Per Muggles:
Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.

Understood that there may be people out there carrying on cell phone
conversations who I do not notice, but I still have to wonder why is it
so often obvious that somebody is talking on a phone even before one
overtakes them and confirms it?

- Varying speed for no apparent reason

- Cruising the left lane below lane speed

- Wandering back-and-forth across lines....

Seems like a virtual definition of "Distracted" and all seem to me tb
highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily
basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday
it was 4.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Muggles:
I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.

Bingo!... I think we have an answer....
--
Pete Cresswell

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

Where are all the accidents?

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3

On track to be the worst year since 2007, when fatalities were 45,000, I
think she said. If not that, then 40, 000.

So traffic deaths are up in general because they were down to 35,000 for
quite a few years.

Reason given is low gas prices and more diiving, but you know you're not
getting a complete analysis from top-of-the-hour news. And it still
ruins your prmeise that accidents are not up.



They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...atalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm

If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths,
but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist
but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it
is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:54:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.

Sorta. Different people can do varying number of things at the same
time. (For a few, that number is zero). When I'm talking on a ham
radio in the car, I can only do two things simultaneously. I
sometimes announce that:
"Talk, Think, Drive... pick any two"
I tend to favor Talk and Drive. The usual result is that thinking and
therefore the quality of my discourse suffer greatly. With a cell
phone conversation, I need to both talk and think, leaving driving as
the lesser priority. However, with ham radio, little or no thought is
involved because I mentally rehearse what I'm going to say in advance.

I've only seen someone do 3 things at once, once. I was once at a ham
convention and watched someone simultaneously copy high speed Morse
code in his head, engage in a PSK-31 keyboard to keyboard exchange,
and talk to me at the same time. I was impressed, but I must say that
he was also well practiced. I suppose if someone offered classes in
reactive driving responses while texting or talking, it might improve
the situation.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:46:26 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Well it may not be a sound logic to assume that 1.5% is a "small" number.
Stand at the side of a motorway and count 100 cars passing. It won't take
long.

These statistics simply show that 1.5 of those passing cars contains a
driver on the phone, and that this number has not increased since 2003.

One such study simply counted the number of people that drove by with
BlueGoof headsets screwed into their ear and simply assumed that if
they were wearing the headset, they must be talking while driving. A
few of my friends wear theirs almost full time, because they don't
want to fumble for the headset while moving.

My guess(tm) is that the number of cellphone using drivers, in heavy
traffic, is much higher. From cell phone provider logs and
statistical summaries, it's known that cell phone use tends to follow
traffic congestion patterns with peaks during the rush hour. I can
see the increased "hash" in the 850/1900 MHz bands on my service
monitor during rush hour. (My office is near a major freeway
exchange). The assumption is that most of the calls come from drivers
either on the freeways, or the nearby roads, both of what are
typically barely moving. I wanted to do a time lapse video showing
the effect, but my IFR-1500 currently has a very sick power supply.

The problem is that in heavy traffic (rush hour), the traffic isn't
moving very fast. The opportunity to do some real damage or produce a
fatality is quite limited. At worst, a minor rear-end fender bender.
The fatalities seem to be more on the open highways, uncrowded
streets, and intersections, where traffic is light and moving at
considerable speed. Counting cars in such situation will probably
yield considerably less than the claimed 1.5% simply because there far
fewer automobiles. Therefore, I would guess(tm) that the 1.5% is an
average between congested traffic with high cell phone use, and light
traffic with light cell phone use.

If someone counted distracted cell phone drivers that are driving fast
enough to do some real damage (e.g. 25 mph), methinks the percentages
will be very low. Yet those are the ones that are going to kill
innocent people or themselves.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:26:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Well, maybe a few:
http://undistracteddrivingadvocacy.net/linked/f2_fatalities.png
Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and
the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However,
I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very
suspicious.

I found the source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951952/
"Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in
texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional
road fatalities yearly in the United States."

Well Jeff, you've provided the answer to the question,
WHERE ARE THE ACCIDENTS?
Now convince them it's not a "paradox."

"Jeff Liebermann" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:46:26 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:

Well it may not be a sound logic to assume that 1.5% is a "small" number.
Stand at the side of a motorway and count 100 cars passing. It won't take
long.

These statistics simply show that 1.5 of those passing cars contains a
driver on the phone, and that this number has not increased since 2003.

One such study simply counted the number of people that drove by with
BlueGoof headsets screwed into their ear and simply assumed that if
they were wearing the headset, they must be talking while driving. A
few of my friends wear theirs almost full time, because they don't
want to fumble for the headset while moving.

My guess(tm) is that the number of cellphone using drivers, in heavy
traffic, is much higher. From cell phone provider logs and
statistical summaries, it's known that cell phone use tends to follow
traffic congestion patterns with peaks during the rush hour. I can
see the increased "hash" in the 850/1900 MHz bands on my service
monitor during rush hour. (My office is near a major freeway
exchange). The assumption is that most of the calls come from drivers
either on the freeways, or the nearby roads, both of what are
typically barely moving. I wanted to do a time lapse video showing
the effect, but my IFR-1500 currently has a very sick power supply.

The problem is that in heavy traffic (rush hour), the traffic isn't
moving very fast. The opportunity to do some real damage or produce a
fatality is quite limited. At worst, a minor rear-end fender bender.
The fatalities seem to be more on the open highways, uncrowded
streets, and intersections, where traffic is light and moving at
considerable speed. Counting cars in such situation will probably
yield considerably less than the claimed 1.5% simply because there far
fewer automobiles. Therefore, I would guess(tm) that the 1.5% is an
average between congested traffic with high cell phone use, and light
traffic with light cell phone use.

If someone counted distracted cell phone drivers that are driving fast
enough to do some real damage (e.g. 25 mph), methinks the percentages
will be very low. Yet those are the ones that are going to kill
innocent people or themselves.

--
Jeff Liebermann




This from the UK Government survey
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rveys-2014.pdf


The
mobile phone survey
was carried out across 60 sites in England within
four different areas (South East, Manchester, Newcastle/Durham and Norfolk)
and 30 sites in Scotland.

For the
mobile phone survey
, a mixture of sites with
stationary and free flowing traffic were used.

Roadside observation methods were used to collect the data with teams of
staff visiting each
site. For the
mobile phone survey
, observations were made of drivers of cars, vans, taxis,
lorries, buses, minibuses and coaches.

At moving sites, observations were made of the gender and
mobile phone use of the driver, but due to the speed of the passing vehicles
it was not possible to
assess the age of drivers. Details of all the variables collected at the
stationary and moving sites
can be found in the methodology note.
Surveys took place in both morning (07:30 to 12:00) and afternoon sessions
(13:30 to 18:00)
with a half hour observation period every hour in each session. Sites were
surveyed in half day
sessions
1
(either the morning or afternoon sessions). A number of sites were
re-surveyed at the
weekend so differences in mobile phone use or seat belt use between weekdays
and weekends
could be assessed. There are a number of limitations to the data collection
method which are
outlined in the methodology note.



In 2014, 1.6 per cent of
drivers in England and Scotland
were observed using a hand-
held mobile phone whilst driving. The majority of these drivers were using a
phone in their
hand
rather than holding it to their
ear
; 1.1 per cent of drivers in England and Scotland were
observed holding a phone in their hand compared with 0.5 per cent observed
holding the phone
to their ear. This suggests that most mobile phone usage whilst driving was
for the purposes of
sending or receiving a text or using social media rather than making a call.





Gareth.

On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/16/2015 11:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, ceg wrote:

But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
driving drunkly"?

What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only
contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being
more easily distracted while driving?


Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me,
the reallity is that much of the time when I'm
driving, my mind is on other things.

One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell
phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes
to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on
it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck.
I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention
to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that
time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling.
But, I have developed more skill at paying attention
to the road.


I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue
tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was
hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the
phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device
and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call
while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call
them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it
rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back.

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 8:49 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a
person is also distracted.

Understood that there may be people out there carrying on cell phone
conversations who I do not notice, but I still have to wonder why is it
so often obvious that somebody is talking on a phone even before one
overtakes them and confirms it?

- Varying speed for no apparent reason

- Cruising the left lane below lane speed

- Wandering back-and-forth across lines....

Seems like a virtual definition of "Distracted" and all seem to me tb
highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily
basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday
it was 4.


I've seen the same thing, too, but it also seems everyone is more aware
of it, too. I steer clear of drivers like that, and it isn't just the
people who are on their phones while driving. There are some nuts on
the roads who like to drive fast and aggressive that scare me just as much.

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 8:54 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.

Bingo!... I think we have an answer....




--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 10:08 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 23:54:41 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.


Sorta. Different people can do varying number of things at the same
time. (For a few, that number is zero). When I'm talking on a ham
radio in the car, I can only do two things simultaneously. I
sometimes announce that:
"Talk, Think, Drive... pick any two"
I tend to favor Talk and Drive. The usual result is that thinking and
therefore the quality of my discourse suffer greatly. With a cell
phone conversation, I need to both talk and think, leaving driving as
the lesser priority. However, with ham radio, little or no thought is
involved because I mentally rehearse what I'm going to say in advance.

I've only seen someone do 3 things at once, once. I was once at a ham
convention and watched someone simultaneously copy high speed Morse
code in his head, engage in a PSK-31 keyboard to keyboard exchange,
and talk to me at the same time. I was impressed, but I must say that
he was also well practiced. I suppose if someone offered classes in
reactive driving responses while texting or talking, it might improve
the situation.



q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time? I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/16/2015 11:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, ceg wrote:

But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
driving drunkly"?

What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only
contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being
more easily distracted while driving?


Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me,
the reallity is that much of the time when I'm
driving, my mind is on other things.

One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell
phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes
to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on
it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck.
I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention
to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that
time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling.
But, I have developed more skill at paying attention
to the road.


I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue
tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was
hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the
phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device
and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call
while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call
them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it
rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back.

Studies seem to indicate its the conversation, not the phone, that
creates the biggest distraction. IOW, hands free does not make the
conversation less distracting.

On 8/17/2015 1:35 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:52 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:49 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/16/2015 11:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 6:25 PM, ceg wrote:

But, then, how do we reconcile that observation with the fact that
(unnamed) "studies show" that cellphone use is "as distracting as
driving drunkly"?

What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only
contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being
more easily distracted while driving?


Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me,
the reallity is that much of the time when I'm
driving, my mind is on other things.

One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell
phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes
to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on
it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck.
I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention
to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that
time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling.
But, I have developed more skill at paying attention
to the road.


I don't use the phone often while driving, and in the past had a blue
tooth earphone that would answer a call automatically, so everything was
hands free. Never had a problem with hands free and talking on the
phone that way. The next phone I got had an awkward blue tooth device
and I hated it, so chucked it and haven't used it. Rarely get a call
while driving, and usually ignore it when it rings. I can always call
them back. If I'm in stop and go traffic and at a stop light and it
rings, I may answer it and tell them I'll call them back.

Studies seem to indicate its the conversation, not the phone, that
creates the biggest distraction. IOW, hands free does not make the
conversation less distracting.

This is an interesting place to get information. At the bottom is a
link to a multitude of studies.

http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiat...the-brain.aspx

Additionally, there is much information about the myth of multi tasking.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:03:13 -0500, Muggles wrote:

q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time?

I have no opinion on the matter. Well, maybe a small one. I've seen
women successfully juggling three or more children at one time with
little obvious difficulty. I presume that skill could also be applied
to driving. I can only handle one screaming brat at a time, and not
very well at that. If true, the difference should appear in the
distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex.
I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find
anything that provides this information.

I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My
marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell
phones.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 8/17/2015 2:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 13:03:13 -0500, Muggles wrote:

q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time?

I have no opinion on the matter. Well, maybe a small one. I've seen
women successfully juggling three or more children at one time with
little obvious difficulty. I presume that skill could also be applied
to driving. I can only handle one screaming brat at a time, and not
very well at that. If true, the difference should appear in the
distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex.
I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find
anything that provides this information.

It would be interesting to see what sort of results you find. I'd guess
that men would have more difficulty multitasking than women. The results
might also trickle through to the level of difficulty each would have
using a cell phone while driving.

I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My
marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell
phones.


ahh OK.

--
Maggie

Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Ashton Crusher:
From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

The official anti-tobacco spiel is all about cancer and other negative
health effects... but I have to think that 90% of the people who got
onboard with banning cigarette smoking in the workplace just wanted
relief from the stink. I certainly did.... could care less if somebody
chooses to addict them selves and ruin their health... I just wanted the
stink to go away.

With cell phones: Ok, the official talk is all about safety and that may
or may not be all well and good... but I for one can get behind the idea
of a ban just so I don't have to cope with people yakking on the phone
while they wander back-and-forth over the line and back up traffic by
cruising the hammer lane.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific
thing or things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam
presentation), and the browse mode when I'm in a store where I never
know what I'll find -- 99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo
-- I have a list, but I have to go up/down each aisle to find stuff and
I generally find stuff that I should have put on the list.

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco
and I despise shopping for clothes.

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the
car as 'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the
phone I'll turn it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

--
Cheers, Bev
MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMS
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.

Sully Sullenberger can obviously talk, text, surf and drive an A320 safely down the Hudson blindfolded.

The rest of you numbnutz, HANG UP AND DRIVE! You ain't got Sulleys skills.

On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation), and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me *into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I
despise shopping for clothes.

I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide"
what to wear, "today".

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the car as
'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the phone I'll turn
it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....


LOL! yeah! We like to look.

--
Maggie

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Where are all the accidents?

They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.



You conveniently left out some important facts.

"US Vehicle Miles Driven Have Sunk To A New Post-Crisis Low"

Read mo http://www.businessinsider.com/vehic...#ixzz3j78zIZGG

You also forgot to consider that cars stop faster than they used to, they turn better than they used to, they generally have better visibility as well as ABS, traction control, stability control, lane change warnings and even accident avoidance.

In most areas, three and four-way stop signs are now controlled by traffic signals, yield signs don't exist (stop signs or traffic lights) and even basic intersections that used to be governed by stop signs are now full traffic lights. It now takes me almost 8 minutes longer to get home from the same commute I've been doing for 20 years with no more traffic. I now build up some speed, and bam- right into another red light.

Most highways are being reconfigured to remove any left hand entrance or exit ramps.

If anything, traffic accidents should have plummeted over the last 10 years, and they haven't. The only new variable is cell phones. I personally got rear ended by an idiot who was driving with her eyes in her lap (saw her hit me). In my town (Wolcott, CT), a guy waiting in line at a traffic light on a motorcycle was stuffed into the car in front of him by a girl texting.. He lived three days. I've seen at least a half dozen near misses recently from people on cell phones.

On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!


I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific
thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation),
and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but
I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I
should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me
*into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the
HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

When I go to Ace Hardware with my husband, I wonder around by myself
looking at things, then eventually track him down somewhere in the
hardware section looking for odd screws or bolts. I've learned a lot
just by doing both over and over and over again every time he wants to
go to Ace hardware. Now, I can find things for my own projects! HA!


[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

I go in the back yard and there are garden hoses connected to other
hoses going in various directions.

"What's this hose for?"
He says, "I need to water blah blah blah."
"Why can't you use the main hose for that?
He says, "I don't want to mess with dragging it all the way over HERE!"

Ohhhhhh Kayyyyyyyyy!


--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 12:11 AM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:51:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I agree with you, however, have you ever seen anyone playing a musical
instrument while driving?I never have.

Listening to music though, is far different that talking on the phone.
The brain can easily tune out the radio since it is a passive activity.
The phone requires your active participation and concentration. It
has been proven many times.

So using a cell phone should be much more dangerous AND result in a
SIGNIFICANT increase in accidents over the past 20 years as the use of
cell phones has exploded. Yet there isn't the slightest evidence of
that in the accident data.

This is the conundrum.

If cellphones are as dangerous as we think they are, then the accidents
*must* be going up.

But they're not.

So, something is wrong in our logic.


According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher
than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in
years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.

One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.

On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to
the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time
spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library).
It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with
something crossed of The List.

There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive
clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll
come back with a month's worth of whatever!

Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item
that was forgotten on today's trip!

[A friend claims "Plumbing takes three trips" (TmReg); I've learned that
she is basically correct. There's always one little fitting that
you discover you need *after* you've come back from your FIRST trip.
And, something else that you think of -- or manage to BREAK -- after
your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of
trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough
to hope for *one*]

On 8/16/2015 10:51 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:21:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/16/2015 7:10 PM, Muggles wrote:


I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.


I agree with you, however, have you ever seen anyone playing a musical
instrument while driving?I never have.

Listening to music though, is far different that talking on the phone.
The brain can easily tune out the radio since it is a passive activity.
The phone requires your active participation and concentration. It
has been proven many times.

So using a cell phone should be much more dangerous AND result in a
SIGNIFICANT increase in accidents over the past 20 years as the use of
cell phones has exploded. Yet there isn't the slightest evidence of
that in the accident data.




so says you and ceg. NBC new said different tonight.

On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:


I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.


The problem arises when people from the second category think they are
in the first.

On 8/17/2015 7:05 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing
behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I
want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to
the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time
spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library).
It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with
something crossed of The List.

There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive
clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll
come back with a month's worth of whatever!

Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item
that was forgotten on today's trip!

[A friend claims "Plumbing takes three trips" (TmReg); I've learned that
she is basically correct. There's always one little fitting that
you discover you need *after* you've come back from your FIRST trip.
And, something else that you think of -- or manage to BREAK -- after
your SECOND trip! As a result, I have a very conscious goal of
trying to do plumbing jobs in *two* trips -- not yet ambitious enough
to hope for *one*]


My current project is building some floating shelves in my bathroom
using tension rods, and one store will have 2 parts of what I need,
another store will have 3 parts. I threw up my hands and put everything
back because I needed the essential tension poles in the right length
before I could even start. The shelves I needed were out of stock, too.

Today, after searching the Home Depot website I finally found the
tension rods AND the right wire shelves that I need. The hardware to
put it together is at another store (Lowes). Home depot had a package
of C clamps that were the right size and color, but the package also had
a bunch of other screws and wall board anchors that I didn't need for a
whopping $28. I'm not paying that for C clamps. I may run up to Ace
Hardware and see if I can buy the clamps there. If not, I'll go back to
Lowes and get the plastic C clamps they have which will work fine and
they're like $7 for a bunch of them.

I've been back and forth to Lowes several times JUST looking, but that
part has been fun working out what I need and then going on a scavenger
hunt finding the parts.

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 7:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:


I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.


The problem arises when people from the second category think they are
in the first.

yes!

--
Maggie

On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

I dislike shopping generally, and look at almost all of it as a mission.
Get it, get what I want and get out. I have better things to do. Of
course, I dislike watching television as well, unless it's football g

On 8/17/2015 3:35 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

The official anti-tobacco spiel is all about cancer and other negative
health effects... but I have to think that 90% of the people who got
onboard with banning cigarette smoking in the workplace just wanted
relief from the stink. I certainly did.... could care less if somebody
chooses to addict them selves and ruin their health... I just wanted the
stink to go away.

With cell phones: Ok, the official talk is all about safety and that may
or may not be all well and good... but I for one can get behind the idea
of a ban just so I don't have to cope with people yakking on the phone
while they wander back-and-forth over the line and back up traffic by
cruising the hammer lane.

While I dislike driving around people talking on cell phones, I hate
going hiking and have to listen to someone on the phone. Or you want a
quick bite to eat, but the person in front of you can't put the damn
phone down long enough to order.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:28:35 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

There are plenty of
stories of accidents and fatalities where cell phone usage was
involved.

But, if they are actually happening in any meaningful way, then
the accident rate would be going up.

That it's not, is the paradox.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

According to NBC new tonight they are. We are on track to be higher
than 2009, a 14% increase. Could be the highest number of fatalities in
years. They said 55% were speed related, 25% cell phone related.

One of you is using the wrong statistics. Me thinks you are FOS.

You're talking fatalities, which is even further removed from accidents
than injuries.

Why do you persist in muddling what is so very simple.

You and I believe that cellphone use is distracting enough to cause
accidents, yet, those accidents aren't happening.

What part of that is full of ****?
(Do you have *better* accident statistics?)

If so, show them.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:07:36 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

"Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

You fundamentally don't understand zeros.

It's like the old joke of aiming nuclear weapons.

If the number of accidents were truly going up, no amount of estimation errors
would hide that fact.

It's clear, that the accident rate did not track the cellphone ownership
rate, and that is a fact that no amount of apologies on your part can
erase.

I think you're looking to prove your point that the astoundingly huge
skyrocketing rate that must be expected by your assumptions is,
somehow, magically, hidden inside of "estimation" errors.

You're grasping at straws.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:08:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

That's the conundrum!

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I understand the concept that CEG has not once stated the
word "rate". At least if he has, I haven't seen it.

Just to be clear, I've used the words "accident rate" many times,
but, to be just as clear, I don't think it matters whether we
use rate or number of accidents, because, as someone already said,
if the accidents were really being caused by any appreciable
percentage of cellphone owners, then the roads would be awash
in blood.

That they're not, is the conundrum.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

" Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

Yet here he is, doing exactly that, making year to year comparisons
and refusing to even acknowledge this striking disclaimer.

You have a logic problem if you really believe that your entire premise
is that the answer is hidden inside of "estimation error".

I thank you for looking for a solution out of the conundrum, but, you're
not going to find it in accident rate estimation error.

You apparently have no concept of the powers of ten (hint: It's an extra zero or two
or three on the numbers, which no estimation error in the world is going
to hide).,

That your entire premise hinges on the estimation error being so large
as to greatly sway the numbers means you're simply grasping at straws.

I too am looking for *where* the conundrum is solved, but, it's not going
to be in the "estimation errors" of the US figures on year to year accident
rates.

On 08/17/2015 02:21 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly flinch and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

When I needed shoes for my daughter's wedding I ended up trying up
everything that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for
something that didn't hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could
sit down at the reception. Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for
formal wear.

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation), and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me *into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

Our only REAL hardware store closed several months ago. One of the
things of which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there
45 years ago when I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape
recorder. Couldn't take it, but it made me really feel good. Still does.

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! : ]

Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy
anything. Those are nifty little flashlights.

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I
despise shopping for clothes.

I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy
used t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy
way too many clothes.

It also cuts down on that time in the morning when you have to "decide"
what to wear, "today".

T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the car as
'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the phone I'll turn
it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

Mythbusters on the Science Channel just aired a test of hands free
vs. hands on cell phone
use while driving. All but one test subject failed their simulator test
either by crashing or getting lost.
Thirty people took the test. The show aired 9:30 CDT on August 16.

If this is true, then why aren't accident rates going up?

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 10:36:27 -0400, micky wrote:

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3

Let's stick with accidents, since injuries and deaths have a whole
host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with
cellphone ownership (and some that do), but none of which are relevant
to the original accident.

You're just clouding what is a simple issue that is a paradox.

Unless you're saying that cellphone use causes these fatalities and
injuries WITHOUT causing an accident first?