Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:21:52 -0500, nospam wrote:
it boils down to the majority of drivers being bad drivers. Shouldn't it boil down to a gaussian distribution? That is, shouldn't the majority of drivers be merely average drivers. |
#82
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:21:52 -0500, nospam wrote:
it's a near *hit*, not a near miss. a near miss means you actually hit. a complete miss means no collision occurred. That's interesting. See? You have an attention to detail the others can't comprehend. I study WWII history and have always heard of "near misses" causing damager to, say, a ship's rudder. I silently had trouble with that, because that's a hit, not a miss. But they call them near misses anyway. I didn't think about it all that much, other than to simply assume a near miss was actually a minor hit, so I will post to alt.usage.english to figure this one out (in gory detail) since I love detailed answers. Most people can't handle details. You can. |
#83
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 5:12 PM, nospam wrote:
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??? SHOULD BE 19 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. Really? Two lanes, no shoulder, no place to go. Were you a witness? What should he have done? 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. True, but the ones on phones make more mistakes. |
#84
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:45:23 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:
Driving is non-challenging activity? Really? The proof is simply that *everyone* can do it. Even a 15-year old kid can do it; it's that easy. High school Algebra/Trig is more challenging than driving. Hell, understanding logic is more challenging than driving (as witnessed by the bro-science logic that holds sway here). |
#85
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:46:11 +0000, Chris wrote:
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. Nobody ever said that cellphone use wasn't distracting. Nobody ever said that distractions are safe. What we said, and it seems that only nospam and Peter Cresswell seem to understand, is that if cellphone use was as distractingly unsafe as most of the rest here seem to *assume* it is, then the accident rate would have skyrocketed long ago. That their argument *requires* accidents in order for the argument to be valid underscores the fact that they're thinking only emotionally, since even they can't find these arguments that their argument entirely depends upon. |
#86
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:11:01 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
Yes, and cell phone use is a distraction. Nobody ever said it wasn't. |
#87
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:00:40 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
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. Nobody ever said texting wasn't distracting. Just like nobody ever said crying babies (and a million other things) wasn't distracting. And, nobody ever said distractions can contribute to accidents. Yet ... you take those true statements and contort them to fit a reality that only exists in your confused mind. Think logically for once! I could leave meat outside, and it would attract a few flies, but I could leave rotten meat outside, and it would attract MORE flies! Neither one of those means that spontaneous generation occurred. You can see cellphones as distracting when people talk on them, but you can see them as even more distracting (rotten) when people text. Neither one means that cellphone use is causing more accidents! You see that as proof of spontaneous generation ... ummm... I mean, you see that as proof that cellphone use while driving is causing accidents. Yet, even you can't find those accidents. Yet, your entire argument *hinges* on those accidents being there. Worse ... that (huuuuuuuuuge!) logic discrepancy causes you no concern? |
#88
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article
, 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. Having a cellphone conversation has already been proven to be more distracting / dangerous than having a conversation with a passenger. This is partly because a passenger in the car can see what's happening and so knows when to shut up, when to help out (e.g. looking one way while the driver is looking the other when leaving a side road), etc. 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. The ridiculous thing is that car manufacturers themselves are moronically trying to add even more distractions. They are introducing more and more gadgets and "smart" / wi-fi functions to cars. Some imbecile at the recent CES expo was going on about how the driver would be able to use their car's wi-fi abilities to turn on the heating at home before they get there, etc. :-( |
#89
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:06:02 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:
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. Your argument *requires* and depends upon a greater number of accidents occurring, yet, you find no compulsion to even *look* for those accidents that your argument predicts. You say alien beings conspired to hide those accidents ... ummm ... I mean you say a series of perfectly lined up stars *hid* the data that your argument so critically *depends* upon to be valid. It *could* happen. But you have less proof of your argument than I do of mine. Far (far) less. That's not illogical to you? That causes you no concern as an intelligent human being? If not, then you really can't be reasoned with. |
#90
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:53:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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. The school system failed you. You're clearly *not* a scientist nor educated in the scientific method. Just like you, I know of two instances where flies were created by spontaneous generation. One, was when I left a piece of rotting meat outside, and, a week later, it was covered in maggots. Surely that means I suspect spontaneous generation, does it not? Second anecdotal "proof" was when I pooped outside on my deck. Wouldn't you know it, but within HOURS, maggots were all over it. Since I saw this with my very own eyes, spontaneous generation must be true. I saw it with my own eyes, and I *believe* my own eyes. I have not one, but *two* examples of spontaneous generation that I saw with my very own eyes (who needs stinkin' science when I have my own eyes that I trust more than all the science in the world!). Just like it says in this article on that exact subject! How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results Or...Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tific-results/ |
#91
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:39:20 -0700, Tony Hwang wrote:
Most of texting is gossips, garbage chit chats, non-productive junks. How do you know that? Or, are you just guessing? |
#92
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 5:40 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me. Attitude. Bad things only happen to the other guy, not me. |
#93
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article
dhosting.com, Paul M. Cook wrote: it boils down to the majority of drivers being bad drivers. Shouldn't it boil down to a gaussian distribution? That is, shouldn't the majority of drivers be merely average drivers. the point is that people screw up and crash. very few drivers are skilled enough to handle unexpected events such as a skid, tire blowout, brake failure, etc. without crashing. getting a driver's license is little more than answering a bunch of questions and driving around the block. it's no wonder most drivers suck. |
#94
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article
dhosting.com, Paul M. Cook wrote: it's a near *hit*, not a near miss. a near miss means you actually hit. a complete miss means no collision occurred. That's interesting. See? You have an attention to detail the others can't comprehend. I study WWII history and have always heard of "near misses" causing damager to, say, a ship's rudder. I silently had trouble with that, because that's a hit, not a miss. But they call them near misses anyway. I didn't think about it all that much, other than to simply assume a near miss was actually a minor hit, so I will post to alt.usage.english to figure this one out (in gory detail) since I love detailed answers. it's a pet peeve of mine, even though it's obvious what was meant. |
#95
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article
dhosting.com, Paul M. Cook wrote: Driving is non-challenging activity? Really? The proof is simply that *everyone* can do it. no they can't. kids can't because they're too short to reach the pedals or see over the dashboard. old people can't because their reactions are too slow. new drivers (typically teens/twenty-somethings) lack the experience. blind people obviously can't, nor can people with limited motor skills. Even a 15-year old kid can do it; it's that easy. not safely, particularly in situations where something goes wrong. High school Algebra/Trig is more challenging than driving. Hell, understanding logic is more challenging than driving (as witnessed by the bro-science logic that holds sway here). two totally different things. |
#96
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
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??? SHOULD BE 19 inexperienced driver. 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. Really? Two lanes, no shoulder, no place to go. Were you a witness? What should he have done? were you? were either drivers driving too fast for conditions? were there other factors involved? was the driver of the truck not paying attention? did the truck cross the centerline? drivers who don't pay attention while driving will find ways to not pay attention *without* phones. 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. True, but the ones on phones make more mistakes. no they don't. a phone is just one way to be distracted. other ways include eating, popping in a cd/tape, putting on makeup, reading a newspaper or map, turning to yell at a screaming child and many other things. why single out only cellphones?? ****ty drivers will always be ****ty drivers until they learn how to be better drivers. |
#97
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article , SeaNymph
wrote: The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me. because passengers would be incredibly ****ed if their phones don't work, as would the driver in an emergency. |
#98
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0800, 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/ how do they know texting laws, which I assume are almost completely ignored anyway, are the cause of the decline in hospitalizations? |
#99
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:56:48 -0000, SeaNymph wrote:
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. You might not see some other clueless twerp doing something wrong, but it doesn't stop you driving correctly yourself. You look ahead and see you don't have to do anything for 5 seconds, so you can look at your phone for a bit. -- If Russia invaded Turkey from behind, would Greece help? |
#100
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 7:24 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
I study WWII history and have always heard of "near misses" causing damager to, say, a ship's rudder. I silently had trouble with that, because that's a hit, not a miss. But they call them near misses anyway. I didn't think about it all that much, other than to simply assume a near miss was actually a minor hit, so I will post to alt.usage.english to figure this one out (in gory detail) since I love detailed answers. Explosives to not have to actually hit the target to do damage. The shockwaves do it. |
#101
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/16, 13:58, 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 don't believe it's normal to be so attached to a device. It's the new normal. -- ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=== ==+=====+=====+====++ |
#102
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 17:39:20 -0000, Tony Hwang 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/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. It's just communication. Do you object to people talking to each other face to face? How about phoning each other? What's the difference? It's all communication. What about people like you who chat on newsgroups? -- Seen on a tap in a Finnish washroom: To stop the drip, turn cock to right. |
#103
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 7:53 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:53:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: It tells me you are not looking. I personally know of two, one was my 19 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. The school system failed you. You're clearly *not* a scientist nor educated in the scientific method. Just like you, I know of two instances where flies were created by spontaneous generation. You said there were NONE. I have proof of two. I know nothing of your flies. Has nothing to do with science, it is just a fact of something that happened. If you said "not many" or "very few" I'd not dispute it, but you said "none" and that is wrong. |
#104
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 3:05 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
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. I'm not so sure autonomous cars are such a great thing. I'd hate to be on the interstate and get hacked just as a semi hauling cars whizzes past 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. I dunno, I've had some doozy's when it came to sneezing when I've been driving. Try as I did I couldn't keep my eyes open, and it never happens when it's a good time to happen, either. Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can {{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on fingers!}}} 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. -- Maggie |
#105
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/20/2016 4:12 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. it's *already* starting to appear in limited forms and within 5-10 years, autonomous vehicles will be more than a curiosity. I'm guessing longer than that before they are anything but in the testing phase, but who knows.... It could happen sooner. 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. Dumb blond says to cop: "BUT officer! it's an autonomous car - it drives itself! Why did it crash when I got off the highway??" 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 wonder if it'll be affordable? 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. If the purpose of an autonomous car isn't to eliminate collisions and injuries, is it going to be worth the expense just to change the stats a little? 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. -- Maggie |
#106
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote: On 1/20/2016 5:40 PM, SeaNymph wrote: The ability to render a cell phone useless while in a car already exists. Why they don't use it is beyond me. Attitude. Bad things only happen to the other guy, not me. The reason car manufacturers don't install blocking technology in cars is because the loud mouthed selfish idiots would complain too much ... the same reason America *still* lets every looney have a gun. |
#107
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote: On 1/20/2016 7:53 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote: On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:53:17 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote: It tells me you are not looking. I personally know of two, one was my 19 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. The school system failed you. You're clearly *not* a scientist nor educated in the scientific method. Just like you, I know of two instances where flies were created by spontaneous generation. You said there were NONE. I have proof of two. I know nothing of your flies. Has nothing to do with science, it is just a fact of something that happened. If you said "not many" or "very few" I'd not dispute it, but you said "none" and that is wrong. There's thousands, if not millions, of such examples on police accident records around the world. Some accidents are indeed definitely caused by the driver using their cellphone (not handsfree). |
#108
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote And it is now the single biggest cause of death for those between the ages of 15 and 70. As it was before cellphones existed. Irrelevant to your bare faced lies. |
#109
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:28:07 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Irrelevant to your bare faced lies. Hmm.... Eloquent. |
#110
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote Anyone with even half a clue knows that texting while driving is a BIG distraction. Rod, I know you can read. We have all noticed that you can't bull****, lie without it being obvious to everyone that you are lying, or even work out even the simplest 'logic' either. So, let's try this again, No thanks, your **** and lies stays your **** and lies no matter how often its spewed. since, you must be also intelligent. If you can't *understand* what I'm writing, Every can understand that you are lying thru your teeth, just like you always do when you have got done like a ****ing dinner, as you always are. it's either you're not intelligent enough to understand, or you don't want to understand. Or you lies stand out like dogs balls for all it see... I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious. Another bare faced lie. Let's repeat (but you really need to be able to read). Your lies stay lies no matter how often they are read. 1. All of us (including me) would assume that distractions are dangerous. Dont need any assumption, that is a fact. 2. All of us (including me) would assume that cellphones are distracting. Dont need any assumption, that is a fact. 3. All of us (including me) would assume that they're a BIG distraction! Dont need any assumption, that is a fact. 4. All of us (including me) would assume that will result in accidents! Dont need any assumption, that is a fact. That none of us (including you and that study) can find these accidents You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are blue in the face if you like, that changes nothing, it stays a bare faced lie. should be cause for all of us to doublecheck our assumptions. Not when its a bare faced lie and there is no assumption either. That most of us (including you but not including me) simply *assume* unproven external forces Dont need any assumption, we know that it is a fact that the design of cars and roads has seen a continuing reduction in the accident rate most years. (aliens should be added to that list) Only by pathetic excuses for bull**** artists like yourself. are "manipulating" or "changing" the data Having fun thrashing that straw man ? is patently ridiculous, but, if you (or anyone) can *show* that manipulation of the data, I'm all ears. Having fun thrashing that straw man ? What you constantly refuse to do is read and understand the facts You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse. when they don't completely fit your assumptions. There are no assumptions, you silly little pathological liar. Most people are like that. Most dont lie thru their teeth in every single post they make, just silly little pathological liars like yourself. The facts are all that matter. You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse. 1. The study couldn't find the increased accidents Because that was swamped by the decrease due to other factors like the better design of cars and roads. (no study can because the accidents don't exist). You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are blue in the face if you like, that changes nothing, it stays a bare faced lie. 2. The study did NOT resort to what you resorted to though, to explain that (you may as well tell me aliens are manipulating the data). No one said anything about manipulating data, you silly little pathological liar. 3. The study did find increased HOSPITALIZATIONS, which is interesting as that has to be a second-order effect. It shows the MORE SERIOUS ACCIDENTS, ****wit. So, what I find interesting is that, while the study could not find increased accidents, they found increased hospitalizations. Because those are the more serious accidents, ****wit. Your conjecture There is no conjecture, you silly little pathological liar. is apropos, given *those* facts, which is something like: A. The cellphone distraction may not be causing any increased accidents, No one ever said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar. B. But the accidents that were already happening "may" be more severe. No one ever said anything like that, you silly little pathological liar. That's a reasonable take on the data. Pigs arse it is you silly little pathological liar. |
#111
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort. What does Occam's Razor mean, to you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Yup. What most of you try to do, because you are extremely uncomfortable with facts You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse, you silly little pathological liar. that don't fit your preconceived notion of what you feel should be, More of your bare faced lies, you silly little pathological liar. is that you all *invent* reasons (all unproven) More of your bare faced lies, you silly little pathological liar. for the facts being as they are. You may as well invent aliens who are manipulating the data. Having fun thrashing that straw man, you silly little pathological liar ? |
#112
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
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? Swamped by the reduction in the accidents due to the better design of cars and roads, you silly little pathological liar. |
#113
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:28:52 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
True, but the ones on phones make more mistakes. If there is a 10% chance that any particular new mistake will result in an accident, then there should be a corresponding number of additional new accidents if people are making that new mistake. If there is only a 0.000001% chance that any particular new mistake will result in an accident, then there should be corresponding number of new accidents if people are making that new mistake. The answer as to which is which, is clearly shown in the reliable overall accident rate data already. |
#114
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
Rod Speed wrote Wrong, its a fact. There is one fact that gets you all caught up in your panties. You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse, you silly little pathological liar. And I dont wear panties either, whatever degenerate behaviour you get up to yourself. That fact is that the accident rate trajectory did not change (either way) due the introduction of cell phones. Because the cause of that, better design of the cars and roads swamps that, you silly little pathological liar. |
#115
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Paul M. Cook wrote
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. Just another of your bare faced lies, you silly little pathological liar. So your answer is merely cherry picking, and hence, useless for an overall idea of what is going on. Just another of your bare faced lies, you silly little pathological liar. reams of your even sillier **** and lies flushed where it belongs |
#116
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:17:55 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
You said there were NONE. I have proof of two. I know nothing of your flies. Has nothing to do with science, it is just a fact of something that happened. If you said "not many" or "very few" I'd not dispute it, but you said "none" and that is wrong. I had to laugh, that, after you read the article showing that people actually believe (laughably so) that "anecdotal" evidence is "proof", you then say, presumably with a straight face that "I have proof of two". The school system definitely failed you. I sure hope you don't vote. |
#117
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:27:23 +1300, Your Name wrote:
There's thousands, if not millions, of such examples on police accident records around the world. Some accidents are indeed definitely caused by the driver using their cellphone (not handsfree) Nospam already explained this rather well. Let me ask you the basic question... How do police get *that* data? C'mon ... think ... I know it hurts to ... but think. |
#118
Posted to misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:06:02 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote: 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. you find no compulsion to even *look* for those accidents that your argument predicts. You are projecting again. It is *you* who clearly refuses to look for accidents that are in plain sight. If not, then you really can't be reasoned with. Projection, again. -- 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 |
#119
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
"chris" wrote in message ... 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 didnt, 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? The change in traffic volumes with the price of gas. 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 They dont actually. and so would have no differential effect between the ban or no-ban states. |
#120
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
"nospam" wrote in message ... 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), It can mostly be determined accurately enough to see whether the driver was texting at the time of the accident. 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. Not when there was no passenger. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
proof found ... 0bama attended school in U.S.A. | Metalworking | |||
I finally found SEO Services | Metalworking | |||
hi, honney, finally I found you | Home Repair | |||
I finally found a good use for old CD's. | Woodworking | |||
Finally found one! | Woodworking |