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.