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 <bashley101@gmail.com>
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: <ut7oma$3ojku$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut4s0v$9ei$1@toxic.dizum.net> <ut5bef$353ou$2@dont-email.me>
 <ut5s9m$3bjd7$2@dont-email.me>
 <MPG.4060b42225f15ccb9902c4@news.individual.net>
 <ut7mbt$rvh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:52:10 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9e7ad84118a2adae8d78bceb2565b9ac";
	logging-data="3952286"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18JNIFoUH8Dw/zMszLkljJAT1pB0fKJIWc="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.12.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3B+09rS0pNv0iuZvLgFFltYus/g=
In-Reply-To: <ut7mbt$rvh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
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