On 08/18/2015 12:07 PM, ceg wrote:
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.

What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone,
I'd much rather send email -- which I do from my computer because typing
on a real keyboard is just SOOOO much easier than bumbling along on the
phone's 'keyboard'. There's a cd player in the car, on which I listen
to the radio or audiobooks on trips of half an hour or more -- I've been
working on a Tom Clancy for a couple of years now; you don't have to
remember the plot, you can just pick it up whenever it's handy :-) It's
easier to use the Garmin GPS, especially since reading small print is a
real bitch and I mostly know where I want to go anyway.

So what DO you use yours for? Do you have that many people you want to
talk to? Scary...



--
Cheers, Bev
==================================================
Segal's Law: A man with one watch knows the time.
A man with two is never sure.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:23:32 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

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

Lots of good reading there, so thanks for the links.
It will take me a while to go through it, but for others, here's the
list of "stuff" that is on that page.

I'm first going to look for effects on "accident rates" in the USA,
which is the key focus of this thread.

1. Meta-Analyses & Literature Reviews
These papers compile the findings of many studies, which is convenient to get an overview of the issue:

Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone?
Ishigami & Klein. (2009). Journal of Safety Research. 40; 157€“164.

Analysis of the Literatu The Use of Mobile Phones While Driving
Brace, Young & Regan. (2007). Monash University Research Centre.

Cell phones and driving: review of research
McCartt, Hellinga, Braitman. (2006). Traffic Injury Prevention. 7; 89-106.

A meta-analysis of driving performance and crash risk associated with the use of cellular telephones while driving
Caird, et al. (2005). Department of Psychology University of Calgary, Honeywell, Human Factors North. PROCEEDINGS of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. 478-485.

The Impact of Cell Phone Conversations on Driving, A Meta-Analytic Approach
Horrey & Wickens. (2004). Technical Report. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Effects of Cellular Telephones on Driving Behaviour and Crash Risk: Results of Meta Analysis
Caird, et al. (2004). CAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
2. Crash Risk & Crash Data
Young Drivers Report the Highest Level of Phone Involvement in Crash or Near-Crash Incidences National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. NOTE: Beginning with 2010 data, NHTSA is using a new measure of distracted driving crashes. The new definiti€‹on is more narrow, intended to focus on distractions most likely to affect crash involvement. Thus 2010 distraction numbers cannot be compared to previous years.

Distracted Driving 2009
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

Trends in Fatalities From Distracted Driving in the United States, 1999 to 2008
Wilson. (2010). American Journal of Public Health. 100(11):2213-2219.

Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study
McEvoy, et al. (2005). BMJ. 331(7514):428

The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes
Stutts, et al. (2001). AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits
Lissy, et al. (2000). Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Phase 1 Report.

Crashes Induced by Driver Information Systems and What Can Be Done to Reduce Them
Green. (2000). University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions
Redelmeier & Tibshirani. (1997). New England Journal of Medicine, 336; 453-458.
€‹
3. Hands-Free Devices
This NSC white paper includes an extensive bibliography of research studies about cognitive distraction and hands-free phone conversation while driving:

€‹Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free phones is risky behavior
White paper. (2010). National Safety Council.
4. Cognitive Distraction Research
This NSC white paper includes an extensive bibliography of research studies about cognitive distraction and phone conversation while driving:

Understanding the distracted brain: Why driving while using hands-free phones is risky behavior
White paper. (2010). National Safety Council.

Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile.
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. June 2013.
5. Text Messaging and Voice-Activated Texting
Research listed here about manual texting and speech-to-text systems:

€‹New research reveals that voice-activated in-car technologies dangerously undermine driver attention.
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2013.

Voice-to-Text Driver Distraction Study. New research findings suggest that voice-to-text applications offer no real safety advantage over manual texting.
Texas A&M Transportation Institute. 2013.

The Effect of Text Messaging on Driver Behavior: A Simulator Study
Reed & Robbins. (2008). Published Project Report PPR 367. Transport Research Laboratory.

The effects of text messaging on young novice driver performance
Hosking, Young & Regan. (2006). Report No. 246. Monash University Accident Research Centre.
6. Cell Phones Compared to Alcohol Impaired Driving
This study examined cell phone use while driving as well as alcohol-impaired driving:

€‹Fatal Distraction? A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver
Strayer, Drews, Crouch. (2006). Human Factors. 48(2);381-391.
7. Driver Cell Phone Use Rates
These studies estimate how many drivers are using cell phones, through direct observation of drivers in traffic, self-report surveys or other methods:

€‹Driver Electronic Device Use in 2012
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

Driver Electronic Device Use in 2011
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2013). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

Driver Electronic Device Use in 2010
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.
8. Evaluations of Laws & Enforcement
These studies examine the effectiveness of laws and enforcement:

High-Visibility Enforcement Demonstration Programs in Connecticut and New York Reduce Hand-Held Phone Use
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

Phoning While Driving
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2010). Status Report.

Longer-term effects of Washington, DC, law on drivers hand-held cell phone use
McCartt & Hellinga. (2007). Traffic Injury Prevention. 8(2):199-204.

Effects of Washington, D.C. law on drivers hand-held cell phone use
McCartt, Hellinga, Geary. (2006). Traffic Injury Prevention. 7(1):1-5.

Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers handheld cell phone use
McCartt & Geary. (2004). Injury Prevention. 10(1):11-5.

Drivers use of handheld cell phones before and after New York State's cell phone law
McCartt, Braver, Geary. (2003). Prevention Medicine. 36(5):629-35.
€‹
9. Teens & Young Drivers
Studies that focused on teens, novice drivers and young adults:

Young Drivers Report the Highest Level of Phone Involvement in Crash or Near-Crash Incidences
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2012). Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

Distracted Driving Among Newly Licensed Teen Drivers
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2012).

Teens and Distracted Driving: Texting, talking and other uses of the cell phone behind the wheel
Madden & Lenhart. (2009). Pew Internet & American Life Project.
10. Public Opinion Surveys
€‹Surveys have measured public support for hands-free, handheld and texting bans. Surveys also offer insight into driver attitudes, beliefs and behaviors:

2013 Traffic Safety Culture Index
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2013.

National Distracted Driving Telephone Survey Finds Most Drivers Answer the Call, Hold the Phone, and Continue to Drive
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Tech.

National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors
Tison, Chaudhary & Cosgrove. (2011). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
More research reports and analysis on distracted driving, cell phones & car crashes:

National Phone Survey on Distracted Driving Attitudes and Behaviors
Tison, Chaudhary & ; Cosgrove. (2011). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

National Distracted Driving Telephone Survey Finds Most Drivers Answer the Call, Hold the Phone, and Continue to Drive
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2011). Traffic Tech.

Distracted Driving and Driver, Roadway and Environmental Factors
Singh. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Technical Report. DOT HS 811 380.

Cell Phones and Driving: Research Update
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2008).

The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data
Klauer, et al. (2006). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical Report. DOT HS 810 594.

Effects of Simulator Practice and Real-World Experience on Cell-Phone€“Related Driver Distraction
Cooper & Strayer. (2008). Human Factors. 50(6): 893€“902.

Mobile telephone simulator study
Kircher, et al. (2004). Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute.

NHTSA Status Summary: Using Wireless Communication Devices While Driving
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003). Obtained via Freedom of Information Act and published by the New York Times.

Distractions in Everyday Driving
Stutts, et al. (2003). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Highway Safety Research Center, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

The Use of Mobile Phones in Road Traffic, SNRA inquiry into the use of mobile phones and other IT systems while driving
Patten, et al. (2003). Swedish National Road Administration.

Predicting the effects of in-car interface use on driver performance: an integrated model approach
Salvucci. (2001). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 55, 85:107.

Cell Phone Use
Monteressi. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:32:00 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

In keeping with Occam's Razer (otherwise known as KISS); this is the
simplest of the six solutions proposed to date that satisfy the solution
to the paradox.

That simples solution to the paradox is simply that the accident rate
is wholly unaffected by cellphone usage.

But everyone wants a more complicated solution, such as the whacko who
proposes (seriously, I think) that the minor errors in the accident
statistics exactly cancel out the stupifyingly huge cellphone ownership
numbers, or the proponents who seriously suggested that drunk driving
enforcement exactly cancelled out the same, for the exact same result.

These solutions, while possible, are so highly improbably compared to
the Occam's Razer solution, that four or five of the six solutions
proposed can pretty much be considered frivolous right off the bat.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:06:49 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

While I dislike driving around people talking on cell phones, I hate
going hiking and have to listen to someone on the phone.

Where I go hiking, I almost never run into people, period.
http://i.imgur.com/CuX9ufu.jpg

But, as Jeff knows, I live in the Santa Cruz mountains, where there are
plenty of off trail ways to get around, since the loggers bulldozed trails
all over the hills a hundred years ago (which I specialize in following).
http://i.imgur.com/26TaZBL.jpg

Most of these logging roads washed out in the ravines about fifty years
ago, and the cliff hangers all fell into the valleys - but they're
still navigable on foot.
http://i.imgur.com/hBbECHG.jpg

So, a lot has to do with *where* you're hiking, since I think I never
once ran into anyone on the trail, in the past five years of weekly
hikes in the hills (we use rope to get across the ravines, so these
aren't hikes for little old ladies).
http://i.imgur.com/eMGpOJo.jpg

Here are some pictures of an easy cross just last week for example.
http://i.imgur.com/RYMSJ0y.jpg

PS: The black splotches on the gloves and clothes is poison oak,
which is called "urushiol", which basically means black lacquer
in Japanese origins. If you don't have black splotches all over
your clothes, then you haven't been in poison oak or ivy.

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

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


And did you note that they did NOT talk about rates. The amount of
miles people drive varies from year to year. It's very likely that
the miles driven went up because
1) employment and the economy improved slightly
2) the price of gas dropped quite a bit.

As a result of miles driven going up, and all other things remaining
the same such as how safely people drive, the NUMBER of accidents WILL
go up, even thought in actuality, nothing has changed in the safety
sphere.

I've see that same ploy by the safety Nazi's time after time. Whenever
they need a headline they discover that the total number of
accidents/fatalities/spilled hot coffee has increased while completely
ignoring the actual RATEs, which are the ONLY way to even begin to
make meaningful comparisons on these questions.

Whatever will get them the headlines is what the put in their press
release whether it's meaningful or not.



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 Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:15:52 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I think you're a ****ing idiot.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:32:14 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone,

The drive to work is dead time. There's nothing *else* you can do.
You can't read the paper, for instance.
And catching up on the news only takes a few minutes of talk radio.
The traffic is better on the cellphone anyway, than from the radio.
And, your navigation needs aren't all that great on a commute.

So, what you do is "conduct business".

Many people conduct business on the phone.
So, that's what "I" do.

I'd much rather send email -- which I do from my computer because typing
on a real keyboard is just SOOOO much easier than bumbling along on the
phone's 'keyboard'.

I almost never use the phone's keyboard to type anything, since Android
has a decent speech-to-text translator. I wish I could get Android to
*default* to speech-to-text, because I find that I have to hit a tiny
microphone at the bottom of the keyboard in order to put it into
speech-to-text mode.


There's a cd player in the car, on which I listen
to the radio or audiobooks on trips of half an hour or more -- I've been
working on a Tom Clancy for a couple of years now; you don't have to
remember the plot, you can just pick it up whenever it's handy It's
easier to use the Garmin GPS, especially since reading small print is a
real bitch and I mostly know where I want to go anyway.

I don't like audio books, but I can see that it's useful for whiling away
the time while commuting.

So what DO you use yours for? Do you have that many people you want to
talk to? Scary...

I use the phone for business use. There are LOTS of people I need to talk
to because I am a program manager. I don't actually do anything; the people
I talk to do all the work. I just nag them to death on the phone.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:23:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Then why don't you just STFU

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:27:48 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

As a result of miles driven going up, and all other things remaining
the same such as how safely people drive, the NUMBER of accidents WILL
go up, even thought in actuality, nothing has changed in the safety
sphere.

I agree that the accident RATE is what's important.
Not number of accidents, nor injuries or fatalities.

The first order problem is simply the accident rate.
Any good data that focuses objectively on the accident RATE is good data.

On 8/18/2015 11:27 PM, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:06:49 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

While I dislike driving around people talking on cell phones, I hate
going hiking and have to listen to someone on the phone.

Where I go hiking, I almost never run into people, period.
http://i.imgur.com/CuX9ufu.jpg

But, as Jeff knows, I live in the Santa Cruz mountains, where there are
plenty of off trail ways to get around, since the loggers bulldozed trails
all over the hills a hundred years ago (which I specialize in following).
http://i.imgur.com/26TaZBL.jpg

Most of these logging roads washed out in the ravines about fifty years
ago, and the cliff hangers all fell into the valleys - but they're
still navigable on foot.
http://i.imgur.com/hBbECHG.jpg

So, a lot has to do with *where* you're hiking, since I think I never
once ran into anyone on the trail, in the past five years of weekly
hikes in the hills (we use rope to get across the ravines, so these
aren't hikes for little old ladies).
http://i.imgur.com/eMGpOJo.jpg

Here are some pictures of an easy cross just last week for example.
http://i.imgur.com/RYMSJ0y.jpg

PS: The black splotches on the gloves and clothes is poison oak,
which is called "urushiol", which basically means black lacquer
in Japanese origins. If you don't have black splotches all over
your clothes, then you haven't been in poison oak or ivy.



Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

--
Maggie

On 8/18/2015 11:32 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:23:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Then why don't you just STFU




Don't stop talking, pls. It's nice to have an INTERESTING discussion.
Thanks!

--
Maggie

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:23:31 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

Unfortunately, you can't hike off trail in these mountains without running
into poison oak by the hundreds of yards. It's just part of nature.

Maybe that's why I don't run into anyone texting-while-hiking out here?

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:53:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

As usual, you have it ass backwards. CEG isn't trying to "prove"
anything, he saying that there is simply no proof for the wild claims
such as "cell phones caused 25% of all accident last year" and other
similar absurd claims without a shred of data to substantiate them.

The people obligated to provide proof are those who claim that cell
phone use has impacted accident rates. There isn't a shred of
evidence for the claim. Because there is NO evidence the
chickenlittles have performed a bunch of "studies" almost all of which
are less the worthless in proving their claim. And as noted, if their
studies and claims were actually correct, the roads ought to be a
bloodbath given the THOUSAND FOLD increase in cell phone use on the
highways. But they aren't a bloodbath, to the contrary the accident
rates change hardly at all and mostly they go down.

I have to agree.

If the studies are even slightly valid, then the accident rate
*has* to go up the more people *use* cellphones.

That the rate isn't going up is the paradox.

The only solutions to the paradox that have been proposed are either
that the rate isn't going up, or that something else is masking the
rate.

The "things" suggested to mask the rate must exactly cancel out
the rate (both in rate and timing) for them to make any logical
sense.

Such "things" suggested, to date, are, as I recall:
1. Drunk driving enforcement exactly canceling out the rates
2. Errors in the rate figures exactly canceling out the rates
3. Safety improvements of vehicles & roadways canceling the rates
4. Safety advantages of cellphones exactly outweighing distractions
5. Cellphone laws themselves preventing cellphone usage
6. Voluntary non-usage of the cellphones that are owned

Did I miss any?

On 08/18/2015 09:32 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:32:14 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone,

The drive to work is dead time. There's nothing *else* you can do.
You can't read the paper, for instance.
And catching up on the news only takes a few minutes of talk radio.
The traffic is better on the cellphone anyway, than from the radio.
And, your navigation needs aren't all that great on a commute.

So, what you do is "conduct business".

Many people conduct business on the phone.
So, that's what "I" do.

I'd much rather send email -- which I do from my computer because typing
on a real keyboard is just SOOOO much easier than bumbling along on the
phone's 'keyboard'.

I almost never use the phone's keyboard to type anything, since Android
has a decent speech-to-text translator. I wish I could get Android to
*default* to speech-to-text, because I find that I have to hit a tiny
microphone at the bottom of the keyboard in order to put it into
speech-to-text mode.

If I say 'OK Google' I can apparently get something Siri-like. I've
tried "Call Bob", and that indeed calls up the phone and Bob's number,
but I think I have to tap something at that point. I also said "Find
Costco" and ultimately google maps came up. I should really spend some
time playing with it...

There's a cd player in the car, on which I listen
to the radio or audiobooks on trips of half an hour or more -- I've been
working on a Tom Clancy for a couple of years now; you don't have to
remember the plot, you can just pick it up whenever it's handy It's
easier to use the Garmin GPS, especially since reading small print is a
real bitch and I mostly know where I want to go anyway.

I don't like audio books, but I can see that it's useful for whiling away
the time while commuting.

It has to be something that doesn't require too much attention, but it
has to be words. I like music, but I need words to avoid worrying about
****. When I was riding my motorcycle I spent the first half hour with
the words "...and then a wheel came off..." rolling around in my mind as
I kept trying to tell myself that YES I CHECKED THE WIRES ON THE NUTS
BEFORE WE LEFT...

So what DO you use yours for? Do you have that many people you want to
talk to? Scary...

I use the phone for business use. There are LOTS of people I need to talk
to because I am a program manager. I don't actually do anything; the people
I talk to do all the work. I just nag them to death on the phone.

I'm retired. Long ago (1994, maybe) I was driving my boss' car to a
customer's place on Mountain Street. Little did I know that there were
THREE Mountain Streets in the area. I used his car phone to call him
and chew him out for not telling me which one he meant. He was a really
good boss. Like my other really good boss, he quit 2 years after hiring
me because he had a really bad boss, who then became MY bad boss.

--
Cheers, Bev
================================================== ===
"America is at an awkward stage: it is too late to work within the
system, but it is too early to shoot the *******s." -Claire Wolfe

On 8/18/2015 10:32 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.


I'v also tried writing notes for service calls, while
driving. I'm with you, writing takes a LOT of brain
RAM. I've not tried a small recorder, but that should
be considerable safer. I can drive and talk on a CB
or amateur radio and still be focussed on the road.

The one or two times I tried texting (many years ago)
I could feel the lack of concentration on my driving.

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

Per Ashton Crusher:
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.

Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 8/18/2015 11:01 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:23:32 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

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

Lots of good reading there, so thanks for the links.
It will take me a while to go through it, but for others, here's the
list of "stuff" that is on that page.

YW

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

It didn't take much work.

It will take me a while to go through the links before I
can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where
the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).

Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.

Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your
"scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which
is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth
arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).

Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem
at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your
intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell
everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident
rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous:
"Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers
handheld cell phone use"

This one also may apply to the problem at hand:
"Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"

This one should be directly related, if it contains good data:
"Association between cellular telephone calls and motor
vehicle collisions"

Likewise with this one:
"Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"

Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not):
"The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"

And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year,
this one may contain related data:
"2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"

Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct
information about the paradox. That you don't see that,
and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the
list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you
are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing
anything that affects people's lives.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

That's a key part of the paradox.

The only explanations given, other than there is no net effect
on accident rates, is some preposterous alignment of the stars.

On 8/19/2015 8:06 AM, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

It didn't take much work.

It will take me a while to go through the links before I
can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where
the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

On 8/19/2015 1:15 AM, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:23:31 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

Unfortunately, you can't hike off trail in these mountains without running
into poison oak by the hundreds of yards. It's just part of nature.

Maybe that's why I don't run into anyone texting-while-hiking out here?


So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

--
Maggie

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple,
that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.

It's sort of like the common misconception of cold weather *causing*
the common cold. While cold weather can't possibly affect the causation
of the common cold, people *do* get sicker in the winter (but it's because
they are indoors more - not because the weather is colder).

So, at least, in that example of the common cold, you can *see* a
correlation of sickness (e.g., "flu season") with the weather (even
though it's a second-order effect).

Yet, with the cellphone common conception, we can't see either a first
order nor a second order effect. That's the paradox.

Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumb****s who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I suggested looking at actual studies many times.
SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said
it just took a simple Google search.

I think you consistently fail to comprehend that the *more*
you show *studies* that purport to indicate the dangers of
cellphone driving, the *LARGER* the paradox looms, since there
is no evidence whatsoever in the governments' own statistics,
of an increased rate of accidents in the USA concomitant with
the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates.

You can't just invalidate the most accurate statistics on the
topic just because you don't like (or understand) the logic.

If all these scare-tactics articles are actually correct, then
the paradox looms larger than ever, because the accident rate
simply has not risen. Period.

So, the *answer* to the conundrum is still open as to why, and
the articles are expected to help answer why - but the articles
can't possibly change the answer on the accident rates (because
that is a fact).

You may as well propose that the sun revolves around the earth,
just because it seems to you that it does.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.

In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having
researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts
in the bay area).

I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty
pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say
is pure hogwash.

And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things,
both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.

As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on
bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves
and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes,
I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people
say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a
drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant
and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of
tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even
better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't
go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.

There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's
a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some
haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse,
since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't
understand the science involved.

I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach
things.

On 8/19/2015 10:58 AM, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.

In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having
researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts
in the bay area).

I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty
pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say
is pure hogwash.

And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things,
both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.

As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on
bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves
and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes,
I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people
say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a
drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant
and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of
tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even
better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't
go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.

There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's
a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some
haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse,
since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't
understand the science involved.

I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach
things.


I like your approach to things. If it were me I'd try to research all I
could via google, but would probably be frustrated that everything I
read really didn't work and I'd still end up getting the rash. You have
a really practical approach, which I do appreciate.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:18:45 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
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.

Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.

So he never really learned to handle it as second nature?

One thought that occurs to me in this discussion is that many people
simply refuse to believe a person can manage to use a phone and still
safely drive. Yet pilots do essentially that all the time. I used to
fly small planes and entering the pattern, flying it, and landing a
small plane at a big airport, esp with crosswinds, can be a bit of a
challenge to make sure you don't screw up something. The part that
comes into this discussion is that during that process you have to
ready the whole time to respond to air traffic control, both to
understand and follow their instructions and to talk to them on the
radio, you can't just ignore them cuz "I'm busy with the flaps". They
need to know you heard them so then can then talk to the guy following
you. Pilots do this all the time because they LEARN to do it. There
is no reason to treat drivers like children as if they can't be taught
to use cell phones safety but instead you have to ban their use.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:56:56 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).

Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.

Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your
"scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which
is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth
arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).

Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem
at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your
intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell
everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident
rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous:
"Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers
handheld cell phone use"

This one also may apply to the problem at hand:
"Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"

This one should be directly related, if it contains good data:
"Association between cellular telephone calls and motor
vehicle collisions"

Likewise with this one:
"Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"

Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not):
"The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"

And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year,
this one may contain related data:
"2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"

Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct
information about the paradox. That you don't see that,
and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the
list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you
are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing
anything that affects people's lives.

I went thru this a few years ago with the Daytime Driving Light
fanatics. I collected all the research reports (where I was working
at the time had a research section that could get them all for me) and
went thru them all. What I found was that what you might think from
both the title and the Summaries was almost never what the data
showed. And the bottom line was that most of the studies were so
poorly done as to be worthless. They were clearly commissioned merely
to "prove" the desired political end. There were a few good ones that
had actually established CONTROLS so they could properly compare
before and after accidents. And the result was that 80% of those
studies concluded that the data did not rise to the level of
statistically sound usefulness to conclude anything. The remaining
studies showed some types of accidents increased and some types of
accidents decreased and that the net result of DRLs was at best a
wash. They were neither useful nor harmful based on accident rates
although they were clearly, based on complaints, highly irritating to
a great many drivers since they shined the cars high beams into
oncoming traffic in the daytime. They also increased the incidence of
motorcycles being hit by cars as I recall. I thin the number of
pedestrians hit went down.

In any case, what you say it true, you can't tell anything by the
titles and in my experience you can't tell anything by the research
either about 80% of the time. It would not surprise me if less then
fifty people in the world actually read the entirety of many of these
studies although millions may read some liberal arts major's newspaper
story based on them having read the (misleading) summary of the
report.

On 08/19/2015 07:03 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:18:45 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
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.

Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.

So he never really learned to handle it as second nature?

One thought that occurs to me in this discussion is that many people
simply refuse to believe a person can manage to use a phone and still
safely drive. Yet pilots do essentially that all the time. I used to
fly small planes and entering the pattern, flying it, and landing a
small plane at a big airport, esp with crosswinds, can be a bit of a
challenge to make sure you don't screw up something. The part that
comes into this discussion is that during that process you have to
ready the whole time to respond to air traffic control, both to
understand and follow their instructions and to talk to them on the
radio, you can't just ignore them cuz "I'm busy with the flaps". They
need to know you heard them so then can then talk to the guy following
you. Pilots do this all the time because they LEARN to do it. There
is no reason to treat drivers like children as if they can't be taught
to use cell phones safety but instead you have to ban their use.

I would guess that pilots have to be of above average intelligence in
order to get a pilot's license. It seems obvious by inspection that
half the drivers are subnormal and those are the ones who can't deal
with driving and phoning simultaneously.

It wasn't a pilot who ran the red light BEHIND me as I was LEGALLY
crossing in a crosswalk on the green light. If I'd been two seconds
slower I would have been roadkill. I couldn't actually see that the
driver was a woman babbling on her phone, but I'd be willing to be money
on it -- she clearly couldn't see that everybody else was stopped either.

My daughter can handle it and does all the time because she's a tour
director and is on the phone constantly solving problems; I rarely use
the phone and recognize that I'm unable to safely talk and drive at the
same time.

--
Cheers, Bev
---------------------------------------------------
Don't you just KNOW that there is more than one
Sierra Club member who is absolutely sure that the
dinosaurs died out because of something humans did?

"ceg" wrote in message news:mr2881

stuff snipped

Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumb****s who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

Those are two traits I would NOT ascribe to Trader4. Impatient with people
he disagrees with, yes. (-:

Here I think he's right, though, because it seems you're assuming some
direct correlation of every new cellphone going into the hands of a driver
that's never had one before. That's a pretty fatal logic flaw because it's
an assumption easily disproved by researching who owns cell phones, how
many, how old the users are, whether this is a first cellphone ever or a
replacement, etc.

I see enough pre-teens with cellphones to know yours is a faulty main
premise. I know enough people with multiple cell phones to dispute the
notion that there's anything remotely like a one-to-one correspondence of
each new cellphone going straight into the hands of a driver who's never had
one before.

It's easily demonstrated with vectors, alas Usenet's still in the ASCII
graphics world. You have a number of factors working to bring down the
accident rate. Graduated licensing for young adults, key-interlocks for
drunk drivers, better driver's ed, cars with accident avoidance technology,
pressure from the authorities and even peer pressure. Every time I pass by
a texting driver I honk the horn and wag my finger at them. One day I will
probably scare one into a ditch because they always look at me with the
"where am I?" look of total distraction. I often tell people I drive with
to put the cellphone away when they are tempted to make a call that doesn't
qualify as urgent. Do I get yack-back from them? Sure.

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

Then there are some great PSA's on TV showing texting teens getting atomized
by tractor-trailers or sailing off overpasses that *might* be having some
effect.

But anything near a one-to-one correlation of cellphone owners and drivers
can't possibly be true or supported by any statistics I've reviewed.

http://www.pewinternet.org/data-tren...-demographics/

Tells us the market's saturated with 90% of American adults people reporting
ownership of a cellphone. So all these new phone are not getting into the
hands of *new* drivers.

http://kff.org/disparities-policy/pr...-children-and-
teens-up-dramatically-from-five-years-ago/

Over the past five years, there has been a huge increase in ownership
among 8- to 18-year-olds: from 39% to 66% for cell phones,

That suggests that a lot of the new phones *aren't* going to anyone driving
a car. At least not yet.

--
Bobby G.

Per The Real Bev:
I would guess that pilots have to be of above average intelligence in
order to get a pilot's license.

Bad guess: I got a pilot's license.... and quit once it dawned on me
that my own incompetence could now kill me.
--
Pete Cresswell

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:29:02 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:



"ceg" wrote in message ...
snip

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.

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


The information you are searching for is in the simple 'distracted
driving' summary, in the census link you've posted.

RL

On 8/21/2015 8:58 AM, legg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:29:02 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote:



"ceg" wrote in message ...
snip

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.

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


The information you are searching for is in the simple 'distracted
driving' summary, in the census link you've posted.

RL


Looks like traveling at 45 mph is a real danger.

Some more information I saw today
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/traffic-...169729382.html

The National Safety Council reported this week that traffic deaths and
serious injuries in the U.S. are on a pace to rise for the first time in
nearly a decade. If the trend for the first six months of this year
continues, the NSC says traffic fatalities in the nation will exceed
40,000 for the first time since 2007 and deaths per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled also will increase.

This despite evermore crashworthy cars and high-tech electronic safety
features.

The “speed kills” coalition will blame the trend reversal on many
states’ recent moves to higher highway speed limits, but the real
culprits, suggests NSC president Deborah Hershman to the Associated
Press, are low fuel prices and – get ready for it – cellphone mania.

To be sure, Hershman says, Americans are on the road more than ever;
miles driven in the U.S. increased for 15 consecutive months through May
and set an all-time record for travel in the first five months of the
year at 1.26 trillion miles, a record that stood since 2007. But, the
3.4% increase in miles traveled doesn’t square with the 14% jump in
fatalities for the first half of this year.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has a prominent page on its
website that says “states continue to raise speed limits despite clear
evidence that doing so leads to more deaths” – an assertion that
considerable data and many experts have suggested is specious. Instead,
cellphone use likely has a more direct link to the new rise in traffic
fatalities and injuries. An NSC study earlier this year indicated
cellphone use is a factor in one quarter of all accidents.

I haven't read *all* of these posts, so hopefully
I'm not repeating someone, but your linked report
says this:

"Covers only accidents occurring on the road. Data are estimated.
Year-to-year
comparisons should be made with caution."

Records are public. Why do they have to estimate?
Why didn't they just collect accident reports? They
don't say. As at least one person noted, drunk driving
is almost certainly down since 1990. Cars are better
made, especially brakes. An increasing number of states
ban handheld devices.

I've had two accidents in about the last 12 years.
One was a man talking on a cellphone who veered into
my lane. The other was a young man who plowed into
my pickup, which was parked on a quiet, straight street.
He was amazed he had hit me. Cellphone? Probably,
but I'm not certain. He was in the car alone in late
afternoon, so it wasn't "partying".

I've had many close calls. I can often tell when someone
in front of me is on the phone because their driving
doesn't correspond to conditions. Their speed and braking
is erratic. Cellphones have also created a problem of
very few people signaling. They simply don't have a hand
free to do it!

So how do we figure in the increased defensive driving
on the part of people who are paying attention? To a great
extent, non-phoners are doing the work for phoners. I find
driving to be more strenuous than it used to be. I have
to constantly be vigilant for lane wanderers, non-signalers
and general out-to-lunchers. Those people are all depending
on others to be paying attention.

It would be interesting to also see figures for pedestrians.
How many injuries walking into trees and cars while phoning?
Last week I was heading down into the subway as a young
woman strolled down the middle of the stairs, gabbing away,
not holding the railing. I said excuse me, then "on your left".
I was afraid she might step to the left as I passed and send
one or both of us down the stairs. She was simply *not where
she was*. Finally I raised my voice and said "wake up!". That
worked. I listened to her indignant protests fade into the
distance as I headed for the train. At least no one fell down
the stairs. (Excuse me?! How dare you! blah, blah, blah...)
And who knows, maybe she'll pay attention a bit more in the
future. But the incident highlights another disturbing trend:
People are increasingly uncomfortable simply being where
they are. Many people simply don't expect to have to relate
to the world around them. They're offended by it! It's not
only a danger and a mild form of mental illness; it's also a
growing social problem. I find people increasingly just walk into
me on sidewalks. I asked a blind friend about his experience.
Yes, more and more people are walking into him, as he walks
city streets with a guide dog!

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

duh.... the mental perspective leading to moving cell acess in 'dialing' or texting may be visualized as a funnel of perception thought and activity....the act conclusion need not be a cell accident but cause related inconveniences not only at that time but at all times.

Like AK 47's in every broom closet, cell phones in motion broaden the probabilities of 'inconveniences' ...

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:32:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

I haven't read *all* of these posts, so hopefully
I'm not repeating someone, but your linked report
says this:

"Covers only accidents occurring on the road. Data are estimated.
Year-to-year
comparisons should be made with caution."

Records are public. Why do they have to estimate?
Why didn't they just collect accident reports? They
don't say. As at least one person noted, drunk driving
is almost certainly down since 1990. Cars are better
made, especially brakes. An increasing number of states
ban handheld devices.

I've had two accidents in about the last 12 years.
One was a man talking on a cellphone who veered into
my lane. The other was a young man who plowed into
my pickup, which was parked on a quiet, straight street.
He was amazed he had hit me. Cellphone? Probably,
but I'm not certain. He was in the car alone in late
afternoon, so it wasn't "partying".

I've had many close calls. I can often tell when someone
in front of me is on the phone because their driving
doesn't correspond to conditions. Their speed and braking
is erratic. Cellphones have also created a problem of
very few people signaling. They simply don't have a hand
free to do it!

So how do we figure in the increased defensive driving
on the part of people who are paying attention? To a great
extent, non-phoners are doing the work for phoners. I find
driving to be more strenuous than it used to be. I have
to constantly be vigilant for lane wanderers, non-signalers
and general out-to-lunchers. Those people are all depending
on others to be paying attention.

It would be interesting to also see figures for pedestrians.
How many injuries walking into trees and cars while phoning?
Last week I was heading down into the subway as a young
woman strolled down the middle of the stairs, gabbing away,
not holding the railing. I said excuse me, then "on your left".
I was afraid she might step to the left as I passed and send
one or both of us down the stairs. She was simply *not where
she was*. Finally I raised my voice and said "wake up!". That
worked. I listened to her indignant protests fade into the
distance as I headed for the train. At least no one fell down
the stairs. (Excuse me?! How dare you! blah, blah, blah...)
And who knows, maybe she'll pay attention a bit more in the
future. But the incident highlights another disturbing trend:
People are increasingly uncomfortable simply being where
they are. Many people simply don't expect to have to relate
to the world around them. They're offended by it! It's not
only a danger and a mild form of mental illness; it's also a
growing social problem. I find people increasingly just walk into
me on sidewalks. I asked a blind friend about his experience.
Yes, more and more people are walking into him, as he walks
city streets with a guide dog!

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.


Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers. Sure,
sometimes you run into idiots but that's always been true. I see
regional variations in how people drive... here in the west almost no
one gets over to the left when people are coming down an on-ramp and
will need to merge into traffic, it's every man for him/her self. Yet
back east it's very common for the thru traffic to move left whenever
there is someone coming up the on ramp.

I really think the regression to the mean applies and every time we
try to make the Driver safer they just become more dangerous in some
other fashion with the net result being the overall safety of THE
DRIVER remains more or less the same year in and year out. Yet
accident rates are lower..... I give credit for that more to highway
and street design than to the driver. We have wider shoulders, wider
lanes, more divided highways, safer guardrails, better signing, better
sight distances, better geometric design, higher friction pavement
surfaces, all things that make the roads safer but that the drivers
don't even notice.

As far as emergency lighting, in the last 10 years it's actually taken
a step backwards in my opinion. You are right that they have gone nutz
with the lighting. The reason is LEDs. Before LEDs there was a
practical limit on how many lights you could put on a car because more
then a single light bar across the top would draw so much power (in
addition to all the radios) that the battery would go dead while the
cop was stopped. When LEDs dropped in price to where cost wasn't too
big a concern (and cost is almost never a concern with PDs) they
started loading up the police and emergency vehicles with every LED
light they could find a place to bolt on. But something else happened
too. Before LEDS, when it was usually a single light bar with half a
dozen lights in it, all the lights in the bar were interconnected to a
central controller which would flash them in a fixed and designated
pattern. Researchers had even studied patterns and such looking for
the best ones. Perhaps all the lights on the right half, then all the
lights on the left half, then all the "even" lights, the all the "odd"
lights, repeat or they might sequence from right to left to encourage
you to stay left. So you saw an identifiable, and possibly even
meaningful pattern as you approached the emergency vehicle.

With the LEDs they have mostly gone to each little module being it's
own little world. Then they stick a dozen of them on teh vehicle, a
couple at teh bottom of the rear window, a couple at the top, a few on
the bumper, some on the rear view mirrors, plus they make the tail and
reverse lights flash plus they have the top light bar going. None of
those little modules are synchronized with any of the others so aside
from the lights in the top light bar it's just a bunch of randomly
flashing lights and so many of them that you can't focus on anything.
Then they add the TAKE DOWN lights which are front and rear facing
BRIGHT WHITE steady burning lights equivalent to headlight high beams.
The purpose of the take down lights is to BLIND YOU. The idea is that
you, the car either in front or behind the cop car, will have those
take down lights shining right into your eyes so that you cannot
clearly see the officer who stopped you, whereas he can see you. That
way you won't pull your gun and shoot him because you can't see to aim
at him. Lots of those cops turn them when they aren't needed which
naturally blinds oncoming and upcoming traffic depending on the angle
at which he parked his car.

It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





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?

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.

Per Mayayana:
While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles.

The ones that bother me the most around here are the white strobes on
top of the school buses and the white strobes in some traffic lights.

Geeze Louise!!! I *see* it.... it's yellow and as big as a house... but
I need to see other things too and those damn strobe lights create some
sort of involuntary attention response in me so other stuff tends to get
missed as my attention keeps returning to the strobe.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Ashton Crusher:
Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers.

I probably ride a bike more than 99% of the general population - and
have been for sixty+ years.

I see obvious changes in driving behavior over the years.

The most obvious: people drive faster, signal less, run more red lights,
and more people are obviously doing other things besides driving -
mostly things that were not technologically available years past.

The red light thing has developed in the past few years since our area
went over to ludicrously-long red lights plus red-in-all-directions for
a seemingly very long time plus un-timed lights.

Most people running red lights used to be trying to slip through a stale
yellow light. Now I seem them coming in at speed and not even slowing
down.

--
Pete Cresswell

Per Ashton Crusher:
It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???

Start a "What is the proper way to come off an on-ramp and merge with
traffic?" thread. Volume will be right up there with the infamous
"Helmet" threads in cycling fora - and you will see strongly-held yet
diametrically-opposed opinions on how to do it. Tribute, IMHO, to lack
of requirements for driver's training.
--
Pete Cresswell