous younger girlfriend in her 20's was very comfortable with this, but comfort doesn't equal safe. However as she was very quick at TXTing one handed while driving, I suppose she lessened the danger time compared to worse TXTers. Still, given her age she lacked the experience of older drivers that has been shown to improve their responses to dangerous situations, so I still wouldn't have said she was safer at TXTing and driving. And the last couple jackasses to try to run me down while TXTing were over 30. But I see as many over 30's TXTing while driving as I do younger drivers. Though the more scientific tests I've read show _anyone's_ reaction time is affected by TXTing, even the most familiar and comfortable with the tech. I really don't like TXTing, let alone trying to do it while driving. I just don't get what's so important that can't wait a few minutes 'til you get stopped. I may look at an incoming text when I'm sitting at a red light waiting for it to turn green, but I'm not coordinated enough to drive and txt at the same time. Maybe I'm just old, or maybe I'm just lazy at txting. I have been known to answer a phone call using wi-fi in stop and go traffic, but on the interstate I just let it ring and go to voice mail. It's scary enough dodging all the nuts without trying to talk to someone on the phone at the same time. The difference between passively listening to radio and TXTing, is TXTing requires removing a hand from the vehicle's controls, and some amount of looking at the mobile device instead of the driving conditions. I've been told that some new cars have hand controls on the steering wheel that allow the stereo system to answer phone calls AND text calls and convert the text to voice msgs and any voice responses to text. I don't understand why the technology is being put in new cars if the trend is to stop people from using the technology while driving. Tests I've read have shown listening to the radio can also affect concentration and reaction time if the driver doesn't retain focus on driving, but not to the same degree as TXTing. A comparable distraction would be fiddling with tapes and CDs as one drives, in that a hand is removed from the wheel and the eyes from the road. Sneezing while driving is just as bad as any other distraction, I think, but the difference between fiddling with a CD is many people have mastered inserting cd's without ever taking their eyes off the road. Sneezing while driving a person nearly ALWAYS has to shut their eyes when they sneeze. "UH officer! I swear I wasn't texting - I SNEEZED and then I rear-ended the guy in front of me!" -- Maggie |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:26:42 -0500
nospam wrote: In article , Muggles wrote: People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology, or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive. the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far safer than any human can do. elf-driving cars operate as ground-based surveillance drones collecting images and data on both drivers and the public at large, according to World Economic Forum insiders. €śThe availability and resolution of imaging from satellites, drones, self-driving cars and more will continue to increase exponentially,€ť said Sedicii Innovation CEO Rob Leslie, an agenda contributor for the 2016 World Economic Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland from Jan. 20-23. €śThis will drive the creation of ever more sophisticated analysis algorithms, products and companies.€ť In other words, the tech elite €“ and their partners in government €“ are attempting to transform the automobile from a symbol of freedom into another surveillance node in a centrally-controlled data network in which car companies, insurers and government bureaucracies track, tax and control drivers. Another Davos attendee, Business Insiders Matthew DeBord, previously revealed that data collection is the €śglue that binds up€ť both self-driving cars and soon-to-be-released cars communicating to one another via vehicle-to-vehicle communications. €śGeneral Motors has made a big bet on high-speed wireless connectivity throughout its vehicle fleet,€ť he wrote. €śLuxury carmakers such as BMW and Audi are rapidly enhancing the ability of the their cars to be as digitally enabled as smartphones, and Google and Apple are aggressively experimenting with both software and hardware, through Android Auto, self-driving cars, and Apple Car Play.€ť The Department of Transportation is already trying to require vehicle-to-vehicle communications installed in every new car and truck sold in the U.S. which would force vehicles to share data such as speed and direction with each other via WiFi-style technology under the guise of €śaccident prevention.€ť €śOur goal is to see this technology put in place as soon as possible,€ť Transportation Secretary Antony Foxx said. Its quite plausible this technology will also allow cops parked on the side of the road to gather speed data from passing cars without the need of radar guns. And with vehicle tracking, big government politicians could also accomplish their goal of taxing drivers by every mile driven. Car companies and their technology partners also have an interest in data collection which can be resold to third-parties for advertisement purposes. For example, General Motors admitted in 2011 its OnStar system collects and sells personal data from your vehicle such as speed, location, seat belt usage and other information. €śWho would be interested in that data, you ask? Law enforcement agencies, for starters, as well as insurance companies,€ť Zach Bowman with Autoblog.com reported. €śPerhaps the most startling news to come out of the OnStar terms and conditions is the fact that the company can continue to collect the information even after you disconnect the service.€ť |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 2016-01-20, Muggles wrote:
I've been told that some new cars have hand controls on the steering wheel that allow the stereo system to answer phone calls AND text calls and convert the text to voice msgs and any voice responses to text. I don't understand why the technology is being put in new cars if the trend is to stop people from using the technology while driving. Simple: Hands free technology *reduces* distraction. Eliminating it altogether would be nice, but is impractical in reality. It's a step in the right direction. Autonomous cars cannot get here fast enough for me. Sneezing while driving is just as bad as any other distraction, I think, I have to disagree with that conclusion since it happens fairly quickly and doesn't require as much cognitive distraction as other things. Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can tell you from direct observation that even something seemingly innocuous as someone discussing complex details of a software defect and remedy while driving is extremely distracting and dangerous. I was once on a conference call where a coworker almost hit a school bus while trying to describe an integration issue to the rest of the team. People do all sorts of asinine distracting and potentially dangerous things while driving. Sneezing doesn't seem like it should be very high on that list to me. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 2:23 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents tells us something. What does it tell you Rod? It tells me you are not looking. I personally know of two, one was my 10 year old granddaughter rear ending another car. The other was a week before Christmas on the street behind my house. Young lady was killed when she went head on into a big pickup. I've also seen people on cell phones and not driving properly. If I know of two in my little world I'm sure there are many others. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article
, Muggles wrote: People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology, or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive. the solution are autonomous vehicles, at which point people can do whatever the hell they want while the car does the driving, and far safer than any human can do. While autonomous vehicles may be practical in the future, it'll be quite a few years before that technology is advanced enough for practical implementation. Maybe it'll be something we can actually practically use within the next 20 or 30 years. it's *already* starting to appear in limited forms and within 5-10 years, autonomous vehicles will be more than a curiosity. highway driving is likely to be first, which is comparatively much easier than city traffic. the person can then take over at the destination exit and finish the trip. Until that happens, though, the best technology that's out there is only installed on new vehicles, and not everyone can actually buy those cars. I don't have any research numbers, but I'd guess a very small percentage of people can actually afford to even buy vehicles with the current smart technology. it'll be standard, just like abs brakes, airbags, etc. are now. I'd also want to know how those people involved in developing the technology have addressed the possibility of maliciously hacking vehicles, and all the issues involved when software is in charge of controlling a 2000 pound rolling weapon? nothing is perfect. what matters is that the collision, injury and fatality rate is lower than it is now, which isn't all that hard to do. with drunk driving, driving too fast for conditions, unsafe vehicles (bald tires, worn out brakes, etc.), distracted driving and human error completely eliminated, even with an occasional hacker, you're still *way* ahead. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote: That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents tells us something. What does it tell you Rod? It tells me you are not looking. I personally know of two, one was my 10 year old granddaughter rear ending another car. a 10 year old was driving??? The other was a week before Christmas on the street behind my house. Young lady was killed when she went head on into a big pickup. the pickup driver has some responsibility. I've also seen people on cell phones and not driving properly. plenty of people who don't text on cellphones don't drive properly either. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 1:32 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
SeaNymph wrote: On 1/20/2016 12:38 PM, Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 11:39 AM, Tony Hwang wrote: Muggles wrote: On 1/20/2016 4:12 AM, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote: I guess some people never quite manage to mature past the teenage feeling of invulnerability, to instead deal with reality and take responsibility... I'm reading this thread from the repair group, so I don't recognize the names of the people in this discussion. I do have a question about your last comment, here. Do you think that since teens and those who grew up using cell phones are more adept at using the technology and would, therefore, also be more inclined to use it while driving without it being a bigger distraction to them than say listening to a radio? Driving is total attention business needing all 5 senses. Our store is next door to Starbuck coffee shop. Seeing thru the windows in the shop, all people sitting there is texting burying their face into the smart phones. After finishing coffee, comes out into their parked cars, again texting with car's engine running. What in the world do they have so much to text? Nowadays it is rare sight people doing eyeball conversations. Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats, non-productive junks. It is as bad as drug addictions. It is addictive, or maybe it just becomes a habit that is just normal for people in this digital age. My kids all text and do Facebook, so I text and check up on their FB's, too, even though I don't really post to FB much at all. I think that's just what they grew up into using as the technology became available - they embraced it. There's nothing wrong with embracing technology, understanding it and being able to use it. Like others have mentioned though, driving requires the attention of the driver. I don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device. Locally there was an incident a teenage boy was playing with smart phone in bed and fell asleep in the night, some how the phone started burning under blanket causing injury to the boy. Anyone who says using handhelp device while driving is safe is an idiot. Sooner or later distracted driving will kill self or some one or if lucky will come out alive from accident caused by distraction. I encourage and give my kids cars with manual shift which requires more attention. I always drive using paddle shift on my vehicle. Is there such thing as forever lucky? Monkeys do fall from trees.... Some parts of Canada fine for distracted driving is 700.00 and they still do. It's an addiction. My route to downtown from home is via freeway or ring road. I see guys/gals reading, doing make ups, drinking coffee/eating, yakking/texting on cell phone, etc. They are menace on the road. Couldn't agree more. When I'm in the car, I drive. I pay a lot of attention to other drivers, since I can't control what they do, I want to be sure that I'm aware of what they're doing. I do not talk on the phone when I'm driving, even though I can answer my phone without touching it. Nothing is that important to me. Sometimes I think people are stupid. They think they have some super power to not get hurt. Why do people go hiking, and take their phone? Makes no sense to me at all. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 2:23 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 1:32 PM, Tony Hwang wrote: Locally there was an incident a teenage boy was playing with smart phone in bed and fell asleep in the night, some how the phone started burning under blanket causing injury to the boy. Anyone who says using handhelp device while driving is safe is an idiot. Sooner or later distracted driving will kill self or some one or if lucky will come out alive from accident caused by distraction. I encourage and give my kids cars with manual shift which requires more attention. I always drive using paddle shift on my vehicle. Is there such thing as forever lucky? Monkeys do fall from trees.... Some parts of Canada fine for distracted driving is 700.00 and they still do. It's an addiction. My route to downtown from home is via freeway or ring road. I see guys/gals reading, doing make ups, drinking coffee/eating, yakking/texting on cell phone, etc. They are menace on the road. I've seen similar things going on when people were driving. It's crazy when they're going 70mph on the interstate and trying to put on mascara! I don't get why people need to use a cell phone by hand, either, when a hands free device and wi-fi technology allows people to still function and keep both hands on the steering wheel. I don't think people are going to stop using cell phones while driving, either, so at least they could be required to use the safest options out there. There are constant distractions aside from cell phone use, so we're already used to being distracted. Having a conversation with a passenger, or even listening to a radio is equally distracting as using a cell phone to carry on a conversation. IF we're going to debate about how cell phone use is dangerously distracting, why aren't we making a fuss about the technology being put in new cars where our phones can be synced with the radios so people can use hands free voice calls more safely? Isn't that distracting, too, but evidently not enough to warrant banning it's implementation into new vehicles. People are going to do stupid things when they drive, and get distracted by something eventually. I don't know if the solutions is to totally ban the usage of any phone while driving regardless of the technology, or adapt to the technology as it makes cars safer to drive. Oh, I agree with that. Manufacturers are making it harder and harder not to be distracted while driving. But cell phone use is still a choice, and it's not the phone that's the problem, its the conversation. I've seen no indication that hands free use of a phone is any safer. The facts seem to indicate that talking on the phone at all, while driving, is dangerous. The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:35:48 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
Bull****. The research is being done, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit your silly narrative that cell phone use while driving is perfectly safe. http://www.distraction.gov/stats-research-laws/research.html Heh heh ... show me where in those stats it shows the accident rate rising due to cellphone use while driving! Remember, your theory *predicts* and *requires* accidents. |
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 12:24:58 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
But none of that addresses Paul Cooks central points: "Why have accident statistics not risen commensurate with cell phone use ?" and "Driving is inherently a very simple/easy/non-challenging activity.". I don't have an answer - but I hear and have experienced too many anecdotes of near misses for me to buy the arguments. One possibility I entertain is that some people are really good at driving while doing other things and I am not. Thank you for understanding logic. Listen. Just like you, I would *naturally* assume that 1. Driving is dangerous 2. Distractions while driving can't be good 3. Cellphones are distracting, ... sssssoooooo.... 4. Cellphones used while driving should be more dangerous than cellphones not used while driving. For the record, I still think that logic above holds. However, driving is filled to the brim with distractions. Babies crying, pretty girls crossing the street, the angry wife yelling at you for spilling hot coffee on the dashboard, etc. Everyone (practically) can drive. Driving is easy. Driving is filled with distractions, so, handling distractions must also be easy (otherwise, we'd all be dead by now). And, none of us disagree that there is study after study after study (which Jolly Roger is fond of quoting) that show rotting meat attracts flies ... ummmm... I mean... that show that driving while talking on a cellphone or texting is distracting. None of us disagree with the above, right? The only place we simply disagree is that: 1. Folks like nospam and I LOOK for the accidents and can't find them. 2. Folks like JR & Rod Speed ASSUME the accidents exist (and don't even bother looking to find them). It's like seeing rotting meat with maggots: 1. One group LOOKS to see where the maggots come from, 2. While the other group simply ASSUMES the maggots came from the meat. Who is right? The answer is clearly in the data. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter