The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

[micky]

In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 18 Aug 2015 03:06:00 +0000 (UTC), ceg
<curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com> wrote:

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,

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

since injuries and deaths have a whole
host of additional factors that actually have nothing to do with
cellphone ownership

No more so than accidents.

(and some that do), but none of which are relevant
to the original accident.

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.

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

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

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

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

 

[John Robertson]

On 08/17/2015 3:39 PM, John-Del wrote:

On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 2:10:26 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

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.



You conveniently left out some important facts.

"US Vehicle Miles Driven Have Sunk To A New Post-Crisis Low"

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/vehicle-miles-driven-2013-2#ixzz3j78zIZGG

....

... In my town (Wolcott, CT), a guy waiting in line at a traffic light on a motorcycle was stuffed into the car in front of him by a girl texting.. He lived three days. I've seen at least a half dozen near misses recently from people on cell phones.

One facet of driving that motorcycle safety courses try to teach is you
NEVER relax your vigil of watching for rear enders until you have at
least two cars stopped behind you, and I wait for at least three (clutch
in, first gear, and looking for exits). You also never stop close enough
to the car ahead that you can't swing out around them in an emergency.

I've been riding motorcycles for over 45 years now and the two accidents
I was involved in (many years ago) I could easily have avoided if I had
taken a safety course back then - I have since taken several such
courses and am a much safer rider as a result. (I hope!)

John :-#(#
--
(Please post followups or tech inquiries to the USENET newsgroup)
John's Jukes Ltd. 2343 Main St., Vancouver, BC, Canada V5T 3C9
(604)872-5757 or Fax 872-2010 (Pinballs, Jukes, Video Games)
www.flippers.com
"Old pinballers never die, they just flip out."

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/17/2015 02:21 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?

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

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!

When I needed shoes for my daughter's wedding I ended up trying up
everything that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for
something that didn't hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could
sit down at the reception. Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for
formal wear.

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! :

Our only REAL hardware store closed several months ago. One of the
things of which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there
45 years ago when I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape
recorder. Couldn't take it, but it made me really feel good. Still does.

[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! :> ]

Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy
anything. Those are nifty little flashlights.

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>".

Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy
used t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy
way too many clothes.

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

T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.

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...

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

 

[The Real Bev]

On 08/17/2015 08:04 PM, ceg wrote:

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.

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

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

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

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

--
Cheers, Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

 

[Don Y]

On 8/17/2015 8:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 08/17/2015 02:21 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?

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

In software engineering, multitasking is a commonly used mechanism
for making more robust, reliable, maintainable, etc. programs. Do
a bunch of little things AS IF that was *all* you had to do.

But, there is an implicit overhead in doing so -- because a
computer can really only *do* one thing at a time. So, you
have to "switch" between these different tasks. That means
remembering EVERYTHING about what you *were* doing on the first
task while you *recall* everything that you had previously *done*
on the second task. The time/effort that it takes to do this
is "overhead" (waste).

The same things apply to human brains. It takes effort to remember
where you are in a given task in enough ACCURATE detail that you will
be able to later return to that point -- while simultaneously recalling
the details of the *other* task that you are now going to resume.
All that effort "switching" is "waste".

And, opportunity to screw up!

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!

When I needed shoes for my daughter's wedding I ended up trying up everything
that might vaguely go with my dress in the quest for something that didn't
hurt. I took the winners off as soon as I could sit down at the reception.
Some men's tennies are OK, but they suck for formal wear.

I wasn't specifically commenting on shoes -- though understand your
reference in light of the point at which I injected my comments.

Rather, women (sorry to generalize) tend to be content to look at lots
of *anything* and then leave with *nothing*. AND, not be distressed over
this fact! If I've made a trip out to buy/acquire something, I am
upset if I don't come home *with* it! "Wasted trip".

Furthermore, men will tend to keep that on their ToDo list as an
unfinished task. Women seem not to mind (arbitraily?) deciding that
they don't *need* it, afterall! ("I'll make do with what I have...")

[If the man could have rationalized a way of "making do", he would
have done so to get out of that *task*!]

[Of course, I am painting with a broad brush...]

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! :

Our only REAL hardware store closed several months ago. One of the things of
which I'm most proud is that Mrs. Berg offered me a job there 45 years ago when
I was buying a lot of weird stuff to build a tape recorder. Couldn't take it,
but it made me really feel good. Still does.

I haven't been in a "real" hardware store since I left New England.

[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! :> ]

Damn Harbor Freight stopped giving them out even if you didn't buy anything.
Those are nifty little flashlights.

It was silly of them to offer them as free WITHOUT purchase. OTOH, much
of their stuff is of dubious quality. I was looking to buy a drywall
lift and looked at their offering: would I want to be standing under
a sheet of drywall supported by *this*??

<frown>

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>".

Yard sales. People buy way too many clothes, so I might as well buy used
t-shirts for a quarter and levi's for $2. This means that *I* buy way too many
clothes.

The idea of "previously worn" clothing gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Kind of like a *used* toothbrush... who cares how many times it's
been WASHED!!! <frown>

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

T-shirt, shorts/pants. I'm good.

Jeans (several identical pair) and black or white T-shirt (see post elsewhere
re: how I invariably choose the wrong color to wear).

If it's a special occasion (party, funeral, etc.) I drag out black dress
slacks and a black shirt (the "Johnny Cash" look).

Once in a blue moon I'll get "to the nines" in a three-piece suit.
Usually, my friends find that disturbing...

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/17/2015 10:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

On 08/17/2015 02:21 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?

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

This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.

 

[Stormin Mormon]

On 8/18/2015 8:13 AM, SeaNymph wrote:

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


This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.

Well, that sure is the flippin answer.

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

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

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.
--
Pete Cresswell

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

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.

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.
--
Pete Cresswell

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/17/2015 10:45 PM, ceg wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If so, show them.

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.

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/18/2015 9:04 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.

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

The science still seems to indicate that multitasking is a myth. Seems
the brain can only focus on one thing at a time.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201103/technology-myth-multitasking

https://laurenpietila.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/multitasking-is-not-possible-according-to-neuroscience-attention-part-3/

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794

http://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2014/10/08/multitasking-damages-your-brain-and-career-new-studies-suggest/

 

[SeaNymph]

On 8/18/2015 9:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/17/2015 11:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:


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


Multitask is just another meaningless buzzword. If you count walking
and chew gum you can put it on your resume. People that claim to be
able to do so are just juggling two or three tasks and building in
inefficiency.

Sometimes, according to scientists, people can walk and chew gum because
walking is deeply ingrained in the brain and requires no thought.
Attempts to multitasks seem to reduce productivity as well.

 

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 8/17/2015 11:01 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

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

Multitask is just another meaningless buzzword. If you count walking
and chew gum you can put it on your resume. People that claim to be
able to do so are just juggling two or three tasks and building in
inefficiency.

 

[ceg]

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.

 

[ceg]

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?

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

You have a logic problem if you believe that the above statement
means that estimation is the only issue with the data. The disclaimer
does not say that. It points out that the data are estimated and then
it says that year to year comparisons should be made with caution.

I think you have a problem with large numbers.

If the accident rates, given the tens of thousands of accidents yearly,
aren't changing, then it would take a stupendously stupifyingly
coincidental alignment of the stars to then make the accident rates
exactly cancel out the *entire effect* of millions upon millions
of cellphones being owned (and presumably used) by almost every
person of driving age in the United States.

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

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

If those cellphones were being used, while driving, and if they were
causing accidents, no amount of fudging of the data would show what
the data actually shows.

There is a paradox, to be sure, but the answer is never going to be
found in the puny numbers associated with *estimation errors* that
you want it to.

You're grasping at straws if you truly feel that the *estimation
errors* exactly cancel out the absolutely stupendous effect we
presume cellphone ownership to have on accident rates, in both
timing and in number.

It's just not possible,and, it's a bit scary that you believe it
is. Does anyone else believe that the answer to the paradox is
simply that estimation errors have skyrocketed, and then plateaued
at exactly the same rate as cellphone ownership has?

 

[ceg]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Here's a concept, go fuck yourself.

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 12:55:22 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:35:49 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

Sadly, those distracted driving accidents that do occur are not always solo.. Were they always solo - then such accidents are merely a reasonable method to cull the herd. Those stupid enough to text and drive deserve exactly what they get, full stop. It is the non-deserving collateral damage that is the sad part of it all.

And, anyone proven to be the cause of an accident due to texting - no matter how inconsequential the damage should be banned from driving more-or-less forever. Or, allowed to drive only mopeds or scooters, and marked with special tags (license plates).

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[ceg]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:19:05 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No such spike in the accident rate seems to exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ceg]

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

I also pointed out several times now that the census data that CEG posted
clearly says that it's "estimated and should be used with caution for
year to year comparison".

No amount of *estimation* error is going to cancel out the huge
rates predicted by the reports.

Did you see the poster who showed a report of 25% greater accident rates?

Do you really believe that the "estimation errors" are exactly 1/4 of
the huge numbers, and then, that these estimation errors only occur
during the exact time frame when cellphone ownership rates skyrocketed?

And then, these very same "estimation errors" tailed off suddenly, and
precipitously, exactly when cellphone ownership rates tailed off?