Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year

[Andrew]

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to
use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-
free accessories.

Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.

The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.

Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.

Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.

The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance

Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.

All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.

If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.

And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

Likewise with the idiots out there who love to claim "correlation does not
imply causation" instantly wipes out all the good data that you simply do
not like, then again, show evidence of your claim that the accident rate
skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.

You have plenty of data in the US Census Bureau figures becaue they list
them for every year since the 1920's for every state and for the USA as a
whole.

So you can watch every state and list when the cellphone laws went into
effect and you can see that there is ZERO evidence of a rise (or fall) in
accidents due to the astoundingly huge and precipitously sudden rise in
cellphone ownership rates.

For those who are slightly intelligent who claim (reasonably so) that
nobgody has reliable statistics for whether, given the thousands of
accidents a year, whether the cellphone itself was the cause, that's true.
So live with it. Don't fantasize that it caused it when you don't know.

Likewise, for those who are a bit more reasonable, who claim that we can't
even tell when a cellphone is being used in a car given the thousands of
accidents per year, that's also true. So live with that lack of data.
Don't make it up simply because your friend of your sister had a cellphone
and then there was an accident.

Back to the ignorant, the fact that you can find an anecdotal case of a
cellphone causing an accident is meaningless in terms of statistics. Yes, I
know, you can't handle math so you think 1 is the same a 1 million, but
stop fantasizing that every sensational news storey is what happens in the
statistics.

I'm sure very moron out there can dig up one accident out of the hundreds
of thousands over the years which *was* caused by a cellphone. For sure.

But that's ridiculous to make a law based on that. You may as well make a
law that crying kids and wife arguing should be made illegal simply because
each of them has caused one accident by your Aunt Mary with your uncle Jim.

In summary, the law is baseless.

Mainly it's political because 3 agencies love to make money on this law:
1. Insurance
2. Police
3. Lawyers

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed
to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via
hands-
free accessories.

Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.

'The findings of the present study confirmed the impairments associated
with the use of mobile phones among young drivers leading to poor
control of the vehicle. '

<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8297239/>

'As a result of meta-analysis Prepared for Foundation for Traffic Safety
by Caird et al., 2018, the general conclusion on the effects of mobile
phone use while driving suggested by White et al., 2004 is that both the
use of handheld and hands-free mobile sets significantly increased the
risk of having a car accident. They found that the use of different
phone types was associated with an increase of approximately 40% of
reaction time and an accident risk multiplied by 4. According to
Billieux et al., 2008 it seems that mobile phone use while driving is
related to a high level of dangerous behaviors.'

<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850723001401>

Shall I go on?

[super70s]

Post by Andrew

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to use
a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-free
accessories.

Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.

Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

[Andrew]

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.

That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.

If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.

In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.

In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.

If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.

Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

[bad sector]

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these
accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

[Andrew]

Post by Andrew
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.

The joke about people who are stupid shouldn't get a licence is partly true
in that driving has *always* involved (thousands of) distractions.

Those who can't handle distractions will *always* have accidents.

The cellphone simply displaced an existing distraction, and, by most
accounts, the cellphone is not even the biggest distraction while driving.

But you can *predict* the accident rate would not change with increased
cellphone usage simply by knowing that there are plenty of distractions
already. Adding one more changes nothing in the whole scheme of things.

Post by Andrew
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.

Like you, I've also driven a million miles in my many decades of driving (I
started when I was a young teen, well before I could get a license).

Not one accident.

Good student discount on insurance for when I was a student (which happened
to be a very long time given I went to university for graduate degrees).

Good driver discount too.

People who have been in an accident have no right to even be in this
discussion as the fact they couldn't avoid that accident is indicative that
they're bad drivers (as you should be able to predict most accidents).

Anyway, nobody can find a single cite that backs up their religious
fabrication that cellphones had a huge effect on the accident rate in the
USA. That's because there was no effect whatsoever from cell phones.

Zero.

There are good reasons for that, given cellphones are certainly an "added
distraction" to the hundreds (if not thousands!) of existing distractions.

HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.

[bad sector]

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.

The joke about people who are stupid shouldn't get a licence is partly true
in that driving has *always* involved (thousands of) distractions.
Those who can't handle distractions will *always* have accidents.
The cellphone simply displaced an existing distraction, and, by most
accounts, the cellphone is not even the biggest distraction while driving.
But you can *predict* the accident rate would not change with increased
cellphone usage simply by knowing that there are plenty of distractions
already. Adding one more changes nothing in the whole scheme of things.

Post by Andrew
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.

Like you, I've also driven a million miles in my many decades of driving (I
started when I was a young teen, well before I could get a license).
Not one accident.
Good student discount on insurance for when I was a student (which happened
to be a very long time given I went to university for graduate degrees).
Good driver discount too.
People who have been in an accident have no right to even be in this
discussion as the fact they couldn't avoid that accident is indicative that
they're bad drivers (as you should be able to predict most accidents).
Anyway, nobody can find a single cite that backs up their religious
fabrication that cellphones had a huge effect on the accident rate in the
USA. That's because there was no effect whatsoever from cell phones.
Zero.
There are good reasons for that, given cellphones are certainly an "added
distraction" to the hundreds (if not thousands!) of existing distractions.
HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.

'been here before; defensive driving isn't based on statistics but on
suspicion, paranoia and prejudice, thank you very much. I couldn't care
less whether phones have effect on stats, the roads and conditions have
changed, statistics have never stopped a single accident from happening
and are thus irrelevant.
--
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any
vehicle in motion at any speed. "Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free".
In the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that
distance should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5km/h of CLOSURE
speed (i.e. no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any
vehicle approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such
an automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first
pay large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving,
brake-checking and tailgating should also be hanging crimes. Any
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs
to be beefed up).

[Andrew]

Post by bad sector

Post by Andrew
HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.

'been here before; defensive driving isn't based on statistics but on
suspicion, paranoia and prejudice, thank you very much. I couldn't care
less whether phones have effect on stats, the roads and conditions have
changed, statistics have never stopped a single accident from happening
and are thus irrelevant.

Once you discount science in favor of your own personal religion, nothing
more can be said (since you own an arbitrary belief system).

And that's OK.

Plenty of people are uneducated in math & sciences so they believe whatever
it is that they want to believe - and that's OK. Most people are stupid.

Having said it's OK to be stupid like most people are, I prefer to
understand the math and science involved, instead of just guessing like you
do.

And that's OK too.

As I said, only one in a million is intelligent enough to understand most
topics which aren't what they appear to be to the ignorant unwashed masses.

[Scout]

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a chain
reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm willing to
bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good driver"
and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.

Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same time.
You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the same time.
Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but virtually
everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.

[bad sector]

Post by Scout

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile
friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight,
causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the
hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.

Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but
virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.

bullshit

[Scout]

Post by Alan

Post by Scout

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.

Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but
virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.

bullshit

As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is your
problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.

[Andrew]

Post by Scout

Post by Alan

Post by Scout
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but
virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.

bullshit

As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is your
problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.

Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
use in vehicles.

Why has cellphones NOT increased the accident rate?

There are complex answers for that reason, but I'll just hint at one of the
answers which is that cellphones actually make driving safer at times.

Take the case of routing while driving in an unfamiliar city.
Which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning
b. Paper maps
c. Cellphones
(Pick one.)

Likewise, let's say you just missed a turn and you have no idea how to fix
that mistake. Which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning
b. Paper maps
c. Cellphones
(Pick one.)

Let's say there's traffic ahead so which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning (with or without FM/AM radio traffic reports)
b. Paper maps (with or without FM/AM radio traffic reports)
c. Cellphones

Notice there are multiple reasons why cellphones did NOT increase the
accident rate, one of which is that, at times, they actually make driving
safer; but that's not the only reason.

Think about what Scout astutely said, for example:
1. Distractions (hundreds of them) are part of driving
2. People too stupid to handle distractions have always had accidents
3. Distractions are not the major cause of accidents - but they're up there
4. And of course, a cellphone can certainly be a distraction

If you're intelligent, you'll instantly understand that people who are
intelligent have comprehensive systems in place to handle distractions.

Adding yet another distractions to a hundred existing distractions changes
nothing for people who are intelligent enough to handle distractions.

[Scout]

Post by Andrew

Post by Scout

Post by Alan

Post by Scout
Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same
time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the
same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed,
but virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very
well.

bullshit

As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is
your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.

Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
use in vehicles.

Then why is hands free not a real issue? Oh, because it's not about
multitasking but rather failing to watch what is going on in front of you.
Which is something else entirely.
Further I believe I covered that under your needing to prioritize your
multitasking. I mean if what you said had any problems.. then audio systems
would never be installed in cars, because according to you someone could
only drive or listen to music but not both at the same time.

[Andrew]

Post by Scout

Post by Andrew

Post by Scout
As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is
your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.

Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
use in vehicles.

Then why is hands free not a real issue? Oh, because it's not about
multitasking but rather failing to watch what is going on in front of you.
Which is something else entirely.
Further I believe I covered that under your needing to prioritize your
multitasking. I mean if what you said had any problems.. then audio systems
would never be installed in cars, because according to you someone could
only drive or listen to music but not both at the same time.

Agree with you that it's all about being able to handle distractions.

Driving *always* involved handling distractions. Out of hundreds (if not
thousands), what's one more distraction going to do if you can handle them?

Nothing.

Which is what the accident rate shows.

What's revealing is that intuition is always wrong.
a. The sun revolves around the earth. Busted.
b. Gravity is a force. Busted.
c. Cellphones raised the accident rate. Busted.

In this case, everyone (including me!) would intuit that the accident rate
must have skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.

And yet... they didn't.

For anyone who still claims cellphones raised the accident rate, then just
tell us how much you feel the accident rate was raised.

Do they feel it's ten times as many accidents per mile driven?
Twenty? Fifty? A hundred times the accidents? What?

[MGMT 1B]

On 12/12/2024 7:09 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless

Post by Scout

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile
friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight,
causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the
hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

--
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not
brain-free, argue with that.

Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same time.

You cannot intelligently think of even *one* thing at a time, scooter.

Did you have to unzip your pants first to count that high again?

[Rudy Canoza]

[Default] An incel dwarf typed:

======================================
An incel dwarf's
Pathetic forgery & vandalism of follow ups in an impotent
attempt to stop being bitch-slapped into next week
repaired and restored.
======================================

You cannot intelligently think of even *one* thing at a time, scooter.

I can only think of one thing-- and that's giving free blow jobs at
the Jolly Kone Parking Lot!

Bring Your Cock To the Jolly Kone!!!
It's The Central Valley's Fellatio Zone!
If You're On The Left or On The Right
I'll Suck Your Cock and I Won't Bite!
I'll Make You Cum and I'll Make you Moan!
Rudy Canoza Will Make Sure You Get Blown!
On Your Cock My Skills I'll Hone!
My Expertise Is Quite Well Known!
That Talent, You Know, Is Unconcealed!
I've Sucked Every Cock In Bakersfield!
Watch Me Work That Hardened Bone!
I'm Right On Top Of The Skull Fuck Throne™!

[super70s]

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm
willing to bet she was on the phone.

I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

? You make no sense. Or if that was an attempt at wit you failed.

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.

I only have a 10% "claim free" discount. I've been driving for over 50
years without being involved in any kind of accident for almost that
long. My latest premium was $271 for 12 months and that's probably a
lot cheaper than most are paying (bundled with the house though).

Oh yeah, I don't own a cellphone and if I did I'd turn it off when on the road.

Post by Andrew
If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.
Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

[Andrew]

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

? You make no sense. Or if that was an attempt at wit you failed.

Thank you for agreeing that your own argument made absolutely no sense.
Even to you.

This is your argument:
Anecdotally, a red car with blue toys in it hit a tree.
Therefore, the blue toy caused the accident.
Hence, we must ban blue toys while driving.

All I did was switch your own argument around:
Anecdotally, a red car with blue toys in it hit a tree.
Therefore, the red car caused the accident.
Hence, we must ban red cars while driving.

The point, if you don't get it, is your entire argument is patently absurd.

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.

I only have a 10% "claim free" discount. I've been driving for over 50
years without being involved in any kind of accident for almost that
long. My latest premium was $271 for 12 months and that's probably a
lot cheaper than most are paying (bundled with the house though).
Oh yeah, I don't own a cellphone and if I did I'd turn it off when on the road.

The cellphone doesn't raise the accident rate for a variety of complex
reasons, but most people are too uneducated to understand any of them.

All they see is the scary cellphone, and/or the scary propaganda from
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance

All of whom make money from cellphone use laws.

Not one person can find a single cite showing that the accident rate
skyrocketed in the USA between the time nobody had a cellphone to the time
(almost) everyone had them.

That's because they made it up.
It didn't happen.

It's a myth.
It's busted.

The *reason* cellphones don't raise the accident rate are interesting.
Especially since everyone agrees they are an extra distraction.

Why do you think that's the case?

Do you know why?
I (think I) do.

Three reasons, in fact.

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew
I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

? You make no sense. Or if that was an attempt at wit you failed.

Thank you for agreeing that your own argument made absolutely no sense.
Even to you.
Anecdotally, a red car with blue toys in it hit a tree.
Therefore, the blue toy caused the accident.
Hence, we must ban blue toys while driving.
Anecdotally, a red car with blue toys in it hit a tree.
Therefore, the red car caused the accident.
Hence, we must ban red cars while driving.
The point, if you don't get it, is your entire argument is patently absurd.

Post by super70s

Post by Andrew

Post by super70s
Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving.
That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle
distractions.

I only have a 10% "claim free" discount. I've been driving for over 50
years without being involved in any kind of accident for almost that
long. My latest premium was $271 for 12 months and that's probably a
lot cheaper than most are paying (bundled with the house though).
Oh yeah, I don't own a cellphone and if I did I'd turn it off when on the road.

The cellphone doesn't raise the accident rate for a variety of complex
reasons, but most people are too uneducated to understand any of them.
All they see is the scary cellphone, and/or the scary propaganda from
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
All of whom make money from cellphone use laws.
Not one person can find a single cite showing that the accident rate
skyrocketed in the USA between the time nobody had a cellphone to the time
(almost) everyone had them.
That's because they made it up.
It didn't happen.
It's a myth.
It's busted.
The *reason* cellphones don't raise the accident rate are interesting.
Especially since everyone agrees they are an extra distraction.
Why do you think that's the case?
Do you know why?
I (think I) do.
Three reasons, in fact.

BGM: you want to let this bullshit pass?

[badgolferman]

Post by Andrew

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to
use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-
free accessories.

Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
Likewise with the idiots out there who love to claim "correlation does not
imply causation" instantly wipes out all the good data that you simply do
not like, then again, show evidence of your claim that the accident rate
skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.
You have plenty of data in the US Census Bureau figures becaue they list
them for every year since the 1920's for every state and for the USA as a
whole.
So you can watch every state and list when the cellphone laws went into
effect and you can see that there is ZERO evidence of a rise (or fall) in
accidents due to the astoundingly huge and precipitously sudden rise in
cellphone ownership rates.
For those who are slightly intelligent who claim (reasonably so) that
nobgody has reliable statistics for whether, given the thousands of
accidents a year, whether the cellphone itself was the cause, that's true.
So live with it. Don't fantasize that it caused it when you don't know.
Likewise, for those who are a bit more reasonable, who claim that we can't
even tell when a cellphone is being used in a car given the thousands of
accidents per year, that's also true. So live with that lack of data.
Don't make it up simply because your friend of your sister had a cellphone
and then there was an accident.
Back to the ignorant, the fact that you can find an anecdotal case of a
cellphone causing an accident is meaningless in terms of statistics. Yes, I
know, you can't handle math so you think 1 is the same a 1 million, but
stop fantasizing that every sensational news storey is what happens in the
statistics.
I'm sure very moron out there can dig up one accident out of the hundreds
of thousands over the years which *was* caused by a cellphone. For sure.
But that's ridiculous to make a law based on that. You may as well make a
law that crying kids and wife arguing should be made illegal simply because
each of them has caused one accident by your Aunt Mary with your uncle Jim.
In summary, the law is baseless.
1. Insurance
2. Police
3. Lawyers

I don’t believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused by using
cell phones hasn’t led to more accidents. I can see with my own eyes how
people are extremely dangerous to be around with their erratic driving,
excessively large gaps between themselves and the car in front of them, and
their eyes pointing down rather than ahead. I don’t care what the
statistics say because as a motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what
drivers around me are doing and I make it a point to look inside their cars
to ensure their attention is on the road. And then there are the people
around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid or pass
the distracted driver.

Then there is the epidemic of people driving with their high beams on in
town and blinding the rest of us. Unfortunately I can’t see if they’re
looking at their phones because I can’t see anything from the glare they’re
producing.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[Alan]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Andrew

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to
use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-
free accessories.

Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.
The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance
Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
Likewise with the idiots out there who love to claim "correlation does not
imply causation" instantly wipes out all the good data that you simply do
not like, then again, show evidence of your claim that the accident rate
skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.
You have plenty of data in the US Census Bureau figures becaue they list
them for every year since the 1920's for every state and for the USA as a
whole.
So you can watch every state and list when the cellphone laws went into
effect and you can see that there is ZERO evidence of a rise (or fall) in
accidents due to the astoundingly huge and precipitously sudden rise in
cellphone ownership rates.
For those who are slightly intelligent who claim (reasonably so) that
nobgody has reliable statistics for whether, given the thousands of
accidents a year, whether the cellphone itself was the cause, that's true.
So live with it. Don't fantasize that it caused it when you don't know.
Likewise, for those who are a bit more reasonable, who claim that we can't
even tell when a cellphone is being used in a car given the thousands of
accidents per year, that's also true. So live with that lack of data.
Don't make it up simply because your friend of your sister had a cellphone
and then there was an accident.
Back to the ignorant, the fact that you can find an anecdotal case of a
cellphone causing an accident is meaningless in terms of statistics. Yes, I
know, you can't handle math so you think 1 is the same a 1 million, but
stop fantasizing that every sensational news storey is what happens in the
statistics.
I'm sure very moron out there can dig up one accident out of the hundreds
of thousands over the years which *was* caused by a cellphone. For sure.
But that's ridiculous to make a law based on that. You may as well make a
law that crying kids and wife arguing should be made illegal simply because
each of them has caused one accident by your Aunt Mary with your uncle Jim.
In summary, the law is baseless.
1. Insurance
2. Police
3. Lawyers

I don’t believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused by using
cell phones hasn’t led to more accidents. I can see with my own eyes how
people are extremely dangerous to be around with their erratic driving,
excessively large gaps between themselves and the car in front of them, and
their eyes pointing down rather than ahead. I don’t care what the
statistics say because as a motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what
drivers around me are doing and I make it a point to look inside their cars
to ensure their attention is on the road. And then there are the people
around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid or pass
the distracted driver.
Then there is the epidemic of people driving with their high beams on in
town and blinding the rest of us. Unfortunately I can’t see if they’re
looking at their phones because I can’t see anything from the glare they’re
producing.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Let's see how well that works for you...

[badgolferman]

Post by Alan

Post by badgolferman
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Let's see how well that works for you...

Arlen and I don't speak to each other in insulting ways like many do on
this newsgroup. We have disagreed before and left it at that.

[Alan]

Post by badgolferman

Post by Alan

Post by badgolferman
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Let's see how well that works for you...

Arlen and I don't speak to each other in insulting ways like many do on
this newsgroup. We have disagreed before and left it at that.

Because you cower and don't defend your position.

Defend this one...

...and see what it gets you.

[badgolferman]

Post by Alan

Post by badgolferman

Post by Alan

Post by badgolferman
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Let's see how well that works for you...

Arlen and I don't speak to each other in insulting ways like many
do on this newsgroup. We have disagreed before and left it at that.

Because you cower and don't defend your position.
Defend this one...
...and see what it gets you.

I find it funny how hard you try to egg me on to fight with Arlen. I
don't need to argue to the bitter end once I've made my case. Rarely
will people ever change their mind on Usenet. At least Arlen has shown
the ability to admit being wrong on occasion. I've never seen you do
that.

[Andrew]

I don't believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused by using
cell phones hasn't led to more accidents. I can see with my own eyes how
people are extremely dangerous to be around with their erratic driving,
excessively large gaps between themselves and the car in front of them, and
their eyes pointing down rather than ahead. I don't care what the
statistics say because as a motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what
drivers around me are doing and I make it a point to look inside their cars
to ensure their attention is on the road. And then there are the people
around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid or pass
the distracted driver.
Then there is the epidemic of people driving with their high beams on in
town and blinding the rest of us. Unfortunately I can't see if they're
looking at their phones because I can't see anything from the glare they're
producing.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Hi badgolferman,

This is an interesting topic which I hzve researched deeply over the years.
Most people don't research anything; they just guess at everything.

But not me.
I don't trust my own intuition; so I check the data.

Only after I check the data do I form a conclusion based on the evidence.
That's what I was taught as an engineer and as a scientist.

You should also.

Hence, I converse with you as a normal adult, where I don't need to dumb
down the message, nor repeat it with you since you own normal comprehensive
skills - so you can handle a topic that is complex and nuanced.

Usenet isn't really the best medium to discuss topics of import which are
actually far more complex than most people think - especially since only
one out of a million people checks their data before assuming a conclusion.

So I want to start by saying I UNDERSTAND why you think the way you do.

In fact, many years ago (more than a decade or so), I had long ago already
fully and completely understood your point of view, because not only have
I studied this topic extensively, but yours is the exact same point of view
of most people. So how could I not be aware of your point of view, right?

I know what 999,999 out of a million people think.
And I know why they think it.

And that's fine.
But there's a problem with "assuming" things.

It's just a guess when people "assume" things.
Just as much a guess as the earth is flat is people "assuming" things.

Most people guess that gravity is a force.
But when you check the data, you find out gravity is NOT a force.

My point is I know and you know and everyone knows what everyone assumes.
But that assumption is merely a guess.

Nobody has ever *checked* their assumptions against the reliable data.
Everyone assumes their guess is 100% right all the time.

In other words, they feel their intuition is 100% perfect all the time.
And yet, it's not.

For thousands of years people assumed the sun revolves around the earth.
it's a great guess. Most people guessed the same thing.

But when smart people checked the data, they found out the guess was wrong.
So rest assured I'm aware that 999,999 out of a million people just guess.

They assume that (a) cellphones are a distraction, and (b) distractions
cause accidents, so (c) cellphone distractions must cause accidents to the
point that (d) the accident rate should skyrocket when cellphones appeared.

I have the same intuition as you do, and I have the same intuition that
everyone has, so I would have assumed the same thing as you and everyone
else did had I not had a specific trait which makes me a great scientist.

Had I not checked the data.

Guess what I found when I checked the data?
Yup. The accident rate remained unchanged between the three critical
periods of (1) before cellphones from 1920 onward, to (2) the meteoric rise
of cellphone ownership rates, and then (3) the plateau since then.

Huh?
WTF?

What happened?

Note I never once said that cellphone use doesn't cause accidents.
Nor have I ever said that cellphones aren't a distraction while driving.

Nobody disputes that. Least of all me.

But give me credit for being intelligent. Please. In giving me that credit,
you need to know I've *researched* this and I found out what appears to be
happening which is keeping the well-documented accident rate from rising.

There are three fundamental reasons, I believe, why there is no evidence
whatsoever in the reliable accident rate statistics of the US Census Bureau
(which has been keeping reliable accident-rate statistics for a hundred
years!) of the cellphone accident rate skyrocketing during the period of
cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketing.

Three reasons.

But nobody here is ready for those reasons since they already assumed that
gravity is a force and that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves
around the earth - simply because they assumed all those things without
doublechecking the facts.

It's only when you doublecheck the facts that you find out there are very
interesting reasons (three of them) which explain why the cellphone
accident rate is essentially unchanged between the three critical periods:
a. Accident rate in each state *before* cellphones existed
b. Accident rate during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership
c. Accident rate after we reached almost 100% cellphone ownership

Science isn't intuitive.
People are often wrong when they assume things sans any reliable data.

Without data, all assumptions are simply guesses.
Rest assured, had I not checked my assum;ptions, I too would have thought
a. Cellphones are a huge distraction
b. Distractions must be causing accieents
c. So, I would have "assumed" that the accident rate skyrocketed

And yet it did not.
It didn't even change.

It has been trending downward before, during & after.

Why is that?
I (think I) know why.

But you have to understand the fundamentals before we can talk about why.
Do you want to discuss those fundamentals first?

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

I don't believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused by using
cell phones hasn't led to more accidents. I can see with my own eyes how
people are extremely dangerous to be around with their erratic driving,
excessively large gaps between themselves and the car in front of them, and
their eyes pointing down rather than ahead. I don't care what the
statistics say because as a motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what
drivers around me are doing and I make it a point to look inside their cars
to ensure their attention is on the road. And then there are the people
around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid or pass
the distracted driver.
Then there is the epidemic of people driving with their high beams on in
town and blinding the rest of us. Unfortunately I can't see if they're
looking at their phones because I can't see anything from the glare they're
producing.
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Hi badgolferman,

Are you getting it yet, BGM?

Continue to disagree...

Post by Andrew
This is an interesting topic which I hzve researched deeply over the years.
Most people don't research anything; they just guess at everything.
But not me. I don't trust my own intuition; so I check the data.
Only after I check the data do I form a conclusion based on the evidence.
That's what I was taught as an engineer and as a scientist.
You should also.
Hence, I converse with you as a normal adult, where I don't need to dumb
down the message, nor repeat it with you since you own normal comprehensive
skills - so you can handle a topic that is complex and nuanced.

...and you will be declared a non-adult.

Post by Andrew
Usenet isn't really the best medium to discuss topics of import which are
actually far more complex than most people think - especially since only
one out of a million people checks their data before assuming a conclusion.
So I want to start by saying I UNDERSTAND why you think the way you do.
In fact, many years ago (more than a decade or so), I had long ago already
fully and completely understood your point of view, because not only
have I studied this topic extensively, but yours is the exact same point
of view
of most people. So how could I not be aware of your point of view, right?
I know what 999,999 out of a million people think.
And I know why they think it.
And that's fine.
But there's a problem with "assuming" things.
It's just a guess when people "assume" things.
Just as much a guess as the earth is flat is people "assuming" things.
Most people guess that gravity is a force.
But when you check the data, you find out gravity is NOT a force.
My point is I know and you know and everyone knows what everyone assumes.
But that assumption is merely a guess.
Nobody has ever *checked* their assumptions against the reliable data.
Everyone assumes their guess is 100% right all the time.
In other words, they feel their intuition is 100% perfect all the time.
And yet, it's not.
For thousands of years people assumed the sun revolves around the earth.
it's a great guess. Most people guessed the same thing.
But when smart people checked the data, they found out the guess was wrong.
So rest assured I'm aware that 999,999 out of a million people just guess.
They assume that (a) cellphones are a distraction, and (b) distractions
cause accidents, so (c) cellphone distractions must cause accidents to
the point that (d) the accident rate should skyrocket when cellphones
appeared.
I have the same intuition as you do, and I have the same intuition that
everyone has, so I would have assumed the same thing as you and everyone
else did had I not had a specific trait which makes me a great scientist.
Had I not checked the data.
Guess what I found when I checked the data?
Yup. The accident rate remained unchanged between the three critical
periods of (1) before cellphones from 1920 onward, to (2) the meteoric
rise of cellphone ownership rates, and then (3) the plateau since then.
Huh?
WTF?
What happened?
Note I never once said that cellphone use doesn't cause accidents.
Nor have I ever said that cellphones aren't a distraction while driving.
Nobody disputes that. Least of all me.
But give me credit for being intelligent. Please. In giving me that
credit, you need to know I've *researched* this and I found out what
appears to be happening which is keeping the well-documented accident
rate from rising.
There are three fundamental reasons, I believe, why there is no evidence
whatsoever in the reliable accident rate statistics of the US Census
Bureau (which has been keeping reliable accident-rate statistics for a
hundred years!) of the cellphone accident rate skyrocketing during the
period of cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketing.
Three reasons.
But nobody here is ready for those reasons since they already assumed
that gravity is a force and that the earth is flat and that the sun
revolves around the earth - simply because they assumed all those things
without doublechecking the facts.
It's only when you doublecheck the facts that you find out there are
very interesting reasons (three of them) which explain why the cellphone
a. Accident rate in each state *before* cellphones existed
b. Accident rate during the meteoric rise of cellphone ownership c.
Accident rate after we reached almost 100% cellphone ownership
Science isn't intuitive.
People are often wrong when they assume things sans any reliable data.
Without data, all assumptions are simply guesses.
Rest assured, had I not checked my assum;ptions, I too would have thought
a. Cellphones are a huge distraction
b. Distractions must be causing accieents
c. So, I would have "assumed" that the accident rate skyrocketed
And yet it did not.
It didn't even change.
It has been trending downward before, during & after.
Why is that?
I (think I) know why.
But you have to understand the fundamentals before we can talk about why.
Do you want to discuss those fundamentals first?

Well?

Do you?

[badgolferman]

Post by Andrew

I don't believe statistics that tell me distracted driving caused
by using cell phones hasn't led to more accidents. I can see with
my own eyes how people are extremely dangerous to be around with
their erratic driving, excessively large gaps between themselves
and the car in front of them, and their eyes pointing down rather
than ahead. I don't care what the statistics say because as a
motorcycle rider I watch like a hawk what drivers around me are
doing and I make it a point to look inside their cars to ensure
their attention is on the road. And then there are the people
around them who are affected by the distracted and erratic driving,
sometimes leading to accidents on their part as they try to avoid
or pass the distracted driver. Then there is the epidemic of
people driving with their high beams on in town and blinding the
rest of us. Unfortunately I can't see if they're looking at their
phones because I can't see anything from the glare they're
producing. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Hi badgolferman,
This is an interesting topic which I hzve researched deeply over the
years. Most people don't research anything; they just guess at
everything.
But not me. I don't trust my own intuition; so I check the data.
Only after I check the data do I form a conclusion based on the
evidence. That's what I was taught as an engineer and as a scientist.
You should also.
Hence, I converse with you as a normal adult, where I don't need to
dumb down the message, nor repeat it with you since you own normal
comprehensive skills - so you can handle a topic that is complex and
nuanced.
Usenet isn't really the best medium to discuss topics of import which
are actually far more complex than most people think - especially
since only one out of a million people checks their data before
assuming a conclusion.
So I want to start by saying I UNDERSTAND why you think the way you do.
In fact, many years ago (more than a decade or so), I had long ago
already fully and completely understood your point of view, because
not only have I studied this topic extensively, but yours is the
exact same point of view of most people. So how could I not be aware
of your point of view, right?
I know what 999,999 out of a million people think.
And I know why they think it.
And that's fine.
But there's a problem with "assuming" things.
It's just a guess when people "assume" things.
Just as much a guess as the earth is flat is people "assuming" things.
Most people guess that gravity is a force.
But when you check the data, you find out gravity is NOT a force.
My point is I know and you know and everyone knows what everyone
assumes. But that assumption is merely a guess.
Nobody has ever checked their assumptions against the reliable data.
Everyone assumes their guess is 100% right all the time.
In other words, they feel their intuition is 100% perfect all the
time. And yet, it's not.
For thousands of years people assumed the sun revolves around the
earth. it's a great guess. Most people guessed the same thing.
But when smart people checked the data, they found out the guess was
wrong. So rest assured I'm aware that 999,999 out of a million
people just guess.
They assume that (a) cellphones are a distraction, and (b)
distractions cause accidents, so (c) cellphone distractions must
cause accidents to the point that (d) the accident rate should
skyrocket when cellphones appeared.
I have the same intuition as you do, and I have the same intuition
that everyone has, so I would have assumed the same thing as you and
everyone else did had I not had a specific trait which makes me a
great scientist.
Had I not checked the data.
Guess what I found when I checked the data?
Yup. The accident rate remained unchanged between the three critical
periods of (1) before cellphones from 1920 onward, to (2) the
meteoric rise of cellphone ownership rates, and then (3) the plateau
since then.
Huh?
WTF?
What happened?
Note I never once said that cellphone use doesn't cause accidents.
Nor have I ever said that cellphones aren't a distraction while
driving.
Nobody disputes that. Least of all me.
But give me credit for being intelligent. Please. In giving me that
credit, you need to know I've researched this and I found out what
appears to be happening which is keeping the well-documented accident
rate from rising. There are three fundamental reasons, I believe,
why there is no evidence whatsoever in the reliable accident rate
statistics of the US Census Bureau (which has been keeping reliable
accident-rate statistics for a hundred years!) of the cellphone
accident rate skyrocketing during the period of cellphone ownership
percentages skyrocketing.
Three reasons.
But nobody here is ready for those reasons since they already assumed
that gravity is a force and that the earth is flat and that the sun
revolves around the earth - simply because they assumed all those
things without doublechecking the facts.
It's only when you doublecheck the facts that you find out there are
very interesting reasons (three of them) which explain why the
cellphone accident rate is essentially unchanged between the three
critical periods: a. Accident rate in each state before cellphones
existed b. Accident rate during the meteoric rise of cellphone
ownership c. Accident rate after we reached almost 100% cellphone
ownership
Science isn't intuitive.
People are often wrong when they assume things sans any reliable data.
Without data, all assumptions are simply guesses.
Rest assured, had I not checked my assum;ptions, I too would have
thought a. Cellphones are a huge distraction
b. Distractions must be causing accieents
c. So, I would have "assumed" that the accident rate skyrocketed
And yet it did not.
It didn't even change.
It has been trending downward before, during & after.
Why is that?
I (think I) know why.
But you have to understand the fundamentals before we can talk about
why. Do you want to discuss those fundamentals first?

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.

[Chris]

Post by badgolferman
I am now ready to hear your theory of why the accident rate of cell
phone distracted driving has not skyrocketed.

Don't bother. As usual he'll make lots of claims about data, but never
actually present the data. His claim that there's data since 1923 is false
because that organisation (census bureau) stopped reporting the accident
rate about 10 years ago. Maybe earlier, I forget.

A newer org (NTA?) publishes other up to date stats which do show an
increase in accidents/million miles and also deaths.

I've shown this to Arlen several times and he refuses to acknowledge any of
it. He's blinkered and biased.

[Andrew]

Post by Chris
A newer org (NTA?) publishes other up to date stats which do show an
increase in accidents/million miles and also deaths.

Chris,

Are you even aware that cellphones didn't exist, then they suddenly
existed, and then the ownership rates skyrocketed in only a few years to
nearly 100% and then they plateaued (at almost 100%) per driving adult?

Where is this doubling, tripling, quadrupling or whatever you claim
happened to the accident rate during the skyrocketing ownership period?

Show us a cite showing the accident rate skyrocketed during those years.

[Alan]

Post by Andrew

Post by Chris
A newer org (NTA?) publishes other up to date stats which do show an
increase in accidents/million miles and also deaths.

Chris,
Are you even aware that cellphones didn't exist, then they suddenly
existed, and then the ownership rates skyrocketed in only a few years to
nearly 100% and then they plateaued (at almost 100%) per driving adult?
Where is this doubling, tripling, quadrupling or whatever you claim
happened to the accident rate during the skyrocketing ownership period?
Show us a cite showing the accident rate skyrocketed during those years.

Why do you imagine it has to be a "doubling, tripling, [or] quadrupling"?

That's what logical adults call a "straw man argument".

[Andrew]

Post by badgolferman
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.

[badgolferman]

Post by Andrew

Post by badgolferman
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.
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?)?
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.

[Andrew]

Post by badgolferman
I vaguely recall you posting a study that showed the accident *rate*
has decreased.

Hi badgolferman,

I am trying to understand *your* position; for that, it doesn't matter what
I said - what only matters is what you think happened to the accident rate.

Do you think the accident rate doubled? Tripled? Quadrupled? Pentupled?

Post by badgolferman
I don't remember if it was a rate or total accidents though.

It's extremely important to note that the number of accidents will depend
on many factors, whereas the accident rate is a typical normalized value.

Sensationalists talk about accidents; scientists talk about rates.

Post by badgolferman
If it was a rate then that could still mean there are more accidents than ever.

The sensationalist media will talk about accidents (e.g., number of plane
accidents) because most people have no education in math or sciences.

But a respectable scientist or engineer would state their conclusions based
on rates (e.g., number of plane accidents per passenger mile) simply
because science uses normalized values.

The number of accidents fluctuates wildly based on a variety of unrelated
factors such as Covid lockdowns, the economy, gas prices, weather, etc.

Post by badgolferman
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.

Reliable scientists or engineers concludes based on rate, not number.
The reason is rate is normalized. Numbers fluctuate wildly.

Those wild fluctuations are completely unrelated since they depend on gas
prices, the economy, covid lockdowns, weather anomalies, construction, etc.

The rate has *always* been the typical normalized value for accidents.

Note: I'm well aware sensationalist non-scientific entities quote accidents
and not rates because as they can pick any convenient period they like.

Post by badgolferman
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.

Rest assured you can't.

Everyone who has studied this problem knows this fact of life.

But you can infer based on the accident rates, since your own basic logic
predicts a skyrocketing accident rate which you can't find ever happening.

Doesn't that make you wonder about your conclusions when there is no data
supporting what you (and I) would intuit to be the case, badgolferman?

Notice both of us intuit that (a) cellphones are a distraction and (b)
distractions are a cause of accidents so, duh, (c) the accident rate must
have skyrocketed during the meteoric rise of USA cellphone ownership.

Think about that.

1. A million people (including me) intuit that rates skyrocketed.
2. One person out of a million (i.e., me) checks the data.

The fact that people "think" the rates skyrocketed is one reason why I say
most people are incredibly stupid even as I "would have thought" they did.

Just like with my checking of Apple's claims of "it just works", 999,999
out of a million people don't bother to check Apple's claims; yet, I do.

Where is the rate increase your intuition (and mine) predicts?
It doesn't exist.

Post by badgolferman
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.

Please understand that I'm not an idiot. Of course the accident rate is
affected by other factors. Duh. That's why it has been trending downward.

There are myriad things that make vehicles less prone to accidents, from
the third taillight to brighter headlights to better road reflectors to
better trash cleanup to better plowing to brighter road signs to traffic
lights to crosswalk flashing lights to speed radar signs to police
enforcement to tire pressure monitors to anti-lock braking to disc brakes
versus drum brakes to taller vehicles (such as SUVs) to better pavement
traction (e.g., grooves) to better traffic monitoring, etc.

Notice though that people are screaming how unsafe cellphones are, and that
is something that we know the exact years they came into play where all
those other factors above have been slowly trending downward for decades.

If cellphones are as dangerous as you think they are, what do *YOU* think
happened to the accident rate when cellphone ownership had a meteoric rise?

Did it double? Triple? Quadruple? Pentuple? Was it a ten-fold increase?
What do *YOU* think happened to the accident rate in the USA?
a. Before cellphones
b. During the meteoric skyrocketing rise in the use of cellphones
c. And thereafter

If you can't answer that simple question, then no intelligent discourse is
possible because your position isn't a position. It's just an emotion.

Note: Nothing wrong with emotions, mind you; but it's not science.

Post by badgolferman
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.

I'm trying to understand what *YOUR* position is on the danger you feel.

There is no way for anyone to have an intelligent conversation with anyone
else on this topic until they each state their position - which you & Chris
haven't stated. All you've done is say mine is wrong. Fine. Alan Baker does
that too. So did nospam. As does Jolly Roger.

Without knowing *YOUR* position - there is no way to have any discussion.

What do *YOU* (& Chris) think happened to the accident rate given how
extremely dangerous you feel those cellphones are when used while driving?

[badgolferman]

Without knowing YOUR position - there is no way to have any
discussion.

I think I've made my position clear. I am dubious of the report and
have already stated various reasons why. The study states the accident
*rate* has decreased since the use of cell phones has increased so that
would seem to imply that distracted cell phone usage is actually a
safer way to drive! Your contention that intelligent people can handle
additional distractions and stupid people can't is not logical to me
since we also know there are far more stupid people than intelligent
people behind the wheel these days.

This will be my last message for this thread. You may have the last
word.

[Chris]

Post by badgolferman

Without knowing YOUR position - there is no way to have any
discussion.

I think I've made my position clear. I am dubious of the report and
have already stated various reasons why. The study states the accident
*rate* has decreased since the use of cell phones has increased so that
would seem to imply that distracted cell phone usage is actually a
safer way to drive! Your contention that intelligent people can handle
additional distractions and stupid people can't is not logical to me
since we also know there are far more stupid people than intelligent
people behind the wheel these days.
This will be my last message for this thread. You may have the last
word.

Correct response. He provides no evidence, yet expect others to do so.

[Andrew]

Post by Chris
Correct response. He provides no evidence, yet expect others to do so.

Hi Chris,

You and I have discussed the reliable statistics in gory detail in the past
and all you could find was a single PDF from 2017 (long after cellphones
skyrocketed) that showed a minor percentage rise in the accident rates for
a given year (I think it was 2009, as I recall - but you can correct me).

You couldn't find the astoundingly huge rate increase you claim exists.
That's because you simply fabricated that rate increase out of thin air.

Suffice to say anyone claiming the accident rate went is making it up.

If you think the accident rate went up, why can't you say by how much
Chris? Did it go up by ten fold? A hundred fold? A thousand fold?

What?

How much did the accident rate go up Chris?

[Alan]

Post by badgolferman

Without knowing YOUR position - there is no way to have any
discussion.

I think I've made my position clear. I am dubious of the report and
have already stated various reasons why. The study states the accident
*rate* has decreased since the use of cell phones has increased so that
would seem to imply that distracted cell phone usage is actually a
safer way to drive! Your contention that intelligent people can handle
additional distractions and stupid people can't is not logical to me
since we also know there are far more stupid people than intelligent
people behind the wheel these days.
This will be my last message for this thread. You may have the last
word.

Run away...