The cellphone paradox - where are all the accidents?

They are too stupid or too mean to buy the necessary kit or more likely learn to use it since many car radios come with bluetooth these days.

There are two sorts of bluetooth device the earpiece ones you see in supermarkets and on the move as pedestrians and the ones built into the car where typically the car also provides an aerial boost as well.

When bluetoothed the phone mutes the in car stereo and the call is routed through the entertainment system - there is nothing in your ear at all. There are a couple of minor problems. A slight echo on the line as far as the caller is concerned and some extra roadnoise.

Simulations show that talking on a mobile phone even hands free significantly lengthens reaction time to situations developing on the road - particularly if it is a complex question requiring thought before answering. Holding a phone up to your ear is worse and looking down to text whilst trying to drive a car or truck is suicidal. Although annoyingly they mostly tend to kill other people.

Reply to
Martin Brown
Loading thread data ...

I've received several marriage proposals, over the years, from women tasting my baked goods. This is often met with dismay by SWMBO!

OTOH, I don't "do cleaning"! :> I don't eat the sweets, either! SWMBO, as primary beneficiary, grumbles that I always leave the counters a mess after one of my late night bake-a-thons. My retort: I could STOP baking... That usually ends the discussion -- WITHOUT me having to pick up a cloth!

She'll have a mess to clean tomorrow morning! ;) As I made another cheesecake just a week ago -- and biscotti a few days ago -- the "cleaning" tends to be a frequent source of dismay... (and reward?)

[An amusing anecdote: I have an uncanny tendency to wear *black* when baking (which noticeably shows the flour, etc. that ends up on my clothing) and *white* when working on the cars (which noticeably shows the dirt and grease).]

Cooking and baking are entirely different things, in my mind. I *cook* in order to keep my body "operating". It's over in as short a time as possible -- preparation *and* consumption. Let's get on with something more *important*!

OTOH, I *bake* to share bits of pleasure with friends. It's satisfying to see the expression of pleasant surprise when they taste something they've probably never had, before. And, for folks getting a "repeat treat", to see the excited anticipation as you hand a "familiar" plate/tray to them!

[The last cheesecake went to a friend's mother for her 95th bday. Packed in dry ice for the 1000 mile drive! In addition to being something that tastes good, it also demonstrates, to her, that her son has folks around him that care enough about him that they would go to the trouble to bake something for his *mom*! (my friend lost his wife, recently, so is essentially "alone", here)]

Sounds similar to kugelis.

Not fond of corned beef. Nor (hot) peppers of any kind. Cabbage is OK with galumpke.

It's been said that some folks eat to live while others live to eat. I'm firmly in the first camp (get it over with as quickly as possible). Even the meals that I truly *love* are just "brief experiences" :-/

Reply to
Don Y

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

Simulations also show that the dangers involved depend on how often you talk on phones/radios while driving. People who do so regularly, such as police, taxi drivers, etc., are able to split their attention better, and "disconnect" from the phone if an emergency situation occurs. People who rarely talk on phones, however, can have their reaction times and attention reduced to the level of someone so drunk they have difficulty getting their key in the ignition - and that's on a hands-free phone. Using hands-free or hand-held telephones makes almost no difference to the reaction times - the key issue is that your attention is elsewhere.

Of course there are plenty of other causes of distraction that can be equally bad - having an argument with people in the car, turning round to threaten unruly kids with having to walk home, driving with a migraine, having food or drink in the car, etc., are all high-risk activities. Even just having hot food or drink in the car is a significant risk - the smell of a takeaway is distracting.

Reply to
David Brown

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

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.

Reply to
(PeteCresswell)

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.

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

I enjoy a nice tender corned beef occasionally with the cabbage, carrots, and potatoes. mmmmmm I had to look up galumpke.

I think I do a little of both, but I'm a slow eater which makes it so I can taste everything I eat. If it doesn't taste right or good I don't eat it.

Reply to
Muggles

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.

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!

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.

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

MotorsForum 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.