The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

Per Don Y:

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
Reply to
(PeteCresswell)
Loading thread data ...

Per The Real Bev:

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
Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

formatting link

formatting link
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.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

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

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

Reply to
SeaNymph

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.

Reply to
SeaNymph

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.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

No. Running two or more programs in parallel on multiple cores is multiprocessing. What you call timeslicing is multitasking. It is similar, conceptually, to time SHARING but at a much finer grain.

The brain is not a single processor (to draw a parallel to computers). You can chew gum, walk, see, hear, etc. simultaneously. The problem with "multitasking" is that it calls upon higher functions that are more language oriented -- if you are 'thinking' about something (solve a problem) you tend to draw on language. This is a largely "serial" activity -- you can't keep multiple "conversations" going in your head concurrently.

Think about how hard it is to be engaged in two or more conversations at a party. OTOH, think about how *easy* it is to be eating hors d'oeuvres, sipping a cocktail, talking *and* walking across the room (while carefully avoiding others along the way) at the same time!

Reply to
Don Y

Around here people wear neon colors when their biking. I don't think I've seen anyone wearing black shorts with a red shirt yet.

--
Maggie
Reply to
Muggles

When I was learning ballroom dancing the ladies would always comment that no matter how hard the man thought it was to lead, we always had it tougher because we had to do everything going backwards and in heels plus we had to trust the man knew HOW to lead!

--
Maggie
Reply to
Muggles

:-)

I like neon colors, orange or kawasaki green especially. Solids, not a pattern. Anybody who hits me should NOT be able to tell the judge he didn't see me.

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

True that!!

I love Fred Astaire, but Ginger Rogers did all the work :)

Reply to
SeaNymph

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.

Reply to
ceg

If a quarter of all crashes are "related to cellphone use", then why aren't accident rates going up by a quarter?

Reply to
ceg

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?

Reply to
ceg

:)

Reply to
ceg

Bicycling, here, is a hazardous activity -- despite being a "bike friendly" community (we have large annual events). I've tried riding a bike *once* in the 20 years, here and decided it was a foolish exercise. Too many crazy drivers!

A neighbor once "threatened" to buy me a red shirt -- just because she always saw me in black/navy or white. I'm not fond of bright colors (and particularly hate *green*!) Given that I have complete control over my appearance, I figure I should wear what I'm "happiest" with! (if clothes can be said to make you "happy")

I've always adopted the "many of the same" approach. E.g., when I used to wear dress shirts/slacks, I would have three or four of the same shirt hanging side by side in the closet. So, it was not uncommon to see me in the same "outfit" on successive days. Or, several times in a week.

Of course, it was typically the women who would notice such things (I think all men check is whether or not you have clothes *on*!). One lady commented once and I made a point of bringing in a handfull of hangers with identical shirts hung on each: "Oh! I see..."

[Unfortunately, dark colors are bad for things like mosquitos; they are *drawn* to darker colors]
Reply to
Don Y

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

Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA

Reply to
pfjw

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?

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.

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.

Reply to
ceg

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?

Reply to
ceg

I responded to that post of yours which assumes that the drunk-driving campaign exactly cancels out the skyrocketing cellphone ownership effect on accident rates, in both timing and in number.

It's far-fetched to believe that both the timing and the size of the drunk-driving campaign results *exactly* cancel out that of the cellphone driving effect, but it is one possible answer to the conundrum.

Reply to
ceg

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.