The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[ceg]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

> So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.

In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having
researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts
in the bay area).

I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty
pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say
is pure hogwash.

And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things,
both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.

As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on
bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves
and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes,
I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people
say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a
drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant
and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of
tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even
better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't
go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.

There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's
a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some
haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse,
since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't
understand the science involved.

I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach
things.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Ashton Crusher:

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

No doubt it is when you are new to the job.

Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.
--
Pete Cresswell

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/18/2015 11:01 PM, ceg wrote:

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.

YW

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/19/2015 8:06 AM, ceg wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

It didn't take much work.

It will take me a while to go through the links before I
can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where
the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/19/2015 1:15 AM, ceg wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:23:31 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

Unfortunately, you can't hike off trail in these mountains without running
into poison oak by the hundreds of yards. It's just part of nature.

Maybe that's why I don't run into anyone texting-while-hiking out here?

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

--
Maggie

 

[Muggles]

On 8/19/2015 10:58 AM, ceg wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.

In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having
researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts
in the bay area).

I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty
pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say
is pure hogwash.

And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things,
both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.

As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on
bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves
and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes,
I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people
say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a
drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant
and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of
tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even
better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't
go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.

There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's
a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some
haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse,
since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't
understand the science involved.

I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach
things.

I like your approach to things. If it were me I'd try to research all I
could via google, but would probably be frustrated that everything I
read really didn't work and I'd still end up getting the rash. You have
a really practical approach, which I do appreciate.

--
Maggie

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:56:56 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).

Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.

Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your
"scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which
is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth
arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).

Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem
at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your
intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell
everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident
rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous:
"Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers
handheld cell phone use"

This one also may apply to the problem at hand:
"Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"

This one should be directly related, if it contains good data:
"Association between cellular telephone calls and motor
vehicle collisions"

Likewise with this one:
"Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"

Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not):
"The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"

And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year,
this one may contain related data:
"2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"

Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct
information about the paradox. That you don't see that,
and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the
list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you
are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing
anything that affects people's lives.

I went thru this a few years ago with the Daytime Driving Light
fanatics. I collected all the research reports (where I was working
at the time had a research section that could get them all for me) and
went thru them all. What I found was that what you might think from
both the title and the Summaries was almost never what the data
showed. And the bottom line was that most of the studies were so
poorly done as to be worthless. They were clearly commissioned merely
to "prove" the desired political end. There were a few good ones that
had actually established CONTROLS so they could properly compare
before and after accidents. And the result was that 80% of those
studies concluded that the data did not rise to the level of
statistically sound usefulness to conclude anything. The remaining
studies showed some types of accidents increased and some types of
accidents decreased and that the net result of DRLs was at best a
wash. They were neither useful nor harmful based on accident rates
although they were clearly, based on complaints, highly irritating to
a great many drivers since they shined the cars high beams into
oncoming traffic in the daytime. They also increased the incidence of
motorcycles being hit by cars as I recall. I thin the number of
pedestrians hit went down.

In any case, what you say it true, you can't tell anything by the
titles and in my experience you can't tell anything by the research
either about 80% of the time. It would not surprise me if less then
fifty people in the world actually read the entirety of many of these
studies although millions may read some liberal arts major's newspaper
story based on them having read the (misleading) summary of the
report.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:18:45 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

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

No doubt it is when you are new to the job.

Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.

So he never really learned to handle it as second nature?

One thought that occurs to me in this discussion is that many people
simply refuse to believe a person can manage to use a phone and still
safely drive. Yet pilots do essentially that all the time. I used to
fly small planes and entering the pattern, flying it, and landing a
small plane at a big airport, esp with crosswinds, can be a bit of a
challenge to make sure you don't screw up something. The part that
comes into this discussion is that during that process you have to
ready the whole time to respond to air traffic control, both to
understand and follow their instructions and to talk to them on the
radio, you can't just ignore them cuz "I'm busy with the flaps". They
need to know you heard them so then can then talk to the guy following
you. Pilots do this all the time because they LEARN to do it. There
is no reason to treat drivers like children as if they can't be taught
to use cell phones safety but instead you have to ban their use.

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/19/2015 07:03 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:18:45 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid
wrote:

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

No doubt it is when you are new to the job.

Middle-aged cop... definitely not new on the job.

So he never really learned to handle it as second nature?

One thought that occurs to me in this discussion is that many people
simply refuse to believe a person can manage to use a phone and still
safely drive. Yet pilots do essentially that all the time. I used to
fly small planes and entering the pattern, flying it, and landing a
small plane at a big airport, esp with crosswinds, can be a bit of a
challenge to make sure you don't screw up something. The part that
comes into this discussion is that during that process you have to
ready the whole time to respond to air traffic control, both to
understand and follow their instructions and to talk to them on the
radio, you can't just ignore them cuz "I'm busy with the flaps". They
need to know you heard them so then can then talk to the guy following
you. Pilots do this all the time because they LEARN to do it. There
is no reason to treat drivers like children as if they can't be taught
to use cell phones safety but instead you have to ban their use.

I would guess that pilots have to be of above average intelligence in
order to get a pilot's license. It seems obvious by inspection that
half the drivers are subnormal and those are the ones who can't deal
with driving and phoning simultaneously.

It wasn't a pilot who ran the red light BEHIND me as I was LEGALLY
crossing in a crosswalk on the green light. If I'd been two seconds
slower I would have been roadkill. I couldn't actually see that the
driver was a woman babbling on her phone, but I'd be willing to be money
on it -- she clearly couldn't see that everybody else was stopped either.

My daughter can handle it and does all the time because she's a tour
director and is on the phone constantly solving problems; I rarely use
the phone and recognize that I'm unable to safely talk and drive at the
same time.

--
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?

 

[Robert Green]

"ceg" <curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mr2881

<stuff snipped>

Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumbshits who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

Those are two traits I would NOT ascribe to Trader4. Impatient with people
he disagrees with, yes. (-:

Here I think he's right, though, because it seems you're assuming some
direct correlation of every new cellphone going into the hands of a driver
that's never had one before. That's a pretty fatal logic flaw because it's
an assumption easily disproved by researching who owns cell phones, how
many, how old the users are, whether this is a first cellphone ever or a
replacement, etc.

I see enough pre-teens with cellphones to know yours is a faulty main
premise. I know enough people with multiple cell phones to dispute the
notion that there's anything remotely like a one-to-one correspondence of
each new cellphone going straight into the hands of a driver who's never had
one before.

It's easily demonstrated with vectors, alas Usenet's still in the ASCII
graphics world. You have a number of factors working to bring down the
accident rate. Graduated licensing for young adults, key-interlocks for
drunk drivers, better driver's ed, cars with accident avoidance technology,
pressure from the authorities and even peer pressure. Every time I pass by
a texting driver I honk the horn and wag my finger at them. One day I will
probably scare one into a ditch because they always look at me with the
"where am I?" look of total distraction. I often tell people I drive with
to put the cellphone away when they are tempted to make a call that doesn't
qualify as urgent. Do I get yack-back from them? Sure.

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

Then there are some great PSA's on TV showing texting teens getting atomized
by tractor-trailers or sailing off overpasses that *might* be having some
effect.

But anything near a one-to-one correlation of cellphone owners and drivers
can't possibly be true or supported by any statistics I've reviewed.

http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/mobile/cell-phone-and-smartphone-ownership-demographics/

Tells us the market's saturated with 90% of American adults people reporting
ownership of a cellphone. So all these new phone are not getting into the
hands of *new* drivers.

http://kff.org/disparities-policy/press-release/daily-media-use-among-children-and-
teens-up-dramatically-from-five-years-ago/

<<Over the past five years, there has been a huge increase in ownership
among 8- to 18-year-olds: from 39% to 66% for cell phones,>>

That suggests that a lot of the new phones *aren't* going to anyone driving
a car. At least not yet.

--
Bobby G.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per The Real Bev:

I would guess that pilots have to be of above average intelligence in
order to get a pilot's license.

Bad guess: I got a pilot's license.... and quit once it dawned on me
that my own incompetence could now kill me.
--
Pete Cresswell

 

[legg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:29:02 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
<sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:

"ceg" wrote in message news:mqp9gf$92t$2@news.mixmin.net...
snip

Where are all the accidents?

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

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

The information you are searching for is in the simple 'distracted
driving' summary, in the census link you've posted.

RL

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/21/2015 8:58 AM, legg wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:29:02 +0100, "Gareth Magennis"
sound.service@btconnect.com> wrote:



"ceg" wrote in message news:mqp9gf$92t$2@news.mixmin.net...
snip

Where are all the accidents?

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

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html


The information you are searching for is in the simple 'distracted
driving' summary, in the census link you've posted.

RL

Looks like traveling at 45 mph is a real danger.

Some more information I saw today
https://www.yahoo.com/autos/traffic-deaths-on-the-rise-whats-really-to-127169729382.html

The National Safety Council reported this week that traffic deaths and
serious injuries in the U.S. are on a pace to rise for the first time in
nearly a decade. If the trend for the first six months of this year
continues, the NSC says traffic fatalities in the nation will exceed
40,000 for the first time since 2007 and deaths per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled also will increase.

This despite evermore crashworthy cars and high-tech electronic safety
features.

The “speed kills” coalition will blame the trend reversal on many
states’ recent moves to higher highway speed limits, but the real
culprits, suggests NSC president Deborah Hershman to the Associated
Press, are low fuel prices and – get ready for it – cellphone mania.

To be sure, Hershman says, Americans are on the road more than ever;
miles driven in the U.S. increased for 15 consecutive months through May
and set an all-time record for travel in the first five months of the
year at 1.26 trillion miles, a record that stood since 2007. But, the
3.4% increase in miles traveled doesn’t square with the 14% jump in
fatalities for the first half of this year.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has a prominent page on its
website that says “states continue to raise speed limits despite clear
evidence that doing so leads to more deaths” – an assertion that
considerable data and many experts have suggested is specious. Instead,
cellphone use likely has a more direct link to the new rise in traffic
fatalities and injuries. An NSC study earlier this year indicated
cellphone use is a factor in one quarter of all accidents.

 

duh.... the mental perspective leading to moving cell acess in 'dialing' or texting may be visualized as a funnel of perception thought and activity....the act conclusion need not be a cell accident but cause related inconveniences not only at that time but at all times.

Like AK 47's in every broom closet, cell phones in motion broaden the probabilities of 'inconveniences' ...

 

[Mayayana]

I haven't read *all* of these posts, so hopefully
I'm not repeating someone, but your linked report
says this:

"Covers only accidents occurring on the road. Data are estimated.
Year-to-year
comparisons should be made with caution."

Records are public. Why do they have to estimate?
Why didn't they just collect accident reports? They
don't say. As at least one person noted, drunk driving
is almost certainly down since 1990. Cars are better
made, especially brakes. An increasing number of states
ban handheld devices.

I've had two accidents in about the last 12 years.
One was a man talking on a cellphone who veered into
my lane. The other was a young man who plowed into
my pickup, which was parked on a quiet, straight street.
He was amazed he had hit me. Cellphone? Probably,
but I'm not certain. He was in the car alone in late
afternoon, so it wasn't "partying".

I've had many close calls. I can often tell when someone
in front of me is on the phone because their driving
doesn't correspond to conditions. Their speed and braking
is erratic. Cellphones have also created a problem of
very few people signaling. They simply don't have a hand
free to do it!

So how do we figure in the increased defensive driving
on the part of people who are paying attention? To a great
extent, non-phoners are doing the work for phoners. I find
driving to be more strenuous than it used to be. I have
to constantly be vigilant for lane wanderers, non-signalers
and general out-to-lunchers. Those people are all depending
on others to be paying attention.

It would be interesting to also see figures for pedestrians.
How many injuries walking into trees and cars while phoning?
Last week I was heading down into the subway as a young
woman strolled down the middle of the stairs, gabbing away,
not holding the railing. I said excuse me, then "on your left".
I was afraid she might step to the left as I passed and send
one or both of us down the stairs. She was simply *not where
she was*. Finally I raised my voice and said "wake up!". That
worked. I listened to her indignant protests fade into the
distance as I headed for the train. At least no one fell down
the stairs. (Excuse me?! How dare you! blah, blah, blah...)
And who knows, maybe she'll pay attention a bit more in the
future. But the incident highlights another disturbing trend:
People are increasingly uncomfortable simply being where
they are. Many people simply don't expect to have to relate
to the world around them. They're offended by it! It's not
only a danger and a mild form of mental illness; it's also a
growing social problem. I find people increasingly just walk into
me on sidewalks. I asked a blind friend about his experience.
Yes, more and more people are walking into him, as he walks
city streets with a guide dog!

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:32:05 -0400, "Mayayana"
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

I haven't read *all* of these posts, so hopefully
I'm not repeating someone, but your linked report
says this:

"Covers only accidents occurring on the road. Data are estimated.
Year-to-year
comparisons should be made with caution."

Records are public. Why do they have to estimate?
Why didn't they just collect accident reports? They
don't say. As at least one person noted, drunk driving
is almost certainly down since 1990. Cars are better
made, especially brakes. An increasing number of states
ban handheld devices.

I've had two accidents in about the last 12 years.
One was a man talking on a cellphone who veered into
my lane. The other was a young man who plowed into
my pickup, which was parked on a quiet, straight street.
He was amazed he had hit me. Cellphone? Probably,
but I'm not certain. He was in the car alone in late
afternoon, so it wasn't "partying".

I've had many close calls. I can often tell when someone
in front of me is on the phone because their driving
doesn't correspond to conditions. Their speed and braking
is erratic. Cellphones have also created a problem of
very few people signaling. They simply don't have a hand
free to do it!

So how do we figure in the increased defensive driving
on the part of people who are paying attention? To a great
extent, non-phoners are doing the work for phoners. I find
driving to be more strenuous than it used to be. I have
to constantly be vigilant for lane wanderers, non-signalers
and general out-to-lunchers. Those people are all depending
on others to be paying attention.

It would be interesting to also see figures for pedestrians.
How many injuries walking into trees and cars while phoning?
Last week I was heading down into the subway as a young
woman strolled down the middle of the stairs, gabbing away,
not holding the railing. I said excuse me, then "on your left".
I was afraid she might step to the left as I passed and send
one or both of us down the stairs. She was simply *not where
she was*. Finally I raised my voice and said "wake up!". That
worked. I listened to her indignant protests fade into the
distance as I headed for the train. At least no one fell down
the stairs. (Excuse me?! How dare you! blah, blah, blah...)
And who knows, maybe she'll pay attention a bit more in the
future. But the incident highlights another disturbing trend:
People are increasingly uncomfortable simply being where
they are. Many people simply don't expect to have to relate
to the world around them. They're offended by it! It's not
only a danger and a mild form of mental illness; it's also a
growing social problem. I find people increasingly just walk into
me on sidewalks. I asked a blind friend about his experience.
Yes, more and more people are walking into him, as he walks
city streets with a guide dog!

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers. Sure,
sometimes you run into idiots but that's always been true. I see
regional variations in how people drive... here in the west almost no
one gets over to the left when people are coming down an on-ramp and
will need to merge into traffic, it's every man for him/her self. Yet
back east it's very common for the thru traffic to move left whenever
there is someone coming up the on ramp.

I really think the regression to the mean applies and every time we
try to make the Driver safer they just become more dangerous in some
other fashion with the net result being the overall safety of THE
DRIVER remains more or less the same year in and year out. Yet
accident rates are lower..... I give credit for that more to highway
and street design than to the driver. We have wider shoulders, wider
lanes, more divided highways, safer guardrails, better signing, better
sight distances, better geometric design, higher friction pavement
surfaces, all things that make the roads safer but that the drivers
don't even notice.

As far as emergency lighting, in the last 10 years it's actually taken
a step backwards in my opinion. You are right that they have gone nutz
with the lighting. The reason is LEDs. Before LEDs there was a
practical limit on how many lights you could put on a car because more
then a single light bar across the top would draw so much power (in
addition to all the radios) that the battery would go dead while the
cop was stopped. When LEDs dropped in price to where cost wasn't too
big a concern (and cost is almost never a concern with PDs) they
started loading up the police and emergency vehicles with every LED
light they could find a place to bolt on. But something else happened
too. Before LEDS, when it was usually a single light bar with half a
dozen lights in it, all the lights in the bar were interconnected to a
central controller which would flash them in a fixed and designated
pattern. Researchers had even studied patterns and such looking for
the best ones. Perhaps all the lights on the right half, then all the
lights on the left half, then all the "even" lights, the all the "odd"
lights, repeat or they might sequence from right to left to encourage
you to stay left. So you saw an identifiable, and possibly even
meaningful pattern as you approached the emergency vehicle.

With the LEDs they have mostly gone to each little module being it's
own little world. Then they stick a dozen of them on teh vehicle, a
couple at teh bottom of the rear window, a couple at the top, a few on
the bumper, some on the rear view mirrors, plus they make the tail and
reverse lights flash plus they have the top light bar going. None of
those little modules are synchronized with any of the others so aside
from the lights in the top light bar it's just a bunch of randomly
flashing lights and so many of them that you can't focus on anything.
Then they add the TAKE DOWN lights which are front and rear facing
BRIGHT WHITE steady burning lights equivalent to headlight high beams.
The purpose of the take down lights is to BLIND YOU. The idea is that
you, the car either in front or behind the cop car, will have those
take down lights shining right into your eyes so that you cannot
clearly see the officer who stopped you, whereas he can see you. That
way you won't pull your gun and shoot him because you can't see to aim
at him. Lots of those cops turn them when they aren't needed which
naturally blinds oncoming and upcoming traffic depending on the angle
at which he parked his car.

 

[Ashton Crusher]

It's been less than a week and we're almost up to 500 messages. Should
I start a "left foot braking thread"???





On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

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

Hence, the paradox.

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

Where are all the accidents?

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

1. Current Census, Transportation: Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

2. Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/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.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mayayana:

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles.

The ones that bother me the most around here are the white strobes on
top of the school buses and the white strobes in some traffic lights.

Geeze Louise!!! I *see* it.... it's yellow and as big as a house... but
I need to see other things too and those damn strobe lights create some
sort of involuntary attention response in me so other stuff tends to get
missed as my attention keeps returning to the strobe.
--
Pete Cresswell

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Ashton Crusher:

Interesting points. My driving experience is that things are no
different on the road now then they ever were in the past as far as
the general competency and driving behavior of other drivers.

I probably ride a bike more than 99% of the general population - and
have been for sixty+ years.

I see obvious changes in driving behavior over the years.

The most obvious: people drive faster, signal less, run more red lights,
and more people are obviously doing other things besides driving -
mostly things that were not technologically available years past.

The red light thing has developed in the past few years since our area
went over to ludicrously-long red lights plus red-in-all-directions for
a seemingly very long time plus un-timed lights.

Most people running red lights used to be trying to slip through a stale
yellow light. Now I seem them coming in at speed and not even slowing
down.

--
Pete Cresswell

 

[The Real Bev]

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

While we're at it, I'm curious how many accidents are
caused by ridiculous flashing light overkill on emergency
vehicles. Police and firefighters just can't seem to resist
the childish thrill of adding yet another light. Police cars
used to have a blue "bubble gum machine" on top. It
worked fine. Now they have dozens of flashing lights in
every color. The problem: It's impossible to tell where an
emergency vehicle is going. Even if they use turn signals,
there's no time to figure out which lights on this high-speed,
psychedelic Christmas tree are signalling.

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

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

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

And another thing...

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