On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:16:18 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

Of course what the idiot CEG says isn't true. You've accepted his
totally false premise that I or anyone else here ever said any of those
studies proved anything one way or the other with regard to the issue
of cell phone usage and accidents.

What I did say was that CEG exposed himself as an idiot by repeatedly
squawking PARADOX, while never having even looked at any of the actual studies,
what data they used, the methods, how they came up with the conclusions.
And that proves that CEG, while claiming to have a background in
science, is just the village idiot. And here you are, talking about safety Nazis, accepting his BS, lying premise, etc, also without even actually
looking at them. Good grief.

CEG presented the Paradox, he did NOT say he had the answer to it. It
is not up to him to look thru a bunch of reports YOU also haven't look
thru and that the person who posted the links ALSO had NOT looked
thru.

So far no one has provided the answer to the paradox and it IS a
paradox. If you wish to prove there is no Paradox, go ahead and do
so.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:35:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:44:31 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

Simulator testing, which of course you reject, has shown
that cell phone use while driving does cause accidents.
It's also obvious to me, from personal experience of using
a phone, that I know I'm distracted and my concentration
is affected. Like almost everyone else, except possibly you,
I regularly see people slowing down for no reason, weaving
into my lane, weaving into the gutter and they are doing it
while using a cell phone. The comparison with brakes and
headlights is ridiculous.

If you are like "everyone else" you are just showing confirmation
bias. You ignore people who are weaving a little who DON'T have a
cell phone but if you see someone with a cell phone and they weave
even a tiny amount its confirmation that the cell phone is an
instrument of the devil. So tell me, are the ONLY people who ever
slow down, or who weave, or who do anything else you don't like ALWAYS
using cell phones?

Of course not. But after observing their abnormal driving behavior
when you're passing them and see them looking down
at their phone, it's pretty obvious to most of us here that's the
reason those particular people are weaving, slowing down, driving
improperly, etc. That cell phones usage isn't the cause of all
erratic driving doesn't mean it's not a significant source of erratic
driving.



And tell me, how many people are out there who ARE
using cell phones but are NOT weaving, NOT slowing, etc. You have no
data, no data at all,

The data is apparently in the various studies. I'm not squawking PARADOX, PARADOX, you and your butt buddy CEG are. You two are the making the
claim that there is a paradox, it's up to you to show that the data
is wrong. So, it's actually you two who have no data to support *your*
claim.

Anything else I can help you with today?

You are wrong as usual. It is not up to us to explain or prove the
cause of the paradox. To the contrary, CEG simply stated that there
was a paradox and asked if anyone could explain it. So far the best
anyone has come up with is their opinion that "cell phones are
dangerous but not dangerous enough to affect the accident rates enough
to notice." That could be so but if it is it means all the chicken
littles yelling the sky is falling are full of crap. And if we are
going to go down that path of opinion due to lack of data we can just
as easily go down the path of claiming cell phones prevent as many or
more accidents as they cause because it relieves people of being
distracted by looking at maps as they drive thru LA at 80 mph and
instead just get directions from their cell phone either from a GPS
app or someone on the other end directing them. Or that lives have
been saved because people cut short a trip they started (and thereby
avoid an accident they would have had later in the trip) because
someone called them halfway there on their cell and told them they no
longer needed to make the trip.

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

Per Wes:

Don't even get me started on 70 mph tailgaters.

In the right lane? I back off on the speed a few mph and they pass.
In the hammer lane? Autobahn rules: I need to get back in the right
lane ASAP and I should have seen the guy closing in the first place and
never have been there when he got to me.

Best anti-tailgating device I have found is my 21' surf ski. It's
securely attached to industrial-strength roof racks, but the saddles it
sits in are just slightly loose fit so it wiggles a little in the cross
gusts..... it's like magic!
--
Pete Cresswell

Per Ashton Crusher:
So far no one has provided the answer to the paradox and it IS a
paradox. If you wish to prove there is no Paradox, go ahead and do
so.

Seems like several people have pointed out that other factors have
reduced the accident and fatality rates - possibly resolving part of it
- and that others have pointed out that the accident data telling
whether-or-not a cell phone was in use is highly suspect - possibly
resolving another part of it.

Did I miss something in the other posts, or have these two things been
pointed out?
--
Pete Cresswell

On 8/20/2015 6:16 PM, Rachael Madcow wrote:
On 8/20/2015 8:14 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

All that's left to do is to pray for the safety of
the kids in the back. Hope she understands seat belts
better than speed limits.

Maybe God needs to add a Driver's Education chapter to the Bible?



Yes, I'd sure like that. Make it non denominational
so Chevy and Ford drivers both can hold it to be
scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, ask for a blood test?

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

There's some very interesting reading he

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc. shrug So what?

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

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

As you say below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 08/20/2015 12:12 PM, Don Y wrote:
Hi Bev,

On 8/20/2015 12:04 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/20/2015 09:50 AM, Don Y wrote:

Want good cell phone accident involvement factors (note you
still can't claim the usage was *causal* -- just *possibly*
causal if the phone was in use at the time of the accident)?
Pass a law that makes it a crime to be found to be using a
phone at the time of an accident! I.e., *force* the data
to be collected.

Another way of doing this is to allow insurers to free
themselves from their obligations to the *insured* if the
insured can be found to have been on the phone ("Sorry,
Mr. Jones. But we won't be paying that $300,000 claim
the other party has made against you! Your *phone*
told us that it was ON and that you were talking to
Mr. Smith at the *instant* your car collided with that
of the other party" Or, playing a game, texting, etc.
Phones make great, impartial witnesses!)

Given that few people can pay $300K to the person they injured, it's the victim
that would bear the brunt here. Better if the insurance pays and then attaches
enough of the perp's assets to recoup their loss. No, the usual bankruptcy
laws wouldn't apply here, everything is up for grabs.

The disincentive isn't the potential monetary obligation;
rather, it's the "hey, you're on your own, here" aspect.
The insurance company is NOT going to be handling the
claim and potential litigation on your behalf.

BUT how is this different from the people who have no insurance at all?
Can we assume that they drive more carefully? How about not having a
driver's license? What if they're illegals?

A process server will show up at YOUR doorstep with "papers".
*You* will shop for the lawyer. *You* will put up the
earnest money. *You* will pay for any investigators he
has to hire, reports he has to acquire, etc.

Even so, the insurance company isn't all that helpful. "Yeah, our
insured was really stupid and destroyed your car just because she was
stupid and didn't look, so we're going to give you $3K and you're on
your own for finding a replacement. Have a nice day." PROPER insurance
would deliver an exact replacement (within reason) of the car to my door
within a week, having paid for a rental while they find it. Yeah, right.

And, when you run out of cash (or plastic), *he* stops
working -- but the other party still drags you into the
courtroom as often as *their* lawyer decides is appropriate
to wear you down!

Even folks with re$ource$ would balk at the prospect of having
to do all this legwork and be thusly "exposed".

Tough on the perp's family, of course.

--
Cheers, Bev

On 8/20/2015 10:26 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Want good cell phone accident involvement factors (note you
still can't claim the usage was *causal* -- just *possibly*
causal if the phone was in use at the time of the accident)?
Pass a law that makes it a crime to be found to be using a
phone at the time of an accident! I.e., *force* the data
to be collected.

Another way of doing this is to allow insurers to free
themselves from their obligations to the *insured* if the
insured can be found to have been on the phone ("Sorry,
Mr. Jones. But we won't be paying that $300,000 claim
the other party has made against you! Your *phone*
told us that it was ON and that you were talking to
Mr. Smith at the *instant* your car collided with that
of the other party" Or, playing a game, texting, etc.
Phones make great, impartial witnesses!)

Given that few people can pay $300K to the person they injured, it's the victim
that would bear the brunt here. Better if the insurance pays and then attaches
enough of the perp's assets to recoup their loss. No, the usual bankruptcy
laws wouldn't apply here, everything is up for grabs.

The disincentive isn't the potential monetary obligation;
rather, it's the "hey, you're on your own, here" aspect.
The insurance company is NOT going to be handling the
claim and potential litigation on your behalf.

BUT how is this different from the people who have no insurance at all?

How many people (*with* cell phones) do you know who don't have insurance?
There are always folks who don't follow the rules -- or, rationalize
that they *can't* (I have a "friend" who has neither license nor
insurance -- yet still drives. But, as the reason he has neither of
those is because he hasn't a pot to **** in nor a window to throw it
out of, he drives very little -- he can't afford the gas, either!).

Folks without insurance are leary of getting in an accident. If
you were afraid of getting in an accident and being prosecuted for
being on the phone, would you still use the phone while driving?
If the injured party can just jot down your license plate as you
drive off (as he could do if you had no insurance) and let the
authorities track you down (now it's "hit and run" -- a crime),
are you really going to risk the hassle that comes with that?
Just so you can jabber on the phone??

Can we assume that they drive more carefully?

I suspect they (uninsured) drive carefully and are ready to flee at a
moment's notice. And, are always in fear that someone will get their
plate number, photo, etc.

How about not having a driver's license?

The same applies. I know a (well off) individual who had no moral
problem driving on a revoked (DUI) license. He figured the law didn't
apply to him. shrug

What if they're illegals?

Living an hour from Mexico, this is a part of everyday life.
As the Republican administration likes to beat up on the Mexicans,
they have gone out of their way to make it difficult for them
to be here, legally. E.g., get driver license.

Of course, the downside of that is a (true) Mexican will have
no qualms about driving the 60 minutes south to the border *if*
he gets in a wreck, here. Possibly leaving you in a pool of blood
by the side of the road!

You can't "fix" folks who WILL break the law. I sure dislike
having to stop at stop signs in this neighborhood at 2AM when
NO ONE is on the road! But, I do -- because the law says I am
supposed to, regardless of the number of other cars that happen to
be visible.

Chances are, you pass a law telling me that I can't talk on
the phone while driving and I won't talk on the phone while
driving! For the same reason that I don't *drink* and drive...
*or* run stop signs at 2AM.

Pass that same law and, chances are, that "well off" individual that
I mentioned above will have no moral problem chatting up a storm
while driving -- for the same reason that he had no problem drinking
and driving (leading to his loss of license) *and* driving on
the revoked license!

The solution for folks like that is to have the GPS in the phone
determine your speed over land. If it exceeds a "running pace",
disable the phone. This sort of broad brush -- brought about because
of folks who don't want to play by the rules -- would then penalize
everyone (even passengers).

A process server will show up at YOUR doorstep with "papers".
*You* will shop for the lawyer. *You* will put up the
earnest money. *You* will pay for any investigators he
has to hire, reports he has to acquire, etc.

Even so, the insurance company isn't all that helpful. "Yeah, our insured was
really stupid and destroyed your car just because she was stupid and didn't
look, so we're going to give you $3K and you're on your own for finding a
replacement. Have a nice day." PROPER insurance would deliver an exact
replacement (within reason) of the car to my door within a week, having paid
for a rental while they find it. Yeah, right.

The alternative is "I'm out a car plus medical costs, I'll sue the other
party directly." (whether that's me or my insurance company filing
the suit). The other party (the phone driver) now has to answer that
suit. Which means he's got to find a lawyer, pony up some money
and be on the hook for however many *years* the process may drag on.
You can rest assured that **his** lawyer won't be in a hurry for the
case to settle! :

If he had insurance and was covered (because he didn't break the
"phone law"), then all he would see is a rate increase or cancellation.
He wouldn't have to worry that *my* lawyer got a court date to field
a motion and that necessitated *his* lawyer having to make an appearance
in the courtroom -- which WILL result in hundreds of dollars in fees
even if nothing else happens. *And* that can go on as long as my
lawyer wants to tug on that chain! Chances are, *his* lawyer will
have no incentive to avoid that extra "billable time"!

On 08/20/2015 11:31 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/20/2015 10:26 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Want good cell phone accident involvement factors (note you
still can't claim the usage was *causal* -- just *possibly*
causal if the phone was in use at the time of the accident)?
Pass a law that makes it a crime to be found to be using a
phone at the time of an accident! I.e., *force* the data
to be collected.

Another way of doing this is to allow insurers to free
themselves from their obligations to the *insured* if the
insured can be found to have been on the phone ("Sorry,
Mr. Jones. But we won't be paying that $300,000 claim
the other party has made against you! Your *phone*
told us that it was ON and that you were talking to
Mr. Smith at the *instant* your car collided with that
of the other party" Or, playing a game, texting, etc.
Phones make great, impartial witnesses!)

Given that few people can pay $300K to the person they injured, it's the victim
that would bear the brunt here. Better if the insurance pays and then attaches
enough of the perp's assets to recoup their loss. No, the usual bankruptcy
laws wouldn't apply here, everything is up for grabs.

The disincentive isn't the potential monetary obligation;
rather, it's the "hey, you're on your own, here" aspect.
The insurance company is NOT going to be handling the
claim and potential litigation on your behalf.

BUT how is this different from the people who have no insurance at all?

How many people (*with* cell phones) do you know who don't have insurance?

I don't know any, but nearly everyone I see has one. It used to be that
if an illegal got in an accident (s)he would sprint out of the areas as
fast as possible. Maybe, since La Migra is no longer to be feared, that
doesn't happen any more. In fact, illegals don't have to pay to get
their car out of the impound lots like WE have to. (This may be
apocryphal, but I've heard it several times.)

There are always folks who don't follow the rules -- or, rationalize
that they *can't* (I have a "friend" who has neither license nor
insurance -- yet still drives. But, as the reason he has neither of
those is because he hasn't a pot to **** in nor a window to throw it
out of, he drives very little -- he can't afford the gas, either!).

Folks without insurance are leary of getting in an accident. If
you were afraid of getting in an accident and being prosecuted for
being on the phone, would you still use the phone while driving?

No, but given the crowded conditions in our jails I'd count on being
released and disappearing into the crowd. Besides, I'm too GOOD a
driver to ever have an accident.

If the injured party can just jot down your license plate as you
drive off (as he could do if you had no insurance) and let the
authorities track you down (now it's "hit and run" -- a crime),
are you really going to risk the hassle that comes with that?
Just so you can jabber on the phone??

No idea. I'm a responsible person. If Ihad nothing to lose I don't
know how I'd act.

Can we assume that they drive more carefully?

I suspect they (uninsured) drive carefully and are ready to flee at a
moment's notice. And, are always in fear that someone will get their
plate number, photo, etc.

How about not having a driver's license?

The same applies. I know a (well off) individual who had no moral
problem driving on a revoked (DUI) license. He figured the law didn't
apply to him. shrug

What if they're illegals?

Living an hour from Mexico, this is a part of everyday life.
As the Republican administration likes to beat up on the Mexicans,
they have gone out of their way to make it difficult for them
to be here, legally. E.g., get driver license.

Perhaps that's why we Californians have so many.

Of course, the downside of that is a (true) Mexican will have
no qualms about driving the 60 minutes south to the border *if*
he gets in a wreck, here. Possibly leaving you in a pool of blood
by the side of the road!

And will have no problem getting back into Mexico. I just read that
Foreigners entering Tijuana will have to show a passport and fill out a
form. Minor nuisance -- we've been doing day trips for dental work for
several months and need a few more trips when it gets cooler. We once
had a 1.5-hour wait to cross back into the US, but Wednesday or Thursday
after 2:00 pm has no line at all.

You can't "fix" folks who WILL break the law. I sure dislike
having to stop at stop signs in this neighborhood at 2AM when
NO ONE is on the road! But, I do -- because the law says I am
supposed to, regardless of the number of other cars that happen to
be visible.

I would stop if I figured that it was a good place for a hidden cop to
be lurking. I wouldn't blow on through like I would on a bicycle, but
I'd make a California (or Texas, I understand) rolling stop.




--
Cheers,
Bev
------------------------------------------------------------
VISE GRIPS (VYS'-gripz) [n] A tool used to transfer intense
welding heat to the palm of the welder's hand. -- DS

On 8/20/2015 5:42 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:16:18 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

Of course what the idiot CEG says isn't true. You've accepted his
totally false premise that I or anyone else here ever said any of those
studies proved anything one way or the other with regard to the issue
of cell phone usage and accidents.

What I did say was that CEG exposed himself as an idiot by repeatedly
squawking PARADOX, while never having even looked at any of the actual studies,
what data they used, the methods, how they came up with the conclusions.
And that proves that CEG, while claiming to have a background in
science, is just the village idiot. And here you are, talking about safety Nazis, accepting his BS, lying premise, etc, also without even actually
looking at them. Good grief.

CEG presented the Paradox, he did NOT say he had the answer to it. It
is not up to him to look thru a bunch of reports YOU also haven't look
thru and that the person who posted the links ALSO had NOT looked
thru.


And how, exactly, do you know I didn't look through the links?

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.

On 8/19/2015 11:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/19/2015 07:33 PM, rickman wrote:
On 8/16/2015 2:03 PM, ceg wrote:

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

How many accidents does it take? Some years back there was a rather
horrific head-on accident on Rt 28, south of Manassas, VA. I think
everyone involved died and they found the solo driver of one vehicle was
talking on his cell phone when it happened. It resulted in that stretch
of road having a cell phone ban which surprised the drivers who were
subsequently charged. This was largely because the four occupants of
the van that was hit by the solo driver were all local politicians.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the person the driver was talking
to knew he was in the accident when the call was cut short. The
investigators would have been able to tell who crossed the line by the
skid marks on the road.

Why would the offender have left skid marks? Was there evidence that
the offender even tried to stop?

I didn't say the "offender" left skid marks.


I expect this is not a unique situation. As
you point out, not all accidents would be identifiable as "caused" by
cell phone usage, so I expect the number is actually underestimated.

The fact that accidents overall are going down is irrelevant.




--

Rick

On 8/20/2015 11:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/19/2015 11:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the person the driver was talking
to knew he was in the accident when the call was cut short. The
investigators would have been able to tell who crossed the line by the
skid marks on the road.

Why would the offender have left skid marks? Was there evidence that
the offender even tried to stop?


Right, but the other car may have left skid marks in his proper lane
trying to stop. Or he tried to evade and left no skid marks.

The investigation will vary with the seriousness of the accident. Minor
ding an a bumper won't get much attention and you could easily turn off
the phone and toss it in the consul so it is not suspect. If it caused
a death, chances are they'd be checking records from the carrier to see
if a call was in progress.

This is the 21st century. Cars have ABS today, they don't leave skid marks.

Sorry, my truck doesn't have ABS. BTW, when was the accident?

--

Rick

On 8/21/2015 12:12 AM, The Real Bev wrote:

If the injured party can just jot down your license plate as you
drive off (as he could do if you had no insurance) and let the
authorities track you down (now it's "hit and run" -- a crime),
are you really going to risk the hassle that comes with that?
Just so you can jabber on the phone??

No idea. I'm a responsible person. If Ihad nothing to lose I don't know how
I'd act.

That's the unintended consequence of many laws -- you make the
stakes too high and folks figure the (undesireable) alternatives
look attractive!

Of course, the downside of that is a (true) Mexican will have
no qualms about driving the 60 minutes south to the border *if*
he gets in a wreck, here. Possibly leaving you in a pool of blood
by the side of the road!

And will have no problem getting back into Mexico.

And if *really* Mexicans, they've got someplace to *go* once across!
(home, relative, etc.)

I just read that Foreigners
entering Tijuana will have to show a passport and fill out a form. Minor
nuisance -- we've been doing day trips for dental work for several months and
need a few more trips when it gets cooler. We once had a 1.5-hour wait to
cross back into the US, but Wednesday or Thursday after 2:00 pm has no line at
all.

You can't "fix" folks who WILL break the law. I sure dislike
having to stop at stop signs in this neighborhood at 2AM when
NO ONE is on the road! But, I do -- because the law says I am
supposed to, regardless of the number of other cars that happen to
be visible.

I would stop if I figured that it was a good place for a hidden cop to be
lurking. I wouldn't blow on through like I would on a bicycle, but I'd make a
California (or Texas, I understand) rolling stop.

I figure its easier just to obey the letter of the law.

We have many "photo enforcement" zones in town -- red light
runners, speeding, etc. *They* don't have (significant) wiggle
room in how their algorithms work. Perhaps if you appear in court
you can *hope* the judge will let you out of the $500 fine;
perhaps not.

In my example, as it's *my* neighborhood, I'd be EXTRA careful -- the
folks (kids, etc.) that I am likely to hurt in that "violation" are
likely to be people that I *know*! :-/

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:05:19 PM UTC-5, 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.

Pilots are wearing a headset if not using a microphone on a coiled cord and don't take their feet off the rudder peddles (steering) to dial a phone. A pilot talks to the tower and other planes by pressing the mic button on the control yoke or stick unless using a corded microphone and he's not going take both hands off the controls unless the autopilot is on. The throttle isn't popping closed because a hand isn't on the control and small planes don't have air brakes and even those on the larger planes plus military jets will not bring them to a complete stop in midair. A pilot isn't going to fly 10 feet off the tail of another aircraft because there is often a lot of separation between planes unless flying in a formation where no pilot is crazy enough to takes his attention off flying the plane to dial a fraking cell phone and the greatest difference off all, there are often TWO pilots at the controls.

You might compare driving a police car to multitasking while operating a motor vehicle but the police officer isn't going to take both hands off the wheel to use the two-way radio especially when in pursuit of an evildoer. I doubt a police officer is going to take his eyes off the road to dial a cellphone or text someone. I believe in the right for anyone to be a dumbass and do what you want until your actions harm someone else or you inconvenience others who must cleanup the mess your bloody corpse makes when it's splattered all over the place. If I'm ever going to be talking on a cellphone while driving, I'd be using a Bluetooth earphone and voice command for my smartphone. When I was driving I wouldn't turn my cellphone on until I arrived at my destination. Voicemail is a lot safer. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Crazy Monster

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:33:09 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
On 8/16/2015 2:03 PM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Click on your link
and there is a listing for "distracted driving":

You have to realize what you just intimated.

Bear in mind, it's the PARADOX that we're trying to resolve.

If distracted driving statistics were reliable (they're not), then the
paradox is EVEN WORSE!

Remember, the accidents don't seem to exist in the reliable statistics.
The accidents only exist in the highly unreliable statistics, and they
don't show up in the reliable ones - so - you and I both know what that
means.

Even so, if, as you and I assume, cellphone use causes accidents, then we
should be able to *see* those accidents in the aggregate statistics.

But we don't.

The fact that it's virtually impossible to determine whether a cellphone
was the primary (or even secondary) cause of an accident isn't really
part of the equation - because the accident count is going down (not up).

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

How many accidents does it take? Some years back there was a rather
horrific head-on accident on Rt 28, south of Manassas, VA. I think
everyone involved died and they found the solo driver of one vehicle was
talking on his cell phone when it happened. It resulted in that stretch
of road having a cell phone ban which surprised the drivers who were
subsequently charged. This was largely because the four occupants of
the van that was hit by the solo driver were all local politicians.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the person the driver was talking
to knew he was in the accident when the call was cut short. The
investigators would have been able to tell who crossed the line by the
skid marks on the road. I expect this is not a unique situation. As
you point out, not all accidents would be identifiable as "caused" by
cell phone usage, so I expect the number is actually underestimated.

The fact that accidents overall are going down is irrelevant.

--

Rick

I would make a SWAG that overall accidents are down because vehicles are safer and when the economy is down, people are driving less. My 20 year old Jeep has anti-lock brakes and handles better than my 40 year old Plymouth which actually handled very well and allowed me to avoid quite a few accidents. The last time I was involved in an accident, it was when I was hit by some idiot who ran a red light. It disabled my vehicle and the creep took off so I couldn't catch him. Another guess I'll make is that no one will admit to having an accident because they were using their cellphone. Unless police confiscate cellphones from drivers involved in an accident in order to check them, how could it be reported as an accident caused by distracted driving due to cellphone use?. o_O

[8~{} Uncle SWAG Monster

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:41:37 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:44:31 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

Simulator testing, which of course you reject, has shown
that cell phone use while driving does cause accidents.
It's also obvious to me, from personal experience of using
a phone, that I know I'm distracted and my concentration
is affected. Like almost everyone else, except possibly you,
I regularly see people slowing down for no reason, weaving
into my lane, weaving into the gutter and they are doing it
while using a cell phone. The comparison with brakes and
headlights is ridiculous.

If you are like "everyone else" you are just showing confirmation
bias. You ignore people who are weaving a little who DON'T have a
cell phone but if you see someone with a cell phone and they weave
even a tiny amount its confirmation that the cell phone is an
instrument of the devil. So tell me, are the ONLY people who ever
slow down, or who weave, or who do anything else you don't like ALWAYS
using cell phones? And tell me, how many people are out there who ARE
using cell phones but are NOT weaving, NOT slowing, etc. You have no
data, no data at all, all you have is your own lack of skill which you
wish to project on every other driver. If you can't drive and pick
your nose at the same time get the hell off the road, you are a danger
to everyone.

Distracted driving accidents are not caused by just cellphones. The operative word is "distracted". In the years BCP,"Before Cell Phones", I was with my brother when a gal pull out in front of us and other traffic by entering the expressway and crossing two lanes. He and the other drivers locked up the brakes to keep from colliding with the moron. We took off after her to see that she was yapping at her passenger and blissfully unaware that she'd almost caused a multi-car pileup. I've seen idiots fiddling with the damn radio while driving or turned around screaming at misbehaving kids in the back seat. I've been 10 feet from from a vehicle that was rear-ended by a rubbernecker who wasn't watching where he was going but the most dangerous drivers I've seen causing other drivers to swerve around and dodge them are the texting drivers who are looking at their phone instead of the road. I had to go around a very stupid woman who was texting while driving slowly in the middle lane during rush hour. I have no idea if she was rear-ended but I came very close to colliding with her. No, it's not just women who are doing it. There are probably more young men texting and dialing the phone while driving. I was in a medical transport van last week being taken to an appointment with one of my doctors and the van driver had an earphone plugged into the smartphone in his lap and he would look back and forth from the phone to the road to make a call. At least he would wait until there were no other vehicles close by or traveling toward us in the other lane. The van drivers are also radio dispatched and must communicate with their office while they're driving. He was aware of what was going on around him and not looking at his phone for more than a split second. He was not texting so I felt fairly safe but you never know when someone will run a stop sign from a side street. The most concerned I've ever been was when I was a passenger in the car being driven by the oldest daughter of a friend of mine and she WAS text driving. She was later involved in an accident where she struck a flagman at a road construction site. I'm not sure what was going on at the time but she wasn't paying attention to where she was going. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Skittish Monster

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:45:14 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:58:12 AM UTC-4, 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.


You're obviously an idiot and totally untrained in science. An intelligent
person familiar with science would have immediately gone looking for the
actual studies done on cell phones. Instead you just came in here like
a parrot: PARADOX PARADOX. And it took SeaNymph a couple of minutes to
find some of the studies. So much for you and science. Nuff said.

You are the stupidest person I've ever seen on Usenet. And you are so
consistently stupid.. in thread after thread after thread, group after
group after group, day after day after day, subject after subject,
after subject. You deserve an award.

Are you that guy who married Demi Moore on Star Trek? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Space Monster

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:56:01 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 12:07:30 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"ceg" wrote in message
...
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?

You're assuming that all those new purchasers are drivers. I think that's
definitely not the case. Absent that correlation, cell phone sales can
skyrocket, but if they're mostly second lines or phones for non-drivers,
then those sales will have little statistical effect on accident rates.

--
Bobby G.



The other assumption here is that whatever the increase in cell phone
usage has been, that it has to produce a huge, readily observable
effect on the gross accident numbers. That is a false premise.
There are about 11 mil auto accidents
a year in the USA. Suppose the ones caused by cell phone usage over
the past 25 years went from 500 to 50,000. That's certainly "skyrocketing".
But you wouldn't even see it in the noise in the 11 mil a year number,
which the census bureau says is estimated and should be used for year to
year comparison with caution. That doesn't mean that the effect doesn't
exist, that it's not a growing safety problem, that we can't prevent
accidents and loss of life by doing something about it.

Are all the people causing an accident by being distracted by their cellphone admitting to being distracted by their cellphone? How would anyone know unless a law is passed ordering the surrender of cellphones belonging to those involved in an accident for examination by law enforcement? The person being struck could have been driving in a manner that caused the collision. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Curious Monster

Uncle Monster used his keyboard to write :
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 6:56:01 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 12:07:30 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"ceg" wrote in message
...
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?

You're assuming that all those new purchasers are drivers. I think that's
definitely not the case. Absent that correlation, cell phone sales can
skyrocket, but if they're mostly second lines or phones for non-drivers,
then those sales will have little statistical effect on accident rates.

--
Bobby G.



The other assumption here is that whatever the increase in cell phone
usage has been, that it has to produce a huge, readily observable
effect on the gross accident numbers. That is a false premise.
There are about 11 mil auto accidents
a year in the USA. Suppose the ones caused by cell phone usage over
the past 25 years went from 500 to 50,000. That's certainly "skyrocketing".
But you wouldn't even see it in the noise in the 11 mil a year number,
which the census bureau says is estimated and should be used for year to
year comparison with caution. That doesn't mean that the effect doesn't
exist, that it's not a growing safety problem, that we can't prevent
accidents and loss of life by doing something about it.

Are all the people causing an accident by being distracted by their cellphone
admitting to being distracted by their cellphone? How would anyone know
unless a law is passed ordering the surrender of cellphones belonging to
those involved in an accident for examination by law enforcement? The person
being struck could have been driving in a manner that caused the collision.
O_o

[8~{} Uncle Curious Monster

I was wondering if anyone would bring this up.

If the mobile phone technology related distraction accident statistics
declined due to laws being passed which thwart law enforcement's
ability to check to see if the device was in use just prior to the
accdent, would the overall accident numbers necessarily have to decline
in order to avoid another paradox?

--
....
For long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
And balanced on the biggest wave
You race towards an early grave.

On 08/22/2015 11:40 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
Are all the people causing an accident by being distracted by their cellphone admitting to being distracted by their cellphone?

Things you'll never hear at the accident scene:

"Yes Officer, I was speeding when I ran over the 5-year-old that chased a ball into the street."

"Yes Officer, I was busy texting when I crossed the centerline into oncoming traffic."

"Yes Officer, I was tailgating when I rear-ended the other car."

"Yes Officer, I was drunk and should not have been driving."

"Yes Officer, my date was fellating me when I ran through the red light."


Well, ok, ya might hear the last one but definitely not the others.

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.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:45:36 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


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

You sound like my father back when seat belts came into use
and were finally mandated. He called them Nazis too and came up
with far out claims about how now we were going to die in a fire,
because the seat belt wouldn't unlock......

In reality, the Nazis got us seat belts, air bags, reduction in
drunk driving, etc. I think all those are good things and not
worthy of the smear.

Spoken like a true moderate. (-: I assume it was Trump that brought you to
this time and place. He's using his impressive persuasion skills to bring
about another Democratic president. At least a few people are catching on,
though.

In my mind, anyone who can persuade someone (anyone!) to go into business
with him after his first bankruptcy has some sort of gift. After his fourth
bankruptcy, it's more like a hypnotic power.

Maybe he can figure out a way to unload some of our deficits on the Chinese
.. . .

--
Bobby G.

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.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:41:48 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:05:19 PM UTC-5, 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.

Pilots are wearing a headset if not using a microphone on a coiled cord and don't take their feet off the rudder peddles (steering) to dial a phone. A pilot talks to the tower and other planes by pressing the mic button on the control yoke or stick unless using a corded microphone and he's not going take both hands off the controls unless the autopilot is on. The throttle isn't popping closed because a hand isn't on the control and small planes don't have air brakes and even those on the larger planes plus military jets will not bring them to a complete stop in midair. A pilot isn't going to fly 10 feet off the tail of another aircraft because there is often a lot of separation between planes unless flying in a formation where no pilot is crazy enough to takes his attention off flying the plane to dial a fraking cell phone and the greatest difference off all, there are often TWO pilots at the controls.

You might compare driving a police car to multitasking while operating a motor vehicle but the police officer isn't going to take both hands off the wheel to use the two-way radio especially when in pursuit of an evildoer. I doubt a police officer is going to take his eyes off the road to dial a cellphone or text someone. I believe in the right for anyone to be a dumbass and do what you want until your actions harm someone else or you inconvenience others who must cleanup the mess your bloody corpse makes when it's splattered all over the place. If I'm ever going to be talking on a cellphone while driving, I'd be using a Bluetooth earphone and voice command for my smartphone. When I was driving I wouldn't turn my cellphone on until I arrived at my destination. Voicemail is a lot safer. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Crazy Monster

Pilots and police do those things all the time. You do know that it
only takes one hand to turn a steering wheel no matter how fast you
are going. And you don't steer a plane with the rudders. When ATC
tells you to switch to tower frequency it doesn't change by magic, you
have to take your hand off the wheel to switch frequencies, possibly
on more then one radio and may also have to change the transponder
setting. Might have to reset the altimeter pressure reading too. All
sorts of things have to be done.

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 19:13:51 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Ashton Crusher:
So far no one has provided the answer to the paradox and it IS a
paradox. If you wish to prove there is no Paradox, go ahead and do
so.

Seems like several people have pointed out that other factors have
reduced the accident and fatality rates - possibly resolving part of it
- and that others have pointed out that the accident data telling
whether-or-not a cell phone was in use is highly suspect - possibly
resolving another part of it.

Did I miss something in the other posts, or have these two things been
pointed out?

Sure, lots of things have been suggested and proposed. Where's the
data?

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:27:21 -0500, SeaNymph
wrote:

On 8/20/2015 5:42 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:16:18 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

Of course what the idiot CEG says isn't true. You've accepted his
totally false premise that I or anyone else here ever said any of those
studies proved anything one way or the other with regard to the issue
of cell phone usage and accidents.

What I did say was that CEG exposed himself as an idiot by repeatedly
squawking PARADOX, while never having even looked at any of the actual studies,
what data they used, the methods, how they came up with the conclusions.
And that proves that CEG, while claiming to have a background in
science, is just the village idiot. And here you are, talking about safety Nazis, accepting his BS, lying premise, etc, also without even actually
looking at them. Good grief.

CEG presented the Paradox, he did NOT say he had the answer to it. It
is not up to him to look thru a bunch of reports YOU also haven't look
thru and that the person who posted the links ALSO had NOT looked
thru.


And how, exactly, do you know I didn't look through the links?


Did you and if so please summarize which findings solve the paradox.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 03:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:41:37 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:44:31 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.

Simulator testing, which of course you reject, has shown
that cell phone use while driving does cause accidents.
It's also obvious to me, from personal experience of using
a phone, that I know I'm distracted and my concentration
is affected. Like almost everyone else, except possibly you,
I regularly see people slowing down for no reason, weaving
into my lane, weaving into the gutter and they are doing it
while using a cell phone. The comparison with brakes and
headlights is ridiculous.

If you are like "everyone else" you are just showing confirmation
bias. You ignore people who are weaving a little who DON'T have a
cell phone but if you see someone with a cell phone and they weave
even a tiny amount its confirmation that the cell phone is an
instrument of the devil. So tell me, are the ONLY people who ever
slow down, or who weave, or who do anything else you don't like ALWAYS
using cell phones? And tell me, how many people are out there who ARE
using cell phones but are NOT weaving, NOT slowing, etc. You have no
data, no data at all, all you have is your own lack of skill which you
wish to project on every other driver. If you can't drive and pick
your nose at the same time get the hell off the road, you are a danger
to everyone.

Distracted driving accidents are not caused by just cellphones. The operative word is "distracted". In the years BCP,"Before Cell Phones", I was with my brother when a gal pull out in front of us and other traffic by entering the expressway and crossing two lanes. He and the other drivers locked up the brakes to keep from colliding with the moron. We took off after her to see that she was yapping at her passenger and blissfully unaware that she'd almost caused a multi-car pileup. I've seen idiots fiddling with the damn radio while driving or turned around screaming at misbehaving kids in the back seat. I've been 10 feet from from a vehicle that was rear-ended by a rubbernecker who wasn't watching where he was going but the most dangerous drivers I've seen causing other drivers to swerve around and dodge them are the texting drivers who are looking at their phone instead of the road. I had to go around a very stupid woman who was texting while driving slowly in the middle lane during
rush hour. I have no idea if she was rear-ended but I came very close to colliding with her. No, it's not just women who are doing it. There are probably more young men texting and dialing the phone while driving. I was in a medical transport van last week being taken to an appointment with one of my doctors and the van driver had an earphone plugged into the smartphone in his lap and he would look back and forth from the phone to the road to make a call. At least he would wait until there were no other vehicles close by or traveling toward us in the other lane. The van drivers are also radio dispatched and must communicate with their office while they're driving. He was aware of what was going on around him and not looking at his phone for more than a split second. He was not texting so I felt fairly safe but you never know when someone will run a stop sign from a side street. The most concerned I've ever been was when I was a passenger in the car being driven by the oldest
daughter
of a friend of mine and she WAS text driving. She was later involved in an accident where she struck a flagman at a road construction site. I'm not sure what was going on at the time but she wasn't paying attention to where she was going. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Skittish Monster

Heck, there can be no doubt some people have died because they looked
at the watch at *just* the wrong time and didn't see the semi stopping
in front of them. I watched the woman ahead of me, this was WAY
before anyone had car phone much less a cell phone, literally knock
the flag out of the hand of the guy stopping traffic for construction
trucks to cross the highway.

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 03:17:16 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:45:14 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:58:12 AM UTC-4, 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.


You're obviously an idiot and totally untrained in science. An intelligent
person familiar with science would have immediately gone looking for the
actual studies done on cell phones. Instead you just came in here like
a parrot: PARADOX PARADOX. And it took SeaNymph a couple of minutes to
find some of the studies. So much for you and science. Nuff said.

You are the stupidest person I've ever seen on Usenet. And you are so
consistently stupid.. in thread after thread after thread, group after
group after group, day after day after day, subject after subject,
after subject. You deserve an award.

Are you that guy who married Demi Moore on Star Trek? ^_^


We didn't get married on Star Trek. But some of the cast came to the
wedding.

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 Robert Green:
...Trump...using his impressive persuasion skills to bring
about another Democratic president.

From what I have heard so far from various pundits, Trump must have a
good bit of leverage over the Republican Party by virtue of his having
the means and possibly the will to run as a third-party candidate -
thereby quite possibly costing them the election a-la' Ross Perot.
--
Pete Cresswell

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

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:28:48 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

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.

I can't say you are wrong, we may be seeing the same thing
differently. But I will say that every generation complains about
"kids today... yada yada yada" and believes the youth are going to
hell in a hand basket. And they have been saying that since Socrates
day.

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise.” - Socrates

I view how most people talk about "other drivers" the same way. No
matter who you talk to it's always the same, drivers are getting
worse, politicians are getting worse, everything is getting worse. It
seems that such a "it's getting worse" view is hard wired into most
people as they age.

On 08/22/2015 07:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:

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.

Glad I'm not the only one. The stupid things aren't on long enough for
our eyes to focus on them, and the next one is in a different place.
And what about that stupid chartreuse color that some cities are
painting their fire engines? So it's NOT a natural color, that doesn't
make it stand out any better. FIRE ENGINES ARE RED. PERIOD.

And have any Los Angeles residents noticed how few lights there are on
the overhead freeway signs no? I suspect that it just costs too much to
replace them. I can read the signs at a reasonable distance if I have
my lights on high, but that seems really rude -- in spite of the fact
that perhaps 1/4 of the drivers don't understand that their high beams
are to be used only OCCASIONALLY.

And what about those banks of bright lights they use when working on the
freeways at night? They ALWAYS point them directly into oncoming
traffic. It's like they WANT to cause crashes.

And another thing...

--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmph. I used to have snow tires. Never again. They melted in the
spring. I won't even start going on about my wood stove.
-- websurf1

On 8/22/2015 7:32 AM, Mayayana wrote:

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.

I've always been taught to pull over and get out of the way.
So, I really don't *care* which way the vehicle is headed
until he's long past my location! :

Apparently, the lights are necessary because so many drivers
"zone out" (ear buds, chatting on phone, etc.) and cars are
much quieter (here, the windows tend to be *up* all year
round for air conditioning).

Also, I think emergency vehicles are less prone to using
*audible* alarms than they were in the past. Often, the
only way I have of knowing that an emergency vehicle is
"nearby" is to watch the strobe light atop each traffic
light (intersection): if it's flashing, then it "sees"
an emergency vehicle on one of the connecting streets.
At that point, I start examining my mirrors, looking down
side streets, etc.: "When will I have to get out of the way?"

On 8/22/2015 8:49 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

And have any Los Angeles residents noticed how few lights there are on the
overhead freeway signs no? I suspect that it just costs too much to replace
them. I can read the signs at a reasonable distance if I have my lights on
high, but that seems really rude -- in spite of the fact that perhaps 1/4 of
the drivers don't understand that their high beams are to be used only
OCCASIONALLY.

And what about those banks of bright lights they use when working on the
freeways at night? They ALWAYS point them directly into oncoming traffic.
It's like they WANT to cause crashes.

We have ordinances to avoid unnecessary "light pollution" (lots of astronomy
done here). So, street lights are scarce, signs aren't gratuitously
illuminated, etc. Even the lights for our back yard (bright as day, if
we so choose) don't extend beyond the property line, aren't visible in
neighbors' homes, etc.

When we're outside after nightfall, the sky is *deep* black -- punctuated
with countless stars. It makes meteor showers spectacular events!