9a51e624   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 09:39:14 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:   
      
   > I would say "Yes".   
   >   
   > The difference being whether-or-not the person on the other side of the   
   > conversation is in on a covenant that says "Driving comes first".   
      
   Here's the problem.   
      
   Most people, me included, would "assume" that being distracted is more   
   dangerous than not being distracted. And, we'd add the additional   
   assumption that talking is a distraction. Some would even go so far   
   as to say talking on a cellphone is even more distracting than talking   
   to a passenger, but I wouldn't say it would be - although the fiddling   
   with the phone would be (just as fiddling with the radio would be).   
      
   Just like most people, me included, would "assume" that you get colds   
   in cold weather because of the weather.   
      
   But we'd be wrong in both cases.   
   The reason we'd be wrong is that the facts don't support our assumptions.   
      
   There is one basic and huge elephant in the room, which is that if   
   cellphones are as dangerous as they're made out to be, the accident   
   rate *must* go up.   
      
   Everyone loves to say that "other factors" can bring the accident   
   rate down; but they conveniently forget how *huge* the cellphone   
   influence is, and, how well timed it is.   
      
   Only an exactly equal and opposite and exactly timed influence   
   could perfectly cancel out the stupendously huge suggested   
   cellphone use influence on the accident rate.   
      
   So, in two ways, the argument by the cellphone law proponents   
   is preposterously flawed.   
      
   What is amazing is that the people who propose these laws don't   
   see the elephant in the room. They're blind; or ignorant; or they   
   have an agenda which is not based on the facts of the case.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)