Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.autos.driving    |    Automobile discussion (general)    |    162,179 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 160,467 of 162,179    |
|    Liam O'Connor to Jolly Roger    |
|    Re: Finally, California drivers can read    |
|    28 Feb 14 17:18:32    |
      XPost: comp.mobile.ipad, comp.mobile.android       From: liamoconnor@example.com              On 28 Feb 2014 19:52:48 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:              > And I'm supposed to just take your word for that statistic?              Just to be clear, I said "I don't know" in the same sentence that       I said that the issue is in the numbers, and I took a swag at       the numbers.              I prefer to look at "accidents" and "deaths/injuries" (which       aren't necessarily correlated, so, I think "accidents" is more       likely the metric we need to look at).              If cell phone use is inherently dangerous, and if we all agree       that cell phone use didn't exist before a certain time period,       and if nothing else of major import changed too greatly, then       we should, I would think, see a correspondingly huge increase       in the number of accidents that correlates with increased       cell phone use.              Do we see more ACCIDENTS in the statistics after cell phones       became ubiquitous? If not, we can't assume cellphones are       adding to the danger, no matter how they're used in the car.              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca