Guess her texting was worth it:
Guess her texting was worth it:
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Correct. When I drive I focus on the road unless it's something absolutely necessary requires my attention. "just drivin wut about u lol" is not something I or anyone else is absolutely obligated to risk one's life for. More []importantly[/i], it's not something that you should risk other people's lives for. And that's what a lot of people don't seem to understand, I think.
My life is risked, each day, I drive because I think that 70% of the drivers around me are idiots. I don't send texts very often while actually driving because I don't have a qwerty or 12-key: it's really hard to tell what you're pressing. So I'm good there.
With the diction software, though, texting issues should be more readily resolved.
It won't be, however. If you notice what my point was, in the OP, there's too much of a numbers' disparity to blame 28% of wrecks on texting. How is that possible with wrecks decreasing and the number of drivers increasing when texting while driving is greatly increasing? Someone is full of shit, somewhere.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanHey, it's all good, bro. They can text without looking at their phone, hell, they can read texts without looking at their phone. They're safe. They're more of an expert on the subject than a government agency!!!
Correct. When I drive I focus on the road unless it's something absolutely necessary requires my attention. "just drivin wut about u lol" is not something I or anyone else is absolutely obligated to risk one's life for. More []importantly[/i], it's not something that you should risk other people's lives for. And that's what a lot of people don't seem to understand, I think.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Guess her texting was worth it:
Ahhhh, yes. A government dramatization about texting and driving. So what did they blame it on before texting? 🙂
If you read the OP, you'd know that there's a disparity somewhere.
Having done some rudimentary research about the 28% number (googling the source, 3 second job), it is not about texting, but about general cell phone use, including talking on the phone and using it on your girlfriend (or boyfriend) as vibrator while driving.
Texting they say makes up a minimum of 200 000 of these 1.6 million accidents, which would be is 12.5% of them and only 3.5% of the overall stats.
http://www.nsc.org/pages/nscestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx (straight from the horses mouth)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Having done some rudimentary research about the 28% number (googling the source, 3 second job), it is not about texting, but about general cell phone use, including talking on the phone and using it on your girlfriend (or boyfriend) as vibrator while driving.Texting they say makes up a minimum of 200 000 of these 1.6 million accidents, which would be is 12.5% of them and only 3.5% of the overall stats.
http://www.nsc.org/pages/nscestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx (straight from the horses mouth)
That's still several multiples of standard deviations...which does not really dimish the point, at all.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Guess her texting was worth it:
Originally posted by truejediNo. I assumed that the girls in the car just happened to be filming at the time of the wreck. I assumed that the cameras were thrown about at just the right angles as the car came to a halt. I assumed that it like.....really happened and stuff.
You do 5realize that that was simulation, produced by the same agency that is telling you not to text and drive, right?
Originally posted by dadudemon
With the diction software, though, texting issues should be more readily resolved.
not really
studies consistently find it has nothing to do with your hands, but the allocation of attention over multiple zones/sensory modalities that is problematic while driving. hands free phones are just as dangerous as cell phones when you drive.
sure, you might argue that someone can just "stop dictating when they need to drive", but you could say the same about texting proper (whereas, phone use has another person sort of demanding your attention). The real risk is that your attention will be so divided that you wont realize you now need to focus on driving, and that is not addressed at all by speaking to text.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's still several multiples of standard deviations...which does not really dimish the point, at all.
standard deviation from what?
you are reporting means... which mean is this one standardly different from? the average number of accidents caused by things? that seems like a meaningless stat...
Re: Re: Texting while driving (US Data).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Meh, averages are just pretty numbers on their own. I'd like to see the median speeds and the percentage of driving that is done over the limit.
I could see confidence intervals of the mode being useful... what is the median going to tell us about speeding?
EDIT: tripple post, YEAH!
Re: Re: Re: Texting while driving (US Data).
Originally posted by inimalist
I could see confidence intervals of the mode being useful... what is the median going to tell us about speeding?EDIT: tripple post, YEAH!
If the median is much higher or lower than the average you know that the numbers are being skewed. Like lets say the average speed is 60, exactly the speed limit, and people declare "Americans don't speed" but then you look and discover that the median speed is 20! Most likely that means the road has serious traffic problems much of the time, in which case its impossible to speed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Texting while driving (US Data).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the median is much higher or lower than the average you know that the numbers are being skewed. Like lets say the average speed is 60, exactly the speed limit, and people declare "Americans don't speed" but then you look and discover that the median speed is 20! Most likely that means the road has serious traffic problems much of the time, in which case its impossible to speed.
true, but in that instance, you would have to have had a few people going 300mph+ on that road
I suppose whether the median was greater or lower than the average would tell you where the majority of your data cluster, so whether more people are going faster or slower, but for something as serious as you are saying, you would have to have some really serious outliers in the other direction.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Texting while driving (US Data).
Originally posted by inimalist
true, but in that instance, you would have to have had a few people going 300mph+ on that roadI suppose whether the median was greater or lower than the average would tell you where the majority of your data cluster, so whether more people are going faster or slower, but for something as serious as you are saying, you would have to have some really serious outliers in the other direction.
It's an example. I didn't run through the numbers to see what they would result in. Between traffic, which can account for a lot of driving, and stopping at intersections or lights I'd say there's a lot of things to bring down the average.
Like the hare from the tortoise and the hare. His average speed for the whole race was less than the tortoises but when he was moving he was going vastly faster.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Texting while driving (US Data).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's an example. I didn't run through the numbers to see what they would result in. Between traffic, which can account for a lot of driving, and stopping at intersections or lights I'd say there's a lot of things to bring down the average.Like the hare from the tortoise and the hare. His average speed for the whole race was less than the tortoises but when he was moving he was going vastly faster.
ok, I get where you are coming from, didn't really think of that...
I'd still go with CI's of mode, but thats like a taste thing... or, well, I guess it actually depends on how the data would be distributed anyways, if it were ~normal, mean would be fine, but I can't imagine that would be the case...