Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Subject: Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 02:55:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <xn0ouhh4ojago6n000@reader443.eternal-september.org>
References: <b5257c8f66d25f9960cdac1baf778deb@dizum.com> <vjch8i$4gn$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <vjcva2$o6gj$1@solani.org> <vjdss5$1j9c$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> <xn0ougt6uidyxbc007@reader443.eternal-september.org> <vjg5l2$1e6r$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 03:55:55 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5c704cd6e777378a15120d9022c8b0c7";
	logging-data="3359900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18FKr1f2EM6ZtM1+HUSkWkVvXG5jtgbmqc="
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.19.1.372 (x86; Portable ISpell)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sHdvMmlzNkr0zwcFQWkUGdbOcVQ=
X-Face: 09>j%-W3HnyolA\I${DXfUw}~nKyLDiU8IwUVM'`
X-Ref: reader443.eternal-september.org ~XNS:00002D18
Bytes: 6259

Andrew wrote:

>badgolferman wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:46:15 -0000 (UTC) :
>
>>First let me say I use two different newsreaders, NewsTap and
>>Xananews.  When I reply to one of your crossposted messages with
>>mobile NewsTap, it will not send to that many groups and I must
>>remove them in my reply.  My desktop Xananews has no such
>>limitation.
>>
>>There's an old adage which you may have heard before:  "Scientists
>>have discovered that people will believe anything when you claim
>>scientists have discovered it."
>>
>>Since I work in the science field and actually have seen how the
>>sausage is made, I take with a grain of salt "consensus scientific
>>facts" much of the time.  It's not the actual data gathering which
>>is suspect, it's how the data is processed and the inherent biases
>>of the scientists and researchers which are tasked with presenting
>>the data to the scientific community.
>>
>>One example is how you often hear the current administration has
>>deported more illegal aliens than the previous administration.  This
>>statistic is used to justify border policies.  Taken in a vacuum
>>with no other input it sounds great, but when reading other news
>>sources or listening to the people on the ground you find out that
>>is a misleading statistic.  Maybe the "fact" is true, but it
>>ignores other facts that vastly higher multitudes of illegal aliens
>>are being let through the borders unchecked.  The sheer frustration
>>of citizens in blue states which flipped red this election cycle is
>>a good indication of how people don't believe official government
>>statistics.  The jobs, inflation and economic statistics are yet
>>other examples of misleading reports.
>>
>>We all have inherent biases which make us look at "facts" in a
>>different way.  I do not deny that my own biases shaped by my
>>experiences cause me to doubt distracted cell phone use doesn't
>>lead to additional accidents, as you contend.  The "fact" that
>>distracted drivers affect the rest of us on the road cannot be
>>denied either.
>>
>>I am now ready to hear your theory of why the accident rate of cell
>>phone distracted driving has not skyrocketed.
>
>Hi badgolferman,
>
>Let's ignore everything I've said so we can concentrate on what you
>think happened to the accident rate during the years that there was
>clearly a meteoric rise in cellphone ownership rates in the United
>States.
>
>FACTS:
>1. We all agree cellphones didn't exist before a certain date, right?
>2. We all agree their ownership rates skyrocketed in a few years,
>right?  3. We all agree that USA ownership has plateaued at almost
>100% right?
>
>Do we agree on those basic facts (because if we can't agree on the
>most basic of starting points, there's no sense proceeding further,
>right?)?
>
>ASSUMPTIONS:
>A. We all assume distractions are a major cause of accidents, right?
>B. We all assume cellphones are an added distraction, right?
>C. We all intuit that must have made the accident rate skyrocket,
>right?
>
>Notice there may NOT be agreement on those three points, so we need to
>flesh out if we need to agree or not, particularly on the last point
>above.
>
>Assuming we agree on all six tenets above, my only question remaining
>is what do you think happened to the US accident rate between these 3
>periods:  a. Before cellphones
>b. During cellphone ownership meteoric rise
>c. After that - where it plateaued at nearly 100% ownership
>
>What do YOU claim happened to the accident rate?
>
>Did it double? Triple? Quadruple? Pentuple?
>What?
>
>If you can't answer that question then I don't know what your
>position is.  Nobody could until you state what you think happened to
>the accident rate.


I vaguely recall you posting a study that showed the accident *rate*
has decreased.  I don't remember if it was a rate or total accidents
though.  If it was a rate then that could still mean there are more
accidents than ever.  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.

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.
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.

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.