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 | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:55:37 -0400, nospam wrote:
> the reduction in fatalities has been trending down before > there were cellphones and continues to trend down even though cellphone > use is up. I use my cellphnoe all day, every day. While driving. While walking. While resting. While working. I've never had a traffic accident. Yet, I can be *punished* for being a safe driver. There is NO EVIDENCE that aggregate cellphone use causes accidents. Bad drivers cause accidents. There are already plenty of laws against bad driving. Why add more (obviously useless) laws? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
On 04/23/2014 01:08 PM, bob mullen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:55:37 -0400, nospam wrote: > >> the reduction in fatalities has been trending down before >> there were cellphones and continues to trend down even though cellphone >> use is up. > > I use my cellphnoe all day, every day. > While driving. While walking. While resting. While working. No life, eh? That's too bad. I feel sorry for you. You should unplug once in a while. Get to know your family. You'll be the better for it. > I've never had a traffic accident. You've been lucky. VERY lucky. > > Yet, I can be *punished* for being a safe driver. Using a cell phone while driving means you are NOT a "safe driver." Period. "Never had an accident" is NOT the definition of "safe driving." > There is NO EVIDENCE that aggregate cellphone use causes accidents. There is NO EVIDENCE that increased aggregate cell phone use means increased use without a hands-free device while driving, either. > > Bad drivers cause accidents. And those that use their cell phones while driving are by definition "bad drivers." > There are already plenty of laws against bad driving. Including those banning cell phone use without a hands-free device. I'm curious... Do you advocate texting while driving, too? TJ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
In article >, bob mullen
> wrote: > I use my cellphnoe all day, every day. > While driving. While walking. While resting. While working. > I've never had a traffic accident. Anecdotal, not illustrative. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
>> There are already plenty of laws against bad driving.
> > Including those banning cell phone use without a hands-free device. Laws banning cell phone use while driving that make exceptions for a hands-free device are bad laws. There is no evidence that a hands-free device is any less distracting than a handsful device. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
nospam wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:00:51 -0400:
> with older cars, there may be performance issues and/or knocking if you > use lower octane gas than what is recommended for the vehicle. > > with newer cars, the engine can automatically adjust the timing > regardless of what type of gas you use, and the fact that it does > adjust the timing at all means the octane does make a difference. We could argue the octane details (which I will in a separate reply to your post above) but my point was that so-called 'common sense' dictates, to many people, that the higher-octane gas give the car more power than the lower octane gas. Those people point to all the commercials showing a tiger running across the screen for higher-octane fuels. They also point to the fact that high-compression engines use high-octane fuels. Some even point to the fact that jet engines use REALLY HIGH octane fuels, as their 'common sense' indicator that higher octane gas means higher performance. They even point to the price difference, just as they claim that Techron cleans better. All this seems to be 'common sense' to them, but, as you will see in the next post, it's all basically untrue (with the devil being in the details). So, what some consider the common sense attitude that the higher octane fuel costs more and is used in high-performance vehicles, well then, common sense (for them) dictates that it *must* be (somehow) *better* for their car. It's not. Likewise with the so-called 'common sense' attitudes that cellphones *must* be causing accidents. They are not. Clearly they are not. Otherwise, accident statistics would be going up. Anyway, I'll cover the octane stuff you mentioned separately. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
nospam wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 20:00:51 -0400:
> it depends on the car. True. More specifically, it depends most on the engine design, and, more importantly, it depends a LOT on the compression ratio of the engine, but also on the timing, temperature, design load, valve timing, spark plug heat range, atmospheric pressure, humidity, etc. Summarized, some cars are *designed* to use higher octane fuels, while most cars are not designed for high octane fuels. Therefore, if your car is *designed* for the higher octane fuels, then you will likely get lower performance (mostly due to retarded timing) on lower-than-designed octane fuels. However, it really depends on how you drive and whether the knock sensors are retarding the timing or not. Even if your engine is designed for higher-octane fuels, if the knock sensors are not retarding the timing, then you'll get no decrease in performance (AFAIK); but if the knock sensors *are* retarding the timing, then you likely *will* have a decrease in peak performance. In short, if the car is not designed for the high octane fuel (and if it's running to spec), then there can't possibly be any increase in performance with the higher-than-designed octane rated fuel. > with older cars, there may be performance issues and/or knocking if you > use lower octane gas than what is recommended for the vehicle. This is true - but it's not the point. My point was that *higher* than recommended octane ratings provide no value. It *is* true, especially in the case of the older cars you speak of, which may not have knock sensors, that *lower* than designed for octane ratings could easily be bad for the engine. For example, if the engine is so old that it doesn't even have piezoelectric knock sensors, then putting lower-than-recommended octane rated fuels in can allow knocking to occur, which is really hard on pistons, valves, rings, and journals. The only caveat to putting the recommended octane fuel in any engine is that these older cars *may* have carbon deposits on the piston head so thick that the compression ratio is affected, or, they may have non-working EGR systems such that the cylinders have more oxygen in them than expected, or they may have non-working cooling systems which make the engine hotter, etc. But, assuming the engine is working to spec, putting *higher* than recommended octane rated fuels can't possibly increase performance. Yet, "common sense" tells a lot of people that this is not the case. Of course, they're wrong. But the same people say that "common sense" tells them that cellphones use is causing accidents! > with newer cars, the engine can automatically adjust the timing > regardless of what type of gas you use, and the fact that it does > adjust the timing at all means the octane does make a difference. True. (I already explained this above.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 01:54:09 +0000 (UTC), Pat Wilson
> wrote: >In short, if the car is not designed for the high octane fuel (and >if it's running to spec), then there can't possibly be any increase >in performance with the higher-than-designed octane rated fuel. Everything you wrote is essentially correct, but the above paragraph can be misleading. The mfr. states that my car runs on regular, and, in fact, they like to highlight that "feature". It does run on regular, but barely, in high ambients. In the winter I can use most anything, but when it gets over 100 out here, the car won't run properly on anything but the highest octane I can find. The timing retards so severely that there is no power. The other issue is that mpg also goes down when the timing retards. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
Bill Vanek wrote, on Sat, 26 Apr 2014 19:25:10 -0700:
> In the winter I can use most > anything, but when it gets over 100 out here, the car won't run > properly on anything but the highest octane I can find. Understood that the devil is in the details. Specs being what specs are, they are often stated for a specific temperature and pressure (e.g., STP). Also gas being the variable that it is, can be different today from tomorrow (and from station to station and from winter to summer, etc.). To underscore that variability, in the US, they don't even have a single 'octane' rating. They actually take an average of two different octane ratings, one more mechanical and the other more theoretical, but each differing by a significant number of points. So, the AKI is clearly variable (within reason). Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of accidents. Never has a single fact or statistic been shown that accidents are increasing in the United States due to anything, let alone due to cell phone usage. In fact, accidents are steadily decreasing, which is clear and obvious and nobody disputes that fact. Yet, somehow, the statement was made that "common sense" dictates that cell phones must (somehow? magically?) be causing accidents. That was the only point of bringing up the octane "common sense" analogy. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
dorayme wrote, on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 07:48:09 +1000:
> you are juggling a device that has nothing to do with the > driving of the car, it will affect ability to avoid accidents. I agree with you that the phone allows you to avoid accidents, but I disagree with you that the phone has nothing to do with driving. The phone has a *lot* to do with driving! You will avoid more accidents because you can see *traffic* red zones on your phone, miles before you enter them. You will avoid construction and weather related accidents for the same reason. Likewise, you can call in to a meeting, instead of having to rush to get to the office, and, if you're running late, you can notify people who are waiting for you to meet in a different location or time. Similarly, the navigation apps on the phone allow you to know that a turn is coming up, that you might have missed - and - they tell you the road you are on without you having to try to read the street names which are off to the side of you instead of in front. I've even averted a case of road rage, when someone got out of a car to confront the car in front of me, and when they saw me grab my camera to film them, they immediately got back in their car and sped off. So, I do agree with you that cell phones make it *less likely* that you will be in an accident or altercation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Traffic accidents go down as cell phone usage goes up
Pat Wilson > wrote:
> Still, the *point* was that the same so-called 'common sense' that > higher octane rated fuels *must* (somehow magically?) deliver greater > performance, is the same "common sense" that the use of cell phones > must (somehow magically?) be the cause of a greater number of > accidents. How about the "common sense" that a 36-month battery is somehow magically better than a 24-month battery? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Red Light Cameras Actually Cause More Traffic Accidents | Lil Abner | Driving | 0 | February 3rd 11 07:29 AM |
Energy saving traffic lights don't melt snow/ice, causing accidents | [email protected] | Technology | 31 | January 5th 10 03:19 PM |
Silly CA cell phone law | Studemania | Driving | 0 | June 16th 08 06:54 AM |
Cell phone users tie up traffic: study | Ed White[_2_] | Driving | 34 | January 16th 08 01:42 AM |