Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.hasname.com!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: How will the police find me.
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 12:36:18 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID: <v2i4g2$gq4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References: <9r9l4j1dauquc3vrg6bghhp6cerpsq01a9@4ax.com> <v2eaoe$3p5bi$1@dont-email.me> <0ckl4jl3efgequrtb68ed09gmrenl0q8bv@4ax.com> <v2g5b1$4h19$1@dont-email.me> <v2ga5f$5b0i$1@dont-email.me> <v2gfnm$2f5k$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <v2gq6s$8blb$1@dont-email.me> <v2h3fh$30id$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <25ffe9d7-3b75-5899-0053-9ec301330b6e@invalid.nospam>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 12:36:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com;
	logging-data="17220"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blueworldhosting.com"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hMFhtYNRbwCuQz2dlQYaazwjme0= sha256:rju8zVRHl8booan03Fp/xPVWeEOuN8PaJlmPdLg+QTg=
	sha1:LI2HmucoTBIFblT393d/+sI0voU= sha256:WkAXdJ17OngjbJt8kENfdAWvyS3mMQ1bYMYUMjGwZxg=
X-Face: VQ}*Ueh[4uTOa]Md([|$jb%rw~ksq}bzqA;z-.*8JM`4+zL[`N\ORHCI80}]}$]$e5]/i#v  qdYsE`yh@ZL3L{H:So{yN)b=AZJtpaP98ch_4W}
Bytes: 7505
Lines: 121

Newyana2 wrote on Tue, 21 May 2024 08:16:49 -0400 :

>    Here we have a classic case of advanced, terminal cellphone
> addiction. A vehement, irrational -- even religious -- belief that
> cellphone distraction while driving reduces accidents.

Many people believe in myths, but very few question them, and even fewer
ask why there is no solid evidence in the government record for them.

You aren't at the level to answer the question of "why" yet, because you
still believe in the myth. In fact, you "religiously believe" in the myth.

It's you who owns the religious belief.
Not me.

I believe in facts.

Notice I never said cellphones aren't a distraction. They are.
I never said distractions don't cause accidents. They do.

I simply said that the accident rate trend (slowly going down, year
over year) was wholly unaffected by cellphone ownership rates going up.

There's a reason for that. 
But you first have to understand the data.

Also I said nothing about injuries, as they're a second-order effect.

> This is closely
> related to the vehement geek belief that playing murderous video
> games all day has no effect on mental health. "Cigarettes help your
> lungs by reducing coughing." "Alcoholism is just the name used by
> teetotalers to describe people who can hold their liquor." "I don't know
> how she got pregnant. We never had sex... I don't think."

But you have to understand that there are hundreds (nay, thousansd) of
distractions while driving, e.g., using the car radio (if you have one).

>     If you can't be honest with yourself about your cellphone
> dependency, that's addiction. Can you just set it aside for a couple
> of weeks without any big problems? Then that's addiction. If you
> think that you can pay attention driving while on your cellphone,
> you're fooling yourself. Those of us who are paying attention are
> preventing the accidents. We watch you carefully while your
> speed changes, you make sudden movements, you brake for no
> reason, you drive like an old lady and then suddenly speed up....
> We try to get away from you as soon as possible because you drive
> like a drunk, only vaguely aware of what you're doing.

And yet, what you're doing is justifying the myth without ever looking at
the data, which clearly shows in the USA, where accurate government
statistics have existed since the 1920's, the accident rate was wholly
unaffected by the skyrocketing years of cellphone ownership rates.

>    The last accident I was in was due to someone on a cellphone.
> A man was driving while getting directions on his phone from friends
> who he was going to pick up. He was in the left of 2 lanes, signalling
> a left turn. I was passing in the right lane. Suddenly his friends told him
> he was turning at the wrong street, he overcorrected with his one
> free hand and veered into me.

Anecdotal evidence is not science.

>    We locked mirrors for a few yards. The man first swore that
> I'd hit him. Then he insisted there were not two lanes! He called the
> police. He called his insurance company. He truly believed that I had
> hit him while he was minding his own business. All the while he never got
> off his cellphone. Luckily a sharp cop showed up and pointed out that
> all the broken side mirror glass was in my lane, so I couldn't have
> hit him... That accident wouldn't have been recorded as being caused
> by cellphone usage. Anyone causing an accident by cellphone distraction
> is likely to say they weren't on their phone. And we don't have breathalyzer
> tests for cellphone mania.

BTW, notice I said cellphones are clearly a distraction, nay, even a "new"
distraction... which went from zero percent in vehicles to 100% in only a
few years.

>    I saw a funny story the other day. I forget where it was. A young man
> was tracked by a cop using his cellphone while driving, then pulled into
> a fast food restaurant. The cop followed, walked over to his window, and
> gave him a ticket for using a cellphone while driving. The young man 
> insisted
> that he had just then pulled out his cellphone to let the drive-through 
> clerk
> scan a coupon.

And yet, the accident rate trend was unaffected. There's a reason for that,
but you first have to comprehend the facts before you can understand them.

>    Less amusing was the documentary made by Werner Herzog, about
> Amish people in a buggy killed by a texting driver.
> https://slate.com/culture/2013/08/werner-herzog-texting-while-driving-documentary-from-one-second-to-the-next-is-worth-watching-video.html

I never once said that there were no accidents. What I said was accurate
data clearly shows in all fifty states the accident rate trend was
unaffected by the skyrocketing rates of cellphone ownership.

>   To even imagine that you can safely drive while using a cellphone is 
> feeblemindedness. Cellphone addicts feel like they're on top of things,
> handling all sorts of input at once. Their cellphone is their cockpit. The
> trouble is that the one thing they're not tracking is the here and now.
> They're not where their body is. It's like those old Hollywood movies where
> the mogul is answering 2 or 3 phones at once, too busy to relate to
> any of the calls properly.

Many people believe in myths, but very few question them, and even fewer
ask why there is no solid evidence in the government record for them.

You aren't at the level to answer the question of "why" yet, because you
still believe in the myth.

Notice I never said cellphones aren't a distraction. They are.
I never said distractions don't cause accidents. They do.

I simply said that the accident rate trend (slowly going down, year
over year) was wholly unaffected by cellphone ownership rates going up.

There's a reason for that. 
But you first have to understand the data.

Also I said nothing about injuries, as they're a second-order effect.