The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[Don Y]

On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation), and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me *into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :>

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! :> ]

That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco and I
despise shopping for clothes.

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".

I always (since I started driving at 16, anyway) regarded time in the car as
'nobody can get at me' time. I still do. If I want to use the phone I'll turn
it on. If *I* want to use the phone...

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

LOL! yeah! We like to look.

--
Maggie

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:28:35 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

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

That it's not, is the paradox.

 

[ceg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, show them.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/17/2015 2:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 08/17/2015 01:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

I have two modes: the hunter-killer mode for when I need a specific
thing or
things (a black straight skirt to wear to the goodam presentation),
and the
browse mode when I'm in a store where I never know what I'll find --
99-Cents-Only, for instance. Costco is a combo -- I have a list, but
I have to
go up/down each aisle to find stuff and I generally find stuff that I
should
have put on the list.

I think most men treat shopping as a chore-to-be-avoided. Getting me
*into*
a store requires a significant effort (as does getting me out of the
HOUSE!).
OTOH, once there, I will scour my brain for every item on the "to be found"
list and check to see if THIS store happens to have any of THOSE things;
I've made the investment *getting* here, lets' make it yield some results!

OTOH, get into an old-fashioned hardware store (i.e., *not* "Ace") and
I can spend hours looking at odd little things wondering what use I
could find for them! :

When I go to Ace Hardware with my husband, I wonder around by myself
looking at things, then eventually track him down somewhere in the
hardware section looking for odd screws or bolts. I've learned a lot
just by doing both over and over and over again every time he wants to
go to Ace hardware. Now, I can find things for my own projects! HA!

[Men also seem to have an unnatural fondness for flashlights! And, give
a man a garden hose and he won't set it down until the well runs dry! :> ]

I go in the back yard and there are garden hoses connected to other
hoses going in various directions.

"What's this hose for?"
He says, "I need to water blah blah blah."
"Why can't you use the main hose for that?
He says, "I don't want to mess with dragging it all the way over HERE!"

Ohhhhhh Kayyyyyyyyy!


--
Maggie

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:07:36 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

You fundamentally don't understand zeros.

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

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

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

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

You're grasping at straws.

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 20:08:23 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

That's the conundrum!

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I understand the concept that CEG has not once stated the
word "rate". At least if he has, I haven't seen it.

Just to be clear, I've used the words "accident rate" many times,
but, to be just as clear, I don't think it matters whether we
use rate or number of accidents, because, as someone already said,
if the accidents were really being caused by any appreciable
percentage of cellphone owners, then the roads would be awash
in blood.

That they're not, is the conundrum.

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ceg]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:52:57 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

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

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

 

[ceg]

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

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

Let's stick with accidents, since injuries and deaths have a whole
host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with
cellphone ownership (and some that do), but none of which are relevant
to the original accident.

You're just clouding what is a simple issue that is a paradox.

Unless you're saying that cellphone use causes these fatalities and
injuries WITHOUT causing an accident first?

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:19:01 -0700, Ameri-Clean wrote:

Have you considered that cell usage and texting might be causing
FEWER accidents? My reasons:
1. Talking or texting keeps the driver awake--less likely
to fall asleep and have a collision.
2. Knowing that talking or texting is a distraction,
drivers consciously pay more attention to the road.
3. The increased alertness resulting from texting could
last for minutes, or even hours after the texting has stopped.

Of course there will be a few accidents caused by the driver
momentarily not looking at the road but, overall, the rate
may be lower among texters. A meaningful statistic would show
the rate of accidents per 1,000 who text often or sometimes
vs. per 1,000 who never text.

You have supplied a possible fifth solution to the conundrum!

I have noted already that a car with a cellphone might actually
be a *safer* car than one without, simply because of the lack of
need for reading road signs in the rain, or for making u-turns
in unfamiliar territory, or for avoiding traffic backups, etc.

Certainly a cellphone equipped car is much safer *after* the accident,
because help can be on its way even before you step out of the vehicle.

So, maybe the conundrum is solved by the assumption that cellphones
both cause and prevent accidents in *exactly equal numbers*.

That would be a fifth solution to the conundrum.

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/17/2015 12:11 AM, ceg wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:51:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

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

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

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

This is the conundrum.

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

But they're not.

So, something is wrong in our logic.

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

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

 

[Don Y]

On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
> On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to
the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time
spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library).
It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with
<something> crossed of The List.

There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive
clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll
come back with a month's worth of <whatever>!

Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item
that was forgotten on today's trip!

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

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/16/2015 10:51 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:21:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote:

On 8/16/2015 7:10 PM, Muggles wrote:


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


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

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

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

so says you and ceg. NBC new said different tonight.

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:

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

The problem arises when people from the second category think they are
in the first.

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 7:05 PM, Don Y wrote:

On 8/17/2015 3:48 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/17/2015 4:21 PM, Don Y wrote:

[attrs elided]

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing
behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I
want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!

ya got me right in the heart! ack!

It takes a fair bit of effort (IMO) to "go somewhere". E.g., a trip to
the library (2.5 miles ea way) is 20 minutes -- not counting the time
spent there. (the closest *large* Ace is across from the library).
It is distressing to "waste" that time and not come home with
something> crossed of The List.

There aren't that many "20 minutes" in a typical day! If I've got to drive
clear across town (45 minutes) to the oriental grocer, you can bet I'll
come back with a month's worth of <whatever>!

Worse, yet, to have to go back *tomorrow* for some silly little item
that was forgotten on today's trip!

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

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

Today, after searching the Home Depot website I finally found the
tension rods AND the right wire shelves that I need. The hardware to
put it together is at another store (Lowes). Home depot had a package
of C clamps that were the right size and color, but the package also had
a bunch of other screws and wall board anchors that I didn't need for a
whopping $28. I'm not paying that for C clamps. I may run up to Ace
Hardware and see if I can buy the clamps there. If not, I'll go back to
Lowes and get the plastic C clamps they have which will work fine and
they're like $7 for a bunch of them.

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

--
Maggie

 

[Muggles]

On 8/17/2015 7:07 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/17/2015 12:54 AM, Muggles wrote:


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


The problem arises when people from the second category think they are
in the first.

yes!

--
Maggie

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/17/2015 3:23 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Muggles:
I've seen discussions
where the conclusion was that women are more able to multitask without
skipping a beat and men were more single minded limiting their ability
to multitask?

Kind of makes sense in the context of man-the-hunter being evolved to
stalk something, kill it, and bring it home.

OTOH, woman-the-gatherer, would seem better served by browsing behavior.

At least that's how I rationalize trips to the shopping mall: I want to
find the shoes, kill them, and bring them home. My SO wants to look
here, look there....

I dislike shopping generally, and look at almost all of it as a mission.
Get it, get what I want and get out. I have better things to do. Of
course, I dislike watching television as well, unless it's football <g>

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/17/2015 3:35 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

Maybe it's analogous to cigarette smoking.

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

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

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