The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

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
Reply to
Muggles
Loading thread data ...

yes!

--
Maggie
Reply to
Muggles

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

Reply to
SeaNymph

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.

Reply to
SeaNymph

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.

Reply to
ceg

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.

Reply to
ceg

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.

Reply to
ceg

That's the conundrum!

Reply to
ceg

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.

Reply to
ceg

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.

Reply to
ceg

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

--
Cheers, 
Bev 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Real Bev

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

Reply to
ceg

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?

Reply to
ceg

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.

Reply to
ceg

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.

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 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
The Real Bev

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

No more so than accidents.

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 an issue to make it seem like there's a paradox.

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

Reply to
micky

...

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 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Robertson

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!

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...]

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

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*??

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!!!

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...

Reply to
Don Y

This is certainly what the science seems to indicate.

Reply to
SeaNymph

Well, that sure is the flippin answer.

- . Christopher A. Young learn more about Jesus .

formatting link
. .

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

ElectronDepot website 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.