| MJC <gravity@mjcoon.plus.com>: Aug 16 03:39PM +0100 In article <mqq05m$lfc$1@news.mixmin.net>, curt.guldenschuh@gmail.com says... > Accidents must be going up if distracted driving is really causing > accidents. Simple logic: that's only the case if there are no innovations (including improved behaviour) that compensate by decreasing accidents. E.g. say, ABS. But I know little about driving habits in the USA or changes in car equipment. I know that one of the counter-arguments to compulsory seat-belt wearing is that drivers are supposed to feel more invincible with their belt on. I have no idea if this has really been tested, or if it could be. Mike. |
| Buck <buck@kepler.452b>: Aug 16 11:20AM -0400 On 8/16/2015 2:10 AM, ceg wrote: > Hence, the paradox. > Same thing with the cellphone (distracted-driving) paradox. > Where are all the accidents? Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt. |
| "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com>: Aug 16 04:29PM +0100 "ceg" wrote in message news:mqp9gf$92t$2@news.mixmin.net... 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. In the UK, according to a government survey, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-2014.pdf QUOTE: In 2014, 1.5 per cent of car drivers in England were observed using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per cent of car drivers in England observed using a hand-held mobile phone in 2009 and is not a statistically significant change. UNQUOTE. Gareth. |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Aug 16 11:32AM -0400 In sci.electronics.repair, on Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:59:25 +0000 (UTC), ceg >2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA. >3. But, accidents have not. >That's the paradox. Not if the vast majority of cell phoen users have sense enough not to text and drive. Then the remainder will have accidents some of the time while texting and accident rates will go up a little because of that. But the difference between this and dui accidents versus other accidents is that many accidents are just accidents and harder to prevent. But people can decide in advance not to drink and drive, or text and drive, or talk on the phone and drive, so those acts merit extra attention, extra prevention, and extra punishment, whether they cause an accident or not. . >B. We can also *assume* that distracted driving is dangerous. >C. Unfortunately, distracted driving statistics are atrociously >inaccurate. How do you know C? And what difference does it make. Sometimes we must act based on assumptions. >Yet, the paradox remains because actual accident statistics are >*extremely reliable*. Why is that a paradox? >So, we really have two extremely reliable components of the paradox. >a. Cellphone ownership has been going explosively up in the USA, >b. All the while *accidents* have been going down. I'm not sure that's true. Deaths were about 50,000 a year for a long time, but the institution of seat belts, padded dash, dual brakes, crumple zones, shoulder harnesses, airbags, lower speed limit** and some things I forget lowered the number to 35,000 a year even as the number of people driving increased with the increase in population and the number of miles increased at least that much. What are the fatalities now? You're concerned about accidents, but accidents increase and decrrease as fatalities do, even if the correlation is not 1. And fatalities are more important than accidents, especially 100 dolllar dents, **which I'm pretty much opposed to, especially since it was done by the feds, the reason was the oil crisis, and the shortage of oil is over. >Hence, the paradox. >Where are all the accidents? See my first paragraph above. |
| Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid>: Aug 16 03:33PM > Texting is safe if you wear your seatbelt. Any distraction is potentially dangerous. I've seen a driver run through a red light because she was so intently yakking it up with one of the other passengers in the car. (Women drivers...) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| "Gareth Magennis" <sound.service@btconnect.com>: Aug 16 04:38PM +0100 In the UK, according to a government survey, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406723/seatbelt-and-mobile-use-surveys-2014.pdf QUOTE: In 2014, 1.5 per cent of car drivers in England were observed using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving. This is similar to the 1.4 per cent of car drivers in England observed using a hand-held mobile phone in 2009 and is not a statistically significant change. UNQUOTE. And on page 27 of the 2009 report is a graph showing a very similar figure in 2003 (when UK legislation banning such phone use was introduced) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8899/seat-belt-phone-usage.pdf Gareth. |
| kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey): Aug 16 11:49AM -0400 >b. All the while *accidents* have been going down. >Hence, the paradox. >Where are all the accidents? Presumably things like modern safety features in vehicles and the massive push against drunk driving (which 40 years ago was considered acceptable behaviour around here) have dramatically reduced the number of accidents, at the same time that cellphone use has increased it. It's hard to get good data, though, when there are just so many different inputs into the system. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
| Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net>: Aug 16 10:50AM -0500 On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:33:38 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake >Any distraction is potentially dangerous. I've seen a driver run >through a red light because she was so intently yakking it up >with one of the other passengers in the car. (Women drivers...) When I see the possibility of a dangerous situation is about to develop, my ears turn off the conversation. Sometimes I say "shut up." I never use a cell phone while driving. |
| Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>: Aug 16 12:06PM -0400 >> texting and driving." > Jeff, we know each other for years over the net, and I know you to be a > very data-based person. If Jeff is data based, and you still disagree, what are you? Sounds like by calling Jeff data based, you are defending your approach which seems to be conjecture based. > 2. Cellphone ownership has gone explosively up in the USA. > 3. But, accidents have not. > That's the paradox. That's not a paradox. A paradox would be "observed". Since we _measured_ the impact of using a cell phone while driving, we passed laws banning the practice and have embarked on an education campaign to limit the use of cell phones while driving. I know that anecdotes are not data, but I remember seeing lots of drivers yakking away while driving. In the last few years, not so much. -- Dan Espen |
| John Robertson <spam@flippers.com>: Aug 16 09:16AM -0700 On 08/16/2015 6:59 AM, ceg wrote: > b. All the while *accidents* have been going down. > Hence, the paradox. > Where are all the accidents? Probably the same idiots who regularly have accidents are the same idiots who drive while distracted. Distracted driving can be caused by conversation, something you hear on the radio, a leaf blowing by, or a smudge on the windshield - drivers who are easily distracted may well be 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 can't wait for driverless cars so the distracted idiots no longer are driving and can do what they like while their car takes them from A to B. The roads will then be much safer for those of us who actually LIKE driving - motorcyclists, sports car owners, etc. - and our attention is on the road not on the distractions. 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." |
| jurb6006@gmail.com: Aug 16 08:23AM -0700 >"I remember Jim from s.e.d I think it was. I hope he's still alive and >kicking. A very useful fellow to have access to indeed. " A selfish attitude but I concur. As a person I think I would have gotten along with him. Signing posts "NRA member" is a good one. I know he is/was not a bleeding heart hoplophobic mamby pamby who thought the world is just alright and there are no crininals n shit. These motherfuckers who use every instance of an asshole going off and shooting people to further an agenda of disarming the public turn my fucking stomach. The NRA is not exactly perfect, they have not been quite right lately. The NRA I remember touted safety courses, shooting training and stuff like that. They also sold insurance, which some hoplophobes want to require for gun owners. I mean for possible subrogation in case your guns are even stolen. My Uncle as a lifetime member and I can tell you that they are, or at least were, not what they're made out to be today. But the fact that he signed EVERY post like that makes it significant. Bottom line is if you are in a place where you are not allowed to have a gun you are in prison. And thart is possibly why there is less crime, people are born knowing they are subjects. We are entirely too arrogant for that here. |
| micky <NONONOmisc07@bigfoot.com>: Aug 15 08:21PM -0400 In sci.electronics.repair, on Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:10:02 -0700 (PDT), >The world is getting into "green" and using/wasting less energy. they are of the mond that if a million people save a milliwatt we have collectively saved a kilowatt. Engieers, seriously, sit there and figure out how to save that milliwatt. it is partly PR and partly the governments. I hear the almost made it illegal to sell plasma TVs in the EU because they are so damn power hungry. AND GUESS WHY. >Remember about the scanning pulses and the capacitance ? Well plasma TVs are all about scanning and capacitance. I mean that is ALL they are about and in spades. A couple hundred volts at high speed applied to highly capacitive loads. It literally pulls as much juice as a old deflection yoke and high voltage circuit would. >and another ting when it comes to a keyboard, look on the bottom and see iff maybe it has a battery compartment. Seriously, some of them, even high end ones, some have a place where you can stick like eight or ten "D" cells. Do you know what good alkaline "D" cells cost ? And even in the absece of that, most of them run off DC so they know it might be run off of batteries someday. You're right about that. I hate filling something with batteries. I hate using batteries at all. When I was little, the only thing that ran on batteries was a flashlight (and the car starter) and we only had one of each. At least one model keyboard said it took 2 AAA, which is not bad The second one I mentioned, in the other post, is big, and I have the image that it must need more batteries because it sends big bursts of radio waves instead of the tiny bursts that the tiny keyboard must use. And the keyboard is longer too, so it probably uses more energy to get from one end to the electronics at the other end. So it needs more batteries. At least that's how it feels. The webpage for that other one says "Enjoy using the keyboard for a full year** without the hassle of changing batteries. The on/off switch also helps you save power when the keyboard is not in use. ... ** Keyboard battery life calculation based on an estimated two million keystrokes/year in an office environment. User experience may vary." If I do 4000 keystrokes a year, I'll be surprised. I wish I knew if it was a standard battery. Here it is, 2 AA batteries. That's okay. My father bought in the '50's a tube radio that also ran on batteries. The tube names began with 1 and 2, and maybe one was 5 because that was the voltage the heaters used. It used two rectangular cells, and when I was in college I thought I'd fix it up. One of them was $3 in 1966 and the 42-volt battery was for sale but it was $42 or so. That's about $420 dollars in today's money, so I gave up the plan |
| jurb6006@gmail.com: Aug 16 08:05AM -0700 >"Who's going to be able to detect that against their megawatts of >background? " The same kind of bleeding heart liberals who threw the vitamin tablet industry out of the country. (too expensive to handle the waste products) The same kind of "scientists" who came up with "carbon credits". The same kind of money grubbing assholes who make it so you have to get a pollution check on your car and won't give you license plates if the fucking overdrive doesn't work right and you have to spend two grand on a car that is worth $500 to get to fucking work to pay the taxes they use against you. You asked. Want more ? The same kind of asshles who mandated lower wattage from the already most efficient lighting - flourescent. When I was in business I used flourescent lighting because it was more efficient and the tubes lasted a long time so I did not have to get up on a ladder and change them much. But then the bleeding hearts got ahold of power and because some fucking eagle dies in Death Valley they had to "improve" things and now a flourescent tube does not last ten years, it is lucky to make it a year. And it flickers or won't start when it is cold. These fucking assholes, for a matter of a few watts, have proceeded to make the flourescent tube manufacturers a ton of money and do not have the common sense to realize the cost, environmental wise, of the manufacture of gazillions more flourescent tubes because they do not last. Here's more, lead free solder. Because they know the junk the build now is soon to hit the landfills they use lead free solder. There is ZERO talk of making a product that lasts longer, that would be contrary to business interests. Seriously, think about that. And while you do, if you really grasp it, you will see that industry writes the rules. All the standards for automobiles for example, are for the car companies. They serve to make it harder for an upstart to get into the business. (remember Tucker ?) Not one environmental law or safety reg was ever passed without their approval. Got that ? The laws in this country are set up to make the big guys the maximum amount of money and to protect their "turf" and if you really look, open your mind and see things how they are, this comes apparent. |
| devnull <devnull@void.nul>: Aug 16 03:21PM +0100 On 08/16/2015 02:47 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: >> Only question left is whether the Costco router is worth it for just two >> kids sharing an Internet connection away at school. > Sure, half the dorm will be downloading the latest movies and porn clips. You mean "uploading", don't you. (A lot of porn is made in dorm rooms.) Thank God I didn't have any daughters. ;-) |
| 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 - 14 updates in 4 topics"
Post a Comment