On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 20:47:34 -0400, tlvp wrote:

... clearly doing something besides driving.

Let me fix that for you: "instead of", not "besides" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

I remind folks of the quotes in the OP...

"If using mobile phones is significantly dangerous then we could expect to
see a dramatic increase in traffic accidents in the last decade. In fact,
the reverse is true."

"the dramatic increase in use of mobiles also increases the chance of a
fatal crash occurring when a driver is using a mobile phone (both legally
or illegally) and this may or may not be a causal association."

"While mobile phones are a real distraction in the car and their use can
result in serious accidents, real life accident data indicates that mobile
phone use does not contribute significantly to crashes or fatalities."

============
The same is true in the United States, when one looks at *facts*.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:28:05 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

Fact is, anyone who _thinks_ cellphones "cause" accidents, probably also
believes that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

No wonder it crashed, the pilot was probably on his cellphone and
didn't notice the air-speed had dropped to zero.



Aviate ... navigate ... communicate.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:22:14 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident statistics,
because so few are actually stupid enough to do that

Yet the state of California makes over 10 billion dollars alone over ten
years, just from the single cellphone use ticket (nominally $20 for a first
offense, which is the lowest fine in the entire country of the states that
have the laws).

New Jersey makes half of what California makes.

Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket! (==== that's crazy!)

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

There are some things where people trust their intuition more than they
trust facts.

I'm never going to change your intuition, unless you yourself, are able to
discuss facts.

We can discuss intuition until the cows come home, and we'd get absolutely
nowhere, since opinions are as common as body parts.

For example, many people have an "opinion" that glass flows in farmhouse
windows such that it's thicker on the bottom. Fact is, nobody on this planet
has ever shown any proof that this happens. Nobody. In fact, it can't
happen. Yet you don't know how many people have the opinion that it does,
simply because they know enough data (it's an amorphous solid, for example),
to be dangerous.

As another example, many people have an "opinion" that you get colds in cold
weather because it's cold. Fact is, nobody on this planet has ever shown any
proof that this happens. Nobody. In fact, it can't happen. Yet you don't
know how many people have the opinion that it does, simply because they know
enough data (there's a flu season, for example, which is in the winter
months), to be dangerous.

As one more example, many people have an "opinion" that their brake-related
vibration is due to their disc brake rotors "warping" (think potato chip).
Fact is, nobody on this planet has ever shown any proof that this happens at
any appreciable rate on close-to-stock street vehicles. Nobody. In fact, it
can't happen. Yet you don't know how many people have the opinion that it
does, simply because they know enough data (disc brake rotors can get red
hot, for example), to be dangerous.

Your intuition is telling you that cellphones are an added distraction, and
I agree with that assessment of your intuition. So neither one of us
disagrees that cellphones *are* "a" distraction.

Your intuition should also tell you that there is an already long list of
distractions that people handle every single day while driving, and that
many accidents were caused by drivers distracted by *those* (non-cellphone
related) distractions in the past, before cellphones ever existed. I would
agree with that also.

The only thing that's "new", is that cellphones came on the scene, but the
accident rate never changed.

So you and I have to look at that fact (keeping Rod Speed's clever aliens
out of the argument if we can).

How does your intuition account for the fact that the accident rate in both
the United States and in Australia shows absolutely zero effects of the
explosion in cellphone ownership in both countries?

Do you simply ignore that inconvenient fact?
Do you explain it away (as Rod Speed does) by saying aliens manipulated the
data?

If cellphone distractions were as bad as your model seems to predict, why
didn't the accident rate change the moment they came on board, and why
didn't the accident rate zoom up at a rate consistent with the number of
cellphones and why even today does the accident rate not show any effect
whatsoever from cellphone use?

How does your intuition handle that inconvenient fact?

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

Fair enough but when it comes to facts, we have to look at the facts.
There are no accidents.

What are you going to do about *that* fact?

NOTE: I'm not talking freak accidents, nor anecdotal accidents - I'm talking
overall accident rates in both Australia and the United States.

The accidents don't exist.

If you and I can't look at *that* fact, then we may as well start discussing
religion instead. Or maybe that WWII Bomber found on the Moon.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

Fair enough. But what you're forgetting is that the accidents don't exist,
yet cellphones are ubiquitous.

That means a lot of things - but one of the things it means is that the
distraction from a cellphone isn't anywhere nearly as dire as many people
would have you believe.

If the distraction *was* as dire as many people would have you believe, then
there would be accidents.

Where are the accidents?

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

I don't think there is a person on this planet who doesn't agree that
cellphones are yet another distraction in a long list of distractions that
US and Australian drivers face every single day.

However, there isn't anyone on this planet who can *find* any chnage in the
accident rate in either Australia or the United States due to the fact that
a huge number of people own cellphones and a given percentage of those
people are using them while driving every single day.

The fact that millions of miles of driving occur while people are looking at
cellphones *should* change the accident rate.

But it does not.
What does that tell you?

NOTE: Rod Speed is gonna bring up those mathematically clever aliens who
exactly and precisely hid the huge number of accidents that are caused by
people using cellphones from the overall real world record.

On 10/15/2016 9:29 PM, Algeria Horan wrote:


I agree with you, as I've seen that "intensification" of scare value all
over the place, and not only with respect to cellphone-related accidents.

Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially the
same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high
octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.

Is that intuition correct?

Pretty much Gas would burn faster but we all know jets are faster than
gas powered piston planes so therefore. . . draw an incorrect conclusion.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:00:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially the
same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high
octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.

Is that intuition correct?

Pretty much Gas would burn faster but we all know jets are faster than
gas powered piston planes so therefore. . . draw an incorrect conclusion.

Your example is PERFECT!

What you just displayed was a sophism (aka, a false argument, often by way
of example).

Sophisms abound when people on this ng try to "explain" away the fact there
are no accidents.

Most people here can't "parse" a scientific statistic properly, so they fall
prey to the sophists who are (apparently) trying to "intensify" the scare
effect.

With respect to the three high-octane quotes, for a reader to correctly
ascertain both the true and intended meaning of the 3 examples, I wonder if
the process they must employ is that they must:

a. Parse the sentence so as to actively focus on the "high octane" modifier;
b. Consciously realize that the modifier was artificially inserted;
c. Ascertain the reason was to falsely "intensify" the danger;
d. Recognize that this false intensification of danger is a "sophism";
e. Resulting in the reader not being overly alarmed (wrt normal gasoline).

Does that five-step process hold water with the group as the basic process
that must be followed in order for the reader to "properly" understand the
given 3 examples?

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:53:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Seriously, if you just had an argument with your wife would you fall
asleep from boredom? Yes, there are times you could, but that is not
one of them.

BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue"
as
a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.

So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the
"industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their
effects for news-worthy reasons.

For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is
to
artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...

EXAMPLE 1:
http://www.wartimepress.com/archive-...&q=125&FID=748
"six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging
inferno."

Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million
gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much
fuel
(in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!

EXAMPLE 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre
http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/pardo-bruce.htm
"police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."

Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?

Corse they do when someone fills a container with high octane gasoline.

Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a
not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be
absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.

Sure, but the high octane bit is just more detail,
not meant to imply that that makes it worse.

EXAMPLE 3:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/16/ny...-as-arson.html
The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of
''a high-octane'' gasoline.

I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a
high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not
high-octane gasoline.

Its not exactly the same, but clearly it makes no useful difference
if you are using to set fire to a house.

House just one house away from mine was burnt out that way
just a few months ago now, by a loony. Fortunately the owners
were away at the time.

"tlvp" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

... clearly doing something besides driving.

Let me fix that for you: "instead of", not "besides" :-) .

Both are fine.

Algeria Horan wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:56:59 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

I'm sure you posted all this to make a point. What is it?

While most people only care about fantasy, I only care about facts.

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger, which means that
cellphones are just another distraction added to an already long list of
(more distracting) distractions.

Says so right he
"NHTSA Distracted Driving 2014 Summary of Statistical Findings"
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812260

The result of adding yet another distraction to an already long list of
distractions is not even measurable in the real world!

Fact is the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently at
about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while driving (with
visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

That means, even though millions of miles have been driven in the USA with
the user looking directly at cellphones (texting) or talking on a cellphone,
the accident rate in both Australia and in the United States has not been
affected one bit by the utter explosion of cellphone use in both countries.

Says so in the OP, and says so right here for the USA:
http://www2.census.gov/library/publi...es/12s1109.xls
More of the same can be found he https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/#

I asked for the point of your previous post but instead you just
repeat your "facts". What is your conclusion? Why did you bother to
recite your facts?

Fact is, anyone who _thinks_ cellphones "cause" accidents, probably also
believes that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based
sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying,
and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.

Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between
cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:07 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Its not exactly the same, but clearly it makes no useful difference
if you are using to set fire to a house.

The 3 high-octane authors used sophistry to falsely make the reader feel a
greater danger than actually existed:
a. The authors realized their audience wouldn't parse properly;
b. Therefore, the authors artificially inserted the false modifier;
c. Their intent was to intensify the danger perceived by the reader;
d. Where the non-parsing reader would fail to identify the sophism;
e. Therefore perceiving greater danger than truthfully existed.

My point is that we must be on guard for both the "intensification" and the
"sophistry" in similar cellphone scares, just as we should have been on
guard during the McCarthy Era and the Salem Witch Trials.

Mass hysteria is powerful, and my argument is that this is why people
"perceive" such a huge danger from cellphones, when, in fact, the danger is
non existent (as proven by the very real and valid overall accident record).

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

the _use_ of cellphones while driving in the USA is consistently
at about 2% for texting and at abuot 5% for handheld use while
driving (with visible-headset use roughly around half of a percent):
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident
statistics,

This is the first adult-like thing you've said in this thread,

More of your bare faced lies.

so I will respond in like manner.

You just went for more lies and pathetic excuse for trolling.

If we assume that the annual studies by the NHTSA are correct,

Mad assumption given that it is only collected from a subset of
vehicles STOPPED at lights etc. That will grossly over estimate the
percentage of those who actually are that stupid WHEN DRIVING.

then we have to assume that 5% and 2% of all miles driven

They have no idea what so ever about miles driven. ALL
they do is count actual vehicles STOPPED at the lights etc.

in the United States are done while actually
holding the phone and texting on it, respectively.

And is completely useless with texting. Plenty might well text
when STOPPED at the lights who are not actually stupid enough
to do that while actually driving with the car in motion at speed.

It would be interesting to break that number down by miles driven,

Not even possible to do that.

so if someone has a number for the number of miles
driven by the approximately 275 million cars in the
United States, that would be useful data.

But not even possible to get that data.

The lack of accidents

There is no lack of accidents. And even if those figures
were accurate and they clearly cannot be since they
were collected about cars STOPPED AT LIGHTS ETC,
if say 10% of those stupid fools actually had an accident
as a result, even you should be able to work that that
is **** all accidents caused by the use of a cellphone.

is the elephant in the room

There is no elephant and no room either.

which has to be accounted for,

Not when we have seen a dramatic reduction in
driving fatalitys due to better roads and better cars
and when accidents don’t all get reported anymore.

reams of your lying trolling flushed where it belongs

Since 95% of the time people are NOT holding cellphones
while they're driving and 98% of the time they're not texting,

You have no idea what the numbers are when
actually driving at speed except that they are absolutely
guaranteed to be lower than when stopped at the lights etc.

the lack of accidents due to cellphone causing them _could_ be
due to the fact that so few people actually _use_ them while driving.

Of course they are both that and the safer roads and cars.

NOTE: The NHTSA annual statistic does not count people using
the cellphone without headgear and without actually holding it
in their hands, so, we can assume that 7% is greater if we want to
include all people _using_ the cellphone (e.g., via bluetooth
speakersets).

You cant even assume that given that those completely useless stats are
ONLY THOSE USING THEIR PHONE WHEN STOPPED AT THE LIGHTS ETC.

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

talking to someone sitting next to you is exactly
the same as talking to someone through a phone.

Even sillier than you usually manage. The difference is that when
you are talking to someone sitting next to you, that other person
will usually have enough of a clue to stop talking when they see
that you are about to run into something or run a little kid over etc.

The difference between you and me is that you seem to trust your intuition

That observation has absolutely NOTHING to do with intuition, it is a fact.

more than you do facts,

More of your bare faced lies.

whereas I clearly trust facts more so than I trust my intuition.

You wouldn’t know what a real fact was if it bit you
on your lard arse, you pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

(Myers-Briggs stuff)

More of your bare faced lies, you pathetic excuse for a lying troll.

I quoted a fact from a published paper

And lied thru your ****ing teeth about the relevance
of that fact to what was being discussed.

(albeit, all papers have to be properly *parsed*,

Read and comprehended, actually.

because science is all about the details

And you just ignored the inconvenient FACT that those numbers
are completely useless because they ONLY recorded what
happened when the driver was STOPPED AT THE LIGHTS etc.

- and in vitro science

That paper isnt in vitro science.

is particularly dangerous due to the
potential to mis-parse the details).

Nothing whatever to do with parsing, you
pathetic excuse for a lying bull**** artist.

I also quoted a fact from the NHTSA statistical report.

And that statistical report doesn’t even report what you
claimed it was reporting on, you silly little pathological liar.

My opinion comes directly from *those* facts.

Which are completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Where'd you get your opinion from?

That at the top isnt an opinion, it’s a FACT.

HINT: Without a reputable cite,

Don’t need one for that FACT. And that isnt a hint either,
its just more of your pathetic excuse for bull****/trolling.

please do not respond because we
know the answer already anyway.

More of your bare faced pathological lying.

So respond only after you dig up a cite that supports your view.

Go and **** yourself, again. You get no say what so ever on anything I do.

nospam wrote:
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

they have the same understanding as anyone else would, and cb radio is
not always mobile either.

"hi, i'm driving, but wanted to call you about..."

plus, the driver can always toss the phone on the seat at any time, for
any reason, if traffic conditions demand it (or even if they don't).

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

then you aren't looking very hard.

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and
sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation to
the detriment of driving .
Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop
using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible user
would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject talking on
the phone?

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:16:46 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Even better is when jet fuel is involved. It is is for jets it must be
super powerful even though it is essentially kerosene.

I agree with you, as I've seen that "intensification" of scare value all
over the place, and not only with respect to cellphone-related accidents.

Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially
teh
same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high
octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.

Is that intuition correct?

Nope. Jet fuel is deliberately designed to be less of a problem
for arson, because that makes plane crashes safer.

If so, then I'd intuit that kerosene (all types listed above)
would likely be a bit *less* scary as an accelerant for
arson purposes than would gasoline.

They are certainly not as easy to ignite, particularly with jet fuel.

Not that the average arsonist would have any access to jet fuel anyway.

I'm not sure what to look up to confirm that intuitive assumption (and
the Google Police would duly note that I made that search, I'm sure),

You clearly ****ed that up as comprehensively as you did
with the stats you flagrantly dishonestly waved around.

so I wonder out loud here these two somewhat related musings:

Q1: Is kerosene & diesel fuel & jet fuel the same when it comes to
starting
fires?

Nope, jet fuel is deliberately made less volatile for a reason.

And there is no such thing as high octane jet fuel.

Q2: Is kerosene/dieselfuel/jetfuel less (what's the adjective?)

Useful effective

for burning down things?

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that is why the effect of that is invisible in the accident
statistics, because so few are actually stupid enough to do that

Yet the state of California makes over 10 billion dollars
alone over ten years, just from the single cellphone use
ticket (nominally $20 for a first offense, which is the lowest
fine in the entire country of the states that have the laws).

Yes, that is indeed **** all, as I said.

New Jersey makes half of what California makes.

Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket!

BULL****.

(==== that's crazy!)

Not as crazy as you.

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:19:50 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

There are some things where people trust their intuition more than they
trust facts.

Nothing to do with intuition, it’s a FACT that when the person you
are talking to can see when you are about to run into something
or run over a little kid, they are MUCH more likely to warn you
about that instead of just rabitting on like the person on the
other end of the phone conversation will do because they
can't see what is going on outside the ****ing car.

I'm never going to change your intuition,

Nothing whatever to do with intuition.

unless you yourself, are able to discuss facts.

You wouldn’t know what a fact was if it bit you on your lard arse.

We can discuss intuition until the cows come home, and we'd get
absolutely nowhere, since opinions are as common as body parts.

That isnt an opinion, it’s a fact.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:00:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Intuitively, I would think kerosene (high octane or not), is essentially
the
same as diesel fuel (high cetane or not) and jet fuel (which "is" high
octane) when it comes to being used as an accelerant for arson purposes.

Is that intuition correct?

Pretty much Gas would burn faster but we all know jets are faster than
gas powered piston planes so therefore. . . draw an incorrect
conclusion.

Your example is PERFECT!

BULL****.

What you just displayed was a sophism

Wrong, as always.

(aka, a false argument, often by way of example).

That isnt a sophism.

Sophisms abound when people on this ng try to
"explain" away the fact there are no accidents.

There are in fact plenty of accidents you silly
little pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

In fact **** all are actually stupid enough to use their phone with
it in their hand while driving, and only a small percentage of those
actually have an accident while doing that, and the number of
THOSE accidents is swamped by the significant reduction in the
REPORTED accidents due to better roads, particularly fully divided
freeways, and better design of cars due to stuff like antilock braking etc.

Most people here can't "parse" a scientific statistic properly,

You are so ****ing stupid that you can't even manage to work out
that the statistics of what people do when STOPPED AT THE LIGHTS
etc says nothing useful what so ever about what they do when
driving at speed.

reams of your even sillier **** and bare faced lies flushed where it
belongs

Algeria Horan wrote:
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 18:53:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Seriously, if you just had an argument with your wife would you fall
asleep from boredom? Yes, there are times you could, but that is not
one of them.

BTW, one of the NHTSA statistical papers on distractions listed "fatigue" as
a major factor in accidents, far more so than just talking to someone.

So we have to put things into perspective, bearing in mind that the
"industry" likes to blow things out of proportion, to intensify their
effects for news-worthy reasons.

For example, look at this use of "high octane" where the sole purpose is to
artificially *intensify* the scare-value of the word "gasoline"...

EXAMPLE 1:
http://www.wartimepress.com/archive-...&q=125&FID=748
"six million gallons of high octane gasoline provided fuel for the raging
inferno."

Huh? When I parse that sentence, I immediately realize that six million
gallons of _not_ high octane gasoline would have provided just as much fuel
(in fact, exactly the same amount of BTUs) for the raging inferno!

EXAMPLE 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre
http://murderpedia.org/male.P/p/pardo-bruce.htm
"police had recovered ... a container for high-octane fuel tank gasoline."

Huh? What's that? Do such containers even exist?

Specifically, how would a "high-octane" fuel tank differ from a
not high-octane fuel tank? The fire either fuel could cause would be
absolutely indistinguishable in all ways.

EXAMPLE 3:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/16/ny...-as-arson.html
The District Attorney likened the volatility of the accelerant to that of
''a high-octane'' gasoline.

I guess that argument works on OJ Juries, but, the volatility of a
high-octane gasoline is EXACTLY the same as that of a not
high-octane gasoline.

-----------
In all these examples, the news (or the DA) attempts to "intensify" the
scare power of "gasoline"; so my warning here is to be on the lookout for
similar intensification efforts when it comes to McCarthyism, Salem Witch
Trials, and cellphone related distractions.

And every firearm is "high powered" Or Assault rifle when it is not.

In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote:

you *must* have proof.

Agree

which doesn't exist. that's the point.

it's an *asusmption* that call records showing activity around the time
of the *assumed* time of collision is a factor.

it might be related, or it might not. nobody knows exactly what
happened except those involved in the collision and they're not going
to admit it's because of a phone or they're incapable of admitting
anything, i.e., dead.

If you left the house in a rage, driving is not boring. My only point
is, had you not used the phone and got into (or continued) the argument
you'd have a different frame of mind.

driving is very boring. people sometimes fall asleep while driving.

Seriously, if you just had an argument with your wife would you fall
asleep from boredom? Yes, there are times you could, but that is not
one of them.

that doesn't make driving any less boring. there's really not a lot to
do, which is why ****ty drivers manage to avoid crashing all the time.

Another false argument is talking on the phone is no different than
talking to a person in the car. It is. Also depends on the
conversation. To give a quick call "I'm on my way home" takes away less
brain power that to try and give technical instructions on how to
install a piece of equipment.

it's not false at all.

talking to someone sitting next to you is exactly the same as talking
to someone through a phone. in both cases, your mind is focused on the
conversation more than it is the traffic.

No, its not and has been proven.

actually, it hasn't been proven.

When talking to the person next to you it is easy to stop talking if
traffic suddenly needs your attention but not as easy on the phone.
Human nature of how we work.

same with a phone call.

simply say "can't talk" and toss the phone on the seat.

That would be good, but it is not what happens.

that's the fault of the driver. stupid drivers will always exist.

autonomous vehicles can't happen fast enough.

Every situation of both traffic and call are
different. Most of us have seen distracted driving from phone use.
Like the driver in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit with
phone in hand.

who is to say he woudn't have done that without a phone?

stupid drivers have existed since long before there ever were
cellphones.

Actual experience. It is very rare under normal conditions, but more
often I see drivers on the phone not paying attention to tieir
surroundings.

that's only because cellphones are visible, plus you can't tell if
they're using a speakerphone.

people do all sorts of things while driving, such as:

what about the person driving with an unfolded paper map, or reading
the newspaper, or eating breakfast and drinking coffee?

i see people eating/drinking food very frequently.

they even made pads of paper to stick on the windshield so you could
*take notes* while driving.

They exist too, but less than the phone idiots. In the past month, from
personal experience, I saw three on the phone, one reading what may have
been a map. None are acceptable.

that's the point. none are acceptable, but people only focus on phones
being a factor.

On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 22:22:42 -0500, Joe Friday wrote:

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

OMG. Not that idiotic so-called reference again.
It's a freakin' ADVERTISEMENT, for heaven's sake!

From Edgar Snyder & Associates®
A Law Firm Representing Injured People

That blatant ad has so many buzzwords purposefully placed in it that it's
the first hit on Google, for heaven's sake.

Sheeesh.
Does anyone on this ng have any brains?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:26:39 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Mad assumption given that it is only collected from a subset of
vehicles STOPPED at lights etc. That will grossly over estimate the
percentage of those who actually are that stupid WHEN DRIVING.

I stated you form your opinions sans facts while I only use facts.

In fact, I quoted NHTSA annual studies while you quoted absolutely nothing.

Where do YOU get your opinions from then?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:53:30 +1000, F Murtz wrote:

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and
sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation to
the detriment of driving .
Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop
using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible user
would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject talking on
the phone?

Pilots are taught: Aviate, navigate, communicate.

I don't know what a cute corollary is for driving, but the concept is
universal to operating any dangerous machinery.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:58:47 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket!

BULL****.

You always call bull**** facts you don't like.
That simply proves (again) you're (just) an idiot.

Your opinion is utterly worthless.

You could at least look it my fact before claiming it was bull****.
Google: "Alaska ticket cellphone 10,000"

I didn't even mention the additional penalty of a year in jail, you fool.

REF:
It's A $10,000 Fine For Texting While Driving In Alaska
http://gizmodo.com/a-state-by-state-...085/1452086398
Texting While Driving Can Cost You $10,000 & 1 Year in Jail
http://www.techlicious.com/blog/text...-year-in-jail/

On 10/15/2016 11:58 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote


Alaska charges $10,000 per ticket!

BULL****.
(==== that's crazy!)

Not as crazy as you.

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/AST/ABHP/hwysafety.aspx
Alaska Texting While Driving Penalties

Text and drive only Class A Misdemeanor up to $10,000 and 1 year in prison

Injure someone Class C Felony up to $50,000 and 5 years in prison

Seriously injure someone Class B Felony up to $100,000 and 10 years in
prison

Kill someone Class A Felony up to $250,000 and 20 years in prison

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:15:21 +1000, F Murtz wrote:

And every firearm is "high powered" Or Assault rifle when it is not.

Good point.
And the Boston police commissioner Davis called it a "ferocious firefight"
with the unarmed Boston Bomber suspect lying prostrate in the bottom of a
boat.

Algeria Horan wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based
sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying,
and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.

Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between
cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of
Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by
the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are blue in the
face if you like, it stays a bare face lie, you silly little pathological
liar.

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was
to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references,
so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

You haven't produced even one that shows that there isnt.

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey
to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here,

Nope, a very obvious one, that you are a bare
faced pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

if you want to understand what I'm saying,

Nothing to understand with your **** except that you are
a bare faced pathological liar/pathetic excuse for a troll.

and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to
conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their
intuition.

Says he after doing just that with the statistics on what
happens with drivers STOPPED AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS etc.

Those who look at facts

None of the **** you cited does anything of the sort with relevant facts.

have never found any meaningful relationship between cellphone use

THERE ARE NO FACTS ON THE USE OF CELLPHONES WHEN DRIVING AT SPEED.

and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

Because they had no FACTS ON THE USE OF CELLPHONES WHEN DRIVING AT SPEED.

Algeria Horan wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:38:58 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

That is not a fact! If you ask anybody at The U.S. Department of
Transportation that "is leading the effort to stop texting and cell
phone use behind the wheel" you will find that _none_ of them believe
that a WWII Bomber _was_ found on the moon.

The reason for bringing out the WWII Bomber sophistry was to forestall the
inevitable unbelievable response which already came out of the mouth of Rod
Speed for the *reason* that the reliably compiled accident record in both
the US and in Australia shows *none* of the accident rates predicted by the
dire "cellphone distraction" models many people subscribe to.

Your WWII Bomber is not sophistry, it is obvious nonsense. How could
it be the used in the same sentence as "reason" or forestall _any_
response?

The reason for the high-octane example of sophistry + intensification was to
illustrate that we, the reader, must accurately parse all the stated
references, so that we don't fall prey to artificial intensification based
sophistry.

For example, nobody has ever yet ever produced a single reliable document,
which, when accurately parsed by an intelligent reader, shows *any*
relationship, in the real world, between cellphone use and accident rates!

The only readers who believe such evidence exists are those who fall prey to
the sophistry that I tried to illustrate with the high-octane examples.

There's a very deep message here, if you want to understand what I'm saying,
and that message is all about the fact that some people jump to conclusions
that are NOT based on the facts, but which merely reinforce their intuition.

Those who look at facts have never found any meaningful relationship between
cellphone use and accidents in the United States or in Australia.

In your original post you posted the "fact" that cell phone use was a
distraction and distractions can cause accidents. You even produced
some research that confirms it. Now you seem to be arguing that it is
safe for you to apply your lipstick while driving because no one has
found any meaningful relationship between applying lipstick and
accidents. You have even managed to exclude, as evidence, any
accidents in which the application of lipstick and the accident
happened at the same time.

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Its not exactly the same, but clearly it makes no useful
difference if you are using to set fire to a house.

The 3 high-octane authors

No such animal and none of the authors you cited are anything special author
wise.

used sophistry

Nope, used an extra adjective when describing a particular fuel.

to falsely make the reader feel a greater danger than actually existed:

The didn’t do that either.

a. The authors realized their audience wouldn't parse properly;

There is no parsing what so ever involved in what they wrote.

b. Therefore, the authors artificially inserted the false modifier;

It isnt a modifier and it isnt false either, at most not necessary.

c. Their intent was to intensify the danger perceived by the reader;

There actual intention was to have more than the most mundane description.

d. Where the non-parsing reader would fail to identify the sophism;

There is no parsing involved and there is no sophism involved either.

e. Therefore perceiving greater danger than truthfully existed.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

My point is that we must be on guard for both the "intensification"

You never had a point and there was no "intensification" involved either.

and the "sophistry"

There is none of that involved either.

in similar cellphone scares,

What there actually is with cellphone use while driving is the FACT
that doing that distracts the driver more than not doing that does.

Same with eating while driving, etc etc etc too, particularly when
it is something that you have to keep in your hand like a burger etc.

just as we should have been on guard during
the McCarthy Era and the Salem Witch Trials.

Nothing like in fact.

Mass hysteria is powerful,

Who is doing "intensification" now ? You are, that's who.

and my argument is that this is why people
"perceive" such a huge danger from cellphones,

Who is doing "intensification" with that use of the word HUGE now ? You
are, that's who.

when, in fact, the danger is non existent

More of your bare faced lies.

(as proven by the very real and valid overall accident record).

More of your bare faced lies.

Joe Friday wrote

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

Trouble with that one is that it just states the stats and doesn’t
provide a link that shows the original report that makes the claim,
so it isnt possible to see how viable the statistical collection was
on what the cause of the accident was.

"F Murtz" wrote in message
eb.com...
nospam wrote:
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that
cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

they have the same understanding as anyone else would, and cb radio is
not always mobile either.

"hi, i'm driving, but wanted to call you about..."

plus, the driver can always toss the phone on the seat at any time, for
any reason, if traffic conditions demand it (or even if they don't).

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

then you aren't looking very hard.

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and sweet
and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation to
the detriment of driving .

Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop using
the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible user would,
do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject talking on the phone?

Trouble is that you can't stop the other person from continuing to say
what they were saying and any test needs to put the driver in the situation
where they can't just ignore the phone, they need to have to be able to
repeat what the other person on the phone was saying so they can't just
ignore the phone when they need to.

Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Mad assumption given that it is only collected from a subset of
vehicles STOPPED at lights etc. That will grossly over estimate the
percentage of those who actually are that stupid WHEN DRIVING.

I stated you form your opinions sans facts while I only use facts.

You in fact lied thru your ****ing teeth when you said that.

In fact, I quoted NHTSA annual studies

Which say absolutely nothing useful about what percentage
of drivers use their cellphone WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED.

while you quoted absolutely nothing.

Don’t need to when rubbing your nose in the FACT
that that **** you waved around doesn’t say anything
useful ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DRIVERS WHO USE
THEIR CELLPHONES WHILE DRIVING AT SPEED.

Where do YOU get your opinions from then?

By actually using a ****ing cellphone while driving.

In fact while I normally use a bluetooth neckband headset
while using a cellphone while driving, yesterday the ****ing
thing wasn’t working during the garage/yard sale run because
it refused to charge itself the day before and so I had to use
the phone with it in my hand because of that and got quite
a few calls while driving and again found it is a complete
pain in the ****ing arse to swipe the slider to answer the
call and had to try to do that repeatedly with most calls
and that definitely did see me diverge from the lane I
was supposed to be in at least once which would not
have happened if I had not answered the call.

I mostly stopped so I could answer the call.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 16:47:52 +1100, Gordon Levi wrote:

In your original post you posted the "fact" that cell phone use was a
distraction and distractions can cause accidents. You even produced
some research that confirms it.

You just stated my entire point!
Science contains *details*, and therein lies the truth.

As just an example of sophistry with details, let's assume 75% of adult
drivers wear corrective lenses (that's a reasonably reliable figure for the
USA).

Now, what do you think the percentage of accidents might be of people who
wear corrective lenses are?

I don't know the answer, but I'll guess that it's pretty close to the 75%
since corrective lenses shouldn't matter.

Do you notice the sophistry I can attempt with that fact?

I could claim that 75% of all accidents are caused by people who need
corrective lenses!

My point is that you need to UNDERSTAND the facts, which as you can see,
many people, such as Rod Speed has exemplified in spades, do NOT understand
details.

Now let's get to the details of your observation:

Your point is apropos that cellphones must contribute to the likelihood of
accidents, simply because they are yet-another distraction piled upon an
already existing huge set of distractions (all of which existed before
cellphones ever came upon the scene).

While not every post of mine bothers to carve out that agreement, you will
note that many posts of mine in this thread say as much.

So, we both agree that cellphone use must be causing at least a tiny amount
of additional accidents, commensurate with the additional distraction that
using cellphones actually adds.

At the same time, I have already shown that there are far more potent
distractions (e.g., fatigue) which contribute to the accident rate, and even
with those far more potent distractions, the actual total contribution of
distractions to the accident rate was something like (offhand) ten percent
or so (we could doublecheck those figures based on the 2014 NHTSA
statistical survey summary already posted).

So my point is, was, or at least should have always been obvious that there
is an utterly astounding difference between the following true statements:

TRUE STATEMENT 1:
Cellphone use while driving, overall, does not meaningfully (aka measurably)
contribute to the overall accident rate in the USA (or Australia, as the
case appears to be).

TRUE STATEMENT 2:
Cellphone use while driving is an additional distraction, and since
distractions cause accidents, cellphone use will inevitably cause additional
accidents commensurate with the amount of additional distraction that
cellphone use entails.

The problem that I have with communicating these two true statements is that
many people seem to consistently discount the former truth while at the same
time, astoundingly hugely (utterly fantastically) overplaying the latter.

Intensification aside, how do you intelligently deal with such people?

On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:49:40 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/AST/ABHP/hwysafety.aspx
Alaska Texting While Driving Penalties
Text and drive only Class A Misdemeanor up to $10,000 and 1 year in prison

Thanks Ed, for that cite.
Rod Speed, if he's true to form, will come up with some way of
telling you that it's bull****, a lie, or a troll.

Basically, he's wedded to his intuition, which, to him, says a cellphone
ticket can't be 10,000 dollars, so, if you actually show it to him, he will
likely never believe you anyway.

What he comes up with is all sorts of fantastic fabrications (hence my
aliens manipulated the figures analogy and the WWII bomber found on moon
example) to account for the fact that he still likely won't believe your
facts.

There are two kinds of people at least:
a. Those, like me, who are wedded to facts, not opinions, but who can change
their ideas when shown the facts, and,
b. Those, like Rod Speed, who are wedded to his own opinions, and who will
likely never change his mind, facts to the contrary be damned.

Just you wait and see...

Note: A key question is how do you intelligently deal with such people?

Algeria Horan has brought this to us :
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:15:21 +1000, F Murtz wrote:

And every firearm is "high powered" Or Assault rifle when it is not.

Good point.
And the Boston police commissioner Davis called it a "ferocious firefight"
with the unarmed Boston Bomber suspect lying prostrate in the bottom of a
boat.

Another example is when reporters describe an ongoing 40 MPH "High
Speed Chase" and give a 'play by play' of the action describing close
calls of sideswiping or crashing when the viewer can plainly see the
'high speed' was reduced to around five MPH as the perpetrator
navigated around slower or outright stopped vehicles.

I call it 'sensationalism' as do many others. I think they go to school
to learn how to do this. I've also noticed a trend recently toward
starting a newscast with BREAKING NEWS about yesterday's
accident which they still have no further information about.

On 16/10/2016 07:21, Algeria Horan wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 00:49:40 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

http://www.dps.state.ak.us/AST/ABHP/hwysafety.aspx
Alaska Texting While Driving Penalties
Text and drive only Class A Misdemeanor up to $10,000 and 1 year in prison

Thanks Ed, for that cite.
Rod Speed, if he's true to form, will come up with some way of
telling you that it's bull****, a lie, or a troll.

Basically, he's wedded to his intuition, which, to him, says a cellphone
ticket can't be 10,000 dollars, so, if you actually show it to him, he will
likely never believe you anyway.

What he comes up with is all sorts of fantastic fabrications (hence my
aliens manipulated the figures analogy and the WWII bomber found on moon
example) to account for the fact that he still likely won't believe your
facts.

There are two kinds of people at least:
a. Those, like me, who are wedded to facts, not opinions, but who can change
their ideas when shown the facts, and,
b. Those, like Rod Speed, who are wedded to his own opinions, and who will
likely never change his mind, facts to the contrary be damned.

Just you wait and see...

Note: A key question is how do you intelligently deal with such people?

A very good question, I can't think of a way either.
James Wilkinson fits into that same categorically as well.

"Algeria Horan" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:53:30 +1000, F Murtz wrote:

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and
sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation to
the detriment of driving .
Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop
using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible user
would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject talking on
the phone?

Pilots are taught: Aviate, navigate, communicate.

Ours arent.

I don't know what a cute corollary is for driving, but the
concept is universal to operating any dangerous machinery.

And only fools like you don’t even notice that using a
cellphone while doing that is worse for your driving.

Rod Speed wrote:


"F Murtz" wrote in message
eb.com...
nospam wrote:
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Both in Australia, and in the United States, the fact is that
cellphones
aren't any more distracting than talking to a passenger,

I would disagree with that.

When a driver is talking to a passenger there is an unspoken covenant:
driving comes first... and the conversation ebbs and flows around that
understanding. Same thing with CB radios.

OTOH, the person on the other end of a cell phone call has no such
understanding and the driver tends to keep up the conversation no
matter
what is happening around the vehicle.

they have the same understanding as anyone else would, and cb radio is
not always mobile either.

"hi, i'm driving, but wanted to call you about..."

plus, the driver can always toss the phone on the seat at any time, for
any reason, if traffic conditions demand it (or even if they don't).

Also, the operation of a cell phone seems to take some degree of the
driver's attention. I do not see drivers conversing with passengers
and wandering back-and-forth across lane lines - OTOH I see that
regularly with drivers talking on the phone. Dunno what they are
doing, but they are clearly doing something besides driving.

then you aren't looking very hard.

Although I do not handle the phone in the car, any conversations are
carried on the same as when I used two way radio, usually short and
sweet and the phone conversion gets ignored when driving requires more
concentration.
I do concede that some drivers get immersed in the phone conversation
to the detriment of driving .

Has anyone watched the tests of phone use on a track ? How many stop
using the phone when negotiating cones or emergencies as a sensible
user would, do they use psychological tricks to keep the subject
talking on the phone?

Trouble is that you can't stop the other person from continuing to say
what they were saying and any test needs to put the driver in the situation
where they can't just ignore the phone, they need to have to be able to
repeat what the other person on the phone was saying so they can't just
ignore the phone when they need to.
That is the trouble with the test, it is slanted,sensible users would
ignore phone in difficult circumstances, but they want the test to show
dangers so that they can make laws for the lowest common denominator and
make it sound reasonable to the masses.
In one way I suppose they have to cater for the minute number of phone
related accidents, but I wish they did not have to make it difficult for
the majority.