Driver to drive?

[David Brown]

On 18/08/15 21:00, ceg wrote:

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?

I am afraid my reference is merely "I read the report in a reasonably
reputable science magazine many years ago". I would like to be able to
give you something better here, but that's it.

The study was done with test subjects on driving simulators which gave
sudden emergency situations - something like a virtual kid running out
from behind a virtual ice-cream van and counting how many people hit the
kid. They got people to come in with their families, who were told to
fight in the back of the simulator. They woke up volunteers at 3 in the
morning to test driving skills while tired, and so on.

I believe the "winner" of the worst distraction while driving was eating
a packet of crisps.

Another point of interest was that drunk driving was not a problem for
Australian farmers - they were so used to driving long distances back
from the nearest pub that they could do it safely. It's the person who
drives drunk /once/ that is most dangerous.


I also read a report (with a similar reference) that had found that the
average overtaking on roads in the UK led to a seven second reduction in
journey time. So while it might make sense to overtake a tractor or
something, before you overtake that lorry or caravan you should think
"what I am going to do with these extra 7 seconds that makes this worth
the risk?".

 

[Stormin Mormon]

On 8/19/2015 12:18 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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.

Some years ago, there was a fellow whose steering
shaft broke. The steering wheel and the steering
gear box were not connected to each other. But the
rest of the car was in good shape. The mechanic
thoughtrfully said he could weld a piece of metal
to the shaft, and the guy could steer with his
knees, pushing the piece of metal left and right,
to rotate the steering shaft. It would take some
getting used to, but it would work. The customer
said fine, and just leave the existing steering
wheel in place.

The driver and owner of the car had a lot of fun
with that. he'd offer someone a ride. He would
pretend to be sleepy, or drunk. Steering with his
knees (hands on the wheel) he'd have a couple near
miss, off parked cars, or off another moving vehicle.

Eventually the pasenger would ask if he was OK.

The drriver owner would then reply, no, I'm really
in no condition to drive. You take the wheel!

(and would then pull the steering wheel off, and
hand it to the passenger.)

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

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-08-19, Ashton Crusher <demi@moore.net> wrote:

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.

yeah, that's what google inc. says.

--
\_(ツ)_

 

[rickman]

On 8/16/2015 2:03 PM, ceg wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

You have to realize what you just intimated.

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

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

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

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

But we don't.

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

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

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

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

The fact that accidents overall are going down is irrelevant.

--

Rick

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/19/2015 07:33 PM, rickman wrote:

On 8/16/2015 2:03 PM, ceg wrote:

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

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

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

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

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

The fact that accidents overall are going down is irrelevant.

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

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:45:12 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayoung61@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 8/19/2015 12:18 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.


Some years ago, there was a fellow whose steering
shaft broke. The steering wheel and the steering
gear box were not connected to each other. But the
rest of the car was in good shape. The mechanic
thoughtrfully said he could weld a piece of metal
to the shaft, and the guy could steer with his
knees, pushing the piece of metal left and right,
to rotate the steering shaft. It would take some
getting used to, but it would work. The customer
said fine, and just leave the existing steering
wheel in place.

The driver and owner of the car had a lot of fun
with that. he'd offer someone a ride. He would
pretend to be sleepy, or drunk. Steering with his
knees (hands on the wheel) he'd have a couple near
miss, off parked cars, or off another moving vehicle.

Eventually the pasenger would ask if he was OK.

The drriver owner would then reply, no, I'm really
in no condition to drive. You take the wheel!

(and would then pull the steering wheel off, and
hand it to the passenger.)

Are you sure you're not channeling the episode of Andy Griffith where
Barney buys a car???

 

[Stormin Mormon]

On 8/19/2015 10:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:45:12 -0400, Stormin Mormon
cayoung61@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 8/19/2015 12:18 AM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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.


Some years ago, there was a fellow whose steering
shaft broke. The steering wheel and the steering
gear box were not connected to each other. But the
rest of the car was in good shape. The mechanic
thoughtrfully said he could weld a piece of metal
to the shaft, and the guy could steer with his
knees, pushing the piece of metal left and right,
to rotate the steering shaft. It would take some
getting used to, but it would work. The customer
said fine, and just leave the existing steering
wheel in place.

The driver and owner of the car had a lot of fun
with that. he'd offer someone a ride. He would
pretend to be sleepy, or drunk. Steering with his
knees (hands on the wheel) he'd have a couple near
miss, off parked cars, or off another moving vehicle.

Eventually the pasenger would ask if he was OK.

The drriver owner would then reply, no, I'm really
in no condition to drive. You take the wheel!

(and would then pull the steering wheel off, and
hand it to the passenger.)

Are you sure you're not channeling the episode of Andy Griffith where
Barney buys a car???

You're being obtuse, Ashton! Obtuse!
Barney Fyfe

And, she seemed like such a sweet old lady.

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

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/19/2015 11:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

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

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

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

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

 

[Scott Dorsey]

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:

On 8/19/2015 11:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

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

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


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

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

This is the 21st century. Cars have ABS today, they don't leave skid marks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[krw]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 22:33:04 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/16/2015 2:03 PM, ceg wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:16:39 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

You have to realize what you just intimated.

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

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

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

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

But we don't.

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

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

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

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

The fact that accidents overall are going down is irrelevant.

I just heard that accidents have started going up, again. I don't
know if this is an anomaly, though. If so, it could point a nasty
finger at cell phone use.

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/20/2015 11:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

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

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

Partly right. "Some" cars have ABS, but millions of older ones still
don't. I still see skid marks on the road from older cars.

Better than marks on the road is the black box that many cars have.
'They can tell if brakes were applied.

 

[rickman]

On 8/19/2015 11:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 08/19/2015 07:33 PM, rickman wrote:
On 8/16/2015 2:03 PM, ceg wrote:

Hence the paradox.
Where are the accidents?

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

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

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

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

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

The fact that accidents overall are going down is irrelevant.

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 8/20/2015 11:42 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:
On 8/19/2015 11:10 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

--

Rick

 

On Saturday, 5 September 2015 21:28:49 UTC+1, DaveC wrote:

Help with identifying a TO-92 transistor?(at least I think it's a
transistor...)

Pretty vanilla-looking with National Semi logo. Marked:

NS 444
ST
13903

(The "NS" is the logo.)

Not enough 4's to make up a standard 2N number, and 13903 looks like a date
code?

Ideas?

Thanks,

Why does it matter? It normally doesn't.


NT

 

在 1999年12月15日星期三 UTC+8下午4:00:00，CRAIG M BEIFERMAN写道：

I am trying to build a small robot
from a 6 volt supply. It will basically be a small circuit board
with two motors and a battery

I need three things
1.) A cheap supplier of small DC geared motors.

2.) Full-H bridge to drive one of these small
DC geared motors (from the +6 volt supply).

3.) What the cheapest encoder,
the HP encoder is way too expensive.

The most I can pay for the
geared motor, encoder and H-bridge
is about $8

Thanks,
Craig Beiferman

Sell:
China Shenzhen ZHAOWEI Machinery & Electronics Co. Ltd engages in designing, manufacturing and marketing all kinds of electric motors. They are mainly suitable for the following applications: smart home application used in smart kitchen and laundry, medical instrument for personal care, smart E-transmission applied in automobile, industry automation applied in telecommunication and a great variety of plastic/metal planetary gearbox in different sizes.
In order to develop the oversea market, we are current seeking new partners around the world to create a bright future together. ZhaoWei is a right choice and excellent partnership with sincere services.

Company: Shenzhen ZHAOWEI Machinery & Electronics Co., Ltd
URL: http://www.zwgearbox.com/
Contact: Anny Liu
Tel：+86-755-27322652
Fax：+86-755-27323949
E-mail:sales@zwgearbox.com
Add: Blk. 18, Longwangmiao Industry Park, Fuyong Tn., Bao’an Dist., Shenzhen 518103, Guangdong, China

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 14:18:56 -0700, DaveC <not@home.cow> Gave us:

Help with identifying a TO-92 transistor?

A photo:

http://i.imgur.com/z78xG5D.jpg

Put one of these in its place...

http://www.edn.com/design/test-and-measurement/4437360/How-to-measure-the-world-s-fastest-power-switch

Just kidding, but hey... check out the report anyway...

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 6 September 2015 14:40:22 UTC+10, DaveC wrote:

How's it measure?

(Or if it's dead, is there another one probably working that you can test?)

Tim

Dead. Other with identical markings measure as NPN. What else to determine
from measurements?

Current gain. If it isn't high - in the several hundreds - it might be something interesting.

Gain-bandwidth product. If it were high - 5GHz or better - and I don't recall Nat. Semi. ever doing anything that interesting - it could mean a thin base and a 2V base-emitter breakdown voltage.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 9:40:22 PM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:

How's it measure?

(Or if it's dead, is there another one probably working that you can test?)

Dead. Other with identical markings measure as NPN. What else to determine
from measurements?

Well, if you want to get fancy... the most common such transistors
were PN2222 and 2N3904. National's databook says the PN2222 was
"process 10" with die dimensions 0.508 mm by 0.503mm
and 2N3904 was "process 23" with die dimensions 0.457 mm square.

So, if you remove the case material from a dead 'un, like with boiling
sulfuric acid or a kiln, you could do a visual die inspection.
The old "Discrete Semiconductor Products" databook gives
metallization details, too, so you can look for the emitter and base
metallizations to match the geometric drawings...

 

[Phil Allison]

piglet wrote:

DaveC wrote:

I can say that the bandwidth requirement of the circuit is very small--DC-10
KHz--and low current. Don't know about gain.


You could try a 2N3904 or other jelly bean type and see if the thing
then works?

** Save time and go for an MPSA93 instead.

200V, 0.5A, 625mW, 50MHz and typical Hfe of 120.

Covers a lot of bases....


..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Phil Allison wrote:

** Opps...


Save time and go for an * MPSA43 * instead.

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1747986.pdf



..... Phil