Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up

On 4/27/2014 12:20 PM, Pat Wilson wrote:
> nospam wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:12:09 -0400:
>
>> jet fuel is different, but avgas is higher octane.
>
> 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.
>

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

http://wtvr.com/2014/04/26/happy-song-facebook-crash/


--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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

> So ya think her car crash caused her to send a text?
> http://wtvr.com/2014/04/26/happy-song-facebook-crash/

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.

In article >, Jessie Williams
> wrote:

> As seems to be the case, those arguing for cell phone laws have
> no data to back them up, while those arguing for the uselessness
> of the cell phone laws are the only ones providing data.

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.

In article >, AMuzi >
wrote:

> So ya think her car crash caused her to send a text?
>
> http://wtvr.com/2014/04/26/happy-song-facebook-crash/

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.

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:08:48 AM UTC-10, bob mullen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:55:37 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>
>
> > the reduction in fatalities has been trending down before
>
> > there were cellphones and continues to trend down even though cellphone
>
> > use is up.
>
>
>
> I use my cellphnoe all day, every day.
>
> While driving. While walking. While resting. While working.
>
> I've never had a traffic accident.
>
>
>
> Yet, I can be *punished* for being a safe driver.
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE that aggregate cellphone use causes accidents.
>
>
>
> Bad drivers cause accidents.
>
> There are already plenty of laws against bad driving.
>
>
>
> Why add more (obviously useless) laws?


The reduction in traffic fatalities is due to electronics alright - Electronic Stability Control. It's the most important advance in automotive safety. I don't know about no stinkin' cell phone usage cause there's no stats on that.

In article >, Pat Wilson
> wrote:
> dorayme wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:48:09 +1000:
>
> > you are juggling a device that has nothing to do with the
> > driving of the car, it will affect ability to avoid accidents.
>
> I agree with you that the phone allows you to avoid accidents,
> but I disagree with you that the phone has nothing to do with driving.
>
> The phone has a *lot* to do with driving!
<snip a load of utter crap>

What complete ********, 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. :-\

In article >, Pat Wilson
> wrote:

> AMuzi wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 12:27:10 -0500:
>
> > So ya think her car crash caused her to send a text?
> > http://wtvr.com/2014/04/26/happy-song-facebook-crash/
>
> You are making the fundamental mistake of taking a single
> datapoint, and extrapolating it to the entire universe.

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.

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:41:31 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>The reduction in traffic fatalities is due to electronics alright - Electronic Stability Control. It's the most important advance in automotive safety. I don't know about no stinkin' cell phone usage cause there's no stats on that.

There are stats as far as the eye can see. All you have to do is look.
There is essentially no reduction in accidents where cell use has been
banned.

On 4/27/2014 11:16 AM, Bill Vanek wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:41:31 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>> The reduction in traffic fatalities is due to electronics alright - Electronic Stability Control. It's the most important advance in automotive safety. I don't know about no stinkin' cell phone usage cause there's no stats on that.
>
> There are stats as far as the eye can see. All you have to do is look.
> There is essentially no reduction in accidents where cell use has been
> banned.
>


I'll show you mine, you show me yours.

You know how to link. Just put your fingers to the keyboard and press.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story....ec hStability

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Dri...y-control.aspx

On 4/27/2014 5:12 AM, nospam wrote:
>
> the warranty is. the battery might be. sometimes the batteries with
> longer warranties do have better specs. other times it's just a higher
> price for the longer warranty.
>

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!