Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.android,ca.driving Subject: Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 14:41:46 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 111 Message-ID: <v30aaq$3k1ff$2@dont-email.me> References: <v2ssjo$ddd$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2v70b$pkq2$1@solani.org> <v2vfbf$mks$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <xn0oma1306bpbsj000@reader443.eternal-september.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 23:41:47 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="48a282c990e3f7a1cb060fce819c2823"; logging-data="3802607"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193UOmbRfSgQ5/WCHEr97/WjTM5Gc5o7eg=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:l8CyZLhfY2KNn6/pWdrWSEMfHFA= In-Reply-To: <xn0oma1306bpbsj000@reader443.eternal-september.org> Content-Language: en-CA Bytes: 6257 On 2024-05-26 08:15, badgolferman wrote: > Andrew wrote: > >> badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) : >> >>> As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, >>> and that also includes the attention of the drivers >>> ahead/beside/behind me. >> >> I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200. > > Yes. 2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles. > https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh > > A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle. Surely you have stories of your > own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road. > >> >>> That >>> means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to >>> see if their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to >>> know they are unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready >>> to take evasive maneuvers if necessary. >> >> Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of >> you. > > That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you > well know. > >>> Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can >>> confidently assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted >>> because they are looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they >>> are going to be an accident statistic, but it does mean they are a >>> menace to other drivers with their erratic driving. >> >> Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did. >> Do you know why they give it out? I do. > > No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong > crowd in high school. Tell us why they give it out. > >>> Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of >>> traffic, instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front >>> of them. This has the effect of pissing off people behind them who >>> try their damnest to get around them. Distracted drivers can't >>> stay in their lane, leading to other drivers having to avoid them. >>> Distracted drivers fail to go when the traffic light turns green >>> and cause cars farther back to miss the light cycle and wait again >>> for the green light. There are many more examples, but you get the >>> picture. Surely you can add more. >> >> Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well. >> (See good student discount comment above.) >> >>> Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to >>> say what you want. >> >> The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts. >> That's why they're fools. >> >> The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with >> them. It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably >> disagree with. >> >> Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they >> progress to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will >> invariably disagree simply because they put different weights on each >> fact). >> >> But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted. > > As you may remember, I also work in the field of science. Specifically > raw data collection and processing. I have personally witnessed the > lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support > the narrative he was trying to create. He ordered the processing > algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted. Those > reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over. > >>> I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the >>> only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone >>> drivers have on other drivers. The accident rate can also be >>> influenced by the increased amount of drivers as opposed to the >>> amount of accidents. And it's also hard to determine how many of >>> those actual accidents were the result of distracted driving or >>> some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers caused a far >>> higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one will >>> admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red >>> light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road. >> >> The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles >> driven. >> >> In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip >> during the skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from >> 0% to almost 100%. >> >> Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact. >> The only question is why. > > Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those > facts, especially if those people are the government. If someone don't > think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world. > Moreover, no "trained scientist" would ever look at just the prevalence of cellphones/smartphones and the accident rate and conclude that they can't be a problem... ....because there are too many other variables involved to draw such a conclusion.