On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:19:01 -0700, Ameri-Clean wrote:

Have you considered that cell usage and texting might be causing
FEWER accidents? My reasons:
1. Talking or texting keeps the driver awake--less likely
to fall asleep and have a collision.
2. Knowing that talking or texting is a distraction,
drivers consciously pay more attention to the road.
3. The increased alertness resulting from texting could
last for minutes, or even hours after the texting has stopped.

Of course there will be a few accidents caused by the driver
momentarily not looking at the road but, overall, the rate
may be lower among texters. A meaningful statistic would show
the rate of accidents per 1,000 who text often or sometimes
vs. per 1,000 who never text.

You have supplied a possible fifth solution to the conundrum!

I have noted already that a car with a cellphone might actually
be a *safer* car than one without, simply because of the lack of
need for reading road signs in the rain, or for making u-turns
in unfamiliar territory, or for avoiding traffic backups, etc.

Certainly a cellphone equipped car is much safer *after* the accident,
because help can be on its way even before you step out of the vehicle.

So, maybe the conundrum is solved by the assumption that cellphones
both cause and prevent accidents in *exactly equal numbers*.

That would be a fifth solution to the conundrum.

On 08/17/2015 08:04 PM, ceg wrote:
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.

I saw it. I trust them. I think they take too much pride in their
actual considerable skills and are having too much fun to fudge their
projects.

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

Perhaps the smarter non-users are getting better at avoiding the
assholes on the phone -- a survival characteristic.

I've used my phone twice while driving. Both times I could actually
FEEL my peripheral vision as well as my attention to driving shutting
down. Both times my response was "I'm on my way, see you in a few
minutes." I don't use my phone for anything but messages like that and
really don't understand how people can be constantly chattering.

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

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:06:00 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

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,

No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.

since injuries and deaths have a whole
host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with
cellphone ownership

No more so than accidents.

(and some that do), but none of which are relevant
to the original accident.

Deaths may have factors like that but injuries don't. And your
objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying
dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of
the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.

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

You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.

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

Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarilly linearly
proportional to accidents.

On 08/17/2015 3:39 PM, John-Del wrote:
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

....

... 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.


One facet of driving that motorcycle safety courses try to teach is you
NEVER relax your vigil of watching for rear enders until you have at
least two cars stopped behind you, and I wait for at least three (clutch
in, first gear, and looking for exits). You also never stop close enough
to the car ahead that you can't swing out around them in an emergency.

I've been riding motorcycles for over 45 years now and the two accidents
I was involved in (many years ago) I could easily have avoided if I had
taken a safety course back then - I have since taken several such
courses and am a much safer rider as a result. (I hope!)

John :-#(#
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

On 8/17/2015 8:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
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.

In software engineering, multitasking is a commonly used mechanism
for making more robust, reliable, maintainable, etc. programs. Do
a bunch of little things AS IF that was *all* you had to do.

But, there is an implicit overhead in doing so -- because a
computer can really only *do* one thing at a time. So, you
have to "switch" between these different tasks. That means
remembering EVERYTHING about what you *were* doing on the first
task while you *recall* everything that you had previously *done*
on the second task. The time/effort that it takes to do this
is "overhead" (waste).

The same things apply to human brains. It takes effort to remember
where you are in a given task in enough ACCURATE detail that you will
be able to later return to that point -- while simultaneously recalling
the details of the *other* task that you are now going to resume.
All that effort "switching" is "waste".

And, opportunity to screw up!

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 wasn't specifically commenting on shoes -- though understand your
reference in light of the point at which I injected my comments.

Rather, women (sorry to generalize) tend to be content to look at lots
of *anything* and then leave with *nothing*. AND, not be distressed over
this fact! If I've made a trip out to buy/acquire something, I am
upset if I don't come home *with* it! "Wasted trip".

Furthermore, men will tend to keep that on their ToDo list as an
unfinished task. Women seem not to mind (arbitraily?) deciding that
they don't *need* it, afterall! ("I'll make do with what I have...")

[If the man could have rationalized a way of "making do", he would
have done so to get out of that *task*!]

[Of course, I am painting with a broad brush...]

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.

I haven't been in a "real" hardware store since I left New England.

[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.

It was silly of them to offer them as free WITHOUT purchase. OTOH, much
of their stuff is of dubious quality. I was looking to buy a drywall
lift and looked at their offering: would I want to be standing under
a sheet of drywall supported by *this*??

frown

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.

The idea of "previously worn" clothing gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Kind of like a *used* toothbrush... who cares how many times it's
been WASHED!!! frown

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.

Jeans (several identical pair) and black or white T-shirt (see post elsewhere
how I invariably choose the wrong color to wear).

If it's a special occasion (party, funeral, etc.) I drag out black dress
slacks and a black shirt (the "Johnny Cash" look).

Once in a blue moon I'll get "to the nines" in a three-piece suit.
Usually, my friends find that disturbing...

On 8/17/2015 10:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
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.


This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.

On 8/18/2015 8:13 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

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


This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.


Well, that sure is the flippin answer.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Per Don Y:
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".

Ever since being almost run down on my bike on two occasions less than 2
weeks apart - the common thread being that I was wearing dark clothing -
I have worn nothing but red shirts. Black shorts because that's the
only color that works for cycling.

Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that
the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless -
wearing the same clothes all the time.
--
Pete Cresswell

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

Back in The Day, computers used to TimeSlice and the makers called it
multitasking.

Now computers can actually MultiTask because they have multiple CPUs and
programmers can write code that runs parallel threads.

Dunno about people... We have only one brain, but the brain has multiple
areas dedicated to different processing so I would think the jury is
still out.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 8/17/2015 10:45 PM, ceg wrote:
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.



http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...s-507057219572

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...s-of-this-year
On the other hand, a growing number of states are raising speed limits,
and everywhere drivers are distracted by cellphone calls and text
messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter
of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that
includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.

On 8/18/2015 9:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per The Real Bev:
Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

Back in The Day, computers used to TimeSlice and the makers called it
multitasking.

Now computers can actually MultiTask because they have multiple CPUs and
programmers can write code that runs parallel threads.

Dunno about people... We have only one brain, but the brain has multiple
areas dedicated to different processing so I would think the jury is
still out.

The science still seems to indicate that multitasking is a myth. Seems
the brain can only focus on one thing at a time.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...h-multitasking

https://laurenpietila.wordpress.com/...ention-part-3/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=95256794

http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbr...udies-suggest/

On 8/18/2015 9:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/17/2015 11:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:


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


Multitask is just another meaningless buzzword. If you count walking
and chew gum you can put it on your resume. People that claim to be
able to do so are just juggling two or three tasks and building in
inefficiency.

Sometimes, according to scientists, people can walk and chew gum because
walking is deeply ingrained in the brain and requires no thought.
Attempts to multitasks seem to reduce productivity as well.

On 8/17/2015 11:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:


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


Multitask is just another meaningless buzzword. If you count walking
and chew gum you can put it on your resume. People that claim to be
able to do so are just juggling two or three tasks and building in
inefficiency.

Hi Pete,

On 8/18/2015 7:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per The Real Bev:
Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

Back in The Day, computers used to TimeSlice and the makers called it
multitasking.

Now computers can actually MultiTask because they have multiple CPUs and
programmers can write code that runs parallel threads.

No. Running two or more programs in parallel on multiple cores is
multiprocessing. What you call timeslicing is multitasking. It
is similar, conceptually, to time SHARING but at a much finer grain.

Dunno about people... We have only one brain, but the brain has multiple
areas dedicated to different processing so I would think the jury is
still out.

The brain is not a single processor (to draw a parallel to computers).
You can chew gum, walk, see, hear, etc. simultaneously. The problem
with "multitasking" is that it calls upon higher functions that are
more language oriented -- if you are 'thinking' about something
(solve a problem) you tend to draw on language. This is a largely
"serial" activity -- you can't keep multiple "conversations" going in
your head concurrently.

Think about how hard it is to be engaged in two or more conversations
at a party. OTOH, think about how *easy* it is to be eating hors d'oeuvres,
sipping a cocktail, talking *and* walking across the room (while
carefully avoiding others along the way) at the same time!

On 8/18/2015 8:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
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".

Ever since being almost run down on my bike on two occasions less than 2
weeks apart - the common thread being that I was wearing dark clothing -
I have worn nothing but red shirts. Black shorts because that's the
only color that works for cycling.

Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that
the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless -
wearing the same clothes all the time.


Around here people wear neon colors when their biking. I don't think
I've seen anyone wearing black shorts with a red shirt yet.

--
Maggie

On 8/18/2015 10:58 AM, Don Y wrote:
Hi Pete,

On 8/18/2015 7:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per The Real Bev:
Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

Back in The Day, computers used to TimeSlice and the makers called it
multitasking.

Now computers can actually MultiTask because they have multiple CPUs and
programmers can write code that runs parallel threads.

No. Running two or more programs in parallel on multiple cores is
multiprocessing. What you call timeslicing is multitasking. It
is similar, conceptually, to time SHARING but at a much finer grain.

Dunno about people... We have only one brain, but the brain has multiple
areas dedicated to different processing so I would think the jury is
still out.

The brain is not a single processor (to draw a parallel to computers).
You can chew gum, walk, see, hear, etc. simultaneously. The problem
with "multitasking" is that it calls upon higher functions that are
more language oriented -- if you are 'thinking' about something
(solve a problem) you tend to draw on language. This is a largely
"serial" activity -- you can't keep multiple "conversations" going in
your head concurrently.

Think about how hard it is to be engaged in two or more conversations
at a party. OTOH, think about how *easy* it is to be eating hors
d'oeuvres,
sipping a cocktail, talking *and* walking across the room (while
carefully avoiding others along the way) at the same time!

When I was learning ballroom dancing the ladies would always comment
that no matter how hard the man thought it was to lead, we always had it
tougher because we had to do everything going backwards and in heels
plus we had to trust the man knew HOW to lead!

--
Maggie

On 08/18/2015 06:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
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".

Ever since being almost run down on my bike on two occasions less than 2
weeks apart - the common thread being that I was wearing dark clothing -
I have worn nothing but red shirts. Black shorts because that's the
only color that works for cycling.

:-)

Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that
the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless -
wearing the same clothes all the time.

I like neon colors, orange or kawasaki green especially. Solids, not a
pattern. Anybody who hits me should NOT be able to tell the judge he
didn't see me.

--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge

On 8/18/2015 11:37 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/18/2015 10:58 AM, Don Y wrote:
Hi Pete,

On 8/18/2015 7:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per The Real Bev:
Nobody can multitask, it's just sequential flipping back and forth.
Women may just need to do more flipping than guys do.

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

Back in The Day, computers used to TimeSlice and the makers called it
multitasking.

Now computers can actually MultiTask because they have multiple CPUs and
programmers can write code that runs parallel threads.

No. Running two or more programs in parallel on multiple cores is
multiprocessing. What you call timeslicing is multitasking. It
is similar, conceptually, to time SHARING but at a much finer grain.

Dunno about people... We have only one brain, but the brain has multiple
areas dedicated to different processing so I would think the jury is
still out.

The brain is not a single processor (to draw a parallel to computers).
You can chew gum, walk, see, hear, etc. simultaneously. The problem
with "multitasking" is that it calls upon higher functions that are
more language oriented -- if you are 'thinking' about something
(solve a problem) you tend to draw on language. This is a largely
"serial" activity -- you can't keep multiple "conversations" going in
your head concurrently.

Think about how hard it is to be engaged in two or more conversations
at a party. OTOH, think about how *easy* it is to be eating hors
d'oeuvres,
sipping a cocktail, talking *and* walking across the room (while
carefully avoiding others along the way) at the same time!

When I was learning ballroom dancing the ladies would always comment
that no matter how hard the man thought it was to lead, we always had it
tougher because we had to do everything going backwards and in heels
plus we had to trust the man knew HOW to lead!

True that!!

I love Fred Astaire, but Ginger Rogers did all the work

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced
the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and
deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?

That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving enforcement
and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the skyrocketing cellphone
ownership figures.

However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing of
drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have to agree,
in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel each other out.

I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet
another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident
rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:37:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...s-507057219572

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...s-of-this-year
On the other hand, a growing number of states are raising speed limits,
and everywhere drivers are distracted by cellphone calls and text
messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter
of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that
includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.

If a quarter of all crashes are "related to cellphone use", then
why aren't accident rates going up by a quarter?

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

You have a logic problem if you believe that the above statement
means that estimation is the only issue with the data. The disclaimer
does not say that. It points out that the data are estimated and then
it says that year to year comparisons should be made with caution.

I think you have a problem with large numbers.

If the accident rates, given the tens of thousands of accidents yearly,
aren't changing, then it would take a stupendously stupifyingly
coincidental alignment of the stars to then make the accident rates
exactly cancel out the *entire effect* of millions upon millions
of cellphones being owned (and presumably used) by almost every
person of driving age in the United States.

That your *entire argument* is based on refuting yearly accident
rate figures based on a minor estimation detail, is unbelievable.

Do you realize how MANY cellphones there are owned by people in
the USA?

If those cellphones were being used, while driving, and if they were
causing accidents, no amount of fudging of the data would show what
the data actually shows.

There is a paradox, to be sure, but the answer is never going to be
found in the puny numbers associated with *estimation errors* that
you want it to.

You're grasping at straws if you truly feel that the *estimation
errors* exactly cancel out the absolutely stupendous effect we
presume cellphone ownership to have on accident rates, in both
timing and in number.

It's just not possible,and, it's a bit scary that you believe it
is. Does anyone else believe that the answer to the paradox is
simply that estimation errors have skyrocketed, and then plateaued
at exactly the same rate as cellphone ownership has?

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Here's a concept, go **** yourself.

On 8/18/2015 6:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
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".

Ever since being almost run down on my bike on two occasions less than 2
weeks apart - the common thread being that I was wearing dark clothing -
I have worn nothing but red shirts. Black shorts because that's the
only color that works for cycling.

Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly"
community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once*
in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many
crazy drivers!

Don't even know how many red shirts I have now... but I'm thinking that
the people who see me every day think I'm disturbed-but-harmless -
wearing the same clothes all the time.

A neighbor once "threatened" to buy me a red shirt -- just because she
always saw me in black/navy or white. I'm not fond of bright colors
(and particularly hate *green*!) Given that I have complete control
over my appearance, I figure I should wear what I'm "happiest" with!
(if clothes can be said to make you "happy")

I've always adopted the "many of the same" approach. E.g., when I used
to wear dress shirts/slacks, I would have three or four of the same
shirt hanging side by side in the closet. So, it was not uncommon to see
me in the same "outfit" on successive days. Or, several times in a week.

Of course, it was typically the women who would notice such things
(I think all men check is whether or not you have clothes *on*!).
One lady commented once and I made a point of bringing in a handfull
of hangers with identical shirts hung on each: "Oh! I see..."

[Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they
are *drawn* to darker colors]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Sadly, those distracted driving accidents that do occur are not always solo.. Were they always solo - then such accidents are merely a reasonable method to cull the herd. Those stupid enough to text and drive deserve exactly what they get, full stop. It is the non-deserving collateral damage that is the sad part of it all.

And, anyone proven to be the cause of an accident due to texting - no matter how inconsequential the damage should be banned from driving more-or-less forever. Or, allowed to drive only mopeds or scooters, and marked with special tags (license plates).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:19:05 -0700, The Real Bev 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.

I saw it. I trust them. I think they take too much pride in their
actual considerable skills and are having too much fun to fudge their
projects.

I haven't seen that episode, but I love the Mythbusters. I agree that
they probably don't "fudge" their data, but, I'm sure the *producers*
choose the most *interesting* data, and not necessarily the most
accurate results.

Still, I don't disbelieve that driving while using a cellphone is
distracting.

I just can't find any data that supports that the accident rate in
the USA is skyrocketing concomitantly with cellphone ownership rates.

So, while many individually contrived experiments easily show distraction,
why is it that there are no combined purely factual reports that
prove it's actually contributing to the accident rate in the USA?


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

Perhaps the smarter non-users are getting better at avoiding the
assholes on the phone -- a survival characteristic.

Maybe. But if that were the case, wouldn't there have been an initial
spike in the accident rate, and then a tailing off of that spike as
we learned to avoid cellphone users?

No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist.

I've used my phone twice while driving. Both times I could actually
FEEL my peripheral vision as well as my attention to driving shutting
down. Both times my response was "I'm on my way, see you in a few
minutes." I don't use my phone for anything but messages like that and
really don't understand how people can be constantly chattering.

Wow. I use my cellphone every day, all day while driving. I must make
maybe a half dozen calls alone on my hour-long commute, and, on a long
drive, I'm on the phone almost the entire time. My problem is *power*,
as the phone heats up when GPS and phone calls are simultaneous.

Meanwhile, on long trips, the three kids in the back each have their
phones blaring some game or video (they never seem to find their
headpieces when we leave for long trips).

And, of course, the wife has to have her music playing on her iPod.

Meanwhile, I have had only one accident in my entire life, and that
was when someone rear ended me when I was in college, and it was partly
my fault because I decided to turnright without using a turn signal, but
braked hard for a yellow light (because the road suddenly came up
and I had not realized it was my turn).

That accident was clearly my fault, but the other guy got a ticket,
and when they called me into court, I told them exactly what happened,
and, they STILL upheld the other guy's ticket (which I thought was
kind of odd).

Anyway, I am shocked that you use the phone so little, as I use it
basically 100% of the time when I'm in my car.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:16:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I also pointed out several times now that the census data that CEG posted
clearly says that it's "estimated and should be used with caution for
year to year comparison".

No amount of *estimation* error is going to cancel out the huge
rates predicted by the reports.

Did you see the poster who showed a report of 25% greater accident rates?

Do you really believe that the "estimation errors" are exactly 1/4 of
the huge numbers, and then, that these estimation errors only occur
during the exact time frame when cellphone ownership rates skyrocketed?

And then, these very same "estimation errors" tailed off suddenly, and
precipitously, exactly when cellphone ownership rates tailed off?

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:16:33 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I and others have pointed out that the campaign that has dramatically
lowered drunk driving has occurred over roughly the same period that
cell phone usage grew dramatically.

I responded to that post of yours which assumes that the drunk-driving
campaign exactly cancels out the skyrocketing cellphone ownership
effect on accident rates, in both timing and in number.

It's far-fetched to believe that both the timing and the size of
the drunk-driving campaign results *exactly* cancel out that of the
cellphone driving effect, but it is one possible answer to the conundrum.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:30:24 -0500, ChairMan wrote:

Also the fact that many cities have banned texting and cell phone use while
driving.
I know how many accidents I've avoided due to someone on a phone. I can
usually spot them by their driving. But your right, no amount of facts will
solve his "paradox"

This is perhaps the sixth possible answer to the enigma.

If I understand your argument, it's that the laws on cellphone use while
driving have been 100% effective in preventing cellphone use while driving,
and that these laws are so effective as to cancel out totally the skyrocketing
accident rates predicted by the studies.

On 8/18/2015 2:46 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:37:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...s-507057219572

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...s-of-this-year
On the other hand, a growing number of states are raising speed limits,
and everywhere drivers are distracted by cellphone calls and text
messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter
of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that
includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.

If a quarter of all crashes are "related to cellphone use", then
why aren't accident rates going up by a quarter?


Why would they? With automatic braking, lane detection, backup cameras
and the like other rates may be going down. You have to look at all the
numbers. Don't forget MADD too.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:11:23 -0400, micky wrote:

No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.

Do you have *better* data than what I provided in the OP?

I've been asking for better accident rate data since this thread
started.

I'm not afraid of better data (you may be, but I am not).

No more so than accidents.

You are missing a screw if you think that a second-order issue
such as injuries and fatalities will be simpler than a first-order
issue such as accidents (which are the cause of those injuries
and fatalities).

Are you seriously arguing that the injuries and fatalities would
have happened *without* the accident happening first?

Deaths may have factors like that but injuries don't. And your
objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying
dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of
the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.

The fact you used "lying" instead of "laying" tells me you are
intelligent; so I find it hard to believe you actually believe
that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities can
possibly provide the answer to the conundrum when the first order
issue itself doesn't provide that answer.


You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.

The paradox is so clear that the only ones 'clouded' by it are those
with an agenda that isn't supported by the data.

It's very clear:
1. Most of us (me included) believe that the skyrocketing ownership
of cellphones in the USA must mean a concomitant skyrocketing
*use* of those cellphones while driving; which itself, should
indicate a concomitant increase of driving-while-distracted cases.

2. Most of us (me included) have seen the scary studies which show
that the use of a cellphone while driving is distracting, and,
most of us (me included) conclude that driving while distracted
should be increasing the accident rate in the USA.

3. Yet, the best data shown here indicates that the accident rate
in the USA is not going up (in fact, it's going down).

Most of us would say that this is a paradox.
So far, six answers have been provided to satisfy that paradox.

Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarily linearly
proportional to accidents.

You can't be serious if you want to use fatalities and injuries
as your justification while wholly ignoring the accidents that
*caused* those fatalities and injuries.

Fatalities and injuries have ten times the factors that the
accidents have - so - if accidents are too complex for you to
handle details about to support your arguments - there is no
way fatalities and injuries will support your argument.

The only person who would leap over accident rates to go to
fatalities and injuries, is a person who has cherry picked some
data which isn't supported by the accident rate, and wants to
stick with that cherry-picked data come hell or high water,
to support a bogus argument.

As I said many times, anyone with reliable accident rate data
is welcome to post it - as this thread is about accident rates,
pure and simple.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:37:07 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

As I was laying on the ground holding up some pipe while
the young man wired, my cell phone slide out of its belt
holder. I was fortunate to notice and pick it up, I could
have left it behind along side the four lane highway. The
phone wasn't damaged, and I didn't get in a wreck. That's
a paradox, too.

If a skyrocketing number of cellphone owners were to lay
their phones on the highway, as you did, would you expect
the number of crushed cellphones lying on the roadway to
suddenly skyrocket accordingly, concomitant with the
huge numbers of cellphones now lying on the roadway?

Wouldn't the timing and number of the cellphone crush
rate correspond to the number of cellphones laid onto
the highway?

If they don't - that would be a paradox to be resolved
as this one is.

On 8/18/2015 2:24 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 01:11:23 -0400, micky wrote:

No let's not, since you don't have good data on accidents.

Do you have *better* data than what I provided in the OP?

I've been asking for better accident rate data since this thread
started.

I'm not afraid of better data (you may be, but I am not).

No more so than accidents.

You are missing a screw if you think that a second-order issue
such as injuries and fatalities will be simpler than a first-order
issue such as accidents (which are the cause of those injuries
and fatalities).

Are you seriously arguing that the injuries and fatalities would
have happened *without* the accident happening first?

Deaths may have factors like that but injuries don't. And your
objection doesn't apply to deaths either, because the same people lying
dead on the highway or dead at the hospital within a day or two, 99% of
the time would still be alive were it not for the accident.

The fact you used "lying" instead of "laying" tells me you are
intelligent; so I find it hard to believe you actually believe
that a second-order issue such as injuries and fatalities can
possibly provide the answer to the conundrum when the first order
issue itself doesn't provide that answer.


You're just clouding an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.

The paradox is so clear that the only ones 'clouded' by it are those
with an agenda that isn't supported by the data.

It's very clear:
1. Most of us (me included) believe that the skyrocketing ownership
of cellphones in the USA must mean a concomitant skyrocketing
*use* of those cellphones while driving; which itself, should
indicate a concomitant increase of driving-while-distracted cases.

2. Most of us (me included) have seen the scary studies which show
that the use of a cellphone while driving is distracting, and,
most of us (me included) conclude that driving while distracted
should be increasing the accident rate in the USA.

3. Yet, the best data shown here indicates that the accident rate
in the USA is not going up (in fact, it's going down).

Most of us would say that this is a paradox.
So far, six answers have been provided to satisfy that paradox.

Deaths and injuries are directly though not necessarily linearly
proportional to accidents.

You can't be serious if you want to use fatalities and injuries
as your justification while wholly ignoring the accidents that
*caused* those fatalities and injuries.

Fatalities and injuries have ten times the factors that the
accidents have - so - if accidents are too complex for you to
handle details about to support your arguments - there is no
way fatalities and injuries will support your argument.

The only person who would leap over accident rates to go to
fatalities and injuries, is a person who has cherry picked some
data which isn't supported by the accident rate, and wants to
stick with that cherry-picked data come hell or high water,
to support a bogus argument.

As I said many times, anyone with reliable accident rate data
is welcome to post it - as this thread is about accident rates,
pure and simple.



You may be right. It's entirely possible that the texting
idiots with a coffee in the other hand merely scare the crap
out of us cyclists and don't actually connect all that
often, despite some spectacular lane drift episodes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/18/2015 1:43 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced
the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and
deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?

That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving enforcement
and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the skyrocketing cellphone
ownership figures.

However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing of
drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have to agree,
in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel each other out.

I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet
another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident
rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiat...h-studies.aspx

Per Don Y:
Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly"
community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once*
in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many
crazy drivers!

I ride a *lot* - but would never, ever recommend it to anybody else.

The core of my being able to feel reasonably not-in-danger is avoiding
proximity with motor vehicles. But that leads one into behavior that
is largely illegal, probably does not scale, and depends on an
continuous series of decisions.

[Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they
are *drawn* to darker colors]

Yes but that may be the lesser of two evils:
https://picasaweb.google.com/108149798664924808733/Humor#6009321546127227042
--
Pete Cresswell

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."

I agree with pretty much all you wrote just before this. We simply
don't have the data to sort out the truth. And as a result we have
the paradox. It seems to me too things are true but this is just my
opinion...
1) Cell phone use can be distracting and distractions can cause
accidents.
2) The hysteria of cell phone use is unwarranted. Whatever level of
distraction and accidents result is very little different, in the
totality of actual distractions for all causes, then things were
before cell phones. So more or less, for every cell phone caused
accident there is on less CD changing caused accident. I'm sure it's
not really a 1:1 ratio but it's close enough that the hysteria is
unwarranted.

Beyond that though I think there is a real difference between "using a
cell phone" as in placing or receiving a call and talking AND texting.
Texting simply takes too much mental processing for too long a time to
be safe. And I think some studies point to that difference. I used to
inspect roads and trying to write down on paper, which was similar to
texting, the info I was gathering as I drove down the road was just
way too distracting to be safe. But dictating it into a small
micro-recorder worked just fine and I could keep my eyes on the road
and immediately react if anything popped up. I'd play it back at the
office and make the notes.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:27:14 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:47:34 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

While I'm not in a position to prove or demonstrate this, I think
you'll find that such "accident" reports are highly opinionated, are
skewed in the direction of smallest settlements, and are rarely
corrected.

I think *some* statistics regarding car accidents *are* skewed,
and, in particular, any statistic that assigns a partial cause
to the fact that a cellphone was in the vehicle.

It's sort of like when they find an empty beer bottle in the
vehicle, they may ascribe it to an "alcohol" related category.

The problem here is that *every* car in the USA (well, almost
every car) has at least one cellphone per person over the age
of about 15.

So, *every* accident can easily be ascribed to the category
of "cellphone" related.

However, if we just look at actual accident numbers, I think those
are very good statistics, because they accidents are easy to
accurately report.

1. Police are required to report them when they are involved,
2. Insurance companies probably report them when a claim is made,
3. Drivers are required to report them in most states, etc.


The other issue is that for every alleged accident caused by someone
"using a cell phone" there may have been 20 million similar "hazardous
events that could have caused an accident" where the driver was using
a cell phone and DIDN'T have an accident.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:33:14 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
And if cell phone use and texting is so
horrible, why do we allow the police to drive around all day talking
on their radios and typing on their mobile data terminals? Funny how
when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the police state
suddenly it's not important to outlaw it.

I have heard a local cop remark that he found driving a police cruiser
with all it's radios and other distractions to be something of a
frightening experience.

No doubt it is when you are new to the job. Then you learn how to do
it safely, or at least as safe as it can be done. I posted at length
about this somewhere in this thread.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:43:52 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced
the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and
deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?

That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving enforcement
and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the skyrocketing cellphone
ownership figures.

However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing of
drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have to agree,
in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel each other out.

I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is yet
another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused accident
rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that it should.


Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same
time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.

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

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.

The problem I see is that the conclusion is absurd. The CLAIM that
the accidents were caused by the cell phones is mostly likely just
happenstance. A cell phone was in use THEREFORE the cell phone MUST
have caused the accident. Well, the brakes were in use too, should we
say the brakes caused the accident? Ditto for the headlights for
nighttime accidents. You know every cop is itching to check the box
or write the comment that "cell phone contributed" because cell phones
are today's demon. It's like how when someone has a single car
accident and they can't come up with a reason they check the box for
"speed related" because... Hey, he must have been going to fast! He
had an accident!!.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:37:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/17/2015 10:45 PM, ceg wrote:
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.



http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/...s-507057219572

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...s-of-this-year
On the other hand, a growing number of states are raising speed limits,
and everywhere drivers are distracted by cellphone calls and text
messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter
of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that
includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.


The safety nazis have NEVER seen a year when MORE "safety" wasn't
needed for one reason or another.