On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
> On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
>> Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
>> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
>> them over.
>>
>> It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
>> to yield to someone who is more concerned with their self-absorbed
>> rudeness than personal safety.
>>
>> Take a bat to their skulls or just hit the gas and run over them.
>>
>> Pass a law to protect these drivers and absolve them of liability.
>
> Pick any high traffic road in NYS and if you travel any decent distance you are certain to see
> accidents and the vast majority of them are rear end accidents.
>
> It's out of control.

My grandson and I were both hit in signaled crosswalks by women who
couldn't possibly have hit us if they'd been watching where they were
going. I was lucky and the bitch only broke my bicycle seat so I just
yelled at her; grandson spent several days in the hospital and HIS
bitch's insurance didn't cover the whole cost.

There should have been jail time for his bitch.

--
Cheers, Bev
I'd rather not have neighbors. If I can see them, they're too close.
In fact, if I can see them through a rifle scope, they're too close.
-- Anonymous Coward

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
> > On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
> >> Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
> >> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
> >> them over.
> >>
> >> It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way

There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
the right of way."

It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
way. Instead, there are various situations where you
must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
of those situations exist.

One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> > On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
> > > On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
> > >> Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
> > >> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
> > >> them over.
> > >>
> > >> It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
>
> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
> the right of way."
>
> It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
> way. Instead, there are various situations where you
> must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
> of those situations exist.
>
> One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
> your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
> be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
> even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
The original list apparently was:

Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns

I think that says enough.

On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
> way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.

A driver can have the right of way.

> Instead, there are various situations where you must yield the right
> of way. You only proceed when none of those situations exist.

If you must legally yield, you do it for another driver who has the
right of way. An example would be yielding the right of way to oncoming
traffic when making a left turn.

> One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in your path. No
> matter how heedless or annoying they may be, you have no right to
> hit them with your vehicle

A pedestrian only has the right of way in a crosswalk. Cars have the
right of way everywhere else. In a non-crosswalk car-pedestrian ACCIDENT
the driver in not held at fault and would not receive a ticket. (Unless
he has violated some other law like speeding or driving on the wrong
side of the road, etc.)

Pedestrians occasionally do get ticketed when they fail to yield to
oncoming vehicles when crossing the street outside of a crosswalk by
making the car slow or stop.

> or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

There are several laws that apply if a driver intentionally threatens a
pedestrian with a car depending on the circumstance. But they are
criminal laws, not traffic laws...

On 17 Mar 2024 16:27:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> > > On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
> > > > On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
> > > >> Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
> > > >> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
> > > >> them over.
> > > >>
> > > >> It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
> >
> > There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
> > the right of way."
> >
> > It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
> > way. Instead, there are various situations where you
> > must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
> > of those situations exist.
> >
> > One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
> > your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
> > be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
> > even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
>
> The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
> The original list apparently was:
>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
>
> I think that says enough.

Indeed. Yes, I agree.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:41:25 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>> > On 3/16/24 4:53 PM, pothead wrote:
>> > > On 2024-03-16, Thuma <thuma@att.net> wrote:
>> > >> Anyone running their mouth on a cell phone and jaywalking should be
>> > >> considered fair game to stop and beat the shit out of them, or just run
>> > >> them over.
>> > >>
>> > >> It is not the responsibility of automobile drivers with the right-of-way
>>
>> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
>> the right of way."
>>
>> It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
>> way. Instead, there are various situations where you
>> must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
>> of those situations exist.
>>
>> One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
>> your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
>> be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
>> even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

Of course not, but we can still fantasize if we want to :-)

> The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
> The original list apparently was:
>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
>
> I think that says enough.

Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.

I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
snip the ones I'm not involved in.

I do apologize for not giving notice, though.

--
Cheers, Bev
Todd Flanders' hobbies include being quiet on long rides,
clapping to songs and diabetes.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
[...]
> > The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
> > The original list apparently was:
> >
> > Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
> >
> > I think that says enough.
>
> Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.

When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.

> I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
> encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
> posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
> newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
> far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
> snip the ones I'm not involved in.

Crossposting doesn't involve multiple news*servers*, only multiple
news*groups*. However it is possible that your newsserver (Eternal
September) limits the number of groups in a crosspost. AFAIK, 4 is a
common limit. The OP was crossposted to 5 groups.

> I do apologize for not giving notice, though.

No worries, just pay attention on the crosswalk when I'm approaching!

Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :

> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
> the right of way."

First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
(see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)

Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example,
where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like
blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but
they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).

The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker,
without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so
that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).

On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close,
is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with
that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.

> It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
> way. Instead, there are various situations where you
> must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
> of those situations exist.

Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical
rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large
container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are
positioned correctly in the red right return channel.

> One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
> your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
> be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
> even drive in a way that threatens to do so.

Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side, even though
the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
to proceed.

Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones
increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States
from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a
vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census
Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident
stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and
after cell phone use came into existence.

I need to repeat that.
And I need to make the statement very strong.

It's all about MATH.
Stan... You know math, right.

Where are the increase in the accident rates?
They do not exist.

That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal
people). They can't comprehend math.

Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.

First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
Yet, they're just one more of many.

Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.

Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go
up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going
up?

Not in the United States they didn't.
Not even a blip.

Why is that?

Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.

Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since
it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.

They don't.
They never did.

There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good
drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at
the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
rate.

Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
(nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.

Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is
strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).

Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.

1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)

But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which
has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence
that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.

The reason is simple.

The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.

On 17/3/2024, AJL wrote:

>> or even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
>
> There are several laws that apply if a driver intentionally threatens a
> pedestrian with a car depending on the circumstance. But they are
> criminal laws, not traffic laws...

In California, there's a relatively recent "bike safety" law which makes it
a legal offense to be fewer than, I think it's 3 feet, from a cyclist.

I don't know if it applies to pedestrians, now that I think about it.

Let me google that for me.
https://www.google.com/search?q=california+3+feet+law+cyclist

https://www.calbike.org/our_initiatives/give_me_3/
"The law requires motorists to give at least three feet of clearance when
passing people riding bikes."

On 3/17/24 1:44 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [...]
>> > The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
>> > The original list apparently was:
>> >
>> > Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
>> >
>> > I think that says enough.
>>
>> Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.
>
> When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
> readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.

No. The only readers will be those in the group that *I* am reading,
and those are the only ones I'm concerned with. It's sufficient to say
"other groups snipped". If anyone is interested they can look at
previous postings.

>> I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
>> encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
>> posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
>> newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
>> far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
>> snip the ones I'm not involved in.
>
> Crossposting doesn't involve multiple news*servers*, only multiple
> news*groups*. However it is possible that your newsserver (Eternal
> September) limits the number of groups in a crosspost. AFAIK, 4 is a
> common limit. The OP was crossposted to 5 groups.

No idea, but I take TB's word for it. It doesn't make sense to me
either. Next time I'll try x-posting to all of them and quote the exact
error message.

>> I do apologize for not giving notice, though.
>
> No worries, just pay attention on the crosswalk when I'm approaching!

Always! Well, you have to actually be IN it, not just approaching.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Attention: All virgins report to Paradise immediately!!
This is not a drill." --MWilliams

On 3/17/24 2:12 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
>
>> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
>> the right of way."
>
> First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
> (see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)
>
> Second, jaywalking is a basic right back east in NYC or Boston for example,
> where jaywalking laws are like immigration laws are in California and like
> blue laws laws are in Connecticut, where those laws are on the books, but
> they're not enforced by the police (so it's as if it's quasi legal).
>
> The only rule of the driver is to get as close as he can to the jaywalker,
> without actually striking him (but to strike a bit of fear in his heart so
> that the jaywalker "knows" the vehicle could kill him if it wanted to).

That's generally known as "keeping him honest". There are a number of
sports variants -- a sudden dropshot from the backcourt in tennis, for
instance.

> On the other hand, the job of the jaywalker, if the car comes "that" close,
> is to slam his open hand on the side of the fender (usually the back
> quarter panel due to the moving ergonomics of the encounter) and then with
> that same hand make a familiar gesture toward the receding driver who, in
> NY doesn't even think about it, as they each made their point in turn.

Same thing.

>> It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of
>> way. Instead, there are various situations where you
>> must yield the right of way. You only proceed when none
>> of those situations exist.
>
> Thirdly, as in sailing, there are rules, and then there are practical
> rules, where a sailboat yields to a tugboat towing a barge or to a large
> container ship just as a speedboat yields to a sailboat even if they are
> positioned correctly in the red right return channel.
>
>> One of those situations, of course, is a pedestrian in
>> your path. No matter how heedless or annoying they may
>> be, you have no right to hit them with your vehicle or
>> even drive in a way that threatens to do so.
>
> Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
> instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
> proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side,

Can you give me a cite for that? I've often wondered about the
wait-requirement for the little old lady on the far side of the 6-lane
street who will need 3 cycles to actually make it across the street.

> even though
> the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
> midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
> to proceed.

I figure I can go if there's no chance I could hit him even if he
suddenly broke into a sprint.

> Speaking of calculus, it turns out that only morons say that cell phones
> increase the accident rate - as there is no statistic in the United States
> from a reliable source (i.e., not three entities shown below who have a
> vested interest in skewing the statistics), particularly from the US Census
> Bureau which has kept*ACCURATE* (I repeat... ACCURATE!) traffic accident
> stats for all 50 states since the 1920s, and there is absolutely no bump,
> no spike, no jump... absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the normalized
> accident rates for ANY STATE IN THE USA for the period before, during and
> after cell phone use came into existence.
>
> I need to repeat that.
> And I need to make the statement very strong.
>
> It's all about MATH.
> Stan... You know math, right.
>
> Where are the increase in the accident rates?
> They do not exist.
>
> That's why people who say cellphones cause accident rates to go up are
> ALWAYS utter morons (usually their IQ doesn't approach that of normal
> people). They can't comprehend math.
>
> Only very stupid people say cellphones cause the accident rate to go up.
>
> First off, cellphones ARE a distraction.
> Yet, they're just one more of many.
>
> Where people handle distractions while driving all the time.
>
> Next off, sure, they "seem" to the ignorati to "cause" accident rates to go
> up - and yet - like the Fermi Paradox - where are the accident rates going
> up?
>
> Not in the United States they didn't.
> Not even a blip.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Anyone who claims cell phones increase accident rates is an utter moron.
>
> Sure, it sounds like it should do it. I agree. Even I (a rather well
> educated person, would "think" or "assume" or "guess" that it should since
> it's clearly an "added distraction") but guess what.
>
> They don't.
> They never did.
>
> There is a GOOD REASON why and it has everything to do with how "good
> drivers" handle "distractions" (of which they have identified the top 20 at
> the NJTSA, where all cell phones did was knock one off the top ten and
> insert themselves into that top ten - which doesn't change the accident
> rate.
>
> Notice I'm saying there is no mathematical evidence in the United States
> (nor in Australia, for that matter) that cell phones did anything
> whatsoever to the already existing (slowly lowering over time) accident
> rate (which is normalized for miles driven) in all 50 states.
>
> Oddly, in the UK, cell phones DID increase the accident rate (which is
> strange, so I suspect the stats are compiled by an agency with an agenda).
>
> Notice though that you can't ever find a reliable statistic that refutes
> what I say EXCEPT from three agencies which have an axe to grind.
>
> 1. Insurance companies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
> 2. Police agencies (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
> 3. Lawyers (who benefit from tickets penalizing drivers)
>
> But if you ignore those biased sources, and if you stick to the USA (which
> has had good census bureau stats since the 1920s), there is zero evidence
> that cellphones did anything to the accident rate.
>
> The reason is simple.
>
> The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.

One thing I noticed -- the sudden decrease in peripheral perception
(different from vision, I think) when I picked up the phone to answer
it. I did this once, when I first got a cellphone. Never again. I
rarely need to make/receive calls so ignoring or pulling over just isn't
a big deal.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Attention: All virgins report to Paradise immediately!!
This is not a drill." --MWilliams

The Real Bev wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:52:08 -0700 :

>> Fourthly, most people don't know the laws, where, in California, the
>> instant the pedestrian's foot touches the pavement, the driver can't even
>> proceed until both feet leave the pavement on the other side,
>
> Can you give me a cite for that? I've often wondered about the
> wait-requirement for the little old lady on the far side of the 6-lane
> street who will need 3 cycles to actually make it across the street.

This California DMV book (on page 48) says you hve to wait if the
pedestrian is "still in the intersection" but it doesn't define it.
https://static.epermittest.com/media/filer_public/41/b5/41b51b9c-c7c8-45bb-a864-f2ab12a6a3d9/california-drivers-manual-2022.pdf

On page 57 that California DMV book says you must let the pedestrian safely
"finish" the crossing.

This one also says the pedestrian has to "safely finish" the crossing
on page 41. https://cdn.dmv-test-pro.com/handbook/ca-drivers-handbook.pdf

But when I looked specifically for the law, all the laywer's cites clogged
up the Internet who have filled the Internet (given the search terms) with
their personal injury sales pitches.

This (from lawyers) indicates I may have been wrong.
https://www.karlaw.com/do-drivers-have-to-wait-for-pedestrians-to-cross-the-street/
"In California, the law does not state that a driver must wait for the
pedestrian to fully exit the crosswalk or the street before they proceed on
their way in their lane. A pedestrian must be safely out of the driver's
path of travel for them to begin driving again. According to the law, a
driver must yield the right of way to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked
crosswalk at an intersection while exercising due care at all times."

They changed it because of Black & Latino pedestrians, apparently.
https://www.casebarnettlaw.com/blog/9-crosswalk-laws-pedestrian-rules-every-californian-should-know.cfm

So it depends on what "safety finishes" the crossing means, I guess.
>> even though
>> the calculus of the busy driver is such that the pedestrian has crossed the
>> midline of the road halfway across and then the driver "thinks" it's legal
>> to proceed.
>
> I figure I can go if there's no chance I could hit him even if he
> suddenly broke into a sprint.

While I was looking that up, I found out that only recently jaywalking was
struck from the books in California on January 1st 2023 (a year ago).

"As of January 1, 2023 in California, violations of S21955 �V jaywalking
will no longer be against the law as long as it is done safely (for
example, there is no oncoming traffic at the time of the crossing). Prior
to 2023, jaywalking was prosecuted as an infraction carrying a fine of
around $200."
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/california-crosswalk-laws/

>> The reason is simple.
>>
>> The distraction simply displaced one of the other top ten distractions.
>
> One thing I noticed -- the sudden decrease in peripheral perception
> (different from vision, I think) when I picked up the phone to answer
> it. I did this once, when I first got a cellphone. Never again. I
> rarely need to make/receive calls so ignoring or pulling over just isn't
> a big deal.

The phone does not cause accidents to increase in the USA.

All the reliable stats (not from lawyers, police, or insurance outfits)
from the US Census (which has been keeping these stats since the 1920s
shows that accident rates have been slowly decreasing for years.

There was no spike before, during or after cell phones existed.
Just like with the Fermi Paradox, the Cellphone Paradox exists.

a. Certainly they're an added distraction.
b. Yet, just as certainly, they also prevent accidents.
c. And just as certainly, there are MANY distractions while driving.

It turns out that the reason cellphones don't add distractions overall is
that they simply replace one of the top ten distractions while driving.

There's a reason insurance companies give "good student discounts" because
dumb drivers will be distracted no matter what those top ten are.

It seems two things competed to make the accident rate have no bearing
whatsoever on the accident rate in all fifty states in the USA.

1. The added distraction just replaced one of the others in the top ten
2. There are safety factors inherent in using a cell phone too

But dumb people will have accidents no matter which of the top ten
distractions they fall prey to.

It's why insurance companies charge them more.

The odd thing though is in the UK, there was a spike in accidents.
Just not in the USA or Australia (where good data exists).

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/24 1:44 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 3/17/24 9:27 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > The Real Bev severely cut the 'Newsgroups: line (without saying so).
> >> > The original list apparently was:
> >> >
> >> > Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,misc.phone.mobile.iphone,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
> >> >
> >> > I think that says enough.
> >>
> >> Mea culpa, I usually mention that other newsgroups were snipped.
> >
> > When you do, please also note *which* newsgroups were snipped, so
> > readers are informed, especially about troll-groups like this.
>
> No. The only readers will be those in the group that *I* am reading,
> and those are the only ones I'm concerned with. It's sufficient to say
> "other groups snipped". If anyone is interested they can look at
> previous postings.

Looking up the posting to which you responded may not be easy if
people - like me - have killed crossposts to these troll groups.

I had to look at the 'source' of your post, look up the last
message-ID in the 'References:' header and the lookup that message-id on
<http://al.howardknight.net/>. For *me*, that's not too hard, but many -
and probably even most - people don't know how to do that.

So listing the groups you deleted is the decent thing to do.

> >> I snip for two reasons. The most important one is that I refuse to
> >> encourage flamage, which is apparently the intent of many original
> >> posts. The second is that Thunderbird refuses to send to more than one
> >> newsserver at a time. Since I have no way of knowing (without spending
> >> far more time than is warranted) which groups come from which servers, I
> >> snip the ones I'm not involved in.
> >
> > Crossposting doesn't involve multiple news*servers*, only multiple
> > news*groups*. However it is possible that your newsserver (Eternal
> > September) limits the number of groups in a crosspost. AFAIK, 4 is a
> > common limit. The OP was crossposted to 5 groups.
>
> No idea, but I take TB's word for it. It doesn't make sense to me
> either. Next time I'll try x-posting to all of them and quote the exact
> error message.

OK, we'll see.

Frank Slootweg wrote on 18 Mar 2024 11:23:12 GMT :

> I had to look at the 'source' of your post, look up the last
> message-ID in the 'References:' header and the lookup that message-id on
> <http://al.howardknight.net/>. For *me*, that's not too hard, but many -
> and probably even most - people don't know how to do that.

I suspect anyone intelligent who has been on Usenet for more than
a short time already knows how to look up a Message-ID from the References
header simply because it's useful & it has been discussed many times.

For example:
<http://al.howardknight.net/>
<http://news.chmurka.net/mid.php>
<http://usenet.ovh/index.php?article=ual>
<https://www.novabbs.com/SEARCH/search_nocem.php>
etc.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:26:07 -0700, AJL wrote:
> On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.
>
> > There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
> > way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.
>
> A driver can have the right of way.

I wonder about your source for Arizona law.

When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming
circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are all
just trying to keep things simple and readable.

The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an
intersection:
<https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
another vehicle.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 3/18/2024 11:32 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:26:07 -0700, AJL wrote:
>> On 3/17/2024 9:03 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

>> All comments below apply to my state AZ/US only. YMMV.

>>> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with the right of
>>> way." It's basic driver's ed. You NEVER "have" the right of way.

>> A driver can have the right of way.

> I wonder about your source for Arizona law.

It's simple logic. At the accident scene the cop is talking to the
drivers. He tells the one getting the ticket that he's at fault because
the other driver had the right of way.

> When I checked for California, there were lots of pages claiming
> circumstances where the driver has the right of way, but they are
> all just trying to keep things simple and readable.

And factual. You're arguing semantics. Even though the code may say
'vehicle', it is not the responsible party in traffic law. The driver is...

> The actual code doesn't give anyone the right of way at an
> intersection:

I spent hundreds of hours in traffic court in a prior life and no lawyer
or judge ever had a problem with with the codified driver-vehicle right
of way distinction.

> <https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/veh/21800-21807.html>
> As I said, it details circumstances under which you must yield to
> another vehicle.

Yup. AZ law is written pretty much the same...

On 2024-03-17 22:12, Andrew wrote:
> Stan Brown wrote on Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:03:20 -0700 :
>
>> There is no such thing as "an automobile driver with
>> the right of way."
>
> First, anyone who claims cellphones raise the accident rate, is a moron.
> (see below for the reason why I say that with confidence)

Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
accidents.

You are free to call the lawmakers and the entire police system morons.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

>Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
>without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
>to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
>accidents.

Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
their passenger while talking...

On 2024-03-20 16:33, AJL wrote:
> On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
>> without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
>> to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
>> accidents.
>
> Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?

Yes :-D

It is also forbidden to handle the GPS. I wonder why they don't prohibit
touch controls, but at least they get a worse security score in the
tests. Some brands are reverting to actual knobs.

> When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
> They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
> their passenger while talking...

Or more things like kissing+. At least on the movies. :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/20/24 8:33 AM, AJL wrote:
> On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>>Over here, the law says it is forbidden to use a phone while driving,
>>without a hands free system. And even with such a system it recommends
>>to keep the conversation to a minimum, and is justified by causing
>>accidents.

Fine with me. The one time I did it I could actually FEEL my peripheral
perception closing down. It's fortunate that I rarely need to use the
phone in the car, and when I do I pull over and stop.
> Does it recommend keeping conversation with passengers to a minimum also?
> When hearing that warning I often wondered why they weren't also included.
> They are perhaps more dangerous since folks sometimes glance sideways at
> their passenger while talking...

I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
looking at the passenger in movies. Like seeing an open refrigerator
door. I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
many turnoffs when I was chatting. Our internal autopilot works
entirely too well.

--
Cheers, Bev
"Many realize that the control of language is power. If you can't speak
your mind, your opinions have no weight." --nightfire-unique

On 2024-03-20 18:57, Andrew wrote:

Notice that by following up to groups with "politic" in the name, my
filters automatically kill the subthread. Thus I am not reading or
commenting on what you said.

Removing:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2024-03-20 20:13, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 3/20/24 8:33 AM, AJL wrote:
>> On 3/20/24 6:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

....

> I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
> looking at the passenger in movies.  Like seeing an open refrigerator
> door.

+2

> I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
> many turnoffs when I was chatting.  Our internal autopilot works
> entirely too well.

It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 3/20/24 12:34 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-03-20 20:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I never look at my passenger and it drives me nuts when I see the driver
>> looking at the passenger in movies.  Like seeing an open refrigerator
>> door.
>
> +2
>
>> I don't even like talking while driving -- I've missed far too
>> many turnoffs when I was chatting.  Our internal autopilot works
>> entirely too well.
>
> It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.

Nope. Anything at all.

--
Cheers, Bev
Hmph. I used to have snow tires. Never again. They melted in the
spring. I won't even start going on about my wood stove.
-- websurf1

Carlos E.R. wrote on Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:14:35 +0100 :

> Thus I am not reading or
> commenting on what you said.

Doesn't matter. It's all been said before since we've discussed this in the
past in gory detail, where you don't remember anything that was said then.

The fact remains, everyone thinks that cellphones must raise the accident
rate simply because they're an added distraction, and they are an added
distraction - but there is no reliable evidence that they have any effect
whatsoever on the accident rate in reliably reported USA Census Bureau
Statistics.

Furthermore, the fact remains everyone thinks making laws to make people do
safe things would lower the accident rate, but again, teh reliable
scientific evidence shows thta also is not the case.

The laws have no first order effects whatsoever on safety but they do have
a minor but statistically valid second-order effect on length of hospital
stay.

This was covered on March 16, 2016 on this newsgroup, and again in even
more gory detail on July 6, 2020 on this very newsgroup, Carlos.

Morons (without a shred of evidence) disputed it then.
Those same morons (with no evidence) dispute it now.

Morons will always be morons, but the facts remain true.

The main reason cellphones have no effect on the accident rate is likely
two fold, one of which is there are hundreds of distractions. Adding one is
like adding another hair to your head. It changes nothing in statistics.

In addition, cellphones prevent accidents, so they have a cancelling effect
on the accident rate because they may prevent as many as they cause.

It's not clear why cellphones have no effect whatsoever on the accident
rate, but what's eminently clear in the reliable records is there is no
change in the downward trend of accident rates in the USA for decades.

Just like the first post-Covid should have been a superspreader event if
all the morons were correct (and it wasn't), the facts show that cellphones
do not change the accident rate (neither up, nor down) in effect.

As with the Fermi Paradox, if you feel otherwise, you have to answer this:
Q: Where are the accidents?

The Real Bev wrote:

>> It has to be a light conversation, not deep. And not continuous.
>
> Nope. Anything at all.

In Myers-Briggs terms, maybe you're likely a strong "J" since you appear to
make rigid rules for yourself that you expect others to follow as you do.

If you don't know what your last category is, take this test to find out.
https://www.humanmetrics.com/personality

But from what you wrote, you're clearly a very strong "J" type person.