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

On 2024-05-26 08:15, badgolferman wrote:

Andrew wrote:
 

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.

 Yes.  2002 Honda Goldwing GL1800A with 111K miles.
https://ibb.co/0nrsBqh
 A BMW K1200 is a very nice motorcycle.  Surely you have stories of your
own regarding distracted drivers and how they affect others on the road.
 

>

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.

 That is among the worst offenses, but there are so many more as you
well know.
 

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.

 No, because I wasn't a good student and was involved with the wrong
crowd in high school.  Tell us why they give it out.
 

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.

 As you may remember, I also work in the field of science.  Specifically
raw data collection and processing.  I have personally witnessed the
lead scientist berating the reports because the raw data didn't support
the narrative he was trying to create.  He ordered the processing
algorithms to be manipulated so they would show what he wanted.  Those
reports and processed data are now cited as facts by the world over.
 

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.

 Facts are often times subjective based upon the people presenting those
facts, especially if those people are the government.  If someone don't
think that's true then they are naive as to the ways of the world.
 

Moreover, no "trained scientist" would ever look at just the prevalence of cellphones/smartphones and the accident rate and conclude that they can't be a problem...
...because there are too many other variables involved to draw such a conclusion.