Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,668
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 59
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 77
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 77
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,515
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 77
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,640
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40,893
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to comp.mobile.android,alt.home.repair,misc.phone.mobile.iphone
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
proof found ... 0bama attended school in U.S.A. Lewis Hartswick Metalworking 63 March 11th 10 04:16 PM
I finally found SEO Services r2e8t02p Metalworking 1 December 13th 07 11:19 PM
hi, honney, finally I found you aqdelina Home Repair 1 March 31st 07 10:42 PM
I finally found a good use for old CD's. TwoGuns Woodworking 20 January 2nd 06 03:55 PM
Finally found one! John Anderson Woodworking 26 May 26th 05 12:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"