|
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Interesting facts that give insight to the answer to the question in the
subject line are at this Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association site: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# This is a verbatim quote: "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 AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# "Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal hand-held mobile phone use." Two caveats: - We need to know what they mean by "related", and, - We need to explore what they mean by "illegal" cellphone use. You'll note that they say about Australia the same things I've been saying about the USA, which is: "Almost all Australian drivers now own a mobile phone, but the road fatality reduction has continued despite the exponential increase in mobile phone ownership over the last two decades. " They do point out an interesting quirk of the statistics, which I hadn't thought about, but which makes sense at face value: "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." There is one other interesting statistic: "A recent analysis of 340 serious casualty crashes in Victoria and NSW between 2000 and 2011, using data gleaned from forensic examination of crash scenes and anonymous interviews with drivers has found that in 0.9 per cent of crashes the driver was *using* a mobile phone." Caveat: - Using a cellphone does not mean the accident was caused by using it! They summarize the situation in Australia as: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...tatistics-Cont "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." |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 06:04:19 +0000 (UTC), Algeria Horan wrote:
The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# "Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal hand-held mobile phone use." Ooops. I posted too quickly and didn't check all my words (but all the quotes were accurate). NSW is only New South Wales, which is only a small part of Australia! So ... The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of New South Wales crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: Mea culpa. Here seems to be one answer to the question of what the article meant by "illegal cellphone use" in Australia: "In Australia it¢s illegal in all states and territories to use a hand-held mobile phone at all when driving, or when your car is stopped but not parked. It¢s also illegal to use a hands-free system if it causes you to lose proper control of the car. L and P1 drivers are not permitted to use any hands-free system at all." http://acornrentals.com.au/blog/what...e-phone-users/ |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Algeria Horan wrote
Interesting facts that give insight to the answer to the question in the subject line are at this Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association site: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# Just another of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll. This is a verbatim quote: "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." Because traffic accidents have decreased dramatically at the same time for other reasons, ****wit troll. The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: And that number can only be plucked straight from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell. http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# "Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal hand-held mobile phone use." And that number can only be plucked straight from someone's arse, we can tell from the smell. Two caveats: - We need to know what they mean by "related", and, Nope, that is obvious. - We need to explore what they mean by "illegal" cellphone use. Nope, it is completely trivial to check what is illegal with cellphone use. You'll note that they say about Australia the same things I've been saying about the USA, Because they are just as ****ing brain dead as you are. which is: "Almost all Australian drivers now own a mobile phone, But many of them arent actually stupid enough to use them illegally while driving. but the road fatality reduction has continued despite the exponential increase in mobile phone ownership over the last two decades. " Because the reduction in road fatalitys has been so dramatic that it swamps any effect that illegal cellphone usage has had, ****wit. They do point out an interesting quirk of the statistics, which I hadn't thought about, Because you have always been a terminal ****wit who has never been able to manage even the most basic concepts. but which makes sense at face value: Only to a terminal ****wit such as yourself. "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." Only a terminal ****wit would actually try running that line. There is one other interesting statistic: Wrong, as always. "A recent analysis of 340 serious casualty crashes in Victoria and NSW between 2000 and 2011, using data gleaned from forensic examination of crash scenes and anonymous interviews with drivers has found that in 0.9 per cent of crashes the driver was *using* a mobile phone." All that shows is that most arent actually stupid enough to do that while driving. Caveat: - Using a cellphone does not mean the accident was caused by using it! Duh. They summarize the situation in Australia as: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...tatistics-Cont "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." It in fact indicates nothing of the sort. ALL it indicates is that the fataly rate keeps dropping very dramatically due to various factors that everyone has rubbed your stupid nose in, and that has swamped any effect the use of mobile phones while driving by terminal ****wits such as yourself continue to do. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 17:34:51 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Because traffic accidents have decreased dramatically at the same time for other reasons, ****wit troll. Yes, we've heard your fantastic fabrications before... You've already many times intimated that mathematically clever aliens have exactly negated the astoundingly huge number of accidents that your model predicts, exactly matching not only the date that cellphone ownership started to rise, but also exactly matching the exact very steep tangential rise, and even precisely adjusting their clever negating effects by forming a plateau at exactly the point where cellphone ownership reached 100%. They are indeed clever those aliens you suggest who manipulated the record, such that there isn't ANYTHING whatsoever in the accident record which shows any effect whatsoever. Mind you, your clever aliens still have our damn bomber and we want it back! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote Because traffic accidents have decreased dramatically at the same time for other reasons, ****wit troll. Yes, we've heard your fantastic fabrications before... Just how many of you are there between those ears, ****wit troll ? Not a single fabrication from anyone by you, ****wit troll. reams of your desperate attempts to bull**** and lie your way out of your predicament that any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where they belong, ****wit troll |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Algeria Horan wrote:
Interesting facts that give insight to the answer to the question in the subject line are at this Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association site: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# This is a verbatim quote: "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 AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...atistics-Cont# "Between 1997 and 2011 there were around 50,000 crashes each year on NSW roads and less than 0.1 per cent of all crashes were related to illegal hand-held mobile phone use." Two caveats: - We need to know what they mean by "related", and, - We need to explore what they mean by "illegal" cellphone use. You'll note that they say about Australia the same things I've been saying about the USA, which is: "Almost all Australian drivers now own a mobile phone, but the road fatality reduction has continued despite the exponential increase in mobile phone ownership over the last two decades. " They do point out an interesting quirk of the statistics, which I hadn't thought about, but which makes sense at face value: "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." There is one other interesting statistic: "A recent analysis of 340 serious casualty crashes in Victoria and NSW between 2000 and 2011, using data gleaned from forensic examination of crash scenes and anonymous interviews with drivers has found that in 0.9 per cent of crashes the driver was *using* a mobile phone." Caveat: - Using a cellphone does not mean the accident was caused by using it! They summarize the situation in Australia as: http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org...tatistics-Cont "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." I'm sure you posted all this to make a point. What is it? |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Per Algeria Horan:
The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. Am I missing something? -- Pete Cresswell |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
In article ,
(PeteCresswell) wrote: The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known. Am I missing something? no. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
PeteCresswell wrote
Algeria Horan wrote The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. Its not that hard with voice calls, bit harder with SMS, particularly if they are preparing the first one and haven't sent it yet. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. Sure, but that isnt the only way to know that. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... Yes and that isnt that hard to do. And to do it the other way in this country. The authoritys do know what phone SIMs you have unless you go out of your way to get an anonymous one which is rather harder to do in this country. all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. Fraid not. Am I missing something? Yep. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates asthe United States
On 10/15/2016 08:50 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Algeria Horan: The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. Am I missing something? The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is that generic or just me? -- Cheers, Bev Always carry a length of fiber-optic cable in your pocket. Should you be shipwrecked and find yourself stranded on a desert island, bury the cable in the sand. A few hours later, a guy driving a backhoe will be along to dig it up. Ask him to rescue you. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates asthe United States
On 10/15/2016 12:01 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , (PeteCresswell) wrote: The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known. Am I missing something? no. Actually, determining the approximate time of the crash should be possible: note the phone's present location in the telco's records and then work backwards to determine when it stopped moving -- the crash happened sometime after the last recorded movement. Not precise but it is a better guess than none at all. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
In article , John McGaw
wrote: That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. that's how they do it, and the time of the crash is not always known. Am I missing something? no. Actually, determining the approximate time of the crash should be possible: note the phone's present location in the telco's records and then work backwards to determine when it stopped moving -- the crash happened sometime after the last recorded movement. Not precise but it is a better guess than none at all. not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise, particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites. also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone was not the cause. it's also possible that a *passenger* was using the driver's phone so that the driver would not be distracted, which means even if the phone was in use at the exact time of the crash, it wasn't a factor. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates asthe United States
On 10/15/2016 3:08 PM, nospam wrote:
not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise, particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites. also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone was not the cause. Maybe. If you were arguing with your wife and hung up 30 seconds ago good chance you are still distracted. it's also possible that a *passenger* was using the driver's phone so that the driver would not be distracted, which means even if the phone was in use at the exact time of the crash, it wasn't a factor. Possible, but if the person on the other end tell the police the call ended mid sentence . . . A young lady was killed on the street behind me. She crashed head on mid text. That was an easy one. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote: not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise, particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites. also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone was not the cause. Maybe. If you were arguing with your wife and hung up 30 seconds ago good chance you are still distracted. how is that any different than if you got into a huge fight before you even left the house or work? you'd be distracted for the entire drive. either way, it's not *proof* of driver distraction. not only that, but everyone has stuff on their mind while driving because driving is boring. it's also possible that a *passenger* was using the driver's phone so that the driver would not be distracted, which means even if the phone was in use at the exact time of the crash, it wasn't a factor. Possible, but if the person on the other end tell the police the call ended mid sentence . . . that's different. if all you have are call logs with no exact time of the crash, you can't be sure what happened. A young lady was killed on the street behind me. She crashed head on mid text. That was an easy one. that one might have been, but others are not. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
"The Real Bev" wrote in message ... On 10/15/2016 08:50 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per Algeria Horan: The AMTA indicates that a tenth of 1 percent of Australian crashes are "related" to illegal cellphone use: I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. Am I missing something? The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is that generic No, iphones have both the time and date of calls and texts. or just me? Obviously others that use your model phone get the same result. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
In article , The Real Bev
wrote: The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is that generic or just me? you have a ****ty phone. i haven't seen a phone that doesn't give the call time *and* duration in a really, really long time. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 19:18:21 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Not a single fabrication from anyone by you, ****wit troll. Rod, I'm gonna assume you are an adult, and speak to you like an adult would. I show the facts, as you can read them yourself. You say that the facts are distorted by some unknown force or forces. We both realize that this "can" happen, just as a WWII bomber "can" be on the moon. But it's almost impossible "to" happen. So for you to constantly insist that it *did* happen, is, in essence, a fantastic fabrication. You don't prove it. You just say it. You may as well continue to argue that the WWII Bomber is still on the moon! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nday_Sport.jpg Do you supply any proof of your fantastic assertion? Nope. How am I going to prove to you that a WWII bomber is NOT on the moon? I can't. And that's exactly what you rely your *entire* rebuttal upon. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates asthe United States
On 10/15/2016 3:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ed Pawlowski wrote: not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise, particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites. also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone was not the cause. Maybe. If you were arguing with your wife and hung up 30 seconds ago good chance you are still distracted. how is that any different than if you got into a huge fight before you even left the house or work? you'd be distracted for the entire drive. either way, it's not *proof* of driver distraction. not only that, but everyone has stuff on their mind while driving because driving is boring. I did not say proof, but a possibility. 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. 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. 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. I'm not against using phone while driving, but you have to be careful and at times NOT use it. 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. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
In article , Ed
Pawlowski wrote: not only is it just a guess but determining motion is very imprecise, particularly in rural areas where there aren't very many cell sites. also, if someone used their phone 30 seconds before a crash, the phone was not the cause. Maybe. If you were arguing with your wife and hung up 30 seconds ago good chance you are still distracted. how is that any different than if you got into a huge fight before you even left the house or work? you'd be distracted for the entire drive. either way, it's not *proof* of driver distraction. not only that, but everyone has stuff on their mind while driving because driving is boring. I did not say proof, but a possibility. you can't charge a person with a crime based on a possibility. you can't base statistics on possibilities either. you *must* have proof. 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. 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. 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. I'm not against using phone while driving, but you have to be careful and at times NOT use it. just like anything. 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. what about the person driving with an unfolded paper map, or reading the newspaper, or eating breakfast and drinking coffee? they even made pads of paper to stick on the windshield so you could *take notes* while driving. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote Not a single fabrication from anyone but you, ****wit troll. reams of your pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs I show the facts, That is a bare faced like with that **** being discussed. Not a single fact was shown at all, you silly little pathological liar. You say that the facts are distorted by some unknown force or forces. More of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for a troll. What I ACTUALLY said was that the fatality rate keeps dropping significantly due to a variety of factors like better roads, particularly with fully divided freeways, and due to much better cars that make accident survival much more likely and that that is what swamps any increase in fatalitys due to the few fools like you actually stupid enough to use their phones while driving. all the rest of your bare faced lies/pathetic excuse for trolling flushed where it belongs |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:50:25 -0400, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
I have always wondered how the people who gather statistics determine whether a driver in a crash was using a cell phone. You're approaching the problem the hard way. The facts don't make the news because the facts aren't scary. With cellphone use almost ubiquitous in both Australia and in the USA, nearly 100% of all crashes "involve" cellphones - just like nearly 100% of all crashes involved people wearing socks. It would seem that only a vanishingly-small percentage of drivers would own up to cell phone use when being interviewed for an accident report. They do it anonymously, as reported in the papers I already cited, but even so, you're approaching the problem in the wrong direction. It's like you're trying to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster by finding people who took pictures of the Loch Ness Monster, which you must concede is an unreliable approach by all accounts. That would seem to leave the police finding the cell phone, determining it's ID or phone number, looking up use in the phone company's database, and correlating time of calls with the moment of the accident.... all of which also seem to be of vanishingly-small probability. Am I missing something? You're missing the accidents. Where are the accidents? They don't exist. The record in both Australia and in the United States shows that extremely clearly! These are facts which Rod Speed intimates that mysteriously clever aliens must have manipulated so as to EXACTLY cancel out the astoundingly huge increase in accidents he fabricated in his own mind must have occurred: http://www2.census.gov/library/publi...es/12s1109.xls https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/# If you're asking _why_ the accident rate, in the real world, isn't affected one bit by the explosion of cellphones, it's NOT because people aren't using them. People are using cellphones, for millions and millions of miles driven! https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812326 "the _use_ of cellphones 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)" The most obvious reason why cellphone use isn't causing accidents is so simple, most people don't want to believe it. The reason is simply that the additional distraction of cellphone use is simply added to an already long list of (far more important) distractions, as the NHTSA says so themselves: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812260 .. So what we have is the cellphone is no more distracting than talking to a passenger: Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving Using Meta-Analytic Techniques http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/1/196.abstrac I realize all this doesn't make the news, simply because none of what I'm telling you is the slightest bit scary. And not scary doesn't make news. But you have to read more than the "scary" news to understand boring facts. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
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/# 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 |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 16:24:56 -0400, nospam wrote:
talking to someone sitting next to you is exactly the same as talking to someone through a phone In support of that perfectly valid argument, notice this sentence from an abstract titled "Examining the Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving" ( http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/48/1/196.abstract ). "There was a similar pattern of results for passenger and cell phone conversations" Even the NHTSA says that the additional distraction of cellphones is just another distraction added to an already long list of distractions that drivers handle every single day. The only reliable measure is the real world, where the accident rate hasn't been affected one bit by the explosion in cellphones (and their use) while driving. http://www2.census.gov/library/publi...es/12s1109.xls https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/# The most obvious question to ask is if adding the cellphone distraction is so bad, how come the accident rate in the real world is entirely unaffected? NOTE: Rod Speed's fantastic allegations of alien influence notwithstanding. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:33:21 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
Not a single fact was shown at all, you silly little pathological liar. You are not an adult, or, you don't know what a hypertext link is. Either way, this conversation is over because I prefer to converse with adults. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
nospam 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. So isnt exactly the same at all. in both cases, your mind is focused on the conversation more than it is the traffic. Wrong, as always. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Algeria Horan wrote
Rod Speed wrote Not a single fact was shown at all, you silly little pathological liar. You are not an adult, or, you don't know what a hypertext link is. That hypertext link didn’t have a single fact in it, you silly little pathological liar. ALL it had in it was more lies and OPINION. Either way, this conversation is over More of your lies. reams of your lies flushed where they belong |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Per Algeria Horan:
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. 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. -- Pete Cresswell |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
Algeria Horan 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, because so few are actually stupid enough to do that, and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should have noticed that even if say half of those who are that stupid do have an accident as a result of that terminal stupidity, that would be swamped by the significant reduction in the accident and fatality rate due to much better roads with fully divided freeways and much better design of cars with seat belts, air bags, anti lock braking etc etc etc. reams of your broken record pathetic excuse for trolling and bare faced lies flushed where it belongs |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
After serious thinking Algeria Horan 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. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
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. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates asthe United States
On 10/15/2016 4:24 PM, nospam wrote:
you *must* have proof. Agree 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. 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. 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. 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. what about the person driving with an unfolded paper map, or reading the newspaper, or eating breakfast and drinking coffee? 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. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
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. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
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. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
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" :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:22:14 +1100, 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, so I will respond in like manner. If we assume that the annual studies by the NHTSA are correct, then we have to assume that 5% and 2% of all miles driven in the United States are done while actually holding the phone and texting on it, respectively. It would be interesting to break that number down by miles driven, 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. The lack of accidents is the elephant in the room which has to be accounted for, and mathematically clever aliens are too amorphous for us to rely on them to give us that answer. Since 95% of the time people are NOT holding cellphones while they're driving and 98% of the time they're not texting, the lack of accidents due to cellphone causing them _could_ be due to the fact that so few people actually _use_ them while driving. 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). |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:18:20 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is that generic or just me? "Call details" give date, time, duration, whether incoming or outgoing, &c. (Android 2.3.5 as embodied in antique Moto Droid X2.) Not clear whether "time" shows time call began or time call ended; nor what TZ is in use. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:09:54 +1100, 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 more than you do facts, whereas I clearly trust facts more so than I trust my intuition. (Myers-Briggs stuff) I quoted a fact from a published paper (albeit, all papers have to be properly *parsed*, because science is all about the details - and in vitro science is particularly dangerous due to the potential to mis-parse the details). I also quoted a fact from the NHTSA statistical report. My opinion comes directly from *those* facts. Where'd you get your opinion from? HINT: Without a reputable cite, please do not respond because we know the answer already anyway. So respond only after you dig up a cite that supports your view. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 21:01:44 -0400, tlvp wrote:
The record on the phone itself? Mine gives the date, but not the time. Is that generic or just me? "Call details" give date, time, duration, whether incoming or outgoing, &c. (Android 2.3.5 as embodied in antique Moto Droid X2.) Not clear whether "time" shows time call began or time call ended; nor what TZ is in use. The real bull elephant in the room is the fact that the accident rates are entirely unaffected in both Australia and in the United States by the use of cellphones (we can presume NHTSA numbers of 5% for handheld and 2% for texting) while driving. The female elephant in the room is the fact that cellphones are likely to be at least as common in cars as drivers with eye-correction (glasses or contacts). That is to say, they're nearly ubiquitous, so, of course they're gonna be found "in use" during an accident in a huge number of situations. For example, about 75% of American adults apparently wear eye correction (either near or far sighted or both): http://glassescrafter.com/informatio...s-glasses.html Therefore, we'd expect about 75% of all accidents to "involve" a driver who needs corrective devices. Notice how horrible a statistic I can make news out of if I want to? I could get a Salem-Witch-Trial McCarthyism-Red-Scare style news story out the door simply by fomenting the concept that people needing corrective devices "cause" 75% of all the accidents! My point is that it's entirely the wrong approach to simply see if the cellphone was being _used_ at the time of the accident, just as it would be the wrong approach to see if corrective lenses were being used at the time of the accident. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates asthe United States
On 10/15/2016 8:45 PM, Algeria Horan wrote:
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. Of course. 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! Even better is when jet fuel is involved. It is is for jets it must be super powerful even though it is essentially kerosene. ----------- 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. I agree, but they do exist, as does applying makeup, eating lunch, reading maps. Phones are gaining in numbers though. |
Does Australia have similar cellphone "related" accident rates as the United States
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? 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. 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), 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? Q2: Is kerosene/dieselfuel/jetfuel less (what's the adjective?) for burning down things? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter