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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

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

On 8/18/2015 7:39 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

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.

The key word there is *focus*.

Note that you can be in a crowded room, engaged in a conversation and
still manage to "pick out" a conversation of interest "in the background",
amidst all the other noise and conversations. I.e., something in your head
is "monitoring", looking for triggers of interest.

There are also short-term memory issues in play. Your mind can only hold
onto a relatively small number of "ideas" at any given time. An exercise
we used to do when younger was to listen to long numeric strings read to
us. Then, engage in conversation for a while. Finally, be quizzed to
recall a *specific* string ("the one that begins with '3'").

The strings don't get a chance to be committed to your long term
memory (like your home phone number, SSN, etc.). And, the other
topics of discussion compete for the few spots in that short term
memory. Inevitably, the numeric strings get crowded out -- because
they were "least recently referenced"

If you are bouncing back and forth between tasks, all of the stuff in your
short term memory becomes vulnerable; it's not had a chance to be
committed to long term memory so you risk losing it -- details of the
previous task, etc.

E.g., you can pick up a home repair project some WEEKS after having
been called away from it. But, there is a considerable effort
required to sort out (i.e., RECALL!) what you were doing, before
you were interrupted. The major issues had previously been committed
to long term memory and could be "refreshed" with an examination of
the MESS before you.

Multitasking calls for far more frequent "attention switches"; you
don't have the luxury of spending a bit of time trying to recall
what you were previously doing (because you'll soon be expected to move
on to the *next* task!).

Notice how many email/sms replies you receive that don't properly
address the questions you posed in the *preceding* message. As if
the respondent just threw a quick/inexpensive (not well thought out)
answer to ONE of your comments and failed to perceive the others.

You, in turn, repeat those unaddressed issues and, over the course
of several exchanges, manage to get an ALMOST complete reply. And,
find it unsatisfying, to boot!

On 8/18/2015 9:08 AM, Muggles wrote:
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.

If I was going to spend that sort of time making/waiting for a chunk
of meet, I'd rather roast a pork shoulder and live off pulled pork
sandwiches for the next week or so! :

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.

I eat quickly (get it over with and move on to something else).
An exception is baked stuffed shrimp. Partly because it is *so*
good and *so* seldom made -- but also because it is so *rich* that
it almost is sickening!

The other exception is ice cream. I still eat it quickly; but, I
go back for *fifths* so it seems like I'm eating it for longer! :

[I'll make some butter pecan gelato tomorrow]

On 8/17/2015 6:06 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:35 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

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

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

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

Imagine that behavior in a public library!

[When did the "Ssssh!" go out of libraries??]

On 8/16/2015 9:54 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 9:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/16/2015 7:10 PM, Muggles wrote:

I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.

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.

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.

I did some volunteer work with a guy like that. We were digging through
a large box of donated items (to sort out what would be salvageable vs.
trash). He kept "implying" that I should stop talking (I was asking him
questions about what sorts of items he was looking for -- so I could
be of some help). Finally he said, "No, really, you have to stop talking!
I can't concentrate on what I'm looking for if I have to listen to you
(or anyone else)".

It was scary! What does he do when he's driving with a passenger?

On 8/18/2015 4:02 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 9:08 AM, Muggles wrote:
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.

If I was going to spend that sort of time making/waiting for a chunk
of meet, I'd rather roast a pork shoulder and live off pulled pork
sandwiches for the next week or so! :

If I were going to have pulled bbq, we'd smoke it all day and then end
up giving much of it away to the kids because that wouldn't been the
reason to cook a big piece of meat, anyway.

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.

I eat quickly (get it over with and move on to something else).
An exception is baked stuffed shrimp. Partly because it is *so*
good and *so* seldom made -- but also because it is so *rich* that
it almost is sickening!

yum!

The other exception is ice cream. I still eat it quickly; but, I
go back for *fifths* so it seems like I'm eating it for longer! :

[I'll make some butter pecan gelato tomorrow]

I've made ice cream 5 times in the last few weeks. Tried different
recipes, which was fun. Haven't made any in the last 10 days, though.

--
Maggie

On 8/18/2015 9:15 AM, Muggles wrote:

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.

This is why I can spend hours in a *real* hardware store! "Hmmm...
this gizmo looks interesting. I wonder what it's INTENDED use might be?
And, I wonder how I might be able to use it for some UNINTENDED purpose?"

Catalog all of these items in the back of your mind so that when you
have some future need, a recollection strikes you and you just have
to figure out *where* you saw whatever

I save "vitamin bottles", empty plastic pints from heavy cream, etc.
Part of it is a reluctance to discard something that really has
suffered no "wear" since it was manufactured (i.e., it's just as
good as a container NOW as it was when it was initially filled!).
Part of it is the sameness of them (some special appeal to
having lots of the same thing available -- "sets").

But, there is also the practical knowledge that, invariably, there
*will* be a need for one/many such containers. And, when that
need comes up, hunting for something the correct size will be a
colossal waste of time -- ASSUMING something like it can be located!

E.g., we grow citrus, here. So, the smallest "vitamin bottles" find
use in storing small quantities of *lime* juice that we'll preserve
in the freezer (it's hard to find a use for more than a couple of ounces
of lime juice at any given instant; and, as it's not pasteurized, if
you open a container with more juice than you can promptly use, the
bulk of it gets discarded).

The ~8-16 oz containers (like the pints of heavy cream) are used
to store lemon juice. I drink a lot of tea and take it with lemon juice
so 8 oz may only last me a couple of days. Smaller bottles would be
too numerous (I'd have to take one or two out of the freezer each day!)
and larger ones suffer from the spoilage problem.

Lastly, we save "Motts" applesauce (plastic) jars (the 3lb size) for
use holding orange juice (we're still drinking OJ from last winter).

The smaller containers rinse out well (lemon and lime tend to have minimal
pulp) so they get reused. The applesauce containers are difficult to
clean (OJ pulp) due to their funky shape. So, they just see that *one*
"extra use" (after being emptied of applesauce) before being discarded.

In each of these cases, if we had to *purchase* suitable containers,
we would probably have to do so *each* year (due to the OJ cleaning
issue). And, there's no guarantee that we'd be able to find those
"great containers we got last year" again, *this* year! It hardly
makes sense to juice our own oranges, in that case!

On 8/18/2015 4:08 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/16/2015 9:54 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/16/2015 9:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 8/16/2015 7:10 PM, Muggles wrote:

I highly doubt it's any more distracting than playing music might be.

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.

I think some people are geared to naturally process multiple events at
the same time and do it w/o any issues at all. Then there are others
who can't walk and snap their fingers at the same time. The last group
of people shouldn't probably use a cell phone, talk to passengers, or
even play a radio while they drive.

I did some volunteer work with a guy like that. We were digging through
a large box of donated items (to sort out what would be salvageable vs.
trash). He kept "implying" that I should stop talking (I was asking him
questions about what sorts of items he was looking for -- so I could
be of some help). Finally he said, "No, really, you have to stop talking!
I can't concentrate on what I'm looking for if I have to listen to you
(or anyone else)".

It was scary! What does he do when he's driving with a passenger?

LOL

--
Maggie

On 8/18/2015 2:12 PM, Muggles 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.

If I was going to spend that sort of time making/waiting for a chunk
of meet, I'd rather roast a pork shoulder and live off pulled pork
sandwiches for the next week or so! :

If I were going to have pulled bbq, we'd smoke it all day and then end
up giving much of it away to the kids because that wouldn't been the
reason to cook a big piece of meat, anyway.

As I'm not fond of "wasting time" on eating (and, by extension, *cooking*),
I make things in large batches, freeze it and live off the "leftovers"
(even though they technically aren't left OVER!).

E.g., I make 16q of marinara sauce at a time; 8 pounds of meatloaf
(slice and individually wrap each slice prior to freezing); a large
pork shoulder (shred/pull and put in small "single serving" bags);
etc.

In this way, I can pull something from the freezer, toss it in the
microwave and be eating a "meal" three or four minutes later.

The other exception is ice cream. I still eat it quickly; but, I
go back for *fifths* so it seems like I'm eating it for longer! :

[I'll make some butter pecan gelato tomorrow]

I've made ice cream 5 times in the last few weeks. Tried different
recipes, which was fun. Haven't made any in the last 10 days, though.

I am "strongly discouraged" from making ice cream. SWMBO shouldn't
be eating it -- yet has a hard time resisting! Ditto for the cheesecake.
The notable exception, there, is you can't "sneak" a piece of cheesecake
without it being noticed (by whomever the cheesecake is destined). So,
that tends to discourage "cheating".

The same argument holds for coffee cake.

OTOH, you can eat a good portion of a batch of ice cream and no one
is the wiser! "That's all he made!" Likewise, brownies, cookies, etc.
can disappear in large numbers without anyone being the wiser! :

On 8/18/2015 3:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 7:39 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

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.

The key word there is *focus*.

Note that you can be in a crowded room, engaged in a conversation and
still manage to "pick out" a conversation of interest "in the background",
amidst all the other noise and conversations. I.e., something in your head
is "monitoring", looking for triggers of interest.

There are also short-term memory issues in play. Your mind can only hold
onto a relatively small number of "ideas" at any given time. An exercise
we used to do when younger was to listen to long numeric strings read to
us. Then, engage in conversation for a while. Finally, be quizzed to
recall a *specific* string ("the one that begins with '3'").

The strings don't get a chance to be committed to your long term
memory (like your home phone number, SSN, etc.). And, the other
topics of discussion compete for the few spots in that short term
memory. Inevitably, the numeric strings get crowded out -- because
they were "least recently referenced"

If you are bouncing back and forth between tasks, all of the stuff in your
short term memory becomes vulnerable; it's not had a chance to be
committed to long term memory so you risk losing it -- details of the
previous task, etc.

E.g., you can pick up a home repair project some WEEKS after having
been called away from it. But, there is a considerable effort
required to sort out (i.e., RECALL!) what you were doing, before
you were interrupted. The major issues had previously been committed
to long term memory and could be "refreshed" with an examination of
the MESS before you.

Multitasking calls for far more frequent "attention switches"; you
don't have the luxury of spending a bit of time trying to recall
what you were previously doing (because you'll soon be expected to move
on to the *next* task!).

Notice how many email/sms replies you receive that don't properly
address the questions you posed in the *preceding* message. As if
the respondent just threw a quick/inexpensive (not well thought out)
answer to ONE of your comments and failed to perceive the others.

You, in turn, repeat those unaddressed issues and, over the course
of several exchanges, manage to get an ALMOST complete reply. And,
find it unsatisfying, to boot!

I simply do not believe, nor have I seen any real evidence, that people
can actually multitask. I've seen people switch quickly between 2
things, but that's not multitasking.

I have a photographic memory for numbers, even long numeric strings.
While I see no practical use for that in my daily life, it's an
interesting thing.

Personally, I prefer to do something and finish it if that's possible. I
just work better that way. It probably has to do with what I did during
most of my working life, which involved the big picture and a lot of
smaller details. But it all had a beginning, a middle and an end.

On 8/18/2015 4:04 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/17/2015 6:06 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 8/17/2015 3:35 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Ashton Crusher:
From 1985 to 2010 there are roughly 1000 times more cell phones. If
in your morning commute in 1985 you were endangered on your 20 mile
commute by 5 people with car phones, by 2010 you would be endangered
by 5000 people with them. The roads should be awash in blood.

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

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

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

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

Imagine that behavior in a public library!

[When did the "Ssssh!" go out of libraries??]

I've seen it and it's just as annoying. Sometimes I'm worried that an
entire generation is being raised that demands instant gratification and
thinks nothing of how what they're doing affects others.

On 8/18/2015 4:13 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 9:15 AM, Muggles wrote:

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.

This is why I can spend hours in a *real* hardware store! "Hmmm...
this gizmo looks interesting. I wonder what it's INTENDED use might be?
And, I wonder how I might be able to use it for some UNINTENDED purpose?"

Yeah. I love the idea of using things for unintended purposes.

Catalog all of these items in the back of your mind so that when you
have some future need, a recollection strikes you and you just have
to figure out *where* you saw whatever

I save "vitamin bottles", empty plastic pints from heavy cream, etc.
Part of it is a reluctance to discard something that really has
suffered no "wear" since it was manufactured (i.e., it's just as
good as a container NOW as it was when it was initially filled!).
Part of it is the sameness of them (some special appeal to
having lots of the same thing available -- "sets").

But, there is also the practical knowledge that, invariably, there
*will* be a need for one/many such containers. And, when that
need comes up, hunting for something the correct size will be a
colossal waste of time -- ASSUMING something like it can be located!

E.g., we grow citrus, here. So, the smallest "vitamin bottles" find
use in storing small quantities of *lime* juice that we'll preserve
in the freezer (it's hard to find a use for more than a couple of ounces
of lime juice at any given instant; and, as it's not pasteurized, if
you open a container with more juice than you can promptly use, the
bulk of it gets discarded).

The ~8-16 oz containers (like the pints of heavy cream) are used
to store lemon juice. I drink a lot of tea and take it with lemon juice
so 8 oz may only last me a couple of days. Smaller bottles would be
too numerous (I'd have to take one or two out of the freezer each day!)
and larger ones suffer from the spoilage problem.

Lastly, we save "Motts" applesauce (plastic) jars (the 3lb size) for
use holding orange juice (we're still drinking OJ from last winter).

The smaller containers rinse out well (lemon and lime tend to have minimal
pulp) so they get reused. The applesauce containers are difficult to
clean (OJ pulp) due to their funky shape. So, they just see that *one*
"extra use" (after being emptied of applesauce) before being discarded.

In each of these cases, if we had to *purchase* suitable containers,
we would probably have to do so *each* year (due to the OJ cleaning
issue). And, there's no guarantee that we'd be able to find those
"great containers we got last year" again, *this* year! It hardly
makes sense to juice our own oranges, in that case!


We kind of do similar things with manufactured containers, but mostly we
save them for family dinners so we can send left overs home with the
kids and not worry about getting the "bought" containers back.

--
Maggie

On 8/18/2015 4:35 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 2:12 PM, Muggles 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.

If I was going to spend that sort of time making/waiting for a chunk
of meet, I'd rather roast a pork shoulder and live off pulled pork
sandwiches for the next week or so! :

If I were going to have pulled bbq, we'd smoke it all day and then end
up giving much of it away to the kids because that wouldn't been the
reason to cook a big piece of meat, anyway.

As I'm not fond of "wasting time" on eating (and, by extension, *cooking*),
I make things in large batches, freeze it and live off the "leftovers"
(even though they technically aren't left OVER!).

E.g., I make 16q of marinara sauce at a time; 8 pounds of meatloaf
(slice and individually wrap each slice prior to freezing); a large
pork shoulder (shred/pull and put in small "single serving" bags);
etc.

In this way, I can pull something from the freezer, toss it in the
microwave and be eating a "meal" three or four minutes later.

I USED to do stuff like that when the kids were still at home, but I
just don't eat that much. My husband will cook his lunch meals ahead of
time and freeze them.

The other exception is ice cream. I still eat it quickly; but, I
go back for *fifths* so it seems like I'm eating it for longer! :

[I'll make some butter pecan gelato tomorrow]

I've made ice cream 5 times in the last few weeks. Tried different
recipes, which was fun. Haven't made any in the last 10 days, though.

I am "strongly discouraged" from making ice cream. SWMBO shouldn't
be eating it -- yet has a hard time resisting! Ditto for the cheesecake.
The notable exception, there, is you can't "sneak" a piece of cheesecake
without it being noticed (by whomever the cheesecake is destined). So,
that tends to discourage "cheating".

The same argument holds for coffee cake.

OTOH, you can eat a good portion of a batch of ice cream and no one
is the wiser! "That's all he made!" Likewise, brownies, cookies, etc.
can disappear in large numbers without anyone being the wiser! :

I've been working towards making a healthier version of ice cream, and
so far, so good (and yummy, too!).

--
Maggie

On 8/18/2015 3:04 PM, Muggles wrote:

In each of these cases, if we had to *purchase* suitable containers,
we would probably have to do so *each* year (due to the OJ cleaning
issue). And, there's no guarantee that we'd be able to find those
"great containers we got last year" again, *this* year! It hardly
makes sense to juice our own oranges, in that case!

We kind of do similar things with manufactured containers, but mostly we
save them for family dinners so we can send left overs home with the
kids and not worry about getting the "bought" containers back.

Yup. "Things grow legs" when you aren't watching carefully!

One of the baking dishes that I use for the cheesecake is no longer
manufactured. So, a cheesecake never leaves the house *in* that
dish -- regardless of the assurances I might get regarding "getting it
back".

Instead, I get a piece of cardboard the size of the cheesecake
and cover it entirely in foil. Then, carefully remove the cheesecake from
the baking dish (usually in 6 super-sized chunks) and rearrange them
on the foil as if they were still in the dish. Then, slide the
entire thing into a "shirt box" which I then wrap with saran wrap and
foil. (the box is low profile -- just tall enough to ensure the
cheesecake doesn't touch the underside of the box -- and allows the
saran/foil wrapping to stay clear of the actual top of the cheesecake!)

That way, I don't care what happens to the "foil/cardboard serving tray"
or the box it was packed in!

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 2:51:34 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
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.

I think you're a ****ing idiot. Large numbers have nothing to do
with it.



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.


Who said they *exactly* cancel out? Another BS strawman.


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


The source of your data, the census bureau, doesn't say that it's
a minor estimation detail. It says that the data is estimated.
And it says that year to year comparison should be made with
caution. Exactly why, they don't say and there may be more reasons
than just estimation. They would know the reasons, we don't.
But here you are, using those numbers for year to year comparison
while saying paradox, paradox, over and over.


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


Do you realize that no one said that everyone using a cell phone
is having a wreck? It's a tiny percentage. Do you have a problem
understanding small percentages? And it could be
offset by other factors, eg rhe drastic reduction in drunk driving
in the same period. How many more times do we have to go over that?
Yet, here you are, droning on, claiming there is some profound paradox
when there are possible explanations. The researchers who looked at
cell phone usage and distracted driving likely accounted for other
effects when they did their research or they would be laughed out of
town by their peers.


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.


Go **** yourself, OK?

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 3:10:50 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
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?


Did you see it? You're the one claiming that accident rates haven't
gone up. Good grief.



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?

You continue to lie and claim that the issue is only estimation errors.
The census bureau, who's numbers you used, said to use the numbers for
year to year comparison with caution. We don't know all the reasons why.
But here you are, using them, while squawking PARADOX, PARADOX

On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 3:12:22 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
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.

I never said nor assumed that the decline in drunk driving exactly
cancels out the increase in accidents from cell phone usage.



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.

Then why don't you just STFU or go find the research papers, the
academic work on cell phones and accidents and find out how they
did the studies.

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

On 18/08/2015 01:17, krw wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:39:11 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 16/08/2015 19:03, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:


Where are the accidents?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

There have even been a few high profile fatalities with drivers jailed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20941408
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8203120.stm

It isn't uncommon to see muppets on the phone weaving between lanes.

BTW they can test these sort of driver performance figures in a
simulator without putting other drivers at risk.


I've seen many people on their cell phones still using their hands to
hold the phone, which, in this digital age, I wonder why they don't go
blue tooth and hands free.

They are too stupid or too mean to buy the necessary kit or more likely
learn to use it since many car radios come with bluetooth these days.

If it worked, it would be really nice but mine disable all of the
other smart phone features (e.g. navi) when paired, so I don't pair
them to the radios.

Because I don't want to go around all day with something stuck in my
ear.

There are two sorts of bluetooth device the earpiece ones you see in
supermarkets and on the move as pedestrians and the ones built into the
car where typically the car also provides an aerial boost as well.

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.

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.

Yep. Bad plan all around. The commercials asking what you do when
watching a football game and the phone rings (you can't do both) are
right on.

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

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

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

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

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

Per Don Y:
I did some volunteer work with a guy like that. We were digging through
a large box of donated items (to sort out what would be salvageable vs.
trash). He kept "implying" that I should stop talking (I was asking him
questions about what sorts of items he was looking for -- so I could
be of some help). Finally he said, "No, really, you have to stop talking!
I can't concentrate on what I'm looking for if I have to listen to you
(or anyone else)".

It was scary! What does he do when he's driving with a passenger?

I tell passengers, as politely as I can, that I'm one of those people
who has trouble listening and driving at the same time.

OTOH, I listen to podcasts about 97% of the time I am driving with no
apparent ill effects.... go figure...
--
Pete Cresswell

On 8/18/2015 2:39 PM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 8/18/2015 3:51 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 7:39 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

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.

The key word there is *focus*.

Note that you can be in a crowded room, engaged in a conversation and
still manage to "pick out" a conversation of interest "in the background",
amidst all the other noise and conversations. I.e., something in your head
is "monitoring", looking for triggers of interest.

There are also short-term memory issues in play. Your mind can only hold
onto a relatively small number of "ideas" at any given time. An exercise
we used to do when younger was to listen to long numeric strings read to
us. Then, engage in conversation for a while. Finally, be quizzed to
recall a *specific* string ("the one that begins with '3'").

The strings don't get a chance to be committed to your long term
memory (like your home phone number, SSN, etc.). And, the other
topics of discussion compete for the few spots in that short term
memory. Inevitably, the numeric strings get crowded out -- because
they were "least recently referenced"

If you are bouncing back and forth between tasks, all of the stuff in your
short term memory becomes vulnerable; it's not had a chance to be
committed to long term memory so you risk losing it -- details of the
previous task, etc.

E.g., you can pick up a home repair project some WEEKS after having
been called away from it. But, there is a considerable effort
required to sort out (i.e., RECALL!) what you were doing, before
you were interrupted. The major issues had previously been committed
to long term memory and could be "refreshed" with an examination of
the MESS before you.

Multitasking calls for far more frequent "attention switches"; you
don't have the luxury of spending a bit of time trying to recall
what you were previously doing (because you'll soon be expected to move
on to the *next* task!).

Notice how many email/sms replies you receive that don't properly
address the questions you posed in the *preceding* message. As if
the respondent just threw a quick/inexpensive (not well thought out)
answer to ONE of your comments and failed to perceive the others.

You, in turn, repeat those unaddressed issues and, over the course
of several exchanges, manage to get an ALMOST complete reply. And,
find it unsatisfying, to boot!

I simply do not believe, nor have I seen any real evidence, that people can
actually multitask. I've seen people switch quickly between 2 things, but
that's not multitasking.

It's a question of degrees -- as I was trying to suggest elsewhere this
thread.

We *all* are capable of starting something, NOT finishing it, then
returning to it at a later date. E.g., pull the sink out of the
bathroom, discover you need some compression fittings, drive off to
the store, purchase them, then return home and RESUME the sink repair.

You switched from one task (the sink) to another (driving to store)
to yet another (buying the items in the store) and back, again.

In each case, you had to make a note of what you were doing at the
time ("remember" where you are in a particular task) so you could
later RECALL what you were doing in order to resume it.

Multitasking is the same phenomenon -- but on a much finer time scale.

How well you can manage it is largely a result of how *small* that
interval devoted to any particular task can get before things
fall apart. This, in turn, is a function of how efficiently you
can do that "remember"/"recall" (save/restore) operation. If it
takes you a long time to get back on track, then you are a poor
multitasker : If you forget lots of detail (and end up having
to do things over again *or* omit entire portions of a task), then
you are a poor multitasker!

In software (where multitasking is common), you can actually point to
these costs and put a number on just how much "overhead" is involved;
how *efficiently* your PROGRAM can multitask.

In either case, some amount of time is spent "making progress"
on your "tasks". And, some amount of time is WASTED juggling
them. The goal is to get the waste down (as a percentage of total
time/effort) AND to get the rate/speed at which you can switch between
tasks *up*.

In software, the cost for the switch is essentially constant. So,
if you switch twice as often, you spend twice as much time *in*
the switching -- you are twice as INefficient!

I have a photographic memory for numbers, even long numeric strings. While I
see no practical use for that in my daily life, it's an interesting thing.

Personally, I prefer to do something and finish it if that's possible. I just
work better that way. It probably has to do with what I did during most of my
working life, which involved the big picture and a lot of smaller details. But
it all had a beginning, a middle and an end.

Most of my projects (software) are designed with multitasking in mind.
It acknowledges the fact that there are times when a program (task)
has to WAIT for something that it needs. E.g., wait for the user
to type the next key on the keyboard. So, rather than spend time
twiddling thumbs "waiting", SWITCH to some other task (program) that
doesn't NEED to wait (perhaps it is sending a file to your printer
and can now push another page out to the printer).

This is what we do as humans, day-to-day -- when we are waiting for
something, we try to switch our attention to something ELSE that we
can make some progress.

If, OTOH, you spend all your time *switching*, then you're getting
LESS work done!

On 8/18/2015 5:42 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly"
community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once*
in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many
crazy drivers!

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

When I was younger (back when the dinosaurs ruled Urth), I used to
regularly make a 25 mi ride to school, in traffic. Never had any problems
(but, then again, my body could do more things than it can, now!).
But, even the highways that I rode on were just 2 or 4 lanes. And
that's passing through 4 or 5 towns!

Here, the roads in *town* are 4 and 6 lanes. And the drivers tend to
all think their urgency is the utmost! Heaven forbid they leave
home 3 minutes sooner so they wouldn't have to try to make up
that *3* minutes on the road!

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

Most places, here, require you to drive *on* the road. No sidewalks
to exploit (driving on sidewalks is illegal -- even if they existed).

When I walk up to the local library, the first ~1/2 mile I can cheat and
cut through the wash -- no traffic. But, thereafter, I walk along
the side of a 4 lane, 50MPH road (not "highway"). No sidewalks. So,
I walk *well* up on the grass, facing traffic. And, still must remain
vigilant that someone doesn't drift off the road and run me over
(it's not uncommon -- a young woman was run over while walking he
child in a stroller... a young kid busy changing radio stations
instead of watching the road)

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

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

groan I'm not into spandex! :

On 8/18/2015 2:42 PM, SeaNymph wrote:

Imagine that behavior in a public library!

[When did the "Ssssh!" go out of libraries??]

I've seen it and it's just as annoying. Sometimes I'm worried that an entire
generation is being raised that demands instant gratification and thinks
nothing of how what they're doing affects others.

Actually, it's not the "youngsters" (college and teens) but, rather, the
generation *before* (late 20's to 30ish) that are the biggest offenders.
I would have thought that library's were still "quiet" when they were
growing up (?) so can't understand why they feel like they can
"hold court" in the middle of the reading area -- while their kids run
around unattended!

The same seems true of the folks who race through the neighborhood;
not the youngsters but, rather, the soccer moms/dads that can't
adequately manage their time/schedules and, as a result, are always
"late" (and trying to make up lost time by driving 10 or 20 MPH
above the speed limit -- for the THREE BLOCKS between here and the
stop sign!

shrug But, the "next generation" is always The Pits, eh? :

On 8/18/2015 8:53 AM, Muggles wrote:

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.

Folks know me by name at our places! (I do a lot of work around the house)

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.

Hmmm... I was thinking more along the lines of these shelves:
http://www.kingdametal.com/upload/wire-rack-storage.jpg
The uprights have grooves/rings in them and there is a cylindrical
fitting that grabs these rings to support each shelf. See the
inset in:
http://www.westernsafety.com/products/eagleMHC/eaglepg6-shoerack.jpg
the black band is the cylindrical plastic fitting; the grooves in the
uprights should be barely visible.

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.

I never "give up" -- I just shelve a project until the right idea or
parts become available.

E.g., I am presently looking for a (very) large lens to make a HAL9000
"terminal":
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/01/hal-9000-replica.jpg
I will use this in place of my front doorbell!

On 8/18/2015 3:07 PM, Muggles wrote:

OTOH, you can eat a good portion of a batch of ice cream and no one
is the wiser! "That's all he made!" Likewise, brownies, cookies, etc.
can disappear in large numbers without anyone being the wiser! :

I've been working towards making a healthier version of ice cream, and
so far, so good (and yummy, too!).

I think ice cream *needs* to be decadent. E.g., my butter pecan
has 1/4 pound of *butter* in it!

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:26:44 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

Well, maybe a few:
http://undistracteddrivingadvocacy.net/linked/f2_fatalities.png
Kinda looks like there's a connection between the number of texts and
the number of fatalities resulting from distracted driving. However,
I couldn't find the source of the chart or the data, so I'm very
suspicious.

I found the source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951952/
"Our results suggested that recent and rapid increases in
texting volumes have resulted in thousands of additional
road fatalities yearly in the United States."

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

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

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in news:fcg4tal14g1uelemp0krembp1emed8glo0@
4ax.com:

Per SeaNymph:
Haven't you ever driven behind someone talking on the phone who
cannot drive a constant speed?

Or even stay in the lane?

Drunks aside, the worst inability to stay in the lane that I ever saw was a driver who was picking
his nose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

On 8/17/2015 12:11 AM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:51:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

I agree with you, however, have you ever seen anyone playing a musical
instrument while driving?I never have.

Listening to music though, is far different that talking on the phone.
The brain can easily tune out the radio since it is a passive activity.
The phone requires your active participation and concentration. It
has been proven many times.

So using a cell phone should be much more dangerous AND result in a
SIGNIFICANT increase in accidents over the past 20 years as the use of
cell phones has exploded. Yet there isn't the slightest evidence of
that in the accident data.

This is the conundrum.

If cellphones are as dangerous as we think they are, then the accidents
*must* be going up.

But they're not.

So, something is wrong in our logic.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, show them.



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

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


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

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 02:32:17 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in news:fcg4tal14g1uelemp0krembp1emed8glo0@
4ax.com:

Per SeaNymph:
Haven't you ever driven behind someone talking on the phone who
cannot drive a constant speed?

Or even stay in the lane?

Drunks aside, the worst inability to stay in the lane that I ever saw was a driver who was picking
his nose.

Were you driving at the time?

On 08/18/2015 12:07 PM, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:19:05 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cell Phone Use
Monteressi. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc.

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

2) The hysteria of cell phone use is unwarranted. Whatever level of
distraction and accidents result is very little different, in the
totality of actual distractions for all causes, then things were
before cell phones.

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

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

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

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

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:48:16 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 16/08/2015 19:03, 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?

I don't know where in the world you are but in the UK there are a fair
number of accidents where at the moment of the collision the driver was
found to be on their mobile phone or still worse texting!

And in what percent of accidents were the drivers holding the steering
wheel? If we could only take those steering wheels out of cars the
accident rates would plummet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

The Fermi Paradox is essentially a situation where we "assume" something
that "seems obvious"; but, if that assumption is true, then something else
"should" be happening. But it's not.

Hence, the paradox.

Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox.

Where are all the accidents?

Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries
1/3


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

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

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

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



On track to be the worst year since 2007, when fatalities were 45,000, I
think she said. If not that, then 40, 000.

So traffic deaths are up in general because they were down to 35,000 for
quite a few years.

Reason given is low gas prices and more diiving, but you know you're not
getting a complete analysis from top-of-the-hour news. And it still
ruins your prmeise that accidents are not up.



They don't seem to exist.
At least not in the United States.
Not by the federal government's own accident figures.

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

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s1103.pdf

3. Motor Vehicle Crash Deaths in Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2009
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6128a2.htm

If you have more complete government tables for "accidents" (not deaths,
but "ACCIDENTS"), please post them since the accidents don't seem to exist
but, if cellphone distracted driving is hazardous (which I would think it
is), then they must be there, somewhere, hidden in the data.

Such is the cellphone paradox.

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

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