"nospam" wrote in message
...
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.

BULL****.

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
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 ...

You think you are witty; but you're anything but.

show me where in those stats it shows the accident

They show that distracted driving, including cell phone use, does cause
accidents. That's something you dispute, because you are a fool.

Remember, your theory *predicts* and *requires* accidents.

It's not a theory - it's a fact. Distracted driving does cause
accidents. The data you so desperately want to ignore shows that. You
are the *last* person to be schooling others on the subject.

--
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

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:

The only place we simply disagree is that:
1. Folks like nospam and I LOOK for the accidents and can't find them.

False. You refuse to look at what others have shown you, which is that
the accidents do exist. Instead you prefer to fixate on total accident
rate, which does not have a direct correlation with cell phone use,
because the facts don't fit your silly narrative. You are cheap and
transparent to the rest of us who bother to look at the actual data
rather than ignore it.

2. Folks like JR & Rod Speed ASSUME the accidents exist (and don't even bother looking to find them).

False. I *know* accidents resulting from distracted driving exist,
because the research shows it to be the case.

Who is right?

The one who isn't lying through his teeth.

The answer is clearly in the data.

The data you refuse to acknowledge exists.

--
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

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
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

You're playing your silly "let's form imaginary cliques" game again.

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.

False. Accident rate is influenced by many factors completely unrelated
to cell phone use and even distracted driving. That's something you want
to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.

--
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

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
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.

What you have said (that accident rates must rise due to cell phone use)
is the result of faulty logic.

--
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

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:

C'mon ... think ... I know it hurts to ... but think.

More insults of intellect. Not surprised.

--
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

On 1/20/2016 8:06 PM, nospam wrote:

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.

Truck and car were both at reasonable speed, clear day, no traffic. She
drifted over in front of the truck mid-text. Evidence was on her phone.
I did not see it happen, but saw the cars before the police got there.





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??
Because that is the subject of this thread. Some people think they are
harmless. Yes, there are many other distractions this just adds more.
I've seen more cell phone users weaving than burger eaters but they
exist too.

In article , Rod Speed
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.

no it can't.

unless there's surveillance video with an accurate timestamp or
witnesses with a time reference (i.e., 911 calls coming in), it's
nothing more than a guess.

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.

that's why i said could and not was.

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:

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.

BULL****.

it's not bull****.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskto...-dont-reduce-f
atal-crashes-people-in-cars-with-antilocks-at-greater-risk--but-its-uncl
ear-why
ARLINGTON, Va. ‹ Cars with antilock brakes are more likely than cars
without them to be in crashes fatal to their own occupants. In
particular, antilock cars are more likely to be in fatal
single-vehicle crashes. These are the findings of a new Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety study comparing the fatal crash
experience of cars with antilocks and otherwise identical models with
regular brakes.

"These findings add to evidence that antilocks aren't producing
overall safety benefits," Institute President Brian O'Neill points
out. According to previous Highway Loss Data Institute research,
antilocks aren't reducing the frequency or cost of insurance claims
for vehicle damage. Federal studies also show no overall benefits.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811182.PDF
Statistical analyses based on data for calendar years 1995 to 2007
from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the General
Estimates System (GES) of the National Automotive Sampling System
(NASS) estimate the long-term effectiveness of antilock brake systems
(ABS) for passenger cars and LTVs (light trucks and vans) subsequent
to the 1995 launch of public information programs on how to use ABS
correctly. ABS has close to a zero net effect on fatal crash
involvements. Fatal run-off-road crashes of passenger cars increased
by a statistically significant 9 percent (90% confidence bounds: 3%
to 15% increase), offset by a significant 13-percent reduction in
fatal collisions with pedestrians (confidence bounds: 5% to 20%) and
a significant 12-percent reduction in collisions with other vehicles
on wet roads (confidence bounds: 3% to 20%). ABS is quite effective
in nonfatal crashes, reducing the overall crash- involvement rate by
6 percent in passenger cars (confidence bounds: 4% to 8%) and by 8
percent in LTVs (confidence bounds: 3% to 11%). The combination of
electronic stability control (ESC) and ABS will prevent a large
proportion of fatal and nonfatal crashes.

On 1/20/2016 8:06 PM, nospam wrote:
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.


Individual phones can be set to drive mode so passengers are not
affected. The driver can get back to normal in a touch or two. if you
don't want to use the phone while driving you even have the option of
ignoring it. There really is no excuse.

I sometimes make or receive a call, other times I ignore it. I always
ignore text messages until I'm stopped.

On 1/20/2016 8:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


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?


Not that simple. Two people talking in the car is less distracting and
as the driver you can easily ignore the other person whule your brain
copes with the traffic condition of that moment. Same with ignoring the
radio.

Phone conversations can be more intense. Less so for a quick call to
pick up bread on the way home than trying to give tech support on a
broken machine.

On 1/20/2016 8:57 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
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.

Want the police report as proof? That is hard evidence, not an anecdote.

On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

Jolly Roger writes:

On 2016-01-20, Muggles wrote:

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.

Well, it probably doesn't happen often, but someone once crashed into
my parked car because they happened to sneeze just before reaching my
car along a residential street (with many parked cars).

Repairs to my car took several weeks.

Martin

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:16:03 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

They show that distracted driving, including cell phone use, does cause
accidents. That's something you dispute, because you are a fool.

Except that nobody can *find* these accidents.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:56:00 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Just another of your bare faced lies, you silly little pathological liar.

Eloquent.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:22:32 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

What you have said (that accident rates must rise due to cell phone use)
is the result of faulty logic.

Heh heh ... think about that for a second...

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:41:00 -0500, Paul M. Cook wrote:

And, nobody ever said distractions can contribute to accidents.

Oooops. Correction...

Nobody ever said distractions *can't* contribute to accidents!

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:16:03 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

They show that distracted driving, including cell phone use, does cause
accidents. That's something you dispute, because you are a fool.

Except that nobody can *find* these accidents.

Accidents due to distractions such as cell phones are well known and
documented. The only one who refuses to see them is you. Here's some
more data you will ignore or claim doesn't exist:

http://www.nsc.org/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Association-between-cellular-telephone-calls-and-motor-vehicle-collisions.pdf

--
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

On 2016-01-21, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:22:32 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

What you have said (that accident rates must rise due to cell phone use)
is the result of faulty logic.

Heh heh ... think about that for a second...

Repeat that to yourself while looking in the mirror.

--
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

On 2016-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

Been there, done that, almost wrecked the car. She was a hottie, and I
was young, dumb, and... Luckily I had sense enough to pull over shortly
thereafter. Lesson learned. : )

--
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

Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:22:32 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

What you have said (that accident rates must rise due to cell phone use)
is the result of faulty logic.

Heh heh ... think about that for a second...

A poor joker r an idiot. Good jokers don't say illogical things.

On 2016-01-21, Tony Hwang wrote:
Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:22:32 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

What you have said (that accident rates must rise due to cell phone use)
is the result of faulty logic.

Heh heh ... think about that for a second...

A poor joker r an idiot.

Is that supposed to be English? : )

--
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

Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-21, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

Been there, done that, almost wrecked the car. She was a hottie, and I
was young, dumb, and... Luckily I had sense enough to pull over shortly
thereafter. Lesson learned. : )

There are two kinda person. One who learns from other' mistakes.
One who has to experience it to learn(some times paying the price
with his(her) own life.

Jolly Roger wrote:
On 2016-01-21, Tony Hwang wrote:
Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:22:32 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

What you have said (that accident rates must rise due to cell phone use)
is the result of faulty logic.

Heh heh ... think about that for a second...

A poor joker r an idiot.

Is that supposed to be English? : )

o is missing in front of r.

On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....

On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....


{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....


{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

On 1/20/2016 11:40 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the
driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....


{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

huh That HAS to feel really weird!

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:40 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:


Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}



Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the
driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....


{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

huh That HAS to feel really weird!

And no shift stick. It is all push buttons now. I am still getting used
to it so I can shift without looking at the buttons.

In article , Tony Hwang
wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....

{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

Some of those systems rely on the road markings ... problem is that
many roads don't have markings or may have multiple markings (the real
one and others faded / "blacked out" but still visible) where the
layout has been altered.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:49:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Swamped by the reduction in the accidents due to the better
design of cars and roads, you silly little pathological liar.

You think better design of cars did it?
Really?

They suddenly designed cars better to perfectly coincide with
the absolutely stupendously huge meteoric rise in cellphones
being present in cars?

Not only did they design cars suddenly better at the EXACT
time that cellphones enjoyed their meteoric rise, but, this
new set of design features EXACTLY canceled out the huge
*number* of accidents that were being caused.

Then, it has zero effect when cellphones were suddenly
at the 100% level.

Really?
Wow.

That's super convenient to your argument.

However, even you must see that yours is an extraordinary claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.

And you have none.
You don't even have ordinary data to back up your claim.
I'd suggest you stick with the "Aliens did it" theory.

At least that makes more sense because Aliens can manipulate the
data (with their superior telepathic intelligence) so that it
exactly cancels out the effect in both timing and size.

In article , Tony Hwang
wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:40 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 11:17 PM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/20/2016 8:18 PM, Muggles wrote:

Having sex while driving would be *much* worse, for instance. ; ) I
can

{{{nope ... not gona say nuthing ...... covers mouth ... stomps on
fingers!}}}

Court case here in CT a few years back Car goes into a tree, both
ejected, man is dead. Family sues saying the woman was the
driver. On
witness stand she says no, i was not driving I was giving him a BJ at
the time of the crash.

geez ... does that make her guilty? er ... umm ... she's guilty of
something, I imagine.

Yup! Causing the accident....

{{mumbles}} Just about anything I could say to respond to this
particular distraction while driving is going to come out sounding
hysterical. {{{{{{{{sits on hands!!!!!!}}}}}}

Now self driving car is around the corner.... My new car tugs my hands
on steering wheel if I stray off the lane I am on. If I ignore
it steering wheel turns itself to keep the car in the lane, LOL!

huh That HAS to feel really weird!

And no shift stick. It is all push buttons now. I am still getting used
to it so I can shift without looking at the buttons.

Ah, the ridiculous "flappy paddle" system that's becoming a fad in the
car industry these days. :-( Usually that means it's not a real manual
/ "stick shift" car, but a silly automatic pretending to be a manual /
"stick shift".

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:30:14 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Because that is the subject of this thread. Some people think they are
harmless. Yes, there are many other distractions this just adds more.
I've seen more cell phone users weaving than burger eaters but they
exist too.

Nobody ever said that cellphones weren't distracting.
Nobody ever said that there aren't a zillion distractions.

What was said was that nobody can find any change in the accident
rate that is *required* by the cellphones-are-really-dangerous
argument.

In reality, the people who are arguing that cellphones-are-very-dangerous
are really just guessing.

It sounds good, to them, and that's all they need by way of facts.

That the accidents don't exist, doesn't even faze them.

Even the study itself couldn't find the accidents (and they looked
for them). They looked hard.

All they could find is that the accidents that did occur (which were
at no increased rate whatsoever) seemed to result in 7% more hospitalizations.

I admit, 7% is pretty big.

But how did that second order issue happen without the first order accidents?
Rod Speed gave the only plausible answer - which is that the accidents
that were happening, didn't happen at any greater rate, but that they
were more severe.

I guess that can be a worthwhile conclusion, but, as in all science,
let's see if someone else can back up their claim because something
is logically fishy with the second order issue being greater than
the first order instigation.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:23:42 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:

More insults of intellect. Not surprised.

And, you didn't answer the question.
Not surprisingly.

The police make up the data almost all the time.

They can guess.
They can infer.
They can interrogate.
They can subpoena.

But, in general, they just guess.

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 21:51:10 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Want the police report as proof? That is hard evidence, not an anecdote.

There is a police report that shows that the overall accident
rate in the United States has risen due to cellphone use?

If this police report existed, how come the study's authors
couldn't find it?

Remember, the study did NOT find that the accident rate
increased.

They only found that hospitalizations increased by 7%.

The accident rate was the same with or without cellphone bans.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:47:30 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you
on your lard arse, you silly little pathological liar.

Eloquent.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:44:39 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

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.

Eloquent.

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:54:08 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

You wouldnt know what a fact was if it bit you
on your lard arse, you silly little pathological liar.

Eloquent.