On 8/20/2015 1:06 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Don Y" wrote in message

I think the problem is that we are only just *starting* to think
about the consequences of "impaired driving". Sort of like how
"domestic abuse" was a "private matter" decades ago (i.e., the
police didn't even want to be involved: "you guys sort it out")

We'll figure it out. If we can determine who has closely held religious
beliefs, we can easily figure out some *real* world parameters. I may be
mistaken - but - like rear-ending someone, being on the cellphone at the
time of an accident carries an almost automatic presumption of
non-attention. Perhaps that's the way it should be.

It's tough to generalize. OTOH, if you're "playing the odds"...

*Talking* covers lots of different ways of uttering sounds.
There's a big difference between muttering to oneself, casual
chatter with the person seated next to you (who has *some*
situational awareness), *arguing* with that same someone,
trying to discipline the kids fighting in the back seat, etc.

I think most of us can casually chat with another occupant.
It's something we do often. There is very little EMOTIONAL
*or* COGNITIVE content. "How's traffic look on your side?"
"Should we stop and get something to eat?" "I've got to find
a bathroom RSN!!" etc.

So, if this is *all* you are doing on the phone, then I fall
back on my earlier comment: do you really *need* to have
someone chattering in your ear all the time? are you that
lonely, starved for attention, fearful of silence, etc.?

If we instead assume there are other sorts of conversations
taking place in these calls, then you have to start wondering
how much effort *those* conversations require of their
participants.

I can verbally guide you through the proper tying of a bowline
(knot). But, doing so requires a fair bit of concentration
on my part -- to keep a mental model of what the "virtual rope"
looks like at any given point in the description (so I know
what to tell you to do next!).

I could *possibly* do this while driving up the interstate
(which, here, is relatively lightly traveled, few exits/entrance
ramps, etc.) -- because I could look ahead and see how large a chunk
(in terms of miles/seconds) of my attention I can *withdraw* from
the driving task and shift over to the "virtual knot tying"
task.

Trying to do this in 45 MPH, bumper to bumper city traffic would
end up with a crinkled fender -- or a very poorly tied knot! :

My wife only uses the
phone (hands free) for breaking up the monotony on long-haul trips she takes
alone. SHe usually chats with someone she's used to chatting with in the
car. When anything requires special attention she just says "traffic, bye!"
and hangs up, calling back later when the traffic clears so I know she's OK.

SWMBO carries a prepaid phone "for emergency use only". I.e., to *make*
calls (for assistance, etc.). I couldn't tell you what her number is;
nor could *she*! The phone never *receives* calls and is OFF unless
she is making a call.

We don't spend much time in the car (less than 6,000 miles annually;
figure ~200-300 hours??). Much of that time, we're together -- so,
who does *she* need to call? And, if singletons, we can almost always
wait until we "get someplace" to make a call.

After all, this is how we did things 40 years ago! *And* had to keep
*dimes* on hand to do so!! :

Also, it's hard to quantify; what constitutes an "impairment"?
How do you *measure* the degree of impairment (i.e., in a manner
that a police officer could OBJECTIVELY enforce -- much like
a breathalyzer/blood test removes the "subjective" criteria
from the assessment).

I know a lot of state troopers who would tell you that there's still a bit
of subjectivity in that area. This is stale data because I no longer "hang"
with that crowd, but it was a simple matter to get a maximum rather than
minimum reading. Here's a tip from a DUI lawyer:

One of the most important factors in determining how high the breathalyzer
registers someone’s blood alcohol level—almost as important as the amount of
alcohol consumed—is breathing pattern. Holding your breath for 30 seconds
before blowing into the breathalyzer increases the result a whopping 15.7
percent. Hyperventilating for 20 seconds, on the other hand, decreases it by
10.6 percent.

I wouldn't doubt it! But, that same sort of "process variation" would
also be evident in any assessment of "impairment". E.g., the nonsense
about walking a straight line (*I* would have a hard time doing that
and I don't drink!) -- how "unstraight" was my attempt??

According to Dr. Michael Hlastala, Professor of Physiology, Biophysics and
Medicine at the University of Washington, "By far, the most overlooked error
in breath testing for alcohol is the pattern of breathing.... The
concentration of alcohol changes considerably during the breath...The first
part of the breath, after discarding the dead space, has an alcohol
concentration much lower than the equivalent BAC. Whereas, the last part of
the breath has an alcohol concentration that is much higher than the
equivalent BAC. The last part of the breath can be over 50% above the
alcohol level....Thus, a breath tester reading of 0.14% taken from the last
part of the breath may indicate that the blood level is only 0.09%."

So, the key is to purge your lungs, fill them and *quickly* ALMOST
empty them -- all the while giving the *appearance* that you are
pushing the last few molecules of CO2 out...

So you can see while it's probably always going to be more objective than an
impairment test, there are plenty of ways to monkey with the outcomes.
Bringing in lots of fresh oxygen through hyperventilating really lowers the
result. But if the officer asks you to hold your breath as long as you can
before blowing into the machine, he's likely to get a higher than actual
BAC. (Hlastula, M. Physiological errors associated with alcohol breath
tests. The Champion, 1985, 9(6))

DUI/DWI lawyer and law professor Lawrence Taylor, speaking about this fact
about breathalyzers, explains that,

“Many police officers know this. They also know that if the machine
contradicts their judgment that the person they arrested is intoxicated,
they won’t look good. So when they tell the arrestee to blow into the

So, ask for a blood test?

machine’s mouthpiece, they’ll yell at him, "Keep breathing! Breathe harder!
Harder!" As Professor Hlastala has found, this ensures that the breath
captured by the machine will be from the bottom of the lungs, near the
alveolar sacs, which will be richest in alcohol. With the higher alcohol
concentration, the machine will give a higher -- but inaccurate - -
reading.” (Taylor, Lawrence. How to Fool the Breathalyzer.
(http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/27)

There's some very interesting reading he

http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/conviction/

That suggests that if you do get arrested for DUI that you get an attorney
that specializes in such cases and can point out to the jury (always go for
a jury trial since many jurors take a nip now and then) that the science
being used is far from reliable:

Most attorneys have no idea how woefully inadequate infrared breath
machine are as evidence-gathering devices. These machines are so
unsophisticated that virtually no scientist would ever trust the results as
a basis for scholarly research or scientific investigation. Yet attorneys
assume that since the state has approved the machine, its accuracy and
reliability are not subject to challenge.
There are at least 30 ways to rebut the evidence from these machines if the
attorney understands how the machines work, what causes them to malfunction,
and that they are nonspecific for alcohol.4 Without doing exhaustive
research, no attorney would understand their internal workings enough to
cross-examine the state's witnesses effectively on their alleged accuracy.

The idea that there is "science" behind much of what we accept as
"scientific evidence" is pure hooey! Where's the science that
*proves* that fingerprints are unique? Bitemarks? etc. We
seem to think they *should* be -- but "feeling" and "science"
are vastly different.

A friend used to offer an interesting demonstration. He'd talk about
how rare 4-leaf clovers are. And, most folks would agree -- because
they've probably never *had* one.

Then, he'd set about finding half a dozen of them in the grass
beneath your feet!

People probably never *had* one because they probably never sat down
and made a point of *finding* one! (not "looking for" one but actually
setting out with the GOAL of *finding* one!)

Most people think shooting stars are "rare". I routinely head outside
to watch "meteor showers" and, when doing so, usually see dozens for
a small commitment of my time (did this just last week).

I.e., just because you don't see any when you look skyward in *NYC*,
doesn't mean they aren't up there -- hiding behind the clouds and
light polution! :

While I am sure a given task can "impair" some drivers more/less
than others -- and the same is probably true of BAC across the
population -- I suspect the BAC "readings" tend to be a closer fit
to *all* persons, hence easier to justify as an enforcement criteria
(e.g., I doubt there are folks who can claim a BAC of 0.2 is "the same"
as a BAC of 0.1 in someone else; by contrast, I suspect the range
of "distractedness" for a given competing task varies widely in the
population)

I agree, but I don't see our modern legal system as being too troubled by
those person-to-person inconsistencies when the articles I've quote describe
some whopping big problems with BAC measurement, especially using
Breathalyzers.

Drunk driving has become a "religious issue". This is unfortunate.
While I don't condone anyone getting behind the wheel impaired
(hey, of you want to walk a tightrope across the Grand Canyon while
"impaired", more power to you! I'll come down to help scrape you
off the rocks at the bottom...), the penalties that have been put
in place are excessive.

It's turned into a "we really want to make you *pay* (literally)
for your mistake". And, a whole "business" (lawyers, court system,
companies that make the interlock devices, etc.).

OTOH, if you embezzle a million dollars... "oops!" :

Note that most/many cars now *facilitate* the call! So, the car (with
it's Black Box functions logging everything you are doing *in* the
vehicle,
how much throttle you've applied, WHEN you hit the brakes wrt the
accelerometers reporting the collision, etc.) can easily correlate
your phone use with the accident data.

Yes, I think I would disable any such unit in any new car I bought just
because I don't want my car to testify against me in court. It seems
vaguely unconstitutional, just like mass roadside sobriety checks. The 4th
amendment says it's not OK to pull over one guy for an invasive test based
on no observible probable cause but it IS OK to do it to dozens of people at
once? The Supremes must be smoking some fine weed - or talking on their
cellphones when they render these decisions.

Good luck with that (disabling). Things are too highly integrated,
nowadays.

You *might* be able to find the antenna for the "reporting system" and
shunt that to ground. But, would have to hope that didn't also render
your GPS unit, HiFi "radio", etc. inoperative. It wouldn't be a stretch
to imagine future versions of these systems *verifying* that connectivity
before allowing the vehicle to be operated!

But, even if you disable the wireless/remote reporting mechanism, there
is still the "resident" black box that could be subpoena'd. I.e., if
you thought you were "screwed", you'd need to get access to the
vehicle after the accident and before any ambulance chasers and put
200 volts on the batter terminals (i.e., FRY everything unconditionally
unless you know what is stored *where*)

Yup. First several pages of our car manual basically is CYA language
that says "your car is watching you". Furthermore, *ours* calls the
manufacturer in the event of a crash -- I'm *sure* they harvest that
data!

It always boggles my mind when I see how much private data is being
horse-traded among Internet companies. And the weasel-wording they use to
make it sound like it's for YOUR benefit, not theirs.

grin People are lemmings. They will gladly give away all sorts
of private information for a few pennies discount at the grocery
store, free shipping on purchases, etc.

Here's a great adage to keep in mind: Any time you seem to be
getting something for FREE, *YOU* are the PRODUCT that is being SOLD!

I've been designing an automation system -- initially to be deployed
in my home. Unlike the systems that have been sold since the 70's
(which are essentially just "remote controllers"), I intend the
system to be an *assistant*, not just a "flunky".

I.e., a *good* assistant anticipates your needs -- a flunky waits
to be told (i.e., just a grunt).

One of the ways you can anticipate needs is to understand what your
"master" (bad choice of terms) is *doing* at any given time. That's
virtually impossible for a modest machine. But, it's NOT unrealistic
to expect a machine to be able to learn your *patterns* -- if it
can observe your choices/commands, over time.

E.g., if you awaken at 3AM and tell it "turn on the lights, dim" so
you can make your way to the bathroom without frying your eyes,
then if it senses you awakening *tomorrow* at 3AM, it can probably
safely assume that you *will* be asking for the lights to be
turned on, dimly!

[Without getting into a lengthy discussion of what you *can*
deduce -- and how -- you can see that something like this is possible]

Now, imagine the implementation of this was done "outside" your
home/region of control. Say, by a firm like google "offering" to
provide this service to you FOR FREE! :

What you don't see is all of the information that is inherently
leaking out in the process. In this case, the fact that you
arise at 3AM and have to go to the bathroom! It could just
as easily be "you go to bed at 9:00PM", "you drink coffee in
the morning", "you shower before bed" vs. "you shower on arising",
etc.

None of these are significant, in themselves. BUT, if you have BIG DATA
available (like, say, a nationwide company offering that service : ),
you can draw all sorts of correlations that might NEVER be apparent
to even the most astute observer!

"Among people who go to bed at 9PM and drink coffee in the morning,
there is a 37.2% chance that they will develop some form of cancer"

"Among people who awaken at 3AM to go to the bathroom, there is
a 22% chance that they are alcoholic"

"Among people who shower in the morning, there is a 28% chance that
they are Republicans"

etc. shrug So what?

The "what" is the *certainty* that the folks harvesting this data are
invariably NOT using it to make you healthier, wealthier, happier,
etc. but, instead, are trying to afford those characteristics to
THEMSELVES!

Do you *want* someone peeking into your living room (your cable
box tattles on what you are watching; many TV's will tattle on
whether you are actively *watching* certain commercials; etc)
and harvesting data for *their* use? Withthe lame rationalization
that it somehow is intended to make *your* life better (i.e.,
just wave your hands to change the channel -- no need to keep
track of that pesky remote control!)

As you say below:

So there are any number of pressures working to cancel out the expected
rise in the accident rate from increased cellphone usage. All most be
considered when trying to determine what's happening.

Only a naive understanding of the populations and causal factors
would lead to the naive assumption that cell phones sold == accidents
caused.

Naive or deliberately obtuse. I haven't decided quite which at this point.

To be fair, it's not an easy subject to clarify.

Lately in AHR (I assume you're a RAT g)

Actually, neither. I tend to frequent c.a.e, s.e.d, c.r, etc. I just
"dropped in" for a quickie... :

we've been inundated with trolls provoking arguments that have no merit.

Its the same in many (unmoderated) newsgroups. Folks looking for a
social connection with little "investment".

Yet like the joke about the Army's
OERs "They have reached rock bottom and continue to dig." That's a pretty
clear indication (backing a VERY bad hand/argument) that you're dealing with
a troll, or at least someone leaning towards trollery.

Yup. So offer your points, let others evaluate them on their merit,
and, let them evaluate the closed-mindedness of those failing to
"see reason". Silly to invest much *time* trying to win an argument
with an inanimate object! :

One thing's for su cell phone use (ownership, or whatever other criteria
you choose) is almost definitely *not* leading to a REDUCTION of accidents!
If it was, you would see insurance companies (governments, etc.) *rushing* to
ensure EVERYONE had/used a phone while driving!!

I always have a prepaid phone with me when I drive, but it's got to be
activated so I really, really only use it in emergencies and only when I'm
stopped somewhere. Yet I know many who have that phone glued to their ear
from dawn to midnight. It ain't me babe.

As I mentioned, SWMBO has one for similar reasons. She puts $100 of
time on it each year lest it "expire" (I think her current balance is
over $300 -- that tells you how long she's had it and how seldom it is
used!). We consider it "cheap insurance".

I drive much less (litarally just *hundreds* of miles yearly) and almost
always "in town" -- so, I figure I can always walk to a nearby gas station,
etc. to use a phone. Of course, I tend to be more likely to NOT be "stuck"
when there's a problem with the car (SWMBO has been instructed not to even
bother trying to change a flat if she has problems; too many wackos
out there -- just roll up the windows, lock the doors and wait for me
to show up)

But, yes, a sad number of people seem to be "addicted" to their phones.
Either jabbering away (about *nothing*?) *or* stroking it as if a
lover. My (ex) BinL's "addiction" enabled me to document the
affair he was having -- just from an examination of his cell phone
records (oops!).

(We don't even *answer* the land line -- recall the cell phone doesn't
get incoming calls -- as we consider it an intrusion. We see the
phone as existing for the convenience of the *callER* not *callEE*.
We'll check messages sometime in the next 12-36 hours. If your call
was urgent, what would you have done if we'd been OUT OF THE HOUSE
all day??? : )