Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Cell phone law

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think thats one of those kind of laws where once you get pulled over for a bigger infraction and then when the cop walks up to your car then he could add it on..... Not very realistic though as an enforceable law
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Some studies show that drivers using cell phones tend to ignore the law prohibiting the act; however, other studies show that a ban is effective in urban areas.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:15:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Some studies show that drivers using cell phones tend to ignore the law prohibiting the act; however, other studies show that a ban is effective in urban areas.

Also If your on the phone, its one hand versus two. Also If the signal is bad, then it would be an addition distraction, as opposed to just talking to a person in the car.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.


Some studies show that drivers using cell phones tend to ignore the law prohibiting the act; however, other studies show that a ban is effective in urban areas.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:21:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:15:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Some studies show that drivers using cell phones tend to ignore the law prohibiting the act; however, other studies show that a ban is effective in urban areas.

Also If your on the phone, its one hand versus two. Also If the signal is bad, then it would be an addition distraction, as opposed to just talking to a person in the car.

Do you drive with two hands on the wheel? I haven't done that since I was 17.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.

That's a correlation causation fallacy and you know it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:28:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.

That's a correlation causation fallacy and you know it.

yeah, it is. But one can determine that there is no or minimal correlation between cell phone usage and crash fatalities. And if there is no correlation, there is no causation. And I'd be willing to bet that the correlation between drunk driving and fatalities is much stronger, indicating that cell phone usage cannot possible be the equivilent. I just wanted to say it in a shorter manner.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:28:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.
You're not the only passenger in the world. And helping the driver does not require you to be fully concentrated on the driving. You can still offer tons of more help than anyone on the phone.

Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.
You take such statistics seriously? Link me to a study, thanks.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:28:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.
You're not the only passenger in the world. And helping the driver does not require you to be fully concentrated on the driving. You can still offer tons of more help than anyone on the phone.

Can =/= does.

I may not be the only passenger in the world, but I use to carpool to work (sucks!!) and no one pays attention, at all, they tend to either talk about work (and the rest of us wish they would shut up) or they try to get a little extra sleep (while someone keeps talking about work keeping them awake).


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.
You take such statistics seriously? Link me to a study, thanks.

I linked the raw numbers. You shouldn't need someone to interpret them for you (that would be an appeal to authority).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:28:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.

That's a correlation causation fallacy and you know it.

yeah, it is. But one can determine that there is no or minimal correlation between cell phone usage and crash fatalities. And if there is no correlation, there is no causation. And I'd be willing to bet that the correlation between drunk driving and fatalities is much stronger, indicating that cell phone usage cannot possible be the equivilent. I just wanted to say it in a shorter manner.

Other variables are changing through time. Probably most important, car designs are safer and more people wear seatbelts. All this shows is fatalities, not amount of collisions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:43:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:32:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Can =/= does.
When something can be done, as opposed to something that can't be done, then the former is ultimately superior in practice. That's obvious.

I may not be the only passenger in the world, but I use to carpool to work (sucks!!) and no one pays attention, at all, they tend to either talk about work (and the rest of us wish they would shut up) or they try to get a little extra sleep (while someone keeps talking about work keeping them awake).
Many a times it happens that passengers help the drivers out one way or another. You don't have to be fully concentrated. In case you notice the driver is a bit distracted, you can simply remind him to make him more alert. I've witnessed that tons of times. It's a normal thing.


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.
You take such statistics seriously? Link me to a study, thanks.

I linked the raw numbers. You shouldn't need someone to interpret them for you (that would be an appeal to authority).
An interpretation is not an appeal to authority. All statistics should be interpreted. I never asked for you to offer me an interpretation that I will believe in right away. An interpretation would be an explanation of what the statistics show. Often times the statistics are much more complex when explicated than when presented with raw numbers.

Raw numbers can be useless. Statistics too. An explanation of how the statistics were gathered, under which conditions, etc., is essential.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 5:55:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:39:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:28:36 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:22:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:20:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:09:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:45:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

We have one in Oregon, though hands-free is allowed (passed in June of 2009, I think took effect January 1 2010). To me, it doesn't make sense.

Sure, you are distracted at the moment you are dialing in the number (unless you have the skill to dial without looking, I know some people can, but not too many), but while you are on the phone, you are no more distracted than if you are talking to someone there in the car (while driving with 1 hand).

That is because while on the phone, your only attention that is taken away, is your listening and verbal communication. Both of which would be effected by someone being in the car with you at the same time anyway.

However, according to NTSB, the fatality rate is going down, not up. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov... So if there is an effect from phone usage while driving, it is insignificant, at best.

I'd be willing to bet that the cell phone usage while driving from 1994 to 2009 has gone up more than a smidge, while "Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled" has dropped from 1.73 to 1.14 (a 34.1% drop) and "Fatalities per 100 Thousand Population" has dropped from 15.64 to 11.01 (a 29.6% drop).

We haven't had enough time to get a good idea how much help (if any) this has done for us, but before this law, from 2008 to 2009, our fatality rate dropped 9% (from 416 in 2008 to 377 in 2009) and the national average was a 10% drop. And I wouldn't be surprised if from 2009 (last year without the law) to 2010 (first year with it) that we see another 9% drop and law makers saying, "look!!! Our policy dropped the death rate by 9%, we saved dozens of lives!!!"
Talking to someone in the car is not the exact same thing as talking over the cell phone. In case you're about to take a wrong action while driving, the passenger can make you aware of your mistake. The person over the phone cannot.

Right, because when I'm a passenger, I'm focused on the road just as much as the driver. I'm not starring out the window trying to fall asleep or anything.


Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.

That's a correlation causation fallacy and you know it.

yeah, it is. But one can determine that there is no or minimal correlation between cell phone usage and crash fatalities. And if there is no correlation, there is no causation. And I'd be willing to bet that the correlation between drunk driving and fatalities is much stronger, indicating that cell phone usage cannot possible be the equivilent. I just wanted to say it in a shorter manner.

Other variables are changing through time. Probably most important, car designs are safer and more people wear seatbelts. All this shows is fatalities, not amount of collisions.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov...

Seatbelt usage in 2010 was upto 85% from 84% in 2009. Obviously that is not a significant difference (1 percentage point), and it would be a far stretch to claim that has a major contributing factor to the lowering death rates.

Obviously we can say that cars are getting safer, though that seems odd, since in 2008 and 2009, the car companies were near bankrupt because they couldn't sell new cars. So in the 2008 - 2009 time, there were few new cars on the road. Sure, comparing 2009 to 1999 we would see vastly safer cars, but comparing 2009 to 2008, not so much.

Of course, the next thing would be pointing to the Cash for Clunkers as something that put newer, safer cars on the road. That could likely make a difference, but that wouldn't explain why we see a steady drop from 2007 - 2010 (in Oregon at least).

http://www.oregon.gov...

Going to Oregon, for total car crashes, from 2007 to 2009, we saw three years of slow drops (-1.94% 2007, -5.70% in 2008, and -1.30% in 2009), then a sudden increase in 2010 (6.84%).

Now, perhaps you can link that to the popularity of smart phones, as they become more common, they pose an increased risk. However, logically, that is not from simply talking on the phone (as non-smart phones of the past could have done that), it would likely be from doing non-basic stuff (things that smart phones can do that non-smart phones cannot).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 6:20:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 5:43:45 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 5:32:21 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Can =/= does.
When something can be done, as opposed to something that can't be done, then the former is ultimately superior in practice. That's obvious.

I may not be the only passenger in the world, but I use to carpool to work (sucks!!) and no one pays attention, at all, they tend to either talk about work (and the rest of us wish they would shut up) or they try to get a little extra sleep (while someone keeps talking about work keeping them awake).
Many a times it happens that passengers help the drivers out one way or another. You don't have to be fully concentrated. In case you notice the driver is a bit distracted, you can simply remind him to make him more alert. I've witnessed that tons of times. It's a normal thing.

http://www.google.com...

Passengers are a well known distraction to the point that many states have laws for minors having passengers in their cars while they are still learning.

However, going back to the original topic.

http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...

of the total car crashes involving cell phone usage in 2008 in Oregon was 0.7%, and in 2009, it was 0.8%, and in 2010, it was 0.5%. So you can claim that the law is a success, however, when you're looking at something that already accounts for less than 1% of car crashes, you're not going to make a dent on the big picture (it should be noted, that these number represent the number of crashes that involve cell phones, not the number that are caused by them).

In fact, we can see that towing a trailer is linked to just as many accidents as cell phone usage



Moreover, driving while talking on a cellphone is estimated to being the equivalent of being affected by alcohol, having a percentage of 0.08% blood alcohol level.

Odd, apparently the numbers suggest that having more drunk drivers (e.g. people driving with cell phones) lowers the death rate.
You take such statistics seriously? Link me to a study, thanks.

I linked the raw numbers. You shouldn't need someone to interpret them for you (that would be an appeal to authority).
An interpretation is not an appeal to authority. All statistics should be interpreted. I never asked for you to offer me an interpretation that I will believe in right away. An interpretation would be an explanation of what the statistics show. Often times the statistics are much more complex when explicated than when presented with raw numbers.

Raw numbers can be useless. Statistics too. An explanation of how the statistics were gathered, under which conditions, etc., is essential.

If the raw numbers are useless, than any interpretation from those raw numbers is useless.

If you are unable to interpret the numbers yourself, then you are blindly trusting the interpretation of others. And if you say that one interpretation is right because of such and such status, that then becomes an appeal to authority.

Raw data is the purest form of data, and is the least likely to be corrupted.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2011 10:18:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Isn't it harder to text and drive while You're also looking out for cops who might see you doing it? I would think this would just exasperate the problem!
Rob
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 7:08:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 6:20:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

Passengers are a well known distraction to the point that many states have laws for minors having passengers in their cars while they are still learning.
State the obvious. But here's something for you: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Much more than raw numbers.

However, going back to the original topic.

http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...

of the total car crashes involving cell phone usage in 2008 in Oregon was 0.7%, and in 2009, it was 0.8%, and in 2010, it was 0.5%. So you can claim that the law is a success, however, when you're looking at something that already accounts for less than 1% of car crashes, you're not going to make a dent on the big picture (it should be noted, that these number represent the number of crashes that involve cell phones, not the number that are caused by them).

In fact, we can see that towing a trailer is linked to just as many accidents as cell phone usage
What's your point? Two wrongs make a right?

If the raw numbers are useless, than any interpretation from those raw numbers is useless.
Not true. By interpretation, I hope you mean all the things I mentioned are taken into consideration. The backgrounds of statistics have to be known.

If you are unable to interpret the numbers yourself, then you are blindly trusting the interpretation of others. And if you say that one interpretation is right because of such and such status, that then becomes an appeal to authority.
That's not what I consider an interpretation of statistics. As I said, background has to be known most of the time.

Raw data is the purest form of data, and is the least likely to be corrupted.
It is the easiest to misinterpret. You can drain any kind of message out of raw numbers. Too many fallacies are easily committed by interpreting raw numbers without having any background info about them. Cum hoc fallacy, for a start.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 10:28:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 7:08:43 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2011 6:20:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://www.google.com...

Passengers are a well known distraction to the point that many states have laws for minors having passengers in their cars while they are still learning.
State the obvious. But here's something for you: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Much more than raw numbers.

And totally useless. Tested 41 people, and that is the only hard number it provided. The "Drivers talking by cell phone drove significantly worse than drivers talking to passengers," holds no objective value as "significant" without a number attached to it is meaningless.

Oregon can make the claim that their law reduced cell phone related car crashes by a "significant" amount, but if no number is given with that for you to decide if it is significant or not, then it is garbage as far as statistics are concerned.

You only accept this study because it tells you exactly what you want to hear.

I can pull any "study" that says whatever I want and throw it around, like this one http://www.dailytech.com...

Of course, with no numbers, it is upto me to believe them with no solid proof. Just the same as it is with yours. No proof is given, you just have to believe, which you choose to because it agrees with your pre-conceived ideas.


However, going back to the original topic.

http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...

of the total car crashes involving cell phone usage in 2008 in Oregon was 0.7%, and in 2009, it was 0.8%, and in 2010, it was 0.5%. So you can claim that the law is a success, however, when you're looking at something that already accounts for less than 1% of car crashes, you're not going to make a dent on the big picture (it should be noted, that these number represent the number of crashes that involve cell phones, not the number that are caused by them).

In fact, we can see that towing a trailer is linked to just as many accidents as cell phone usage
What's your point? Two wrongs make a right?

If the raw numbers are useless, than any interpretation from those raw numbers is useless.
Not true. By interpretation, I hope you mean all the things I mentioned are taken into consideration. The backgrounds of statistics have to be known.

If you are unable to interpret the numbers yourself, then you are blindly trusting the interpretation of others. And if you say that one interpretation is right because of such and such status, that then becomes an appeal to authority.
That's not what I consider an interpretation of statistics. As I said, background has to be known most of the time.

Raw data is the purest form of data, and is the least likely to be corrupted.
It is the easiest to misinterpret. You can drain any kind of message out of raw numbers. Too many fallacies are easily committed by interpreting raw numbers without having any background info about them. Cum hoc fallacy, for a start.

And anyone else that is interpretting them can also misinterpret them, or have bais motivations to lead people astray. All you're doing is compounding upon any risks and trusting that they wouldn't lie to you.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:24:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 10:28:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
And totally useless. Tested 41 people, and that is the only hard number it provided. The "Drivers talking by cell phone drove significantly worse than drivers talking to passengers," holds no objective value as "significant" without a number attached to it is meaningless.
You don't understand the term 'significant.' You need to differentiate between significant and sufficient. The study claims that the difference between driving with passengers and driving while talking on a cellphone is significant, i.e., important and quite different. That's objective. Read the whole article.

Oregon can make the claim that their law reduced cell phone related car crashes by a "significant" amount, but if no number is given with that for you to decide if it is significant or not, then it is garbage as far as statistics are concerned.
You're using the term "significant" wrongly. The study doesn't have to explain why the difference in numbers are significant. It tells that the driving differences are significant. Read again.

"The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increase in the demand of the traffic." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (Same study.)

You only accept this study because it tells you exactly what you want to hear.
Where did I say I hold is as full evidence? I think more studies need to be done. Besides, make sure you don't cite studies which commit fallacies in the future (or at least, don't interpret them to being fallacious).

I can pull any "study" that says whatever I want and throw it around, like this one http://www.dailytech.com...

Of course, with no numbers, it is upto me to believe them with no solid proof. Just the same as it is with yours. No proof is given, you just have to believe, which you choose to because it agrees with your pre-conceived ideas.
Does that study give any number?


However, going back to the original topic.

http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...

of the total car crashes involving cell phone usage in 2008 in Oregon was 0.7%, and in 2009, it was 0.8%, and in 2010, it was 0.5%. So you can claim that the law is a success, however, when you're looking at something that already accounts for less than 1% of car crashes, you're not going to make a dent on the big picture (it should be noted, that these number represent the number of crashes that involve cell phones, not the number that are caused by them).

In fact, we can see that towing a trailer is linked to just as many accidents as cell phone usage
What's your point? Two wrongs make a right?
You ignored this.

If the raw numbers are useless, than any interpretation from those raw numbers is useless.
Not true. By interpretation, I hope you mean all the things I mentioned are taken into consideration. The backgrounds of statistics have to be known.
This is also ignored.

If you are unable to interpret the numbers yourself, then you are blindly trusting the interpretation of others. And if you say that one interpretation is right because of such and such status, that then becomes an appeal to authority.
That's not what I consider an interpretation of statistics. As I said, background has to be known most of the time.
And one more important point ignored.

Raw data is the purest form of data, and is the least likely to be corrupted.
It is the easiest to misinterpret. You can drain any kind of message out of raw numbers. Too many fallacies are easily committed by interpreting raw numbers without having any background info about them. Cum hoc fallacy, for a start.

And anyone else that is interpretting them can also misinterpret them, or have bais motivations to lead people astray. All you're doing is compounding upon any risks and trusting that they wouldn't lie to you.
Once more: interpretation of numbers is not a mere opinion on what they are telling. An interpretation of statistics, by minimum, requires that those who made the statistics come with certain background information. For instance, if a statistic says, "Vitamin pill consumers 2 times more likely to get a heart attack" then this is useless because we do not know the age of these consumers, their nationalities, their health, and so forth. There's no background info behind the numbers.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:52:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:24:49 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/14/2011 10:28:04 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
And totally useless. Tested 41 people, and that is the only hard number it provided. The "Drivers talking by cell phone drove significantly worse than drivers talking to passengers," holds no objective value as "significant" without a number attached to it is meaningless.
You don't understand the term 'significant.' You need to differentiate between significant and sufficient. The study claims that the difference between driving with passengers and driving while talking on a cellphone is significant, i.e., important and quite different. That's objective. Read the whole article.

lol, what is "important" is completely subjective, not objective.


Oregon can make the claim that their law reduced cell phone related car crashes by a "significant" amount, but if no number is given with that for you to decide if it is significant or not, then it is garbage as far as statistics are concerned.
You're using the term "significant" wrongly. The study doesn't have to explain why the difference in numbers are significant. It tells that the driving differences are significant. Read again.

Yes they do. Simply saying something is "significant" does not make it so. This is that entire bloody appear to authority. You're accepting things with no proof simply because some "interpreter" says so.


"The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increase in the demand of the traffic." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (Same study.)

No it does, it doesn't "show" anything. It tells you something with no numerical evidence.


You only accept this study because it tells you exactly what you want to hear.
Where did I say I hold is as full evidence? I think more studies need to be done. Besides, make sure you don't cite studies which commit fallacies in the future (or at least, don't interpret them to being fallacious).

Raw numbers cannot be fallacious, only the interpretations of them.


I can pull any "study" that says whatever I want and throw it around, like this one http://www.dailytech.com...

Of course, with no numbers, it is upto me to believe them with no solid proof. Just the same as it is with yours. No proof is given, you just have to believe, which you choose to because it agrees with your pre-conceived ideas.
Does that study give any number?

It gives about as much as yours, none, which is why I didn't originally use it. I only posted it to show that any study can say anything it wants, but if no evidence is provided, then it is meaningless.



However, going back to the original topic.

http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...
http://www.oregon.gov...

of the total car crashes involving cell phone usage in 2008 in Oregon was 0.7%, and in 2009, it was 0.8%, and in 2010, it was 0.5%. So you can claim that the law is a success, however, when you're looking at something that already accounts for less than 1% of car crashes, you're not going to make a dent on the big picture (it should be noted, that these number represent the number of crashes that involve cell phones, not the number that are caused by them).

In fact, we can see that towing a trailer is linked to just as many accidents as cell phone usage
What's your point? Two wrongs make a right?
You ignored this.

Because it wasn't worth responding to. I pointed out that statistically, cell phone usage makes up an extremely small portion of crashes (less than 1%), ergo they are not that dangerous. No correlation means no causation.

You're responce didn't challenge that at all.


If the raw numbers are useless, than any interpretation from those raw numbers is useless.
Not true. By interpretation, I hope you mean all the things I mentioned are taken into consideration. The backgrounds of statistics have to be known.
This is also ignored.

All points regarding interpretation were addressed, no need to repeat and waste space.


If you are unable to interpret the numbers yourself, then you are blindly trusting the interpretation of others. And if you say that one interpretation is right because of such and such status, that then becomes an appeal to authority.
That's not what I consider an interpretation of statistics. As I said, background has to be known most of the time.
And one more important point ignored.

All points regarding interpretation were addressed, no need to repeat and waste space.


Raw data is the purest form of data, and is the least likely to be corrupted.
It is the easiest to misinterpret. You can drain any kind of message out of raw numbers. Too many fallacies are easily committed by interpreting raw numbers without having any background info about them. Cum hoc fallacy, for a start.

And anyone else that is interpretting them can also misinterpret them, or have bais motivations to lead people astray. All you're doing is compounding upon any risks and trusting that they wouldn't lie to you.
Once more: interpretation of numbers is not a mere opinion on what they are telling. An interpretation of statistics, by minimum, requires that those who made the statistics come with certain background information. For instance, if a statistic says, "Vitamin pill consumers 2 times more likely to get a heart attack" then this is useless because we do not know the age of these consumers, their nationalities, their health, and so forth. There's no background info behind the numbers.

That is not a raw statistic, that would be an interpretation.

Raw data would be...

A 10 year double blind study of 1,000 people, where 500 were given daily vitamin pills and 500 given daily placebos showed that of the 500 given the vitimans, 27 died from heart attacks over the 10 years, while 53 of the 500 placebo takers died from heart attacks.

This is, of course, in word form, where excel form is ideal (you can have more raw data in less room, so it is easier to follow). And true, this raw data doesn't tell us much, but anything interpreted from this would tell us EVEN LESS.

Ideally, in this case, the raw data would be broken down by age, nationality, gender, and other factors. You can only then interpret it when those are present in the raw data, but you can't intrepert those factors if they are not in the raw data.

An interpretation is a filtering of the raw data to find what one considers significant. Therefore, it cannot hold any more info than the raw data itself.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2011 11:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Someone ran into the back of my work van 2 days ago while texting. I hope they pass it. Can't you stop texting long enough to get to your destination? If you can't your pathetic. Good news was I have a huge beefy trailer hitch and it creamed the whole front end of their car and no damage to mine. You should go to jail for texting and driving. I bet texting is responsible for half of all accidents. I'm ok with hands free phone calls. But if you get in an accident the police should be allowed to check your call log on your cell phone if it is in plain site to see if you were texting.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 10:29:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:36:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Good news was I have a huge beefy trailer hitch and it creamed the whole front end of their car and no damage to mine.

Bad news is everybody keeps buying bigger vehicles to be safer at the expense of others. But I've spoke enough about the Tragedy of the Commons inherent in the free market...
Rob
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 10:57:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/14/2011 11:36:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Someone ran into the back of my work van 2 days ago while texting. I hope they pass it. Can't you stop texting long enough to get to your destination? If you can't your pathetic. Good news was I have a huge beefy trailer hitch and it creamed the whole front end of their car and no damage to mine. You should go to jail for texting and driving. I bet texting is responsible for half of all accidents. I'm ok with hands free phone calls. But if you get in an accident the police should be allowed to check your call log on your cell phone if it is in plain site to see if you were texting.

Then ban texting while driving. They are talking about banning all phone calls, and even hands-free cell phone calls.

Also, they can check your phone records. It was in the local paper not too long ago that someone got in a car crash that killed two other people (not them of course, the person that causes the accident never dies), the police found from his call log that he had sent 7 text messages during the 7 minutes prior to the crash.

However, it should be noted that (at least in Oregon, I'm sure every state is different but not by much), only 8% of crashes are from "distracted" driving, and only 0.5% are from cell phone use (calls and texts).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2011 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 10:57:26 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/14/2011 11:36:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Someone ran into the back of my work van 2 days ago while texting. I hope they pass it. Can't you stop texting long enough to get to your destination? If you can't your pathetic. Good news was I have a huge beefy trailer hitch and it creamed the whole front end of their car and no damage to mine. You should go to jail for texting and driving. I bet texting is responsible for half of all accidents. I'm ok with hands free phone calls. But if you get in an accident the police should be allowed to check your call log on your cell phone if it is in plain site to see if you were texting.

Then ban texting while driving. They are talking about banning all phone calls, and even hands-free cell phone calls.

Also, they can check your phone records. It was in the local paper not too long ago that someone got in a car crash that killed two other people (not them of course, the person that causes the accident never dies), the police found from his call log that he had sent 7 text messages during the 7 minutes prior to the crash.

However, it should be noted that (at least in Oregon, I'm sure every state is different but not by much), only 8% of crashes are from "distracted" driving, and only 0.5% are from cell phone use (calls and texts).

"However, it should be noted that (at least in Oregon, I'm sure every state is different but not by much), only 8% of crashes are from "distracted" driving, and only 0.5% are from cell phone use (calls and texts)."

I sure would like to know how they come to those figures. It's more like .05% to 8% were dumb enough to admit they were using a cell phone and that is what caused the accident.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2011 10:37:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/15/2011 8:24:27 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 12/15/2011 10:57:26 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/14/2011 11:36:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Someone ran into the back of my work van 2 days ago while texting. I hope they pass it. Can't you stop texting long enough to get to your destination? If you can't your pathetic. Good news was I have a huge beefy trailer hitch and it creamed the whole front end of their car and no damage to mine. You should go to jail for texting and driving. I bet texting is responsible for half of all accidents. I'm ok with hands free phone calls. But if you get in an accident the police should be allowed to check your call log on your cell phone if it is in plain site to see if you were texting.

Then ban texting while driving. They are talking about banning all phone calls, and even hands-free cell phone calls.

Also, they can check your phone records. It was in the local paper not too long ago that someone got in a car crash that killed two other people (not them of course, the person that causes the accident never dies), the police found from his call log that he had sent 7 text messages during the 7 minutes prior to the crash.

However, it should be noted that (at least in Oregon, I'm sure every state is different but not by much), only 8% of crashes are from "distracted" driving, and only 0.5% are from cell phone use (calls and texts).

"However, it should be noted that (at least in Oregon, I'm sure every state is different but not by much), only 8% of crashes are from "distracted" driving, and only 0.5% are from cell phone use (calls and texts)."

I sure would like to know how they come to those figures. It's more like .05% to 8% were dumb enough to admit they were using a cell phone and that is what caused the accident.

They can check your phone records to see if you were using phones at the time of the accident. Back when cell phones were legal to use while driving (just back in 2009 and before) there would be little motivation to lie (as opposed to now, where you get an additional ticket) and the rates were still just as low (around the 0.7% and 0.8%).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 8:57:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/13/2011 4:24:33 PM, innomen wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

"It would apply to hands-free as well as hand-held devices, but devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer would be allowed, the NTSB said."

Bluetooth must have lobbiests.

How enforceable is a law like this?

The enforceability of 'law" depends on where they place it in the Code. If it is a Motor vehicle regulation it is extremely enforceable because it will have insurance ramifications. If it is made a criminal offense, like insurance coverage laws, made administrative in its adjudication, and increased in severity with each offense it becomes another pain in the neck, and everyone will abide by it. The most recent methodology is to have certain evidence declared absolute proof of guilt, like a breathalyzer in Ohio.

Will Police want to be bothered will depend on how a "bust" effects their promotions. I am guessing it will first be made a secondary offense. No one will be ticketed unless they are pulled over for another offense. Withing three years that will then change to a primary, see seat belt laws.