Re: It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA

badgolferman wrote on Sun, 26 May 2024 11:38:51 -0000 (UTC) :

As a motorcycle rider, I must be hyper aware of my surroundings, and that
also includes the attention of the drivers ahead/beside/behind me.

I think you have a Gold Wing, right? I have a K1200.

That
means I watch their driving characteristics and head positions to see if
their attention is on the road or in their lap. I need to know they are
unaware of my presence near them so I can be ready to take evasive
maneuvers if necessary.

Especially if an opposing cager looks to be turning left in front of you.

Regardless of what the accident statistics you cited say, I can confidently
assert that 35-40% of motorists are driving distracted because they are
looking at their phones. This doesn't mean they are going to be an accident
statistic, but it does mean they are a menace to other drivers with their
erratic driving.

Did you get the good-student discount when you were a kid? I did.
Do you know why they give it out? I do.

Drivers using their cellphones tend not to move with the flow of traffic,
instead going slower and keeping excessive space in front of them. This has
the effect of pissing off people behind them who try their damnest to get
around them. Distracted drivers can't stay in their lane, leading to other
drivers having to avoid them. Distracted drivers fail to go when the
traffic light turns green and cause cars farther back to miss the light
cycle and wait again for the green light. There are many more examples, but
you get the picture. Surely you can add more.

Nobody ever said that driving entails handling distractions well.
(See good student discount comment above.)

Common sense would dictate that statistics can be manipulated to say what
you want.

The statistics are merely facts. Only a fool disagrees with the facts.
That's why they're fools.

The facts I cited are well documented, and NOBODY disagrees with them.
It's the assessment of those facts that you can reasonably disagree with.

Remember, adults first agree on the facts and only then can they progress
to the topic of assessing those facts (where adults will invariably
disagree simply because they put different weights on each fact).

But nobody disagrees with the reliable accident stats that I quoted.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but accident rate is not the
only factor which can be used to measure the impact cellphone drivers have
on other drivers. The accident rate can also be influenced by the increased
amount of drivers as opposed to the amount of accidents. And it's also hard
to determine how many of those actual accidents were the result of
distracted driving or some other factor. I'd wager distracted drivers
caused a far higher rate of accidents than others did. Certainly no one
will admit they were looking at their Facebook page when they ran a red
light or ran into a pedestrian crossing the road.

The accident rate is, was and always has been normalized by miles driven.

In summary, there's no question the accident rate shows no blip during the
skyrocketing era of cellphone ownership rates going from 0% to almost 100%.

Everyone who is intelligent is aware of that fact.
The only question is why.