Finally, California drivers can read a cell phone map (iPad too?)

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 00:35:05 -0500, nospam wrote:

> he means a stop sign not on a main road, as in two side streets that
> see little to no traffic.

Exactly.
The example I gave has three stops signs where a tiny
dead-end side road meets a little-travelled roadway.

Go to google maps and enter in these coordinates:
37.291379,-121.958411

I can see the logic of having the ten houses on the side road
needing a stop sign where *they* meet the larger road.

But, there is absolutely no way that the traffic
from that ten-house culdesac warrants the other two
stop signs.

There can't possibly be a reason to put that stop sign
(there are no schools or other similar pedestrian attractions
nearby, and there are no crosswalks or other safety issues).

The problem here is that the people who put up that stop
sign had no regard whatsoever for the law. They misused
a stop sign because they felt that people respect a stop
sign more than they do a speed limit sign (IMHO).

So, since they didn't have any respect for the stop sign,
neither do I. (yes, I know, until I get a ticket.)

Here's the back-on-topic point:
If the people in California who make the laws have absolutely
no respect for those laws, why should we?

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:38:16 -0500, nospam wrote:

> speed bumps can be a huge problem for emergency vehicles and also snow
> plows if you live in a colder climate.

That's not the problem here, in the Silicon Valley.

The only reason they put those idiotic stops signs out
here is to slow down or to inconvenience traffic.

Again, look at my one example (and if we need more, I can
post them) at GPS coordinates 37.291379,-121.958411

There is absolutely no argument one can make that sustains
a logical use of 3 stop signs at that location. At most,
1 is needed (on the dead-end side road).

It's clear to me that stop sign was placed by people who
wished to slow down or inconvenience traffic on the
main road.

However, there are legal ways to slow down traffic.
1. Speed limit signs
2. Speed bumps
3. Traffic quieting road markings
etc.

Use of a stop sign to slow down traffic is an illegal
use of a stop sign. I'm not saying the stop sign was
placed without having legal procedures - I'm just saying
the guys who followed those legal procedures broke the
law when they placed those signs, because the JUSTIFICATION
for a stop sign could not have been met.

Therefore, they had no respect for the law (just as Simitian
has no respect for the law) when they made that law.

So, were I to get a ticket for cruising through that
stop sign, I would argue that stop sign deserved no
respect.

Even the NHTSA says so.

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 18:29:29 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> The study sample sizes are way too small, they simply ignore *MANY,
> MANY* other potential factors, and (especially in the case of medical
> studies) run for far too short a timeframe.

While the studies are likely flawed, if it is true that traffic
accidents haven't risen concomittently with cell phone use, how
can anyone conclude that the use of cell phones causes accidents?

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 18:01:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> It's pretty much a guaratee that you're not going to get such a curve

Why not?

I think all we need are two curves.

a. Cell phone use from before cellphones to now
b. Traffic accidents (during the same period)

If those two don't tie together in some way (normalized
for data error), how can there be any correlation?

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:34:55 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it hasn't because it's almost impossible to prove.

I agree so we shouldn't look for accidents "caused" by
cell phone distraction because those statics can be fudged
in both directions.

I think we should just look at accidents. Period.
(or deaths/injuries). These statistics are already
compiled by people who don't have a cellphone agenda.

Then, we should look at cellphone usage during that
same period, starting from 0 cellphone usage, to today.

If cell phone usage is "causing" accidents, we *must*
see accident statistics going up.

Of course, there can be mitigating factors, e.g., we
don't have cell phone usage *in the car* statistics; but,
even without that, the number of accidents *has* to go
up if cell phones usage is inherently dangerous.

If the accidents aren't going up, then, well, then
there's the answer.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:42:10 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> I'd start with an initial driver's test that isn't a joke. Adopt a
> system like Germany's where there is mandatory, REAL training, followed
> by a meaningful driving test.

You should see the DMV California MOTORCYCLE riding test!

The whole point of the test is to make it so hard that
you don't take it, along with making the "alternative"
test so easy, that you'll take that instead (and pay
someone else to give you the certificate").

It's another case of the government breaking its own laws
in order to convenience themselves. There has never been
a biker who has ever said that the DMV test makes *any*
real-world sense - so - there has to be another reason
other than testing the riding skills of the biker.

Google "DMV popsicle" or "DMB lollipop" test, for an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4MwoHc_j0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUp1IUAE1wo
http://ocmoto.com/index.php?topic=16101.0
http://www.greenoptions.com/t/903/ca...ng-test-killer

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 18:05:59 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> Not neceesailry and not provably.Plus not all of those people use their
> cellphone while driving (in fact, probably a large proportion of
> cellphone users don't even drive since they are kids or use public
> transport / walk, and many people have more than one cellphone).

I understand.

But, if accidents aren't going up, and, if there is no other
mitigating factor, then how are cellphones causing accidents?

In article
hosting.com>, Liam
O'Connor > wrote:

> On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 18:19:51 +1300, Your Name wrote:
>
> > I don't quite understand what this means. If the Stop sign is in the
> > culdesac where it meets a busier road, then of course there should be a
> > Stop sign, or a perhaps a Give Way sign for a less busy road. Again
> > it's for the safety of both the people leaving the culdesac and the
> > users of the other road.
>
> Take a look at my example in Google Maps (street view).
> It's a tiny culdesac (10 houses) connecting to a minor
> road. There is no way the traffic from those 10 houses
> needs a stop sign on the road it connects to. It's
> impossible, from a data standpoint.
>
> The only (logical) explanation is that the stop sign
> is there for some other reason, which, it's clear (to me),
> is to inconvenience traffic so that they don't use that
> road instead of the expressway a thousand feet away.

How do you know? Perhaps there have been so many accidents there due to
fools speeding down the side road that the Stop signs have becom a
nesccessity.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:42:37 -0800, Alan Baker wrote:

> That's an assertion, not actual data.

I think the whole point is that there is no data that
reliably shows that the use of a cellphone is causing
accidents that wouldn't have otherwise been caused.

If that were true, since cellphone usage has spiked
massively from 0 to a lot, yet accidents, presumably,
haven't spiked correspondingly, then the whole point
is that cellphone use isn't causing these accidents.

If there is data that accidents rise with cellphone
use, then that's the data people need to show in order
to support these laws.

Otherwise, the Simitian laws are based on hysteria.

In article
dhosting.com>, Liam
O'Connor > wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 23:38:16 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
> > speed bumps can be a huge problem for emergency vehicles and also snow
> > plows if you live in a colder climate.
>
> That's not the problem here, in the Silicon Valley.
>
> The only reason they put those idiotic stops signs out
> here is to slow down or to inconvenience traffic.

Awww... will diddums be two seconds later getting to his destination.

Again, the fact that you don't understand it does not mean they aren't
there for a legitmate reason.