On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 10:44:31 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Simulator testing, which of course you reject, has shown
that cell phone use while driving does cause accidents.
It's also obvious to me, from personal experience of using
a phone, that I know I'm distracted and my concentration
is affected. Like almost everyone else, except possibly you,
I regularly see people slowing down for no reason, weaving
into my lane, weaving into the gutter and they are doing it
while using a cell phone. The comparison with brakes and
headlights is ridiculous.
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
If you are like "everyone else" you are just showing confirmation
bias. You ignore people who are weaving a little who DON'T have a
cell phone but if you see someone with a cell phone and they weave
even a tiny amount its confirmation that the cell phone is an
instrument of the devil. So tell me, are the ONLY people who ever
slow down, or who weave, or who do anything else you don't like ALWAYS
using cell phones? And tell me, how many people are out there who ARE
using cell phones but are NOT weaving, NOT slowing, etc. You have no
data, no data at all, all you have is your own lack of skill which you
wish to project on every other driver. If you can't drive and pick
your nose at the same time get the hell off the road, you are a danger
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10:41:37 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Of course not. But after observing their abnormal driving behavior
when you're passing them and see them looking down
at their phone, it's pretty obvious to most of us here that's the
reason those particular people are weaving, slowing down, driving
improperly, etc. That cell phones usage isn't the cause of all
erratic driving doesn't mean it's not a significant source of erratic
And tell me, how many people are out there who ARE
The data is apparently in the various studies. I'm not squawking PARADOX, PARADOX, you and your butt buddy CEG are. You two are the making the
claim that there is a paradox, it's up to you to show that the data
is wrong. So, it's actually you two who have no data to support *your*
Anything else I can help you with today?
I recently saw a female bicyclist riding and looking down at what appeared
to be a Kindle attached to her handlebars. Haven't seen her since. I
suspect she'll eventually find out it's a bad idea if she hasn't already.
Hopefully without injuring anyone else.
On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 04:35:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
You are wrong as usual. It is not up to us to explain or prove the
cause of the paradox. To the contrary, CEG simply stated that there
was a paradox and asked if anyone could explain it. So far the best
anyone has come up with is their opinion that "cell phones are
dangerous but not dangerous enough to affect the accident rates enough
to notice." That could be so but if it is it means all the chicken
littles yelling the sky is falling are full of crap. And if we are
going to go down that path of opinion due to lack of data we can just
as easily go down the path of claiming cell phones prevent as many or
more accidents as they cause because it relieves people of being
distracted by looking at maps as they drive thru LA at 80 mph and
instead just get directions from their cell phone either from a GPS
app or someone on the other end directing them. Or that lives have
been saved because people cut short a trip they started (and thereby
avoid an accident they would have had later in the trip) because
someone called them halfway there on their cell and told them they no
longer needed to make the trip.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 03:02:31 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
Heck, there can be no doubt some people have died because they looked
at the watch at *just* the wrong time and didn't see the semi stopping
in front of them. I watched the woman ahead of me, this was WAY
before anyone had car phone much less a cell phone, literally knock
the flag out of the hand of the guy stopping traffic for construction
trucks to cross the highway.
Wow! Knocking the flag out of his hands would be worth triple points.
The loss of attention doesn't even have to be voluntary. I had a number of
wasps flying around in the van one day and it's only providence that I
didn't lose control of the car and crash. I got stung like a mother,
The next day I took the chain saw and sent all the Roses of Charon to Hades
where they and the wasps that frequented them belonged.
Mr. Stormin M, You might want to check to see if your SIG has all the
solutions manual crap in it. Every recent reply I see from you has
that appended to it.
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:34:49 -0400, Stormin Mormon
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.
Sorta. Different people can do varying number of things at the same
time. (For a few, that number is zero). When I'm talking on a ham
radio in the car, I can only do two things simultaneously. I
sometimes announce that:
"Talk, Think, Drive... pick any two"
I tend to favor Talk and Drive. The usual result is that thinking and
therefore the quality of my discourse suffer greatly. With a cell
phone conversation, I need to both talk and think, leaving driving as
the lesser priority. However, with ham radio, little or no thought is
involved because I mentally rehearse what I'm going to say in advance.
I've only seen someone do 3 things at once, once. I was once at a ham
convention and watched someone simultaneously copy high speed Morse
code in his head, engage in a PSK-31 keyboard to keyboard exchange,
and talk to me at the same time. I was impressed, but I must say that
he was also well practiced. I suppose if someone offered classes in
reactive driving responses while texting or talking, it might improve
Jeff Liebermann email@example.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
q: Do you think men are more likely to only do 2 things at one time,
and women more able to do 2+ things at one time? 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
I have no opinion on the matter. Well, maybe a small one. I've seen
women successfully juggling three or more children at one time with
little obvious difficulty. I presume that skill could also be applied
to driving. I can only handle one screaming brat at a time, and not
very well at that. If true, the difference should appear in the
distribution of distracted driving accidents and fatalities by sex.
I'll dig (later) in the NHTSA data dumpster and see if I can find
anything that provides this information.
It's quite possibly true, but I have no experience in the matter. My
marginally relevant experience is primarily in RF exposure from cell
Jeff Liebermann firstname.lastname@example.org
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
It would be interesting to see what sort of results you find. I'd guess
that men would have more difficulty multitasking than women. The results
might also trickle through to the level of difficulty each would have
using a cell phone while driving.
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 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.
That being said, I hate shopping anywhere but 99-Cents-Only and Costco
and I despise shopping for clothes.
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...
Or, worse yet, LOOK at all of them, then nonchalantly <flinch> and
leave, empty-handed -- yet not *distressed* by this fact!
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! :> ]
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".
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.