| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 16 11:54PM -0500 On 8/16/2015 9:21 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: > 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. 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. -- Maggie |
| Muggles <xyz@pdq.invalid>: Aug 16 11:59PM -0500 On 8/16/2015 11:10 PM, ceg wrote: > their direct descendents) *still* have a certain large percentage > of the accidents. > At least that dumbshit-are-dumbshits explanation solves the paradox. Sounds good to me. -- Maggie |
| "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com>: Aug 17 08:46AM +0100 "ceg" wrote in message news:mqr5h5$usr$10@news.mixmin.net... On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 21:50:10 +0100, Gareth Magennis wrote: > ownership" does not actually mean that more people are using > their phones whilst driving. > After all, everyone has one now, surely. In the USA, I would agree that almost every driver has one, and, in fact, there are usually as many cellphones in the vehicle as there are kids and adults over the age of about middle school. In fact, with tablets and cameras and gps devices also abounding, the number of "distracting" electronic devices probably exceeds the number of occupants in the car, such that we can consider 100% to be a somewhat conservative number (counted as the number of devices per vehicle). So, it's no wonder that, after almost every accident that the police investigate, they can confidently check the convenient box for "was a cellphone found in the vehicle?". So, what you're saying is that only a small percentage of people who *own* the cellphones are actually *using* them while driving. Well it may not be a sound logic to assume that 1.5% is a "small" number. Stand at the side of a motorway and count 100 cars passing. It won't take long. These statistics simply show that 1.5 of those passing cars contains a driver on the phone, and that this number has not increased since 2003. That sounds like a significant problem to me though. Gareth. |
| "Dean Hoffman" <dh0496@windstream.net>: Aug 17 06:10AM -0500 > <dh0496@windstream.net> wrote: > This one ?? > http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/cell-phone-vs-drunk-driving-minimyth/ This one: http://tinyurl.com/pmsoyyc I think part of the test showed people did fairly well traveling down the highway. Driving in the city was where they were failing. -- Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
| Stormin Mormon <cayoung61@hotmail.com>: Aug 17 07:49AM -0400 On 8/16/2015 11:03 PM, Muggles wrote: > What if the same character flaw exists in people that not only > contributes to them being drunk drives, but also contributes to being > more easily distracted while driving? Ideally, people pay attention to the road. For me, the reallity is that much of the time when I'm driving, my mind is on other things. One anecdotal experience, is when I got my first cell phone. It was an early model, and set and cord, goes to a bag with a cod and antenna. I had only been on it for a couple minutes, and I was nearly in a wreck. I'd not yet learned the skill of paying most attention to the road, and less to the conversation. Since that time, I've seldom talked on the phone while rolling. But, I have developed more skill at paying attention to the road. -- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . . |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 17 09:33AM -0400 Per Ashton Crusher: >on their radios and typing on their mobile data terminals? Funny how >when outlawing teh "distraction" would interfere with the police state >suddenly it's not important to outlaw it. 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. -- Pete Cresswell |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 17 09:36AM -0400 Per John Robertson: >the same ones who have accidents whether or not they are using a cell phone. >So, the idiots will kill themselves (and other innocents) off at the >same rate regardless of the source of distraction. I would not agree. A cell phone conversation is fundamentally different from a CB conversation (which was not alluded to), talking to a passenger, or listening to the radio. The difference is that there is no unspoken agreement that driving comes first. i.e. the person on the other end of the conversation has no expectation of anything but the partner's 100% involvement. -- Pete Cresswell |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 17 09:49AM -0400 Per Muggles: >Driving while using a cell phone doesn't necessarily mean a >person is also distracted. Understood that there may be people out there carrying on cell phone conversations who I do not notice, but I still have to wonder why is it so often obvious that somebody is talking on a phone even before one overtakes them and confirms it? - Varying speed for no apparent reason - Cruising the left lane below lane speed - Wandering back-and-forth across lines.... Seems like a virtual definition of "Distracted" and all seem to me tb highly correlated with talking on a phone - and I see it on a daily basis... My guesstimate is 3-5 times on an 80-mile round trip. Yesterday it was 4. -- Pete Cresswell |
| "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>: Aug 17 09:54AM -0400 Per Muggles: >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. Bingo!... I think we have an answer.... -- Pete Cresswell |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Aug 17 10:36AM -0400 In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:10:23 +0000 (UTC), ceg >Hence, the paradox. >Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox. >Where are all the accidents? Radio just said that traffic deaths were up 14% this year and injuries 1/3 On track to be the worst year since 2007, when fatalities were 45,000, I think she said. If not that, then 40, 000. So traffic deaths are up in general because they were down to 35,000 for quite a few years. Reason given is low gas prices and more diiving, but you know you're not getting a complete analysis from top-of-the-hour news. And it still ruins your prmeise that accidents are not up. |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 17 08:08AM -0700 >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 the situation. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>: Aug 17 08:28AM -0700 On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:46:26 +0100, "Gareth Magennis" >long. >These statistics simply show that 1.5 of those passing cars contains a >driver on the phone, and that this number has not increased since 2003. One such study simply counted the number of people that drove by with BlueGoof headsets screwed into their ear and simply assumed that if they were wearing the headset, they must be talking while driving. A few of my friends wear theirs almost full time, because they don't want to fumble for the headset while moving. My guess(tm) is that the number of cellphone using drivers, in heavy traffic, is much higher. From cell phone provider logs and statistical summaries, it's known that cell phone use tends to follow traffic congestion patterns with peaks during the rush hour. I can see the increased "hash" in the 850/1900 MHz bands on my service monitor during rush hour. (My office is near a major freeway exchange). The assumption is that most of the calls come from drivers either on the freeways, or the nearby roads, both of what are typically barely moving. I wanted to do a time lapse video showing the effect, but my IFR-1500 currently has a very sick power supply. The problem is that in heavy traffic (rush hour), the traffic isn't moving very fast. The opportunity to do some real damage or produce a fatality is quite limited. At worst, a minor rear-end fender bender. The fatalities seem to be more on the open highways, uncrowded streets, and intersections, where traffic is light and moving at considerable speed. Counting cars in such situation will probably yield considerably less than the claimed 1.5% simply because there far fewer automobiles. Therefore, I would guess(tm) that the 1.5% is an average between congested traffic with high cell phone use, and light traffic with light cell phone use. If someone counted distracted cell phone drivers that are driving fast enough to do some real damage (e.g. >25 mph), methinks the percentages will be very low. Yet those are the ones that are going to kill innocent people or themselves. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
| jurb6006@gmail.com: Aug 17 07:56AM -0700 On Sunday, August 16, 2015 at 1:55:31 PM UTC-5, Cursitor Doom wrote: > Maybe that's why people are turning to Gun Owners of America? > Certainly when handguns were outlawed in the UK in 1996 or thereabouts, > gun crime went THROUGH THE ROOF. No. Nobody is, well wait, there are people saying that. But I prefer facts. No I am a different wolf here. I belive that in this country, OK e are going to have gins.. I want so many guns that vriminals with guins don't have a real edge on anyone. Couple years ago this waffle house got robbed, err well attampted. a patron had a CCW and happened to be CCWing at the tie and blew the fucking N____S head the fuck off. His cousin gets on the TV and calls for better gun conttrol so her cous could still be alive. WhaT ? He was in there with a gun poionting it at people and cllecting up their money until someone with the balls and the means stopped him. H?is cohort got away, so really I agrree with the bitch, the guy ho put her cousin where the fuck he belongs should have been able to kill the other guy right then, rather than have us support him or a decade or two. Caught in the act. No jury is neded. I just watched you steal my whatever, rape or beat or rob or whatevr, there is no doubt. We do not need a team of detectives to place you a the scvene, this is where the coroners pick you up. Ironically, I normally do not carry a gun and I really do not want to. But I think people should, so many that nobody will try anything. And people are brainwashedd, a gun is an equaliser. These son a bitches got nothing better to do in jail than work out. They spar and all that shit and become a weapon themselves. They already HAVE a weapon. Long time ago I as like that. And being young and dumb I did some things I regret and really, I would kill me today. And maybe the world would be better off. But if everyone has a gun, go ahead and try an armed robbery. You pull a gun and say "Gimme all your money" and 12 other people pull out guns and one of them shoots you. In my wworld then the barkeep says "Whoever shot that asshole has a free drink coming on the house, and could someone drag the carcass out of here ?". Do this right and crime would be fucking zero in notime. But the fact is there is money in cops and robbers. Same wirh the drug war. They don't fucking care if people get high, oothey just want to make money off of it. It is loke a tax. Dunno who knows this, but John Belushi's brother Jim Belushi was in some slightly more serious movies, among them pone called "The Palermo Connection". In it he is a candidate fro mayor, presumptively of NYC. H?e was for the total legalisation of drugs. Thaat work explores for example polls. The questions asked and how the manipulation works. For example you can ask "Do you want your children to die of a drug overdose ?" or you can ask "Do you want your children to be killed in a drug raid ?". The piece really did explore some issues. I have explored these societal issues to the point where it is difficult to have a discussion about it with normal people. So many are trained to believe that the government makes right. And wrong. What people do not seem to see is that the government exists to ake money for the rich. Even historical scholars sometimes have trouble seeing this, even knowing. Every military action is1 for money. You think this government cares about human rights ? [Nuclear biombs (like Iran right now) ? pFuck no. Iran has done NOTHING, while North Korea HAS nukes, HAS tested them and HAS thresatened to use nukes on the US as soon as they're able. Why aren't we marching in there and pantsing them gooks ? I'll tell you why, because they have nothing we can sell. Iran is the focus because they have oil and aa fairly independent banking syste, the Rothschilds do not like that. Textile merchants my ass. Look it up. And now look at the economies. Greece fell for the bullshit, but then they were bullshit in the first place. Now look at Iceland, they put people in jail for what bankers do here every fucking day. Look at Hungary, and this is played down but Hungary told the IMF to get the fuck out. I mean get your fucking offices out of the country. More and more nations are bucking the petrobuck. The US put sanctions on Iran and guess what happened. They started selling oil directly to China, FOR GOLD. That is better money my friends, much better money than that which has to be propped up by quantitative easing. Anyuway, by now you cvan see why I have a hgard time dicussing shit. You know, I want to talk current things and how and the why and all that, I simply do not have the time to start at the beginning and explain all about fracrtional reserve banking and how that made a few motherfuckers rich. And last but not least, those motherfuckers who want you to give up your guns have no intention of givind up theirs. And that is a universal fact. Show me a fucking government without guns. Just one. You cannot, and that is the basis of the second amendment. People seem to have troube here :: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now notice that it oes not say the right of the militia, the right of the government, the right of who the fuck knows, ;it says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall; not be infringed. And I got the arms definition down as well. Whatever this governemt can use on us we got the right to have rto use against them. Tjhat does not mean chemical and biological, and even this fucked up government wiol not nuke us, so that is not coverede. But Uzis n shit, yup. The same type of weapons they would use on us. That is arms. I thought this through. Others watched TV, oveis, listened to music. Nope, I have little use for entertainment. Now, I find people talk about Arabs/Muslims. That they want to kill everyone who is not Muslim. That is only partly true, it SAYS in Muslim/Islamic lands, not the whole fucking world. And let them have it. If all their Women escape fine, then they have no more children. Fuck, there's already a couple billion of them. That's pleenty. Meanwhile White Man is declining. And Jews. Know what ? You keep this shit up and then the next time you need some shit invented, call Achmed or whoever. Hey, I ak not saying they can't do it, but you know what ? You are going to find out because "we" are dieing off. Liberals have scathed at my take on humanity and even said they would not be happy untill all like me arte dead. That is because I cal a spade a spade and I see the differences in the races. And other things as well. I see people vote their wallet all day long. The rich vote for less taxes nd the poor vote for more welfare. Tell me I am wrong, and prove it. Restore my faith in the biomass. You cannot. Anyway, my solution is to enjoy. Fuck it, I cannot help these assholes. So I will go out to the garage and roll one up. |
| Stormin Mormon <cayoung61@hotmail.com>: Aug 17 08:59AM -0400 On 8/13/2015 3:42 PM, MNMikeW wrote: > I'd like to use a solvent (I already tried water but I want to do a > better job) that dissolves the stuff so knowing the chemistry might help. > Do you have any idea what the chemical composition of that stuff is? Yesterday I stopped to offer a jump start for a fellow. Turns out that his positive battery calmp (automobile) had corroded off, due to battery acid. In this case, I'd say the problem was lead suplphate, and some copper sulphate. Real shame. Sunday about 5 PJM, in a parking lot at a shopping center. Myself and the security guy both tried jumping, and no luck. Fortunately, he had a cell phone. Hope he was able to get his adult son (talking to him on phone) to bring out a new cable. I suspect a new cable would have done the job. -- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus . www.lds.org . . |
| bleachbot <bleachbot@httrack.com>: Aug 14 11:11AM +0200 |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 15 updates in 4 topics"
Post a Comment