The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:39:10 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

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

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

They are, you just don't want to believe it and are trolling
just to argue. Most crossposters are
No matter what anyone posts as proof, you will deny the
facts.
A report out today, but again, you'll argue that the data is
wrong

Here

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...deaths-in-2015

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tra...d=ansmsnnews11

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...e_rise_on.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...re-on-the-rise

http://wavy.com/2015/08/17/dmv-repor...e-in-virginia/

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/cnbc/57750102/

You probably won't see this because you don't read alt home
repair and I snipped the crossposting

I and others have pointed out that the campaign that has dramatically
lowered drunk driving has occurred over roughly the same period that
cell phone usage grew dramatically. Just that should give a good,
possible explanation, ie that they could have canceled each other out.
I also pointed out several times now that the census data that CEG posted
clearly says that it's "estimated and should be used with caution for
year to year comparison". Meaning we don't know exactly what that
means and there are perhaps subsets of that data or other data that
are more valid to extract the cellphone data from. But the paradox
folks just don't want to hear any of it.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:43:56 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:28:35 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

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

That it's not, is the paradox.

One more time, there has been a nationwide campaign against drunk
driving over approximately the same time that cell phone usage has
gone way up. Fatalities from drunk driving have gone down dramatically,
something like by half. Is that not meaningful? It's reasonable to
assume that many times more accidents have also been eliminated. Is
that not meaningful? And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just replaced
the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related accidents and
deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:50:36 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:07:36 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

You fundamentally don't understand zeros.

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

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

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

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

You're grasping at straws.

Now I agree with Ed, you're full of BS. And for the record, if you
can read, that two sentence disclaimer on your data set did not say
"Data is estimated so year to year comparisons should be made with caution"
It says "Data is estimated. Year to year comparisons should be made
with caution". I assume that important difference is lost on you too,
because you just want to keep saying Paradox! Paradix!, when a number
of possible and legitimate reasons have been provided.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/18/2015 5:13 AM, Wes wrote:
Wow, this off-topic thread has been going for 2 days and it is still
on-topic!

Now that's a paradox!!!

Wonder if Bad Golferman has some kind of a
feature to identify that?

I agree, that's really exceptional.

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:52:38 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:08:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

That's the conundrum!

No, that's the gross distortion required to keep claiming that
a paradox exists. Endangered by five cell phones on a 20 mile
drive? It's totally made up. While cell phone use is out there
and it's a source of accidents, no one claimed it was so extensive
that it endangers you five times in 20 miles.

I and others have pointed out to you many times now, that cell phone
deaths and accidents could have just replaced those caused by drunk
driving. There has been a huge campaign against drunk driving over
the same time span, lowering of legal limits to .08 for the whole
country, etc. Fatalities from drunk driving are down by what, half?
But, heh, you just like the word paradox, don't you.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/18/2015 5:13 AM, Wes wrote:
Wow, this off-topic thread has been going for 2 days and it is still
on-topic!

Now that's a paradox!!!

Yesterday I was on the way to a meeting. I paassed by a
Subaru along side the road, with the exhaust system
dragging on the gound. He'd pulled over and stopped. I
looked over the situation, and deciced to go back and
offer him a length of wire I had in the truck.

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

Where were the accidents?

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

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

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


You have a logic problem if you believe that the above statement
means that estimation is the only issue with the data. The disclaimer
does not say that. It points out that the data are estimated and then
it says that year to year comparisons should be made with caution.
We don't know *all* the reasons for the second sentence. But it's
not required. The simple fact that they say it should be used for
year to year comparisons with caution is more than enough. That
is what you're doing and if you choose to do so, to prove something,
then it's up to you to go figure out what all the issues with the
data are and how it effects the data *you* are trying to extract and
use from it.


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


I did find two possible solutions, the folks who provide the data
say that it should be used for year to year comparison with caution.
You don't know exactly the extent of the problem, what all they are
referring to, yet here you are using it.

Second, cutting the number of drunk driving incidents in half over
the same period reduced the total number of accidents and deaths
and cell phone incidents could have just replaced those.

But you



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


Here's a concept, go **** yourself. Who says that cell phone accidents
are a power of ten factor? Good grief. If they just replaced the number
of deaths and accidents eliminated by the campaign against drunk driving,
they are still there, a significant factor, etc.


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

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

You're just looking to troll, idiot.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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


This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.


Well, that sure is the flippin answer.

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 12:39:10 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

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

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

They are, you just don't want to believe it and are trolling
just to argue. Most crossposters are
No matter what anyone posts as proof, you will deny the
facts.
A report out today, but again, you'll argue that the data is
wrong

Here

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...deaths-in-2015

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tra...d=ansmsnnews11

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/inde...e_rise_on.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos...re-on-the-rise

http://wavy.com/2015/08/17/dmv-repor...e-in-virginia/

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/cnbc/57750102/

You probably won't see this because you don't read alt home
repair and I snipped the crossposting

I and others have pointed out that the campaign that has dramatically
lowered drunk driving has occurred over roughly the same period that
cell phone usage grew dramatically. Just that should give a good,
possible explanation, ie that they could have canceled each other out.
I also pointed out several times now that the census data that CEG
posted clearly says that it's "estimated and should be used with
caution for year to year comparison". Meaning we don't know exactly
what that
means and there are perhaps subsets of that data or other data that
are more valid to extract the cellphone data from. But the paradox
folks just don't want to hear any of it.

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 10:45 PM, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:03:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, show them.



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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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


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


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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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


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


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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/17/2015 11:29 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:03 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 7:05 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

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

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


Home Depot, Ace and Lowe's are each on our weekly "shopping circuit"
(whether we actually *visit* any of them is optional). I plan far
ahead for projects so I can see what components are available at
each supplier *before* I need to actually make the purchase. When the
time comes, I just add the items needed from each place to the
weekly shopping list.

None of those stores usually are on my shopping circuit on a regular
basis, but since I've been doing these shelf projects that I've wanted
to do for a long time, all 3 stores have been on my list quite a lot lately.

This allows the cost of the "research" to be hidden behind the cost
of other visits to purchase items needed for "earlier" projects.

This *has* worked well. Until I recently went looking for two
cast 3/4" C-F-C tee's: they *were* at the local Ace. Until I
actually needed to purchase them!

Then, I discovered that they were relatively rare. And, the
plumbing supply outlets wanted $35-$40/ea! (about 3 times what
they should have cost). So, I had all the other parts ready
but was now struggling to find these two remaining (essential)
parts.

I'm on a mission that I've chosen to accept (just saw the new Mission
Impossible movie), and now I have to find the right hardware to put my
design together - some shelf clamps like this
(http://www.organizeit.com/images/wire-shelf-clips.jpg), some short
metal screws, and some rubber shelf caps.

Today, after searching the Home Depot website I finally found the
tension rods AND the right wire shelves that I need. The hardware to
put it together is at another store (Lowes). Home depot had a package
of C clamps that were the right size and color, but the package also had

frown I can't see how you'd be using a C clamp for anything other than
*assembly* (i.e., not part of the finished product)

These are the ones I want to use:
http://www.organizeit.com/images/wire-shelf-clips.jpg

They'll hold the shelf in place so it won't slide up or down the tension
rod.

a bunch of other screws and wall board anchors that I didn't need for a
whopping $28. I'm not paying that for C clamps. I may run up to Ace
Hardware and see if I can buy the clamps there. If not, I'll go back to
Lowes and get the plastic C clamps they have which will work fine and
they're like $7 for a bunch of them.

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

frown I guess different mind-sets. I find all that "looking" to
be frustrating. Hence the reason I try to "hide" it amongst other
activities.

I almost gave up on the project, but after thinking about it some more I
decided to do one last search for the right items that I wanted to use
and finally found them.


--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

Hi Pete,

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/18/2015 1:57 AM, Don Y wrote:

Not fond of corned beef. Nor (hot) peppers of any kind. Cabbage is OK
with galumpke.

I enjoy a nice tender corned beef occasionally with the cabbage,
carrots, and potatoes. mmmmmm I had to look up galumpke.

It's been said that some folks eat to live while others live to eat.
I'm firmly in the first camp (get it over with as quickly as possible).
Even the meals that I truly *love* are just "brief experiences" :-/


I think I do a little of both, but I'm a slow eater which makes it so I
can taste everything I eat. If it doesn't taste right or good I don't
eat it.
--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/18/2015 2:33 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 10:43 PM, Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:29:37 -0700, Don Y wrote:
I've been back and forth to Lowes several times JUST looking, but that
part has been fun working out what I need and then going on a scavenger
hunt finding the parts.

frown I guess different mind-sets. I find all that "looking" to be
frustrating. Hence the reason I try to "hide" it amongst other
activities.

I would have been happier if I didn't have to do all that looking for
parts,
but I just fire it's part of my time to relax.

I'm a bit of a curmudgeon when it comes to things that I see as

I don't know why, but I've always loved the word "curmudgeon".

wasteful of my time. Life is far too short to waste it on
"unproductive" activities.

I can understand that because I feel the same way about life, although
many things that I've considered to be unproductive wastes of time I've
had to file them away in a folder that's titled "for possible future use".

I see "free time" in much the same light as "extra money" (i.e.,
contradictions).
I like the details of it
all. Kind of like I enjoy meticulously pruning a rough plant to begin
training out for a bonsai. It's almost art to me.

But your actions are yielding *results*, in that case. Imagine you
spent that time trying to find a vendor who sold pruning shears! :

I need a small, plastic, rectangular box -- about 2.25" on each side,
2 or 3 inches tall. No larger, no smaller. The time I am spending
searching for it feels like a colossal waste! So, I arrange for
that time to be hidden amongst other activities -- i.e., check to see
if each of the stores I *will* visit in the normal course of events
happens to have it, instead of making a deliberate and specific
attempt to locate it (and failing).

I guess all my searches for parts for this project are the result of
years of watching other people work on their projects and following them
around in the stores when they've been looking for irritating unique
parts. I let them do all the hard work and I got to learn from watching
them before I ever had a project of my own to work on.

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/18/2015 8:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

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

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

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


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

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Maggie

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 08/18/2015 06:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

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

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

:-)

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True that!!

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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?

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

I think you have a problem with large numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

:)

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On 8/18/2015 6:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
I've got clothes down to a science: buy lots of the *same* pants, shirts,
socks, etc. Then, buying is just a check-off task (no "looking" or
"deciding" required). And, can even be delegated to others: "Pick up
three of these, for me -- at store".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:54:56 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is
routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear
at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line
as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

My Motorola Roadster speakerphone clips onto the visor and works
just fine.

It's better than an earpiece, for me, because it will always be
in the car, and it talks out my text messages, and takes dictation.

It *can* route through an unused FM channel of your choosing, but,
I find that more work than it's worth to go through the radio
amplifier. I just use the speakerphone portion.

When I receive a phone call, it tells me whom it's from and asks
me "answer or ignore", and it always gets it right when I say
either "answer" or "ignore".

When I want to call someone, I have to be a bit careful with
strange names, such as "call Brumhilda", but, I "solved" that
problem by assigning simpler names to the problematic ones, such
as listing "Brumhilda" as "mom" (or some such simplification).

So, when I say "call mom", it asks "Do you want to call Mom?",
where the number it calls is Brumhilda.

Overall, the Motorola Roadster is a fine device, but, I'm sure
the Jabba and Plantronics, and other brands are just as well.

One caution though is that I don't use the Motorola Android
software, because it never seems to work. I just use the native
capability of the Roadster and the Android phone on Bluetooth.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 07:54:56 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free
significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the
road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before
answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to
text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although
annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

You jumped in your last sentence from "accidents" to "fatalities",
which are really far more complicated than accidents.

We must keep to the point that we *think* that hand held cellphone
use seems, to us, to be something that must contribute to accidents.

I can't deny I think that also.

The only problem is that none of us can *find* those accidents!
So, something is wrong somewhere.

Either our assumptions are wrong, or the data is wrong, because the
data shown to date does not match the assumptions we all have.

If you have better data on accident rates, please show it.

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 10:15:21 +0200, David Brown wrote:

Simulations also show that the dangers involved depend on how often you
talk on phones/radios while driving. People who do so regularly, such
as police, taxi drivers, etc., are able to split their attention better,
and "disconnect" from the phone if an emergency situation occurs.
People who rarely talk on phones, however, can have their reaction times
and attention reduced to the level of someone so drunk they have
difficulty getting their key in the ignition - and that's on a
hands-free phone. Using hands-free or hand-held telephones makes almost
no difference to the reaction times - the key issue is that your
attention is elsewhere.

Of course there are plenty of other causes of distraction that can be
equally bad - having an argument with people in the car, turning round
to threaten unruly kids with having to walk home, driving with a
migraine, having food or drink in the car, etc., are all high-risk
activities. Even just having hot food or drink in the car is a
significant risk - the smell of a takeaway is distracting.

Do you have any data to support those arguments?

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

This is perhaps the sixth possible answer to the enigma.

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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


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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

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

No more so than accidents.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

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

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

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

No more so than accidents.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?
 

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

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

This is perhaps the sixth possible answer to the enigma.

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

The fact is that you are a troll. I posted, as many others
have stats that you refuse to acknowledge or just say they
are wrong. As I said, no matter what anyone post or proves
you wrong, you will simply deny them. The true sign of a
troll. Cross posting removed.....again