Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #145151 > unrolled thread

Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year David Yurman <spamming@your.tv> - 2024-12-11 07:51 +0100
    Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-11 17:13 +0000
      Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year D <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2024-12-11 18:17 +0000
      Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-11 10:55 -0800
        Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2024-12-12 20:00 +0000
          Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-12 15:09 -0800
            Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Allodoxaphobia <trepidation@example.net> - 2024-12-13 19:42 +0000
      Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> - 2024-12-11 13:38 -0600
        Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-11 20:52 +0000
          Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-11 16:11 -0500
            Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-12 04:11 +0000
              Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-12 07:28 -0500
                Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-12 21:14 +0000
            Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> - 2024-12-12 09:09 -0600
              Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> - 2024-12-12 12:05 -0500
                Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> - 2024-12-12 11:09 -0600
                  Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-12 21:14 +0000
                    Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> - 2024-12-13 11:00 -0600
                      Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-13 18:34 +0000
              Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year MGMT 1B <mgmt1b@ucl.a> - 2024-12-18 01:59 -0800
              Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Rudy Canoza <r�.@hendrie.con> - 2024-12-18 08:08 -0800
          Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> - 2024-12-11 17:17 -0600
            Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-12 04:09 +0000
              Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-11 20:11 -0800
          Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year D <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2024-12-12 00:32 +0000
      Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Andrew <andys@nospam.com> - 2024-12-12 05:38 +0000
        Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-12-11 21:59 -0800
        Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2024-12-12 11:46 +0000
          Re: Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-12-12 22:00 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#145151 — Colorado hands-free driving law taking effect in the new year

(The Center Square) – A new, hands-free driving law will take effect in 
Colorado at the start of the new year.

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to 
use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-
free accessories.

"This new legislation is a crucial step toward making Colorado's roads 
safer for everyone," Shoshana Lew, executive director of CDOT, said in a 
news release. "By encouraging drivers to focus solely on the task of 
driving, we can reduce the number of distracted driving incidents and 
prevent crashes that often come with such behavior. This law aligns with 
best practices from across the nation and reflects our commitment to 
protecting all road users, whether in a vehicle, on a bike, or walking."

Colorado has a law against texting and driving, but this new law expands 
the rule to include manually using a phone or any other mobile device for 
a phone call or any other reason.

First-time offenders will face a $75 fine and two license suspension 
points, while repeat offenders will face stiffer penalties.

The law offers some exemptions. Those include, "reporting emergencies, 
utility workers, code enforcement officers, animal protection officers, 
first responders and individuals in parked vehicles," according to the 
Colorado Department of Transportation.

Additionally, people driving a commercial vehicle with a commercial 
driver's license are exempt from the law.

The Colorado Department of Transportation says many car crashes are 
preventable, and mitigating distracted driving is one way to reduce 
instances of it.

"For a long time, troopers have been able to detect when someone is 
driving distracted by a vehicle weaving between lanes, delayed starts at 
stop signs and lights, not to mention seeing a phone or other device in a 
driver's hand," Col. Matthew Packard, chief of the Colorado State Patrol, 
said in the release. "This legislation allows us to address risky and 
careless behaviors in a proactive way to increase the safety of all 
roadway users."

Here are the hands-free devices the Colorado Department of Transportation 
says the new law will permit:

Dashboard/Phone Mounts: These secure your phone in a visible but safe 
position, enabling the use of navigation or hands-free calls without 
holding the device.

Apple CarPlay/Android Auto: Built-in or aftermarket systems that integrate 
your smartphone with your vehicle's display, allowing you to control your 
phone through voice commands or your car's interface.

Built-in Car Speaker Systems: Many cars come equipped with Bluetooth-
enabled speaker systems that allow hands-free communication and audio 
navigation. If your car does not have Bluetooth, there are plug-in devices 
for purchase that enable the feature through your vehicle's existing 
stereo system.

Governor Jared Polis signed this policy into law in June 2024. The 
legislation, Senate Bill 65, passed in both chambers with overwhelming 
bipartisan support.

When this law takes effect, 30 states will have bans on using hand-held 
devices while driving.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/colorado/article_60ef9422-b72d-11ef-96f1-
07c9b7ac6072.html

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#145153

David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :

> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to 
> use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-
> free accessories.

Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
and afterward, to today.

The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.

Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.

Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.

The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
1. Lawyers
2. Police
3. Insurance

Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.

All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.

If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.

And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

Likewise with the idiots out there who love to claim "correlation does not
imply causation" instantly wipes out all the good data that you simply do
not like, then again, show evidence of your claim that the accident rate
skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.

You have plenty of data in the US Census Bureau figures becaue they list
them for every year since the 1920's for every state and for the USA as a
whole.

So you can watch every state and list when the cellphone laws went into
effect and you can see that there is ZERO evidence of a rise (or fall) in
accidents due to the astoundingly huge and precipitously sudden rise in
cellphone ownership rates.

For those who are slightly intelligent who claim (reasonably so) that
nobgody has reliable statistics for whether, given the thousands of
accidents a year, whether the cellphone itself was the cause, that's true.
So live with it. Don't fantasize that it caused it when you don't know.

Likewise, for those who are a bit more reasonable, who claim that we can't
even tell when a cellphone is being used in a car given the thousands of
accidents per year, that's also true. So live with that lack of data. 
Don't make it up simply because your friend of your sister had a cellphone
and then there was an accident.

Back to the ignorant, the fact that you can find an anecdotal case of a
cellphone causing an accident is meaningless in terms of statistics. Yes, I
know, you can't handle math so you think 1 is the same a 1 million, but
stop fantasizing that every sensational news storey is what happens in the
statistics.

I'm sure very moron out there can dig up one accident out of the hundreds
of thousands over the years which *was* caused by a cellphone. For sure.

But that's ridiculous to make a law based on that. You may as well make a
law that crying kids and wife arguing should be made illegal simply because
each of them has caused one accident by your Aunt Mary with your uncle Jim.

In summary, the law is baseless.

Mainly it's political because 3 agencies love to make money on this law:
1. Insurance
2. Police
3. Lawyers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145154

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:13:54 -0000 (UTC), Andrew <andys@nospam.com> wrote:
>David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
>> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to 
>> use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-
>> free accessories.
>
>Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
>them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
>(because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
>evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
>whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
>period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
>period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
>and afterward, to today.
>The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
>reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
>Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
>happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
>Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
>rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
>The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
>1. Lawyers
>2. Police
>3. Insurance
>Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
>accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
>All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
>But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
>If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
>here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
>zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
>And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
>not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
>you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
>Likewise with the idiots out there who love to claim "correlation does not
>imply causation" instantly wipes out all the good data that you simply do
>not like, then again, show evidence of your claim that the accident rate
>skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.
>You have plenty of data in the US Census Bureau figures becaue they list
>them for every year since the 1920's for every state and for the USA as a
>whole.
>So you can watch every state and list when the cellphone laws went into
>effect and you can see that there is ZERO evidence of a rise (or fall) in
>accidents due to the astoundingly huge and precipitously sudden rise in
>cellphone ownership rates.
>For those who are slightly intelligent who claim (reasonably so) that
>nobgody has reliable statistics for whether, given the thousands of
>accidents a year, whether the cellphone itself was the cause, that's true.
>So live with it. Don't fantasize that it caused it when you don't know.
>Likewise, for those who are a bit more reasonable, who claim that we can't
>even tell when a cellphone is being used in a car given the thousands of
>accidents per year, that's also true. So live with that lack of data. 
>Don't make it up simply because your friend of your sister had a cellphone
>and then there was an accident.
>Back to the ignorant, the fact that you can find an anecdotal case of a
>cellphone causing an accident is meaningless in terms of statistics. Yes, I
>know, you can't handle math so you think 1 is the same a 1 million, but
>stop fantasizing that every sensational news storey is what happens in the
>statistics.
>I'm sure very moron out there can dig up one accident out of the hundreds
>of thousands over the years which *was* caused by a cellphone. For sure.
>But that's ridiculous to make a law based on that. You may as well make a
>law that crying kids and wife arguing should be made illegal simply because
>each of them has caused one accident by your Aunt Mary with your uncle Jim.
>In summary, the law is baseless.
>Mainly it's political because 3 agencies love to make money on this law:
>1. Insurance
>2. Police
>3. Lawyers

 those that live by the sword rule the world ... divine right of kings
 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=stand+for+the+flag+kneel+for+the+cross+meme
 (substitute the american flag with any other national flag and voila)

the bible calls this world the great winepress, east of eden, under the
sun, lake of fire, gehenna, second death, generations, resurrection etc.
so we mere mortals are lucky that anything works in this flawless place

it's the same everywhere . . . . soylent population centers of activity
where nothing changes yet everything evolves, and human nature is fixed
because it's genetic: they worship mammon because they were born for it

regards the state . . . state of the union . . . state of human affairs
nothing changes  > > >   can't fight city hall   < < <  nothing changes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145155

On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
> David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
> 
>> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed 
>> to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via 
>> hands-
>> free accessories.
> 
> Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
> them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
> (because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
> evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
> whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
> period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
> period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
> and afterward, to today.
> 
> The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
> reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
> 
> Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
> happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
> 
> Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
> rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
> 
> The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
> 1. Lawyers
> 2. Police
> 3. Insurance
> 
> Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
> accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
'The findings of the present study confirmed the impairments associated 
with the use of mobile phones among young drivers leading to poor 
control of the vehicle. '

<https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8297239/>

'As a result of meta-analysis Prepared for Foundation for Traffic Safety 
by Caird et al., 2018, the general conclusion on the effects of mobile 
phone use while driving suggested by White et al., 2004 is that both the 
use of handheld and hands-free mobile sets significantly increased the 
risk of having a car accident. They found that the use of different 
phone types was associated with an increase of approximately 40% of 
reaction time and an accident risk multiplied by 4. According to 
Billieux et al., 2008 it seems that mobile phone use while driving is 
related to a high level of dangerous behaviors.'

<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850723001401>

Shall I go on?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145172

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:55:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
>> David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
>> 
>>> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed 
>>> to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via 
>>> hands-free accessories.

I've yet to learn how this impacts amateur radio operators.

Jonesy
-- 
  Marvin L Jones    | Marvin      | W3DHJ.net  | linux
   38.238N 104.547W |  @ jonz.net | Jonesy     |  FreeBSD
    * Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145176

On 2024-12-12 12:00, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:55:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
>>> David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
>>>
>>>> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed
>>>> to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via
>>>> hands-free accessories.
> 
> I've yet to learn how this impacts amateur radio operators.
> 
> Jonesy

My post wasn't made to any ham radio newsgroup. Sorry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145186

On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:09:12 -0800, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-12-12 12:00, Allodoxaphobia wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:55:46 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-11 09:13, Andrew wrote:
>>>> David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
>>>>
>>>>> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed
>>>>> to use a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via
>>>>> hands-free accessories.
>> 
>> I've yet to learn how this impacts amateur radio operators.
>
> My post wasn't made to any ham radio newsgroup. Sorry

Ahh...  But I did finally found out.  Amateur Radio is exempt as shown 
here:
      https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2024a_065_signed.pdf
on page 3.

Jonesy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145157

On 2024-12-11 17:13:54 +0000, Andrew said:

> David Yurman wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 07:51:04 +0100 (CET) :
> 
>> Beginning on Jan. 1, 2025, Colorado drivers will no longer be allowed to use
>> a mobile electronic device while driving unless they use it via hands-free
>> accessories.
> 
> Notwithstanding the police and fire vehicles have tons of electronics in
> them and they're not hands free, the fact that most people can't comprehend
> (because they simply guess at everything is there is no reliable scientific
> evidence that the use of cellphones in the USA in vehicles had any effect
> whatsoever (up or down) on the reliably reported accident rate over the
> period before cellphone ownership percentages skyrocketed, during the
> period where cellphone ownership percentages went from 0% to nearly 100%,
> and afterward, to today.
> 
> The accident rate, as reported by the US Census Bureau, which has been
> reporting these figures accurately since the 1920's, shows no effect.
> 
> Actually, the accident rate has been slowly trending downward, but that was
> happening before, during the rise in ownership, and after the plateau.
> 
> Nobody can find a single cite on the entire Internet showing US accident
> rates rising from before, to during and after cellphones existed.
> 
> The *only* people claiming it did make money out of creating the laws.
> 1. Lawyers
> 2. Police
> 3. Insurance
> 
> Nobody on this newsgroup has ever found a reliable cite showing the
> accident rate in the USA rising in accord with cellphone ownership.
> 
> All they can find is lawyers, police and insurance companies saying it.
> But those three entities have a reason to skew numbers for money.
> 
> If you look at the government US Census Bureau figures, there are blips
> here and there (since accident rates depend on many factors), but there is
> zero evidence of the rise that the lawyers, police & insurance claim.
> 
> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.

I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend 
crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a 
chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm 
willing to bet she was on the phone.

Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145158

super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :

>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence is
>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents that
>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
> 
> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend 
> crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a 
> chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm 
> willing to bet she was on the phone.


I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).

> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are needed.

Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
those distractions should be driving. 

That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.

If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.

In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.

In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
"good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.

If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
conversation.

Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.

-- 
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good driver"
and "good student" discounts my whole life.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145159

On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
> super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
> 
>>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of 
>>> evidence is
>>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these 
>>> accidents that
>>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
>>
>> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend 
>> crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a 
>> chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm 
>> willing to bet she was on the phone.
> 
> 
> I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your world).
> 
>> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are 
>> needed.
> 
> Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
> distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to handle
> those distractions should be driving.
> That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
> 
> If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds (maybe
> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or otherwise.
> 
> In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
> 
> In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and a
> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle distractions.
> 
> If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
> driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
> conversation.
> 
> Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
> driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
> 

-- 
Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good 
driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.

Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
brain-free, argue with that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145163

bad sector wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:11:56 -0500 :

> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good 
> driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
> 


The joke about people who are stupid shouldn't get a licence is partly true
in that driving has *always* involved (thousands of) distractions.

Those who can't handle distractions will *always* have accidents.

The cellphone simply displaced an existing distraction, and, by most
accounts, the cellphone is not even the biggest distraction while driving.

But you can *predict* the accident rate would not change with increased
cellphone usage simply by knowing that there are plenty of distractions
already. Adding one more changes nothing in the whole scheme of things.

> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
> brain-free, argue with that.

Like you, I've also driven a million miles in my many decades of driving (I
started when I was a young teen, well before I could get a license).

Not one accident.

Good student discount on insurance for when I was a student (which happened
to be a very long time given I went to university for graduate degrees).

Good driver discount too.

People who have been in an accident have no right to even be in this
discussion as the fact they couldn't avoid that accident is indicative that
they're bad drivers (as you should be able to predict most accidents).

Anyway, nobody can find a single cite that backs up their religious
fabrication that cellphones had a huge effect on the accident rate in the
USA. That's because there was no effect whatsoever from cell phones.

Zero.

There are good reasons for that, given cellphones are certainly an "added
distraction" to the hundreds (if not thousands!) of existing distractions.

HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.
-- 
Good student. Good driver discount. Over a million miles of driving.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145168

On 12/11/24 23:11, Andrew wrote:
> bad sector wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:11:56 -0500 :
> 
>> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good 
>> driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
>>
> 
> 
> The joke about people who are stupid shouldn't get a licence is partly true
> in that driving has *always* involved (thousands of) distractions.
> 
> Those who can't handle distractions will *always* have accidents.
> 
> The cellphone simply displaced an existing distraction, and, by most
> accounts, the cellphone is not even the biggest distraction while driving.
> 
> But you can *predict* the accident rate would not change with increased
> cellphone usage simply by knowing that there are plenty of distractions
> already. Adding one more changes nothing in the whole scheme of things.
> 
>> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
>> brain-free, argue with that.
> 
> Like you, I've also driven a million miles in my many decades of driving (I
> started when I was a young teen, well before I could get a license).
> 
> Not one accident.
> 
> Good student discount on insurance for when I was a student (which happened
> to be a very long time given I went to university for graduate degrees).
> 
> Good driver discount too.
> 
> People who have been in an accident have no right to even be in this
> discussion as the fact they couldn't avoid that accident is indicative that
> they're bad drivers (as you should be able to predict most accidents).
> 
> Anyway, nobody can find a single cite that backs up their religious
> fabrication that cellphones had a huge effect on the accident rate in the
> USA. That's because there was no effect whatsoever from cell phones.
> 
> Zero.
> 
> There are good reasons for that, given cellphones are certainly an "added
> distraction" to the hundreds (if not thousands!) of existing distractions.
> 
> HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
> gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.


'been here before; defensive driving isn't based on statistics but on 
suspicion, paranoia and prejudice, thank you very much. I couldn't care 
less whether phones have effect on stats, the roads and conditions have 
changed, statistics have never stopped a single accident from happening 
and are thus irrelevant.


-- 
All species of mobile phones, media devices, Bluetooth or not, and 
onboard presentation systems beyond what is essential for vehicle 
control should automatically disable themselves within 10 meters of any 
vehicle in motion at any speed. "Hands-Free does NOT mean Brain-Free". 
In the case of approaching vehicles (pedestrian use included) that 
distance should be multiplied (prorated) for every 5km/h of CLOSURE 
speed (i.e. no such device should be operable within 200 meters of any 
vehicle approaching at 100 km/h). Manufacturers of devices in which such 
an automatic lockout feature is missing or can be disabled should first 
pay large fines and then be barred from the jurisdiction market. With 
respect to other road-hog conduct, in addition to intoxication or 
attention-diverting use of lethal-technology while driving, 
brake-checking and tailgating should also be hanging crimes. Any 
irresponsible vehicle handling should in fact be punished exactly as it 
would be in the case of irresponsible weapons handling (which ALSO needs 
to be beefed up).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145174

bad sector wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 07:28:53 -0500 :

>> HINT: People who are too stupid to handle distractions while driving are
>> gonna have an accident whether a cellphone is in the car or not.
> 
> 'been here before; defensive driving isn't based on statistics but on 
> suspicion, paranoia and prejudice, thank you very much. I couldn't care 
> less whether phones have effect on stats, the roads and conditions have 
> changed, statistics have never stopped a single accident from happening 
> and are thus irrelevant.

Once you discount science in favor of your own personal religion, nothing 
more can be said (since you own an arbitrary belief system).

And that's OK.

Plenty of people are uneducated in math & sciences so they believe whatever 
it is that they want to believe - and that's OK. Most people are stupid.

Having said it's OK to be stupid like most people are, I prefer to 
understand the math and science involved, instead of just guessing like you 
do.

And that's OK too.

As I said, only one in a million is intelligent enough to understand most 
topics which aren't what they appear to be to the ignorant unwashed masses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145169

"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message 
news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
>> super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
>>
>>>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of evidence 
>>>> is
>>>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these accidents 
>>>> that
>>>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
>>>
>>> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend 
>>> crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a chain 
>>> reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm willing to 
>>> bet she was on the phone.
>>
>>
>> I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your 
>> world).
>>
>>> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are 
>>> needed.
>>
>> Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
>> distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to 
>> handle
>> those distractions should be driving.
>> That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
>>
>> If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds 
>> (maybe
>> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or 
>> otherwise.
>>
>> In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a license.
>>
>> In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount and 
>> a
>> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle 
>> distractions.
>>
>> If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
>> driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
>> conversation.
>>
>> Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a good
>> driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
>>
>
> -- 
> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good driver" 
> and "good student" discounts my whole life.
>
> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
> brain-free, argue with that.

Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same time. 
You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the same time. 
Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but virtually 
everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145170

On 12/12/24 10:09, Scout wrote:
> 
> 
> "bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message 
> news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
>>> super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
>>>
>>>>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of 
>>>>> evidence is
>>>>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these 
>>>>> accidents that
>>>>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to exist.
>>>>
>>>> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile 
>>>> friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, 
>>>> causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the 
>>>> hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.
>>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using Mercedes
>>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your 
>>> world).
>>>
>>>> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are 
>>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
>>> distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to 
>>> handle
>>> those distractions should be driving.
>>> That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
>>>
>>> If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds 
>>> (maybe
>>> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or 
>>> otherwise.
>>>
>>> In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a 
>>> license.
>>>
>>> In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount 
>>> and a
>>> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle 
>>> distractions.
>>>
>>> If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
>>> driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a 
>>> good
>>> driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good 
>> driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
>>
>> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
>> brain-free, argue with that.
> 
> Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same 
> time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the 
> same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but 
> virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.

bullshit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145171

"bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message 
news:OGednZ8P_OlMisb6nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 12/12/24 10:09, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message 
>> news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
>>>> super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
>>>>
>>>>>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of 
>>>>>> evidence is
>>>>>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these 
>>>>>> accidents that
>>>>>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to 
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile friend 
>>>>> crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, causing a 
>>>>> chain reaction and sending herself and others to the hospital. I'm 
>>>>> willing to bet she was on the phone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using 
>>>> Mercedes
>>>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your 
>>>> world).
>>>>
>>>>> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are 
>>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
>>>> distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to 
>>>> handle
>>>> those distractions should be driving.
>>>> That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
>>>>
>>>> If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds 
>>>> (maybe
>>>> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or 
>>>> otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a 
>>>> license.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount 
>>>> and a
>>>> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle 
>>>> distractions.
>>>>
>>>> If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
>>>> driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
>>>> conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a 
>>>> good
>>>> driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good 
>>> driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
>>>
>>> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
>>> brain-free, argue with that.
>>
>> Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same 
>> time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the 
>> same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but 
>> virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.
>
> bullshit

As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is your 
problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145173

Scout wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:09:36 -0600 :

>>> Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same 
>>> time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the 
>>> same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, but 
>>> virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very well.
>>
>> bullshit
> 
> As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is your 
> problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.

Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
use in vehicles.

Why has cellphones NOT increased the accident rate?

There are complex answers for that reason, but I'll just hint at one of the
answers which is that cellphones actually make driving safer at times.

Take the case of routing while driving in an unfamiliar city.
Which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning
b. Paper maps
c. Cellphones
(Pick one.)

Likewise, let's say you just missed a turn and you have no idea how to fix
that mistake. Which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning
b. Paper maps
c. Cellphones
(Pick one.)

Let's say there's traffic ahead so which is safer?
a. Dead reckoning (with or without FM/AM radio traffic reports)
b. Paper maps (with or without FM/AM radio traffic reports)
c. Cellphones

Notice there are multiple reasons why cellphones did NOT increase the
accident rate, one of which is that, at times, they actually make driving
safer; but that's not the only reason.

Think about what Scout astutely said, for example:
1. Distractions (hundreds of them) are part of driving
2. People too stupid to handle distractions have always had accidents
3. Distractions are not the major cause of accidents - but they're up there
4. And of course, a cellphone can certainly be a distraction

If you're intelligent, you'll instantly understand that people who are
intelligent have comprehensive systems in place to handle distractions.

Adding yet another distractions to a hundred existing distractions changes
nothing for people who are intelligent enough to handle distractions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145184

"Andrew" <andys@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:vjfjms$2jgh$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
> Scout wrote on Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:09:36 -0600 :
>
>>>> Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same 
>>>> time. You can drive, have a discussion and listen to music all at the 
>>>> same time. Now, I grant you need to be able to prioritize as needed, 
>>>> but virtually everyone, excluding yourself, can apparently do it very 
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> bullshit
>>
>> As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is 
>> your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.
>
> Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
> absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
> between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
> use in vehicles.

Then why is hands free not a real issue? Oh, because it's not about 
multitasking but rather failing to watch what is going on in front of you. 
Which is something else entirely.
Further I believe I covered that under your needing to prioritize your 
multitasking. I mean if what you said had any problems.. then audio systems 
would never be installed in cars, because according to you someone could 
only drive or listen to music but not both at the same time.

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145185

Scout wrote on Fri, 13 Dec 2024 11:00:01 -0600 :

>>> As I said your inability to think/do more than one thing at a time is 
>>> your problem, and one not shared by almost everyone else.
>>
>> Actually "Scout" is on to the answer to the mystery of why there is
>> absolutely no effect whatsoever on the well-documented USA accident rate
>> between the period before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
>> use in vehicles.
> 
> Then why is hands free not a real issue? Oh, because it's not about 
> multitasking but rather failing to watch what is going on in front of you. 
> Which is something else entirely.
> Further I believe I covered that under your needing to prioritize your 
> multitasking. I mean if what you said had any problems.. then audio systems 
> would never be installed in cars, because according to you someone could 
> only drive or listen to music but not both at the same time.

Agree with you that it's all about being able to handle distractions.

Driving *always* involved handling distractions. Out of hundreds (if not
thousands), what's one more distraction going to do if you can handle them?

Nothing. 

Which is what the accident rate shows. 

What's revealing is that intuition is always wrong. 
a. The sun revolves around the earth. Busted.
b. Gravity is a force. Busted.
c. Cellphones raised the accident rate. Busted.

In this case, everyone (including me!) would intuit that the accident rate
must have skyrocketed when cellphones were introduced.

And yet... they didn't.

For anyone who still claims cellphones raised the accident rate, then just
tell us how much you feel the accident rate was raised.

Do they feel it's ten times as many accidents per mile driven? 
Twenty? Fifty? A hundred times the accidents? What?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145377

On 12/17/2024 5:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On 12/12/2024 7:09 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless 
> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
> 
>>
>>
>> "bad sector" <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote in message 
>> news:KPSdnamkC5Kjncf6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> On 12/11/24 15:52, Andrew wrote:
>>>> super70s wrote on Wed, 11 Dec 2024 13:38:40 -0600 :
>>>>
>>>>>> And for all the morons out there who love to claim "absence of 
>>>>>> evidence is
>>>>>> not evidence of absence", then simply show evidence of these 
>>>>>> accidents that
>>>>>> you religiously feel must exist simply because you want them to 
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I saw in my hometown paper yesterday the sister of an erstwhile 
>>>>> friend crashed her Mercedes into two other cars at a stoplight, 
>>>>> causing a chain reaction and sending herself and others to the 
>>>>> hospital. I'm willing to bet she was on the phone.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree with you that there should be a law against using 
>>>> Mercedes
>>>> vehicles while driving. It makes perfect sense to do that (in your 
>>>> world).
>>>>
>>>>> Anecdotal but I've seen enough anecdotes to believe these laws are 
>>>>> needed.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said that driving doesn't *already* include handling a zillion
>>>> distractions, so we all agree that only people who are too stupid to 
>>>> handle
>>>> those distractions should be driving.
>>>> That's why we have a "driving test" for all drivers after all.
>>>>
>>>> If they're too stupid to handle one more distraction out of hundreds 
>>>> (maybe
>>>> thousands) then they shouldn't be driving a vehicle, Mercedes or 
>>>> otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> In reality, there should be a law against giving stupid people a 
>>>> license.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, insurance companies always gave me a "good driver" discount 
>>>> and a
>>>> "good student" discount because I'm not too stupid to handle 
>>>> distractions.
>>>>
>>>> If someone has NOT always received both those discounts their entire
>>>> driving life, then they are (by definition) too stupid to be in this
>>>> conversation.
>>>>
>>>> Moving forward, please append the sig with whether or not you have a 
>>>> good
>>>> driver discount and (when you were going to school) a good student one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Not stupid so I can handle distractions, as evidenced by my "good 
>>> driver" and "good student" discounts my whole life.
>>>
>>> Over a million miles without accidents says that hands-free is not 
>>> brain-free, argue with that.
>>
>> Easy.. most people can easily think about multiple things at the same 
>> time. 
> 
> You cannot intelligently think of even *one* thing at a time, scooter.

Did you have to unzip your pants first to count that high again?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web