The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

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

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

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

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

 

[ceg]

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

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

This is perhaps the sixth possible answer to the enigma.

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

 

[ceg]

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

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

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

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

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

> No more so than accidents.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ceg]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Don Y]

Hi Pete,

On 8/18/2015 7:04 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Muggles]

On 8/18/2015 8:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
Maggie

 

[Muggles]

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

Hi Pete,

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Maggie

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/18/2015 06:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/18/2015 11:37 AM, Muggles wrote:

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

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

I think the distinction is between MultiTasking and TimeSlicing.

People who "multitask" are really time slicing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True that!!

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

 

[Don Y]

On 8/18/2015 6:59 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/18/2015 2:46 PM, ceg wrote:

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

http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/why-more-people-are-dying-on-the-nation-s-roads-507057219572

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/08/17/traffic-deaths-up-sharply-in-first-6-months-of-this-year
On the other hand, a growing number of states are raising speed limits,
and everywhere drivers are distracted by cellphone calls and text
messages. The council estimated in a report this spring that a quarter
of all crashes involve cellphone use. Besides fatal crashes, that
includes injury-only and property damage-only crashes.

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

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

 

[AMuzi]

On 8/18/2015 2:24 PM, ceg wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

No more so than accidents.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SeaNymph]

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-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-studies.aspx

 

[ceg]

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-Initiatives/Pages/distracted-driving-research-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 Literature: 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.

 

[ceg]

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.

 

[ceg]

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.

 

[ceg]

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

> I think you're a fucking idiot.

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:32:14 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> What would I use it for? I rately want to talk to people on the phone,

The drive to work is dead time. There's nothing *else* you can do.
You can't read the paper, for instance.
And catching up on the news only takes a few minutes of talk radio.
The traffic is better on the cellphone anyway, than from the radio.
And, your navigation needs aren't all that great on a commute.

So, what you do is "conduct business".

Many people conduct business on the phone.
So, that's what "I" do.

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'.

I almost never use the phone's keyboard to type anything, since Android
has a decent speech-to-text translator. I wish I could get Android to
*default* to speech-to-text, because I find that I have to hit a tiny
microphone at the bottom of the keyboard in order to put it into
speech-to-text mode.

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.

I don't like audio books, but I can see that it's useful for whiling away
the time while commuting.

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

I use the phone for business use. There are LOTS of people I need to talk
to because I am a program manager. I don't actually do anything; the people
I talk to do all the work. I just nag them to death on the phone.

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:23:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Then why don't you just STFU

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

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