Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!us1.netnews.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andrew <andrew@spam.net>
Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android
Subject: Re: No fault cell phone law
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:02:27 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <ut8ldj$1t5s$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
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> <ut7oma$3ojku$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:02:27 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="62652"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vVNYoz45INzl81g8IqtxwkFq3Vg= sha256:vMUnK29ZUstKDVGvOPkAJXfC8/g0hk6yQhGrUU6BMDQ=
	sha1:vNlGmLjZAzFNDqlgk3pzCkISz0A= sha256:eMh7YsqHCCnK+IY9jHSV2JbFjrLLcmGc0O3PLH3Xcn8=
Bytes: 5904
Lines: 97

The Real Bev wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:52:08 -0700 :

>> 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.

This California DMV book (on page 48) says you hve to wait if the
pedestrian is "still in the intersection" but it doesn't define it.
https://static.epermittest.com/media/filer_public/41/b5/41b51b9c-c7c8-45bb-a864-f2ab12a6a3d9/california-drivers-manual-2022.pdf

On page 57 that California DMV book says you must let the pedestrian safely
"finish" the crossing. 

This one also says the pedestrian has to "safely finish" the crossing
on page 41. https://cdn.dmv-test-pro.com/handbook/ca-drivers-handbook.pdf

But when I looked specifically for the law, all the laywer's cites clogged
up the Internet who have filled the Internet (given the search terms) with
their personal injury sales pitches.

This (from lawyers) indicates I may have been wrong.
https://www.karlaw.com/do-drivers-have-to-wait-for-pedestrians-to-cross-the-street/
"In California, the law does not state that a driver must wait for the
pedestrian to fully exit the crosswalk or the street before they proceed on
their way in their lane. A pedestrian must be safely out of the driver's
path of travel for them to begin driving again. According to the law, a
driver must yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection while exercising due care at all times."

They changed it because of Black & Latino pedestrians, apparently.
https://www.casebarnettlaw.com/blog/9-crosswalk-laws-pedestrian-rules-every-californian-should-know.cfm

So it depends on what "safety finishes" the crossing means, I guess.
 
>> 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.

While I was looking that up, I found out that only recently jaywalking was
struck from the books in California on January 1st 2023 (a year ago).

"As of January 1, 2023 in California, violations of S21955 ¡V jaywalking
will no longer be against the law as long as it is done safely (for
example, there is no oncoming traffic at the time of the crossing). Prior
to 2023, jaywalking was prosecuted as an infraction carrying a fine of
around $200." 
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/california-crosswalk-laws/

>> 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.

The phone does not cause accidents to increase in the USA.

All the reliable stats (not from lawyers, police, or insurance outfits)
from the US Census (which has been keeping these stats since the 1920s
shows that accident rates have been slowly decreasing for years.

There was no spike before, during or after cell phones existed.
Just like with the Fermi Paradox, the Cellphone Paradox exists.

a. Certainly they're an added distraction.
b. Yet, just as certainly, they also prevent accidents.
c. And just as certainly, there are MANY distractions while driving.

It turns out that the reason cellphones don't add distractions overall is
that they simply replace one of the top ten distractions while driving.

There's a reason insurance companies give "good student discounts" because
dumb drivers will be distracted no matter what those top ten are.

It seems two things competed to make the accident rate have no bearing
whatsoever on the accident rate in all fifty states in the USA.

1. The added distraction just replaced one of the others in the top ten
2. There are safety factors inherent in using a cell phone too

But dumb people will have accidents no matter which of the top ten
distractions they fall prey to. 

It's why insurance companies charge them more.

The odd thing though is in the UK, there was a spike in accidents.
Just not in the USA or Australia (where good data exists).