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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à mpm iphone 
Sujet : Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year
De : andys (at) *nospam* nospam.com (Andrew)
Groupes : misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Date : 13. Dec 2024, 09:26:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : BWH Usenet Archive (https://usenet.blueworldhosting.com)
Message-ID : <vjgr3r$233e$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/68.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.13
badgolferman wrote on Fri, 13 Dec 2024 02:55:51 -0000 (UTC) :

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?
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?
Date Sujet#  Auteur
11 Dec 24 * Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year14badgolferman
11 Dec 24 +* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year4Alan
11 Dec 24 i`* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year3badgolferman
11 Dec 24 i `* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year2Alan
12 Dec 24 i  `- Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year1badgolferman
13 Dec 24 +* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year2Andrew
13 Dec 24 i`- Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year1Alan
13 Dec 24 `* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year7Andrew
13 Dec 24  `* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year6badgolferman
13 Dec 24   `* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year5Andrew
13 Dec 24    `* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year4badgolferman
13 Dec 24     +* Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year2Chris
13 Dec 24     i`- Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year1Andrew
15 Dec 24     `- Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year1Alan

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal