Re: Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

nospam wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:12:09 -0400:

True. Jet fuel is, I believe, basically kerosene, which, if measured on an octane scale, would have a VERY VERY HIGH resistance to knocking as compared to gasoline. :)

But the point is that "common sense" doesn't work, yet, those proposing that common sense says cell phones cause accidents are just as likely here to be proposing that "common sense" dictates that the common cold is caused by cold or rainy weather itself.

People see tons of commercials of kids sniffling in yellow raincoats while it's raining outside, and parents being told that cold weather causes the common cold - so they rush out - using their plethora of "common sense" - so they rush out and buy "cold medicines".

Common sense tell them that the common cold is *caused* by cold weather when, in fact, the common cold has nothing per se to do with cold weather.

Same thing here with the common sense attitude that cell phones cause accidents.

Reply to
Pat Wilson
Loading thread data ...

nospam wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:12:09 -0400:

Exactly!

Polyetheramine and similar surfactants are in all gasolines sold in the United States.

Yet, those who scream "common sense" might think that Techron, somehow magically keeps their engine functionally and meaningfully "cleaner" than other fuels would.

Reply to
Pat Wilson

So ya think her car crash caused her to send a text?

formatting link

Reply to
AMuzi

AMuzi wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:27:10 -0500:

You are making the fundamental mistake of taking a single datapoint, and extrapolating it to the entire universe.

What you're saying is akin to saying that, since MH370 crashed after the transponder was turned off, that all planes whose transponders fail will now crash.

More to the point, if texting is causing accidents, and if texting is going on all day, every day, then why aren't accidents going up?

You are, in effect, saying that they are. But, nobody else is saying that.

In fact, all the while texting was going up and up and up, car accidents are going down, down, down.

Therefore, texting, in and of itself, can't be causing these tens of thousands of accidents, which happen with or without texting going on.

Reply to
Pat Wilson

bingo.

all the former group says is that the data that the latter has is meaningless, yet they don't have any data of their own to prove it.

Reply to
nospam

all that says is:

8.33 for the text 8.34 for a call about a collision.

note that there are no seconds in those times.

it could have been 8.33.00 for the text and 8.34.59 for the call, almost two full minutes later.

or it could have been 8.33.59 for the text, with the collision happening a split second later and the call occurring as soon as someone could complete the call, say at 8.34.02 or .03.

the article suggests it's the latter and that the collision was caused by texting, but it could just as easily be the former, with a 2 minute gap between the two events. 2 minutes at highway speeds is two *miles*.

most likely, it was somewhere in between those extremes, but in any event. she obviously was grooving to the music more than she was paying attention to driving.

Reply to
nospam

What complete bollocks, as usual. People have been driving cars for

100+ years. If you "need" a cellphone to drive a car, then you're an imbecile who shouldn't be allowed on the road at all. :-\
Reply to
Your Name

Another moronic imbecile joins the killfile.

Pleas estop cross-posting this utter crap to comp.mobile.ipad - firstly it has litle to do with iPads, and secondly there are enough moronr already in this newsgroup without importing more from other newsgroups.

Reply to
Your Name

Yet another report assuming that timestamps are precise and accurate.

Reply to
Lewis

It might. It might not. They generally come off the same lines with the same manufacturing and different stickers applied. The higher price is the longer warranty.

It's exactly like Hard Drives. You can buy a drive with a 1y, 2y 3y, or

5y warranty. The drives are identical, it is just the warranties that are not.
Reply to
Lewis

One thing the retailer does not want is the battery to outlast the warranty. He wants the customer to return the dead battery and buy a new one at a prorated price. Thus, the merry-go-round ride continues on. If the battery goes beyond the warranty, the buyer is free to buy from whomever they want. This must not be allowed to happen, sucker!

Reply to
dsi1

assuming the times are accurate, it could have been anywhere from 1 second to almost 2 *minutes* between the two events, which at highway speeds, is 2 miles.

if you bring accuracy into the mix, anything goes.

the only thing that's know is the two were relatively close in time, i.e., not hours.

there's no way anyone can know what's happening 2 miles ahead, and another unknown is what the other vehicle was doing at the time.

Reply to
nospam

...

How good are the stats you are relying on and where are they? And are they so exact that I am required to give data that *exactly* cancels out something here?

It is not cell phone *ownership* that is in question.

Have you referenced the data you rely on? I don't believe most of the things I hear on usenet, I hope it is not usenet you rely on.

There are many factors that can bring up and down accident rates. One is improved roads, another is improved cars, another is lower overall speeds due to congestion, another is harsher penalties against laws and regulations, another is greater awareness of friends and family paying penalties, another might be better education and publicity about driving dangers.

Don't be so sure of yourself. And don't drive while holding a mobile when you are near me.

Reply to
dorayme

Try to live without it and see how you go.

Reply to
dorayme

Pat's *already* doing that :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

Reply to
tlvp

Done what?

Reply to
dorayme

Your Name wrote, on Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:55:17 +1200:

You are missing the point wholly and completely. To *you*, a cell phone is merely a phone to make phone calls. However, a cell phone (nowadays) does a LOT more than just make phone calls.

If you have an Android or iOS smartphone, it does a lot of things that *are* related to driving (which I have already listed).

I can understand that, for *you*, all a phone does is make calls, but, for others, there are a lot of things (gps, traffic, gasoline, etc.) that make driving safer and more informative in real time.

So, for you to say it's bollocks that a cell phone assists in driving simply means that YOU can't conceive of a useful use for a phone - but most everyone else can.

Reply to
Pat Wilson

We used to sell software which we broken into three tiers. We guaranteed a performance improvement as you went up among the tiers. Guess how we did it?

It was the same software, but with loops written in the lower tiers to slow it down.

heh heh. They don't teach you that in common sense 101. It's taught in Marketing 101, which is the attempt to influence so-called common sense.

Same thing is going on here with those who thing cell phones are somehow causing accidents.

Reply to
Jessie Williams

Not only that, they keep saying the causation:correlation clause. Yet, they provide no additional value, other than to dismiss the facts.

Oh well, you can't teach a parrot logic.

Reply to
Jessie Williams

Aren't the Excel spreadsheets already provided in the very first post of this thread?

Reply to
Jessie Williams

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.