Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Real Bev Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android Subject: Re: No fault cell phone law Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:52:08 -0700 Organization: None, as usual Lines: 150 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:52:10 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9e7ad84118a2adae8d78bceb2565b9ac"; logging-data="3952286"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JNIFoUH8Dw/zMszLkljJAT1pB0fKJIWc=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.12.1 Cancel-Lock: sha1:3B+09rS0pNv0iuZvLgFFltYus/g= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 7898 On 3/17/24 2:12 PM, Andrew wrote: > Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 : > >> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with >> the right of way." > > First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron. > (see below for the reason why I say that with confidence) > > Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example, > where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like > blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but > they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal). > > The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker, > without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so > that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to). That's generally known as "keeping him honest". There are a number of sports variants -- a sudden dropshot from the backcourt in tennis, for instance. > On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close, > is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back > quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with > that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in > NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn. Same thing. >> It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of >> way. Instead, there are various situations where you >> must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none >> of those situations exist. > > Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical > rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large > container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are > positioned correctly in the red right return channel. > >> One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in >> your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may >> be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or >> even drive in a way that threatens to do so. > > Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the > instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even > proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side, Can you give me a cite for that? I've often wondered about the wait-requirement for the little old lady on the far side of the 6-lane street who will need 3 cycles to actually make it across the street. > even though > the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the > midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal > to proceed. I figure I can go if there's no chance I could hit him even if he suddenly broke into a sprint. > Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones > increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States > from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a > vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census > Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident > stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump, > no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized > accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and > after cell phone use came into existence. > > I need to repeat that. > And I need to make the statement very strong. > > It's all about MATH. > Stan... You know math, right. > > Where are the increase in the accident rates? > They do not exist. > > That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are > ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal > people). They can't comprehend math. > > Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up. > > First off, cellphones ARE a distraction. > Yet, they're just one more of many. > > Where people handle distractions while driving all the time. > > Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go > up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going > up? > > Not in the United States they didn't. > Not even a blip. > > Why is that? > > Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron. > > Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well > educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since > it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what. > > They don't. > They never did. > > There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good > drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at > the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and > insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident > rate. > > Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States > (nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything > whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident > rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states. > > Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is > strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda). > > Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes > what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind. > > 1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers) > 2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers) > 3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers) > > But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which > has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence > that cellphones did anything to the accident rate. > > The reason is simple. > > The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions. One thing I noticed -- the sudden decrease in peripheral perception (different from vision, I think) when I picked up the phone to answer it. I did this once, when I first got a cellphone. Never again. I rarely need to make/receive calls so ignoring or pulling over just isn't a big deal. -- Cheers, Bev "Attention: All virgins report to Paradise immediately!! This is not a drill." --MWilliams