Re: State Farm files patent for system to suppress calls and text while driving

bad sector wrote on Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:31:20 -0400 :

Just as the coefficient of friction is stamped on every passenger brake pad
sold in the USA, the straightline wet/dry asphalt/concrete friction rating
is stamped on every passenger vehicle tire sold in the United States.

 
There is no such thing as "the" coefficient of friction because that
varies with conditions. The advertised one is under specified conditions
only but it will vary almost infinitely with the JBI index applicable
under the environmental variables.

You just proved to be an idiot, bad sector, as the basic rule for fools is:
 "Nobody intelligent disputes facts; only fools do - that's why they're
fools"

You're like the Apple fools who deny facts simply because they don't even
bother to look them up before denying everything they're unaware of exists.

Read this before you show how much further of a fool you are, bad sector:
 <https://brakepower.com/brake-pad-friction-coefficient.htm>

HINT: You didn't even look it up before you denied the facts, and I'm sure
you'll stutter and hem and haw like the Apple morons do, trying to explain
why you're such a smart guy and yet you know nothing about friction codes.

How many of your accident reports cite tire ads as the cause?

 
My main point about advertisements was only that most people believe in
myths because advertising is the only information they get about things.

 
And my main point with tire ads was that misleading ads adversely modify
driving behavior, serving as an example of how cell-phones do the same.

When Toyota shows their SUV on top of a mountain, only fools believe they
can do that with a street vehicle. However, lots of fools exist.

Like fools who deny that the friction coefficient range is stamped on every
American passenger vehicle brake pad perhaps.
 

Everyone watches tire ads yet there seems to be no increase in accident
rates. Accidents and rate changes MUST be correlated else they are just
statistical noise plus no one will admit that they were on the phone
just before an accident and most won't even be aware that 500 feet
earlier they were hydroplaning because they weere on the phone which
they will deny anyway.

 
If you're trying to say that the astronomical increase in accident rates
that you predicted from cellphone use was somehow covered up in the
numbers, then all you're really saying is you believe in every myth.

 
You are the only one who brings up accident rates, everyone else or at
least most others talk about cell-phones being dangerous regardles of
accident rates.

Most people are stupid, bad sector. I'm not.

I'm at least of average intelligence, so I'm well aware that you can't have
second-order injuries or fatalities for first-order motor vehicle accidents
that didn't happen.
 

Think about this observation before you respond with more myths...
 
Given cellphone use in vehicles went from 0% to almost 100% in a meteoric
rise in just a handful of years, why does the accident rate increase that
you predict show a _decrease_ in accident rate over that same time period?

 
Do you have evidence that without cellphones the accident rate would not
be in a nosedive so that even a steady rate could well hide monumental
cell-phone causality?

Do you realize how desperate you are to defend your myths?

You're like the desperate Apple morons who are desperate to deflect from
the facts that their beloved Apple devices are more exploited than Android.
 <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

Why don't you look up the accident rate in the USA under the US Census
Bureau before you continue to claim that they've been reporting it all
wrong since the 1920s.

If your claim is that "something else" was as astronomically high during
EXACTLY the same time period (including levelling off at EXACTLY the same
time), then what is that "something else" please?

 
I do not claim anything in term of accidents or accident rates, what I
do is express the not at all humble opinion that hand-held or bluetooth
cell-phone use while driving is very dangerous and should be totally
outlawed or very strictly limited.

Look bad sector, I'm not stupid. I *know* what people believe.
Most people are stupid. Don't be stupid.

Most people believe anything you tell them to believe. Hell, most Apple
owners believe Apple's hotfix support is the best in the world and yet,
it's clearly the worst when you look at the facts.

Why are they so wrong?
Because they only believe what Apple's brilliant advertising told them.

None of them ever looked up the facts, which is Apple support sucks.
 *Apple will provide a minimum of five years of iPhone security updates*
 <https://www.theverge.com/2024/6/6/24172843/apple-iphone-minimum-five-years-security-updates>

Apple support is five years and a single operating system version.
 <https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/apple-clarifies-security-update-policy-only-the-latest-oses-are-fully-patched/>

 *Google and Samsung provide a minimum of seven years with seven updates*
 <https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/samsung-extends-android-and-security-updates-to-7-years/>

In addition, Google updates Android 10+ phones over the Internet monthly.
 <https://www.androidheadlines.com/2022/01/google-monthly-changelog-play-system-updates.html>

Why do most Apple owners believe that Apple support is better?
Answer: They, like you, never bother to check the facts.

They believe every myth that is fed to them by (brilliant) advertising.

The fact is most people are incredibly stupid in that they believe myths.
Their entire belief system isn't backed up by even a _single_ fact!

 
The myth is that with tire brand X you can drive in a continuous drift
and on walls, and that cell-phone or visual display use while driving is
as safe as being focused and on mental high-beam every minute while
driving. THESE are the myths.

Do you know that most people believe that "Premium" gasoline will give
their vehicle better performance?

Why do they believe that myth?

Do you think any of them understand what an octane rating indicates?
They think it means more "power", now don't they?

Do they understand why high-compression engines use higher-octane-rated
fuels (e.g., airplanes user kerosene, for an example)?

Did you ever try to burn kerosene versus gasoline, bad sector?
Does it have "more power"?

People are incredibly stupid.
Advertising takes advantage of that.

Don't be incredibly stupid, bad sector.
If I say a fact, check it out first before you brazenly deny it.

The fact is that cellphones didn't affect the accident rate.
That's just a fact.

Once you *accept* that fact, only then can you discuss why.
It's like accepting the fact the earth is round.

Once you accept that fact, only then can you discuss why all the planets
are round too. There's a *reason* for that roundness; but you have to
accept the fact first (like the fact that gravity isn't a force).

Once you accept the fact that gravity isn't a force, only then can you
begin to understand what gravity truly is (e.g., Einstein figured it out).

Please don't be like the Apple morons who only believe in advertisements.
Check your facts before you believe in every myth spewed out by

1. Insurance companies
2. Ticketing agencies
3. Personal injury lawyers

The myth is that cellphone use drastically increased the accident rate.
The fact is they had no effect whatsoever on the accident rate.

There are reasons for that fact; but you have to accept the fact first,
before you can even begin to understand the effect of cellphones on
accident rates.