This is getting funny. You’re so far in the hole you’ll never come out again. But in order to avoid more obfuscation, I’ll just ask (again) one very simple question: Did the survey from which you took your stats say what, exactly, those passengers were doing? Now, if you can’t answer this question, I don’t see how you can say that they were JUST TALKING. And therefore the rest of your argument falls apart.
char-dawg: Magna cum Laude (woulda been Summa except, y'know, my dad died, which kind of messed me up that quarter), top graduate in Linguistics (which uses a lot of math, in case you didn't know) in my class from UCI (a major university last time I checked), and Phi Beta Kappa (selected as a junior). Just in case you feel as though you can only deign to converse with someone who matches your own illustrious academic pedigree...
If you know your shit, kevin, then you’ll recognize the issue with this particular survey is not with the randomness of the sampling but with the accuracy of the data collection, and unless you have some fancy-schmancy statistical model of how people lie when faced with such questions, standard techniques like confidence intervals and null hypothesis testing won’t tell you squat. Further, I would point out that it was completely irresponsible of you to suggest the numbers were worthless because the survey had limitations. There’s a vast difference between healthy criticism and criticism spawned by blindly-followed preconceptions. Your criticism has been of the latter variety.
The solution, “Question for Mike”, is NOT to outlaw every conceivable distraction, as you would suggest, but to outlaw irresponsible driving. Anyone who is driving irresponsibly – REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE – needs to pay the price for their incompetence. And conversely, someone who is driving responsibly, whether they’re talking on the cell phone or driving with their fucking eyes closed, should not be charged with a crime.
char-dawg, the statistic quoted is the net effect of simply HAVING a passenger in the fucking car. There is no other information available, but if you think 10% of accidents are caused by a passenger going insane and suddenly taking control of the steering wheel, you have lost your mind. Passengers, just by virtue of being in the car, are a distraction, moreso when they interact with the driver. Moreover, even if these accidents were caused entirely by crazed passengers, or passengers who suddenly did something the driver wasn’t expecting, there is no way to eliminate the 10% statistic short of banning passengers (unless you propose a that everyone take a psychiatric test and pass a “passenger safety course” before they can ride in a car, and even that wouldn’t be foolproof). And, by the way, I eat Magna Cum’s for breakfast. So there.
This is like talking to Jason Baran. You’re more ignorant than I thought, Mikey. No more off-topic issues for me. You really should apologize to Natey and a couple of others. I still swear, but man, Mikey, people like you remind me why I don’t swear nearly as much as I used to. It really does make you sound like an idiot. Besides that, I have this really funny image in my head of your blood pressure going through the roof and I don’t want you to have a heart attack over this. I’m out.
Just for the record, I didn’t mention anything in regards to morality. I am not a christian. I don’t even consider myself to be a person of high morals. I said that your swearing makes you sound like an idiot. It does. That is why every other word that comes out of my mouth is not a swear word anymore. I also know how to treat people with respect. Oh yeah, and I don’t eat cum for breakfast, either, Mikey.
I’m confused, Mike. You seem to want things in this original discussion both ways. First, you want people to argue with you regarding statistics, and when they don’t you shit on them. Conversely, when someone questions (not challenges) you regarding the appropriateness of the statistics presented, as I did, you ignore their questions and choose to answer about the ‘responsibility’ and correctness of the proposed bans. Sorry, but I don’t think you should be able to have it both ways. I simply asked you whether your stats had bias in them because the number of cell phone users would be under-represented in the total number of drivers, and thus, a lower percent of accidents could even be attributed to that distraction. I made no mention of whether or not I agree/disagree with the ban, I just questioned the usefulness of the statistics in your argument. I don’t understand why you didn’t comment on my actual question, and instead chose the correctness/responsibility route. If you don’t respond to this post, I’ll simply assume that you failed to see the bias in the original stats you presented, and because of your past training and success in mathematics, you were embarrassed to admit that to us. If this is the case, I would suggest that you abstain from answering your cellphone in the next little while, it could be your alma mater requesting you give back your degree and accolades. Ollie.
kevin, you do not have to be a Christian to have morals derived from or inspired by Christian morality. Certainly, your aversion to certain combinations of phonemes (such as the word “fuck”) is not the product of rational thought.
“Question”: I disregarded your question because it was irrelevant. Certainly, the number of cell phone accidents is small in part because a significant percentage of the population does not use a cell phone while driving. But that does not change my argument, which is based on the number of accidents caused by cell phones versus the number of accidents caused by other distractions. Driving with your eyes closed perhaps causes a couple of deaths per year. I would argue pragmatically that before banning driving with your eyes closed, you should take care of those distractions that cause hundreds or thousands of deaths (such as having passengers in the car). Of course, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument. In reality I don’t think the mere potential for harm should ever be outlawed, but rather, the actual harm itself.
You know, I could find some more statistics. I could hop right into these arguments and add to the chaos. Instead, I’d like to try something else. I’d like to take what Nate Dogg had to say one step further and I’d like to proprose an alternate solution to banning cell phones.
Rather than ban cell phones, why not ticket people who drive recklessly while using cell phones. Maybe the fine could be $100 ($250 if you really want to deter people). And after 3 of these offenses, the offender loses their license for a while.
I know that driving “recklessly” is subjective. To me reckless driving would include crossing over the yellow line and not using directionals.
Let me know what you think about this alternative solution.
So, your original argument was that TALKING with passengers in the car was worse than using a cell phone, but you don’t really know, do you? No, I don’t think that every passenger in that 10.8% went insane, but I do think it very likely that there were children acting up, dates crying, people reading magazines and saying “Hey, look at this…” etc. Personally, I drove for decades in the US, usually with passengers in the car, and never had any problems just TALKING with them. That’s my real-world experience. Apparently others on this board have had similar experiences. So it’s pretty obvious that talking with passengers while driving isn’t considered a major risk by much of anyone (except maybe you), regardless of what any given ambiguous survey might have to say.
It's also obvious that this thread has become an emotional issue for you, and that no matter what anyone says now, you're not going to respond civilly or with much in the way of objectivity. You have refused to apologize for your gratuitous insulting of Natey, you twist and turn to avoid the very good and logical points that I and others have made, and basically there's no point in continuing this "discussion" with you.
Eat whatever cum you like for breakfast - but it won’t be mine.
Natt, instead of ticketing people who drive recklessly while using cell phones, why not ticket people who drive recklessly – regardless of whether or not they’re using cell phones? Surely you wouldn’t want people who drove recklessly to get away with it simply because they weren’t using a cell phone. Would you?
char, you say “it [is] very likely that there were children acting up, dates crying, people reading magazines and saying ‘Hey, look at this…’” Fine, suppose such behavior was solely responsible for the accidents. There is no way to eliminate said behavior short of banning passengers. Yet you would be unwilling to ban passengers, even though they are responsible for seven times as many accidents as cell phones. This inconsistency in your views clearly demonstrates the irrational nature of your bias against cell phones. The truth is, you do not want to ban cell phones because they are dangerous, but because you get pissed at the guy ahead of you in traffic who is so busy chatting away on his cell phone that he fails to notice the light’s been green for the past 10 seconds, or he forgets to use his signal when turning, or he does whatever else it is that makes you mad. Well, I get pissed at such people, too, REGARDLESS of whether they are using cell phones, eating fast food, looking at something a passenger points out in a magazine, chatting up a storm with the person in the back seat, or scolding their kids for misbehaving. FUCK THEM ALL. But I do not want laws that punish behavior which merely has the potential to be harmful. Rather, I want laws that make the harm itself a crime (and, of course, fair courts to ensure fitting punishments). I am completely against laws that punish the innocent in the name of protecting people from the potentially guilty. Those who are factually guilty should bear the full weight of their crimes.
We have a winner, the new most boring thread on this otherwise interesting forum. Does anyone have the stats for the number of accidents caused by a guy getting a hummer while driving?
mike, in part i agree with your philosophy. But the biggest problem, is that Drunk driving, in and of itself, according to that philosophy is not and should not be a crime. I think otherwise.
dman, if a person can drive while drunk and not have it affect his or her driving at all (e.g. no dangerous wide turns or crossing white lines), then why would you want to punish the person? Conversely, if the person drives irresponsibly as a result of drinking too much alchohol (as is usually the case), then the person can be punished for that irresponsible driving, independent of its cause. And the harsher the penalty, the more disincentive there is for people to take chances.
Mike- I agree with you on the premise that anyone driving recklessly should get a ticket. What I meant was that a person driving recklessly while using a cell phone should get penalized for reckless driving PLUS an added fine for using the cell phone.
“dman, if a person can drive while drunk…” By the very fact that they’re drunk means they are unfit to drive. The driver is impaired when he is drunk. Reaction time is slow, double vision, etc. You think that a cop should just let a drunk keep driving because he might not have hit anything or anyone yet? My uncle and my aunt were killed one night by a drunk driver. This left my cousin parentless. I have always wished that some cop could have seen and realized that this person was drunk. If only this person could have just been pulled over for a busted tailight or something. Then, maybe the cop could have realized this person had been drinking and gotten them off the road. Can’t change the past. I have no sympathy for drunk drivers! You get into a car drunk, you know you’re impaired. You know you shouldn’t be driving. But, of course they convince themselves they can make it home if they just “concentrate.” So, basically they’ve decided to take the risk of killing someone. The laws should be even harder on these thoughtless people. Maybe you should do a ride along or two. See what it looks like when someone has judged that they can make it home drunk. Never know, maybe at some point fate was on your side. Maybe a drunk was taken off the road who otherwise would have hit you or one of your family members head on, like mine. The amount of people killed by drunk drivers is too high now. Let’s not see it skyrocket even more.
