Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
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/ |
#2
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/ Wow! Give me a second, I gotta text this to my... Oh, ****!! Screeeeech, Crash, Tickle, Tinkle. Son-of-a-bitch, there goes my insurance rates. |
#3
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
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. -- Q: how do you titillate an ocelot? A: you oscillate its tit a lot. |
#4
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0800, Jack Black wrote:
Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes accidents! You are confused. They couldn't find any direct relationship to accidents whatsoever! Says so right in the article. They were grasping at straws trying to find something (anything) related. |
#5
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
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. All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 |
#6
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 19/01/2016 07:41, Vlad Lescovitz wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 11:44:05 -0800, Jack Black wrote: Finally, after years of looking, they found proof that texting causes accidents! You are confused. They couldn't find any direct relationship to accidents whatsoever! Says so right in the article. They were grasping at straws trying to find something (anything) related. Nope. They tested explicitly whether certain factors affected car crash related hospitalisations. The texting ban as well as seatbelt laws had a significant effect in reducing hospitalisations. All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 |
#7
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote:
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. What's strange is that they found no relationship whatsoever to accidents. Methinks there is a smell emanating from the data. For example, just having a cellphone could mean that you can call for an ambulance which will take you to the hospital even if you were just scratched up a bit. If you didn't have the cell phone, you wouldn't easily have that ambulance, which means you wouldn't have that ride to the hospital. You might just walk home, or drive home, or take a longer time to get "official" help (like from police or ambulance). So, BECAUSE they can't find ANY relationship to accidents, they can only find a relationship to hospital visits, but that could just be BECAUSE it was convenient. Any study that can't find any relationship to accidents is nearly worthless. |
#8
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:29:14 +0000, chris wrote:
Nope. They tested explicitly whether certain factors affected car crash related hospitalisations. The texting ban as well as seatbelt laws had a significant effect in reducing hospitalisations. But there was absolutely no relationship to ACCIDENTS! I wonder if the answer is as simple as those accidents that had no cell phone in the vehicle were unable to easily summon the ambulance. We all know that millions upon millions of people go to the hospital after an accident simply because they want to establish that their neck hurt (especially if they were the ones rear ended). We'd have to look but I wonder if simply having the phone in the car made all the difference to the data but AFTER the accident. Anyway, it's moot really, because they could find NO EVIDENCE of increased accidents, so, they're just bull****ting the data because without accidents, you have no injuries. |
#9
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 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. All of which makes perfect sense. Not the gas prices. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 |
#10
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
chris wrote 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. What's strange is that they found no relationship whatsoever to accidents. Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents. Methinks there is a smell emanating from the data. There certainly is with the claim that gas prices have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes. For example, just having a cellphone could mean that you can call for an ambulance which will take you to the hospital even if you were just scratched up a bit. But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether there is a ban on texting while driving wont have any effect on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident. If you didn't have the cell phone, you wouldn't easily have that ambulance, That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident. which means you wouldn't have that ride to the hospital. You might just walk home, or drive home, or take a longer time to get "official" help (like from police or ambulance). Or get someone else with a cellphone to call an ambulance. So, BECAUSE they can't find ANY relationship to accidents, they can only find a relationship to hospital visits, Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is. but that could just be BECAUSE it was convenient. No. Any study that can't find any relationship to accidents is nearly worthless. But it clearly finds a relationship to the more serious accidents that produce hospitalisation. A more important criticism of the study is that no relationship was found with gas prices which is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to accept. |
#11
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Gordon Shumway posted for all of us...
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/ Wow! Give me a second, I gotta text this to my... Oh, ****!! Screeeeech, Crash, Tickle, Tinkle. Son-of-a-bitch, there goes my insurance rates. What did your dash cam show? Oh, you didn't have a dash cam... -- Tekkie |
#12
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
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, 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. |
#13
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:23:39 +0000, chris wrote:
Possibly, 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. That's a good point, although, just to the point of price, there *is* a huge (possibly static?) difference in price state-to-state for gas at any one time. Why California Drivers Pay Highest Gas Prices http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/...st-gas-prices/ Californians seem to be paying higher gas prices than anywhere else in the country. According to AAA, the current national average is $2.12 per gallon. Here is a look at the gas prices from around the country: NATIONAL AVERAGE PRICES State Gallon Colorado $2.00 Florida $2.15 Illinois $2.08 Massachusetts $2.13 Minnesota $2.09 Montana $2.34 New Jersey $1.86 North Carolina $2.01 Pennsylvania $2.32 Texas $1.90 Washington State $2.50 Source: AAA In California, drivers pay an average of $2.78 a gallon, 60 cents above the national average. |
#14
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 05:50:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents. Like *all* arguments for restrictions on cellphone use while driving, they *require* additional *highly unproven* assumptions. Occam's razor tells us that the simplest answer is the best answer until/unless we know otherwise. The simplest answer is that they could find absolutely zero increase in accidents, period. However, I do agree, that the data stinks because of other issues (like who cares about hospital visits if the accidents aren't happening in the first place, and, if the accidents are happening, then they'd have to prove they are worse for us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack. There certainly is with the claim that gas prices have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes. I have to agree with you there. Lower prices would mean greater miles, which should mean greater accidents. We don't need to look further for second-order issues, but, since the study could find no first-order indications, those greater accidents would likely result in greater numbers of hospital visits. But, without the accidents, they're just shooting blind. But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether there is a ban on texting while driving wont have any effect on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident. Good point. I was trying to figure out *why* they couldn't find accidents, yet, they found more hospital visits????? Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said, but, 'cmon, they can't even find the accidents, let alone prove they're worse. That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident. OK. I understand that single-vehicle accidents would be in a minority. But, then, how come they can't find accidents, but they can find hospital visits? Something stinks in the data. Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is. I understand your point, which is this, in effect: 1. Cell phone use 2. Causes not more accidents, but, 3. Causes same number of accidents, which 4. Are more serious. While I agree *that* would account for the data, seems to me that it's pretty clear that the *rate* of accidents didn't change. But, it seems *fishy* that the hospital visits did change. A more important criticism of the study is that no relationship was found with gas prices which is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to accept. Yes. I agree. Gas prices lowering should increase miles driven which should increase accidents period. Something is fishy in this data, but, one takeaway that was unintended, I'm sure, is that the accident rate itself certainly didn't increase or decrease. Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE conclusion that they would have wanted to prove, so, that it wasn't proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study. |
#15
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote:
All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by driving while using a cell phone? The *accidents* don't seem to exist. |
#16
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 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. 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. |
#17
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/19/2016 6:13 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote: All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by driving while using a cell phone? The *accidents* don't seem to exist. How would anyone ever know? Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident? Yes officer, the accident was all my fault. I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road. |
#18
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 Not really that strange if texting results in worse accidents. Like *all* arguments for restrictions on cellphone use while driving, they *require* additional *highly unproven* assumptions. Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that texting while driving is absolutely guaranteed to be harder to do than driving without texting at all. Occam's razor Is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed. tells us that the simplest answer is the best answer until/unless we know otherwise. Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort. The simplest answer is that they could find absolutely zero increase in accidents, period. BULL**** when its obvious that texting while driving is much harder to do than driving without texting. However, I do agree, that the data stinks because of other issues (like who cares about hospital visits if the accidents aren't happening in the first place, They obviously are happening to get a hospital admission. and, if the accidents are happening, No if about it. then they'd have to prove they are worse for us to go down that (possible, but unlikely) tack. Wrong on both counts. Nothing unlikely about it. There certainly is with the claim that gas prices have no effect when that must affect traffic volumes. I have to agree with you there. Lower prices would mean greater miles, which should mean greater accidents. More accidents, actually. We don't need to look further for second-order issues, Corse we do when trying to decide if texting while driving produces more accidents that are serious enough to result in hospitalisation. but, since the study could find no first-order indications, Another lie. those greater accidents would likely result in greater numbers of hospital visits. We aren't talking about hospital VISITS, we are talking about HOSPITALIZATION if the original paper has been accurately reported. But, without the accidents, they're just shooting blind. Even sillier than you usually manage. Nothing blind about it and no shooting at all either. But when almost everyone has a cellphone now, whether there is a ban on texting while driving won't have any effect on whether you can call an ambulance after an accident. Good point. I was trying to figure out *why* they couldn't find accidents, yet, they found more hospital visits????? It looks like they could find accidents but the rate of those that required HOSPITALIZATION, didnt vary between the states that ban texting and those that didnt, if chris has summarised the paper accurately. Sure, the accidents can be worse, as you said, but, 'cmon, they can't even find the accidents, Thats a lie. let alone prove they're worse. And so is that. The rate of hospitalization proves that they are worse in the states that dont ban texting. That's only true of single vehicle accidents where no one else stops to see if you are ok after the accident. OK. I understand that single-vehicle accidents would be in a minority. But, then, how come they can't find accidents, They can. but they can find hospital visits? Hospitalization, not hospital visits. That may well be because the data on HOSPITALIZATION is much more reliable than the data on accidents, no matter how minor that dont even get reported to anyone. Something stinks in the data. That doesnt. Which must have some relationship to how serious the accident is. I understand your point, which is this, in effect: 1. Cell phone use 2. Causes not more accidents, I didnt say that. but, 3. Causes same number of accidents, which Or that. They JUST said that there is no variation on that between the states which ban texting while driving those that dont if chris has reported what the paper says accurately. 4. Are more serious. While I agree *that* would account for the data, seems to me that it's pretty clear that the *rate* of accidents didn't change. You dont know that either. But, it seems *fishy* that the hospital visits did change. Not if that data is much more reliable and it likely is. A more important criticism of the study is that no relationship was found with gas prices which is hard to credit given that that must affect traffic volume and so the accident rate, unless the serious accidents that do involve hospitalisation mostly involve single vehicle accidents which is hard to accept. Yes. I agree. Gas prices lowering should increase miles driven which should increase accidents period. Something is fishy in this data, but, one takeaway that was unintended, I'm sure, is that the accident rate itself certainly didn't increase or decrease. You dont know that either. Accident *rate* would have been their NUMBER ONE conclusion that they would have wanted to prove, But they may not have reliable data on all accidents, particularly those that aren't bad enough to get reported to anyone because the driver just swerves all over the road etc and doesnt actually hit any other car or any stationary object. so, that it wasn't proved can't possibly be an oversight of the study. But may be an unavoidable consequence of the lack of anything like as good data on the total accident rate. |
#19
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 . com,
Porky Pig wrote: On 1/19/2016 6:13 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote: On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:22:28 +0000, chris wrote: All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by driving while using a cell phone? The *accidents* don't seem to exist. How would anyone ever know? Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident? 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. |
#20
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
On 1/19/2016 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. |
#21
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:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:29:14 +0000, chris wrote: Nope. They tested explicitly whether certain factors affected car crash related hospitalisations. The texting ban as well as seatbelt laws had a significant effect in reducing hospitalisations. But there was absolutely no relationship to ACCIDENTS! I wonder if the answer is as simple as those accidents that had no cell phone in the vehicle were unable to easily summon the ambulance. We all know that millions upon millions of people go to the hospital after an accident simply because they want to establish that their neck hurt (especially if they were the ones rear ended). We'd have to look but I wonder if simply having the phone in the car made all the difference to the data but AFTER the accident. Anyway, it's moot really, because they could find NO EVIDENCE of increased accidents, so, they're just bull****ting the data because without accidents, you have no injuries. I have to wonder at people who think not looking at the road and thinking about something else as well, isn't dangerous. I reckon next time they go to their doctor, the doc should TXT while examining them. I'm sure that won't lead to any misdiagnoses ;-) -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
#22
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 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that texting while driving is absolutely guaranteed to be harder to do than driving without texting at all. Look. Eating a banana is harder to do while texting, but you can still do it without slipping on the floor. Driving is so easy that almost every single person can do it. Driving while distracted is impossible NOT to do. Nobody has ever driven a single mile without some distraction. There are literally thousands of distractions every mile you drive. You handle them. For most stupid people, they'd *think* cellphone are a *big* distraction. So, with *huge* increases in cellphone ownership, you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase in cellphone use, where you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase of distractions, where you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase in the accident rate. I would too. It *sounds* logical. But nobody on the planet can *find* these new accidents. Not even this biased study can find them. What does *that* tell you? |
#23
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 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Occam's Razor says nothing of the sort. What does Occam's Razor mean, to you? |
#24
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 13:00:53 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
BULL**** when its obvious that texting while driving is much harder to do than driving without texting. Rod. It's pure logic. Both you and I would *think* that the following makes sense: 1. Driving is dangerous 2. Cellphones are distracting. 3. Driving while distracted by cellphones is more dangerous. 4. There are a *huge* number of cellphones used while driving. 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents. That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents tells us something. What does it tell you Rod? |
#25
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make a difference
Porky Pig wrote
Paul M. Cook wrote chris wrote All of which makes perfect sense. The original article is he http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2014.302537 Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by driving while using a cell phone? The *accidents* don't seem to exist. How would anyone ever know? By checking whether they were texting at the time of the accident, particularly with those who only have the driver in the car at the time. Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident? They dont have any choice in that in some situations. Yes officer, the accident was all my fault. I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road. |
#26
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:41:51 -0500, Porky Pig wrote:
Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by driving while using a cell phone? The *accidents* don't seem to exist. How would anyone ever know? Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident? Yes officer, the accident was all my fault. I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road. How would anyone ever know? Are you crazy? If there were more accidents, they'd show up in the accident reports. Accident reports have been compiled accurately in the USA for decades. |
#27
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
|
|||
|
|||
They finally found proof texting bans - does it make adifference
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 22:18:44 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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 can probably find a case where eating a banana caused an accident where the driver was found with a banana in her hand. Your anecdote is just that. An anecdote. It's "bro science" for the masses. Not real science. Read this: How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tific-results/ Or this: Seeing is Not Always Believing: Why Anecdotal Evidence is Not Proof http://osmosis-online.com/2010/01/09...-is-not-proof/ |
#28
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 Nothing *highly unproven* about the FACT that texting while driving is absolutely guaranteed to be harder to do than driving without texting at all. Look. Nothing to look at except more of your mindless silly stuff, bare faced lies and denial. Eating a banana is harder to do while texting, but you can still do it without slipping on the floor. Driving a car in traffic is just a tad harder to do that eating a banana and much more likely to produce an accident that requires hospitalisation too. Driving is so easy that almost every single person can do it. And it is now the single biggest cause of death for those between the ages of 15 and 70. Driving while distracted is impossible NOT to do. Even sillier than you usually manage. Nobody has ever driven a single mile without some distraction. There are literally thousands of distractions every mile you drive. You handle them. Texting is much harder to handle than any other distraction except possibly the kids killing each other in the back of the car. For most stupid people, they'd *think* cellphone are a *big* distraction. Anyone with even half a clue knows that texting while driving is a BIG distraction. So, with *huge* increases in cellphone ownership, you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase in cellphone use, Not when hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to text while driving. where you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase of distractions, where you'd expect a correspondingly huge increase in the accident rate. Not when hardly anyone is actually stupid enough to text while driving. I would too. It *sounds* logical. But nobody on the planet can *find* these new accidents. You're lying thru your teeth, again. Not even this biased study can find them. You're lying thru your teeth, again. What does *that* tell you? That you are a bare faced pathological liar. |
#29
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 |
#30
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 BULL**** when its obvious that texting while driving is much harder to do than driving without texting. Rod. It's pure logic. Nope. Both you and I would *think* that the following makes sense: 1. Driving is dangerous 2. Cellphones are distracting. 3. Driving while distracted by cellphones is more dangerous. Yes. 4. There are a *huge* number of cellphones used while driving. You dont know that. 5. Hence, there *should* be more accidents. And there are with the fools stupid enough to use their phones while driving. That nobody on this planet can *find* those accidents You can keep spewing that bare faced lie till you are blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced lie. tells us something. Like hell it does. What does it tell you Rod? That you are a bare faced liar that wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse. |
#31
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 in message worldhosting.com... On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 20:41:51 -0500, Porky Pig wrote: Except, where are the accidents everyone seems to say are *caused* by driving while using a cell phone? The *accidents* don't seem to exist. How would anyone ever know? Would anyone be stupid enough to admit their texting caused an accident? Yes officer, the accident was all my fault. I was busy texting instead of paying attention to the road. How would anyone ever know? By checking if the phone was being used at the time of the accident, stupid. Are you crazy? No need to ask if your are a bare faced liar, the answer is obvious. If there were more accidents, There are. they'd show up in the accident reports. They do. Accident reports have been compiled accurately in the USA for decades. And the increase in accidents due to those actually stupid enough to use their phones while driving has been swamped by the reduction in accidents due to the better design of the roads and the rate of injury to those in the car by the better design of the cars. |
#32
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
Ed Pawlowski wrote 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 can probably find a case where eating a banana caused an accident where the driver was found with a banana in her hand. You can certainly find plenty that were due to someone actually stupid enough to eat while driving. Your anecdote is just that. An anecdote. Wrong, its a fact. It's "bro science" for the masses. Not real science. Wrong, as always. Read this: How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results Why subjective anecdotes often trump objective data http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...tific-results/ Even sillier than you usually manage. Or this: Seeing is Not Always Believing: Why Anecdotal Evidence is Not Proof http://osmosis-online.com/2010/01/09...-is-not-proof/ Ditto. |
#33
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 19:59:18 +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. |
#34
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 19:26:05 +1100, 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. |
#35
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 19:26:05 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Anyone with even half a clue knows that texting while driving is a BIG distraction. Rod, I know you can read. So, let's try this again, since, you must be also intelligent. If you can't *understand* what I'm writing, it's either you're not intelligent enough to understand, or you don't want to understand. I'm not saying anything that isn't obvious. Let's repeat (but you really need to be able to read). 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. That most of us (including you but not including me) simply *assume* unproven external forces (aliens should be added to that list) are "manipulating" or "changing" the data is patently ridiculous, but, if you (or anyone) can *show* that manipulation of the data, I'm all ears. What you constantly refuse to do is read and understand the facts when they don't completely fit your assumptions. Most people are like that. The facts are all that matter. 1. The study couldn't find the increased accidents (no study can because the accidents don't exist). 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). 3. The study did find increased HOSPITALIZATIONS, which is interesting as that has to be a second-order effect. So, what I find interesting is that, while the study could not find increased accidents, they found increased hospitalizations. Your conjecture is apropos, given *those* facts, which is something like: A. The cellphone distraction may not be causing any increased accidents, B. But the accidents that were already happening "may" be more severe. That's a reasonable take on the data. |
#36
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 19:27:43 +1100, 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 that don't fit your preconceived notion of what you feel should be, is that you all *invent* reasons (all unproven) for the facts being as they are. You may as well invent aliens who are manipulating the data. |
#37
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 19:31:10 +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? |
#38
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:
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... -- If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
#39
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 19:50:33 +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. |
#40
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 19:34:38 +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. So your answer is merely cherry picking, and hence, useless for an overall idea of what is going on. It's as if you're a fifteen century philosopher who notices maggots on meat and proclaims spontaneous life has formed on your meat. |
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 |