If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Wed, 2 May 2018 13:40:29 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: [snip] Is my view fear of the future? I don't think so. I see technophilia and technophobia as two sides of the same coin. Both attitudes are simplistic projections, viewing tech as an entity that will either improve our lives or ruin them. Having a cellphone to make Agreed. I use technology where it is useful. Where it is not, I pass. This seems a very foreign viewpoint to some. calls on the road is a great idea. Walking into a tree while looking at a video of a cat using a toilet because one can't put down one's cellphone.... not so much. Well, one could argue that it does help thin the herd. You might find this amusing or alarming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
"Gene Wirchenko" wrote| | Well, one could argue that it does help thin the herd. You might | find this amusing or alarming: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY | I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone the whole time, treating the game of catch as a "manageable distraction". I suppose he probably would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him, but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he was doing. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In news
wrote:
I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone the whole time, treating the game of catch as a "manageable distraction". I suppose he probably would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him, but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he was doing. Hi Mayayana, Q: Where are the accidents? A: They don't exist. Warning: OFF TOPIC! I only speak fact. I'm posting this because I like you and because I respect you. So I am posting this FACT as one adult to another. I realize this is completely off topic, where, as you know, I try to stay on topic because I ask questions that have technical answers and then I leave, so I don't use the chitchat model of Usenet that most others use (I use the Q&A model). While I agree with you on the father:son football catch, that he should give his undivided attention to his child, and I too found the guiding hands punchlines hilarious, I have to point out to you a FACT. Yup. A fact. Just like intuition doesn't work with quantum mechanics, intuition doesn't work with accident rate statistics either. The fact is that nobody on this entire planet (and, trust me, everyone has looked) can find any relationship whatsoever (up, down, or otherwise) in the overall accident rate in each of the 50 states of the USA (together or separately) to the absolutely astoundingly utterly huge explosion in cellphone ownership rates when cellphone existence (and presumed use) in vehicles skyrocketed from 0 percent to almost 100% in just a few years - and which has plateued (due to saturation). Sure, everyone intuitively thinks a LOT of things. I can name scores of things that people intuit that are simply wrong. The fact is that nobody on this planet has ever found anything in the accurate statistics, overall, for each state, which have been gathered since before WWII so they're good data, for accident rates. Some explanations of this fact (I call it the "elephant in the room"). 1. I say *accident rates*, because that's the first-order factor. Everyone loves to choose other statistics because they can't find anything in the actual accident rate that proves what they intuit (because what they intuit is actually wrong - but that's for you to understand). Accident rates are an accepted way to judge "accidents" because rates normalize for number of miles driven which is due to a complex set of environmental and economic fluctuations such as cost of driving and travel and number of miles driven, etc. Also accidents are reported faithfully to the government both from police and from insurance companies (where, for example, in California, it's the law that both parties must report accidents, even minor ones, over a certain nominal value of damage) and accidents have been faithfully reported for decades, so the numbers are accurate and statistically sound. *Hence, _accident rate_ is good data (in the USA anyway).* Anyone who doesn't use accident rate, is usually trying to scam you (but we'd have to look at every argument to be sure). 2. I say cell phone _ownership_ has skyrocketed, but I don't discuss "use" except to tell you that nobody knows that number and everyone has a pet method for obtaining it. In fact, the NHTSA runs a study in May of every year, but if you knew how that "use rate" study is done, you'd laugh (it's done at stop lights ... yes. ... at stop lights). So *nobody* has good numbers on cellphone use, and anyone who tells you they do, is almost always likely scamming you since nobody has that data. What can you assume? You can assume two things about use which is that almost every vehicle on the road in the USA today has a cellphone in it, and that "some" percentage of those miles, in some cars, the phone is being used. Since even a small percentage of use would be a big number of miles driven, it's important to note the elephant in the room, which is that nobody on this planet has ever found ANY relationship to accident rates in all 50 states, individually or together, due to the explosion of cellphone ownership rates (and, we can presumed, "some use") while driving. 3. Notice I don't talk injuries or fatalities or length of hospital stay, etc., simply because they are second-order effects. Nobody has ever found any first order effect of cellphone ownership rates with accident rates in the USA, so second order effects are something you worry about later (if at all). 4. Notice I don't talk about anecdotal evidence, which, by the way, EVERYONE loves to talk about - but anecdotes aren't science. Accidents will occur, and every one has a reason, where most, I'm sure, are due factors that are common, such as distractions, which, I posit, we have hundreds of thousands of in every 100 miles of driving, all of which we handle with aplomb - but which some people don't handle well - so accidents due to distractions have always occurred and will always occur - until you either eliminate the driver or you eliminate driving altogether. Bear in mind, I've heard all the anecdotes, just as you have - but anecdotes are not science. They're just stories. Worse, they don't seem to be backed up by facts in the overall statistical record (which is good data). 5. Rest assured I've seen as many in vitro studies as you have, which "prove" that cellphone driving is as distracting as teasing a Trex with a chicken. The fact is that if these studies were actually indicative of in vivo results, then any scientist with a grain of logic would have to ask: *Q: Where are the in vivo accidents predicted by these in vitro studies?* I'm not saying the studies are bad. I'm saying that you can't always predict real world results from in vitro studies, and, I'm saying something else - which is that if the studies were actually true - then the accident rate would have to reise. 6. I hate to even have to mention #6 but every moron on the planet, when shown these facts, complains that the absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and that correlation doesn't mean causation, to which I simply shake my head in dismay and posit that the only way their intuition can possibly be correct is if some clever alien manipulated the good data to not only exactly match cell phone ownership rates to exactly cancel out the accidents, but that this manipulation has to be timed perfectly such that not a single blip of effect shows up in the accident rates which, I must repeat, is the only good data we have. In summary, the elephant in the room is this question: Q: Where are the accidents that people intuit are caused by cellphone use? Nobody on the planet can find these accidents in the statistical record. That's good data from the US Census Bureau. Nobody can find these accidents in the good data. The only accidents people find are in bad data. Experts have already claimed they can't find the accidents. That's a fact. End of off-topic conversation of fact to our friend Mayayana, because I care about facts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
-
"Bob J Jones" wrote | Hi Mayayana, | | Q: Where are the accidents? | A: They don't exist. | Are you kidding? AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about the large number of people killed as a result of texting. (I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention away from cellphone talking while driving.) I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so. One was caused by a man getting directions from a friend while driving. The other was probably due to cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed into my truck on a quiet street.) Just yesterday there was this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off the road. A series of events ended up with him and a good samaritan dead. In my experience, most accidents are caused by people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with them daily. | Warning: OFF TOPIC! Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup. You don't get to guide the conversation. The fact that you started the thread doesn't make it yours. It's a public discussion. And while this particular thread has been informative and interesting to me, you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize Win10 while pretending to be neutral. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why has nobody on this planet ever found the accident rate in the USA to be affected (either way) by skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates?
In news
wrote:
Are you kidding? Changing the subject line since this is completely off topic. I only speak facts. The accidents simply do not exist. You can dance all you want around the elephant in the room. But the accidents simply do not exist. AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about the large number of people killed as a result of texting. What I said was clear. You don't seem to have comprehended what I said. I said, very clearly, that the accident rate in each of the 50 states and in the combined numbers, which is good data - has not shown ANY effect by the utterly stupendous huge and sudden skyrocketing rates of cellphone ownership (and we can assume use while driving). This is a fact you can dance around all you want. But that doesn't change that it's a fact. (I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention away from cellphone talking while driving.) They're trying to sell advertising. I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so. I've never had an accident in my life, and I've driven about a million miles. That's simply a "story". Anecdotal evidence is not science. Anyone who tries to prove a fact by telling a story is not a logical adult. 5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...lly-worthless/ How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tific-results/ Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventu...-is-unreliable Do Anecdotes Have A Place In Science? https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/09/08...ce-in-science/ Anecdotal vs. Scientific Evidence http://www.personal.psu.edu/pel2/blo...ic-eviden.html To wit: Anecdotes make great stories for telling around a campfire; but anecdotal evidence is not science. One was caused by a man getting directions from a friend while driving. The other was probably due to cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed into my truck on a quiet street.) Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire. Anyone who needs to resort to anecdotal evidence to 'prove' a point, has no business in a factual discussion where truth is what matters. Just yesterday there was this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off the road. A series of events ended up with him and a good samaritan dead. Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire. But while it's a great story, it's just not science. Science is the fact that nobody on this planet has ever been able to find ANY first-order relationship whatsoever between skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates (and presumed use while driving) and actual accident rates. You can dance around fact all you want; but you can't change that it's a fact. In my experience, most accidents are caused by people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with them daily. You're an intuitive thinker, which means, basically, you're not logical, since it's clear to anyone logical what the facts are. Nothing wrong with being intuitive - many people are - but it means they're wrong a LOT of the time simply because they don't check facts. The facts are clear. Nobody on this planet can find the accidents in the overall accident rate that people intuit are due to cellphone use while driving. You don't think they've looked? The simple fact is that they don't exist. I never once said accidents don't exist. They exist like they've always existed since the statistics were compiled, and the accident rate has been steadily dropping, year over year over year over year over year over year. There is ZERO influence of cellphone ownership rates on accident rates. Zero. That's a fact you can dance around all you want to. But it doesn't change the fact. | Warning: OFF TOPIC! Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup. That's a childish thing for you to say. First off, what I said was it was "off topic". That's a fact. You don't seem to like facts. But the fact you don't like facts doesn't make them not facts. You don't get to guide the conversation. Again. I said it was off topic. That's a fact. You seem to be acting like a child because you don't like that fact. But it doesn't change the fact of what I say is always fact. The fact that you started the thread doesn't make it yours. Again, you're acting like a child acts. I said it was off topic. And it is. This is a Windows newsgroup - and this topic of cellphone related accidents is completely off topic. You seem to super easily forget facts. But the fact you don't comprehend this fact doesn't make it not a fact. It's a public discussion. That's the first fact in this thread you got right. Nobody logical ever disagrees with facts. That's what is so great about facts. Everyone agrees on facts who is an adult who can comprehend facts. And while this particular thread has been informative and interesting to me, you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize Win10 while pretending to be neutral. You fabricated that claim and it's patently false. How can I prove it's patently false? Probably I can't prove it - but that's only because it's a baseless claim. That you got only a single fact correct in this entire post (which was the obvious fact that this is a public discussion), and the fact that you got EVERY other fact wrong in this post, tells me that you are not a logical thinker which is proven in *all* your statements (save one). I only speak facts. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do onWindows XP or Windows 7?
Bob J Jones wrote:
In news wrote: I like that one. Yet most states still allow cellphones while driving. Last week I was sitting in a park watching a young father halfheartedly throw a football with his son, probably about 7. The father was on the phone the whole time, treating the game of catch as a "manageable distraction". I suppose he probably would have said he was "multitasking" if I'd asked him, but it seems unlikely he was even aware of what he was doing. Hi Mayayana, Q: Where are the accidents? A: They don't exist. Warning: OFF TOPIC! I only speak fact. I'm posting this because I like you and because I respect you. So I am posting this FACT as one adult to another. I realize this is completely off topic, where, as you know, I try to stay on topic because I ask questions that have technical answers and then I leave, so I don't use the chitchat model of Usenet that most others use (I use the Q&A model). While I agree with you on the father:son football catch, that he should give his undivided attention to his child, and I too found the guiding hands punchlines hilarious, I have to point out to you a FACT. Yup. A fact. Just like intuition doesn't work with quantum mechanics, intuition doesn't work with accident rate statistics either. The fact is that nobody on this entire planet (and, trust me, everyone has looked) can find any relationship whatsoever (up, down, or otherwise) in the overall accident rate in each of the 50 states of the USA (together or separately) to the absolutely astoundingly utterly huge explosion in cellphone ownership rates Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called "Paul", but you just weasel excuses. The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety improvements with cars. However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts" (aka opinions) don't gel with reality. End of story. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In news
Oh god, not this chestnut! I showed you clear data when you were called "Paul", but you just weasel excuses. The data does exist and it does show that distracted drivers are more dangerous and that there has been an increase in hospitalizations/deaths since the introduction of mobile phones. It is hard to see because there has been a drastic drop in the overall rate caused by other safety improvements with cars. However, there's no point discussing this with you because your "facts" (aka opinions) don't gel with reality. End of story. OFF TOPIC. WARNING: Adult logical factual thought is below. Almost everyone thinks like you do. Hence I'm not surprised at anything you intuit. Even I would intuit what you do, if I wasn't a logical adult thinker. Just like almost everyone doesn't realize that quantum entanglement exists. It's not intuitive this quantum mechanics stuff. It's just not. But the reason scientists believe in quantum mechanics isn't intuition. It's science. Experimental science. Empirical results. Facts. Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. That's a fact. You can dance all around that fact, just like physicists had to dance around quantum entanglement or the uncertainty principle or the duality of light, none of which is intuitive - but all your dancing has to account for the facts. And the facts are plain, and uncontrovertible. There has been zero (and everyone knows this) absolutely zero effect on the accident rate in the USA in all fifty states due to the utterly fantastically high explosion of cellphone ownership percentages in a certain time period. There's no effect before. There's no effect during. There's no effect after (now that the ownership rate has plateaued). Everyone. Yes. Everyone is intuitive. Just like everyone has trouble with empirical results of quantum physics, everyone has trouble with that fact. But that fact is a fact. And, it's the *best* dataset there is on the planet for that fact. So what you're trying to do is offset a fact with bad data. You can dance all you want with your bad data. But any conclusion you come up with that flies in the face of fact is just your intuition speaking - since the fact that you can't avoid is the elephant in the room - which is that the accident rate in the USA hasn't been affected one blip by cellphone ownership rates skyrocketing (and presumed use). BTW, there *is* a reason for this - but until you recognize the fact is a fact, the reason will never be able to be comprehended by you. Only an adult who is a logical thinker - a scientist - a person who will accept a fact for a fact - can get to the second stage - of why - of why cellphone ownership rates have no bearing whatsoever on accident rates. In fact, *all* safety laws - every single one - individually or combined - have no first order effect on *anything* (except revenue generation) which is another proven fact (they only have one second-order effect - which is on length of hospital stay for "injuries" - but that includes seatbelt laws in addition to cellphone laws). Bear in mind that I only speak facts and that I comprehend detail, which most people don't do. So read my words carefully since they are fact. What you're trying to do is offset |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:05:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones
wrote: --- snip --- Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. From this information it has been possible to determine that you are more likely to have an accident when using a cell phone than not. Interestingly it does not appear that the use of hands-free makes much difference. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP orWindows 7?
Eric Stevens wrote on 5/4/2018 8:14 PM:
On Fri, 4 May 2018 13:05:15 +0000 (UTC), Bob J Jones wrote: --- snip --- Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. From this information it has been possible to determine that you are more likely to have an accident when using a cell phone than not. Interestingly it does not appear that the use of hands-free makes much difference. The reason it is hard to detect the accident increase due to cell phones is that safety features on newer cars reduce collisions. However there is certainly evidence aplenty that using a cell phone increases your chance of having an accident while the poor friendless good driver with no one to talk to at the moment is living longer. It seems that cellphones have just about eaten up all the advantages that technology has offered the auto industry. We'll be much better off when we have automaton drivers with builtin reflexes that prohibit a rider on a cellphone taking any part what so ever in controlling the vehicle. Basically, I trust software, even written by Detroit, far more than I do any idiot on a cellphone while controlling a car. I'm tiered of assholes weaving into my lane, realizing at the last minute that this is their turn off, running red lights because their attention is elsewhere, etc. I know it's phone calls since I often see them "talking with their hands" and the rest of the vehicle is empty. Studies show you are right: hands free makes no difference. It's the redirection of attention to a live evolving situation - the phone conversation - competing with a more urgent realtime activity: driving. -- Jeff Barnett |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
"Eric Stevens" wrote
|Interestingly it does not appear | that the use of hands-free makes much difference. There's really no reason to think it would. That's just an excuse used by phone addicts. No one says, "I want a divorce" when they're a passenger in a car moving through an intersection. But they might say it to someone over the phone, assuming that the person on the other end is also talking on the phone and not trying to do something else. When people talk on phones they're generally not where they are, which is a risky disconnect if they're also trying to do something else. I see that daily with other drivers. I don't need to see them holding a phone to know they're on the phone. It's obvious in the erratic behavior. They're leaving it to other drivers to pay attention for them. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. not reliably, it isn't. absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way to know exactly what happened and when. matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash (which is what they do now) means nothing. From this information it has been possible to determine that you are more likely to have an accident when using a cell phone than not. what you're missing is that there are *many* other activities that can cause a distraction, including drinking coffee, eating food, fussing with the radio, dealing with kids and much, much more. distracted drivers don't need cellphones to be distracted. Interestingly it does not appear that the use of hands-free makes much difference. of course it doesn't. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Fri, 04 May 2018 23:26:32 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. not reliably, it isn't. The telco records will have that information. absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way to know exactly what happened and when. matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash (which is what they do now) means nothing. You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with it. From this information it has been possible to determine that you are more likely to have an accident when using a cell phone than not. what you're missing is that there are *many* other activities that can cause a distraction, including drinking coffee, eating food, fussing with the radio, dealing with kids and much, much more. distracted drivers don't need cellphones to be distracted. Interestingly it does not appear that the use of hands-free makes much difference. of course it doesn't. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. not reliably, it isn't. The telco records will have that information. the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what road hazards may have existed at the time. absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way to know exactly what happened and when. matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash (which is what they do now) means nothing. You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with it. there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless. since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no* way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the crash (to call for help). even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a pocket or bag. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
On Sat, 05 May 2018 01:20:12 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. not reliably, it isn't. The telco records will have that information. the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what road hazards may have existed at the time. I never claimed they did. absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way to know exactly what happened and when. matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash (which is what they do now) means nothing. You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with it. there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless. Tell that to the judge. since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no* way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the crash (to call for help). Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements (if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions. even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a pocket or bag. I agree, it could be a passenger or even an app, but the number called can often help sort that out. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What can you do on Windows 10 that you can't do on Windows XP or Windows 7?
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Same here with the fallacy that cellphone use raises the accident rate. The facts show no effect whatsoever on the accident rate. None. It may be true that no one has been able to extract from the overall noisy data evidence of cell phones influencing the accident rate. But it also possible determine whether or not a person was using a cell phone at the time of an accident. not reliably, it isn't. The telco records will have that information. the telco records don't show what the driver did or did not do or what road hazards may have existed at the time. I never claimed they did. actually, you did: The telco records will have that information. all the telco has is logs. they don't know what the driver was doing, if the driver was actively using the phone, or if the fault was due to another driver or pedestrian. absent dashcam video of both the road *and* the driver, there is no way to know exactly what happened and when. matching up cellphone call logs with the *assumed* time of the crash (which is what they do now) means nothing. You are welcome to argue that in court. You might even get away with it. there's nothing to get away with. call logs are meaningless. Tell that to the judge. no need. he'll know it has no merit. since the exact time of a crash is almost always unknown, there is *no* way to prove whether any cell phone activity occurred moments before (a possible factor in a crash), well before (not a factor), or *after* the crash (to call for help). Exact time may not be known but a reasonably close approximate time is. Close proximity in time plus circumstances plus witness statements (if any) may lead to reasonable assumptions. assumptions are not proof. if it was, a ****load of people would be in jail. even if you could match it up, it could have been the passenger using the phone, or the phone could have been in use *without* any human input due to an app running in the background while the phone is in a pocket or bag. I agree, it could be a passenger or even an app, but the number called can often help sort that out. apps don't call numbers. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|