Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andrew Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone Subject: Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 08:26:36 -0000 (UTC) Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com) Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 08:26:36 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com; logging-data="68718"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.13 Cancel-Lock: sha1:p+PqeFXpBo4a+xZD2pIB5avPwsM= sha256:1IM8VI/K19ihRIDZzIc4VfIfOXUjlINLG4WGxrw6l+g= sha1:ucswerydB9kGRYisBmkdvn29jng= sha256:BpXDsgIQ5/zY4lwwY+B0LH69Z92kZkLjnAYGFgfoDoM= Bytes: 7408 Lines: 127 badgolferman wrote on Fri, 13 Dec 2024 02:55:51 -0000 (UTC) : > I vaguely recall you posting a study that showed the accident *rate* > has decreased. Hi badgolferman, I am trying to understand *your* position; for that, it doesn't matter what I said - what only matters is what you think happened to the accident rate. Do you think the accident rate doubled? Tripled? Quadrupled? Pentupled? > I don't remember if it was a rate or total accidents though. It's extremely important to note that the number of accidents will depend on many factors, whereas the accident rate is a typical normalized value. Sensationalists talk about accidents; scientists talk about rates. > If it was a rate then that could still mean there are more accidents than ever. The sensationalist media will talk about accidents (e.g., number of plane accidents) because most people have no education in math or sciences. But a respectable scientist or engineer would state their conclusions based on rates (e.g., number of plane accidents per passenger mile) simply because science uses normalized values. The number of accidents fluctuates wildly based on a variety of unrelated factors such as Covid lockdowns, the economy, gas prices, weather, etc. > Considering the population of the US has risen by > roughly 100 million people since my teenage years it likely means the > total accidents have risen as well. Reliable scientists or engineers concludes based on rate, not number. The reason is rate is normalized. Numbers fluctuate wildly. Those wild fluctuations are completely unrelated since they depend on gas prices, the economy, covid lockdowns, weather anomalies, construction, etc. The rate has *always* been the typical normalized value for accidents. Note: I'm well aware sensationalist non-scientific entities quote accidents and not rates because as they can pick any convenient period they like. > Regardless of what the study says about accident rates, I wonder how > can they even tell if cell phones were a major cause of the accidents. Rest assured you can't. Everyone who has studied this problem knows this fact of life. But you can infer based on the accident rates, since your own basic logic predicts a skyrocketing accident rate which you can't find ever happening. Doesn't that make you wonder about your conclusions when there is no data supporting what you (and I) would intuit to be the case, badgolferman? Notice both of us intuit that (a) cellphones are a distraction and (b) distractions are a cause of accidents so, duh, (c) the accident rate must have skyrocketed during the meteoric rise of USA cellphone ownership. Think about that. 1. A million people (including me) intuit that rates skyrocketed. 2. One person out of a million (i.e., me) checks the data. The fact that people "think" the rates skyrocketed is one reason why I say most people are incredibly stupid even as I "would have thought" they did. Just like with my checking of Apple's claims of "it just works", 999,999 out of a million people don't bother to check Apple's claims; yet, I do. Where is the rate increase your intuition (and mine) predicts? It doesn't exist. > Considering cars today are outfitted with a myriad of safety features > such as collision avoidance, lane assistance, and several other ones > which help distracted drivers who aren't looking at the road avoid > accidents... it begs the question whether your lower accident rate is > really a result of improved automobile safety features. Please understand that I'm not an idiot. Of course the accident rate is affected by other factors. Duh. That's why it has been trending downward. There are myriad things that make vehicles less prone to accidents, from the third taillight to brighter headlights to better road reflectors to better trash cleanup to better plowing to brighter road signs to traffic lights to crosswalk flashing lights to speed radar signs to police enforcement to tire pressure monitors to anti-lock braking to disc brakes versus drum brakes to taller vehicles (such as SUVs) to better pavement traction (e.g., grooves) to better traffic monitoring, etc. Notice though that people are screaming how unsafe cellphones are, and that is something that we know the exact years they came into play where all those other factors above have been slowly trending downward for decades. If cellphones are as dangerous as you think they are, what do *YOU* think happened to the accident rate when cellphone ownership had a meteoric rise? Did it double? Triple? Quadruple? Pentuple? Was it a ten-fold increase? What do *YOU* think happened to the accident rate in the USA? a. Before cellphones b. During the meteoric skyrocketing rise in the use of cellphones c. And thereafter If you can't answer that simple question, then no intelligent discourse is possible because your position isn't a position. It's just an emotion. Note: Nothing wrong with emotions, mind you; but it's not science. > Regardless of the answer, I trust my own eyes and instinct when it > comes to identifying vehicles that are a menace to other drivers on the > road. I'd rather be around an aggresive driver than a driver paying > more attention to their phone. I'm trying to understand what *YOUR* position is on the danger you feel. There is no way for anyone to have an intelligent conversation with anyone else on this topic until they each state their position - which you & Chris haven't stated. All you've done is say mine is wrong. Fine. Alan Baker does that too. So did nospam. As does Jolly Roger. Without knowing *YOUR* position - there is no way to have any discussion. What do *YOU* (& Chris) think happened to the accident rate given how extremely dangerous you feel those cellphones are when used while driving?