On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
may have gone down another 10% or 20%

That may very well be the case, but taking a look at the numbers, the
accidents seem to be *steadily* decreasing.

It would be nice though, to see two reliable charts plotted on top of
each other.

1. Total accidents in the USA from the 50s to now, versus,
2. Total cellphone ownership in the USA over those same years.

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:58:30 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 17:05:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

What percentage of those accidents are phone related?
Accidents may be down, but take out cellphone related instances and they
may have gone down another 10% or 20%

That may very well be the case, but taking a look at the numbers, the
accidents seem to be *steadily* decreasing.

It would be nice though, to see two reliable charts plotted on top of
each other.

1. Total accidents in the USA from the 50s to now, versus,
2. Total cellphone ownership in the USA over those same years.

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

But lets talk in terms of something more visible. If the same ratio
is applied to those truck tires that fly apart, if in 1985 you saw a
truck tire fly apart once in a YEAR, in 2010 you would be seeing over
2 of them fly apart EVERY DAY.


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933563.html

1985 340,213
1986 681,825
1987 1,230,855
1988 2,069,441
1989 3,508,944
1990 5,283,055
1991 7,557,148
1992 11,032,753
1993 16,009,461
1994 24,134,421
1995 33,758,661
1996 44,042,992
1997 55,312,293
1998 69,209,321
1999 86,047,003
2000 109,478,031
2001 128,374,512
2002 140,766,842
2003 158,721,981
2004 182,140,362
2005 207,896,198
2006 233,000,000
2008 262,700,000
2009 276,610,580
2010 300,520,098

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

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

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

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

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

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

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

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

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

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 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 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 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 Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:08:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

That's the conundrum!