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

Andrew wrote:

badgolferman wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:46:15 -0000 (UTC) :
>

First let me say I use two different newsreaders, NewsTap and
Xananews.  When I reply to one of your crossposted messages with
mobile NewsTap, it will not send to that many groups and I must
remove them in my reply.  My desktop Xananews has no such
limitation.
>
There's an old adage which you may have heard before:  "Scientists
have discovered that people will believe anything when you claim
scientists have discovered it."
>
Since I work in the science field and actually have seen how the
sausage is made, I take with a grain of salt "consensus scientific
facts" much of the time.  It's not the actual data gathering which
is suspect, it's how the data is processed and the inherent biases
of the scientists and researchers which are tasked with presenting
the data to the scientific community.
>
One example is how you often hear the current administration has
deported more illegal aliens than the previous administration.  This
statistic is used to justify border policies.  Taken in a vacuum
with no other input it sounds great, but when reading other news
sources or listening to the people on the ground you find out that
is a misleading statistic.  Maybe the "fact" is true, but it
ignores other facts that vastly higher multitudes of illegal aliens
are being let through the borders unchecked.  The sheer frustration
of citizens in blue states which flipped red this election cycle is
a good indication of how people don't believe official government
statistics.  The jobs, inflation and economic statistics are yet
other examples of misleading reports.
>
We all have inherent biases which make us look at "facts" in a
different way.  I do not deny that my own biases shaped by my
experiences cause me to doubt distracted cell phone use doesn't
lead to additional accidents, as you contend.  The "fact" that
distracted drivers affect the rest of us on the road cannot be
denied either.
>
I am now ready to hear your theory of why the accident rate of cell
phone distracted driving has not skyrocketed.

>
Hi badgolferman,
>
Let's ignore everything I've said so we can concentrate on what you
think happened to the accident rate during the years that there was
clearly a meteoric rise in cellphone ownership rates in the United
States.
>
FACTS:
1. We all agree cellphones didn't exist before a certain date, right?
2. We all agree their ownership rates skyrocketed in a few years,
right?  3. We all agree that USA ownership has plateaued at almost
100% right?
>
Do we agree on those basic facts (because if we can't agree on the
most basic of starting points, there's no sense proceeding further,
right?)?
>
ASSUMPTIONS:
A. We all assume distractions are a major cause of accidents, right?
B. We all assume cellphones are an added distraction, right?
C. We all intuit that must have made the accident rate skyrocket,
right?
>
Notice there may NOT be agreement on those three points, so we need to
flesh out if we need to agree or not, particularly on the last point
above.
>
Assuming we agree on all six tenets above, my only question remaining
is what do you think happened to the US accident rate between these 3
periods:  a. Before cellphones
b. During cellphone ownership meteoric rise
c. After that - where it plateaued at nearly 100% ownership
>
What do YOU claim happened to the accident rate?
>
Did it double? Triple? Quadruple? Pentuple?
What?
>
If you can't answer that question then I don't know what your
position is.  Nobody could until you state what you think happened to
the accident rate.

I vaguely recall you posting a study that showed the accident *rate*
has decreased.  I don't remember if it was a rate or total accidents
though.  If it was a rate then that could still mean there are more
accidents than ever.  Considering the population of the US has risen by
roughly 100 million people since my teenage years it likely means the
total accidents have risen as well.

Regardless of what the study says about accident rates, I wonder how
can they even tell if cell phones were a major cause of the accidents.
Considering cars today are outfitted with a myriad of safety features
such as collision avoidance, lane assistance, and several other ones
which help distracted drivers who aren't looking at the road avoid
accidents... it begs the question whether your lower accident rate is
really a result of improved automobile safety features.

Regardless of the answer, I trust my own eyes and instinct when it
comes to identifying vehicles that are a menace to other drivers on the
road.  I'd rather be around an aggresive driver than a driver paying
more attention to their phone.