Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."
First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example,
where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like
blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but
they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).
The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker,
without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so
that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).
On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close,
is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with
that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.
It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.
Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical
rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large
container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are
positioned correctly in the red right return channel.
One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side, even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.
Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones
increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States
from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a
vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census
Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident
stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and
after cell phone use came into existence.
I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.
It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.
Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.
That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal
people). They can't comprehend math.
Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.
First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.
Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.
Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go
up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going
up?
Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.
Why is that?
Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.
Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since
it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.
They don't.
They never did.
There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good
drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at
the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.
Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.
Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is
strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).
Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.
1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which
has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence
that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.
The reason is simple.
The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.
…