Re: Traffic cops 26/10/2005

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:49:48 +0000, MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:04:31 +0000, Cynic <cynic_999@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:58:56 +0000, MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>I am 100% aware that using a mobile phones whilst driving constitutes
>>>>a risk. Just as I am aware tht reading a book whilst driving
>>>>constitutes a risk.
>>>>
>>>>What I do *not* accept however is that either activity is actually
>>>>responsible for a significant proportion of accidents.
>>>
>>>Fair enough. Tony Blair says Blunkett leaves with no stain on his
>>>character, and you refute the evidence that drivers using mobile
>>>phones are four times more likey to be involved in accidents. What's
>>>it like in cloud cuckoo land, Tony, Cynic?
>>
>>I see you are having difficulty understanding simple English
>>sentences. Read my first paragraph (quoted at the top) and tell me
>>how it could possibly be interpreted that I refute the evidence that
>>says that if drivers use mobile phones it can make them more
>>dangerous?
>>
>>I have stated that despite that fact, I have seen no evidence that it
>>has made a significant difference to the accident rate in practise.
>>Perhaps very few drivers actually *do* use mobile phones whilst
>>driving (despite the anecdotal impression that it is so common).
>>Perhaps drivers refrain from making the sort of calls that lead to the
>>high-end increase in risk. But unless you can show that the problem
>>is real rather than theoretical, there is njust as much justification
>>for inhibiting mobile phone use as there is for inhibiting DVD use in
>>cars.
>
>I've supplied you with more than enough evidence. You may choose to
>ignore it, but that doesn't render it invalid.
>

You have supplied ZERO evidence.

You have supplied evidence that shows people's reactions are affected
when they are on the phone. But nobody would dispute that.

You have not provided *any* evidence that any significant number of
accidents have *actually* happened as a result of people using the
phone, or even co-incidentally with using one.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Does killing time damage eternity?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What? No this cant be right
    ... trucks being used for WMD, then you need mobile dryer trucks, mobile ... I worked briefly as a low-level flunky in the WMD analysis game, ... was just grasping at straws and had no real evidence of WMD ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: What? No this cant be right
    ... trucks being used for WMD, then you need mobile dryer trucks, mobile ... was just grasping at straws and had no real evidence of WMD ... You mean that the US didn't trust the UN? ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: What records do networks keep on texts?
    ... Your friend would have had his mobile taken by ... >police and sent to one of the authorised companies so it could also be ... They even supply data stating which cell was used ... >If there was no evidence then he wouldn't have even heard from the police. ...
    (uk.telecom.mobile)
  • Re: What? No this cant be right
    ... If you have mobile fermenter ... trucks being used for WMD, then you need mobile dryer trucks, mobile ... I worked briefly as a low-level flunky in the WMD analysis game, ... was just grasping at straws and had no real evidence of WMD ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Mobile Phones whilst driving...
    ... sounding much like they ... were saying: ... > So no evidence then? ... > using a mobile I found it very uncomfortable. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)