Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature toIf you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work? OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my
ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected
criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to
its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work?
OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your batteries expire.
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my
ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected
criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to
its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work?
OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods >without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or >finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your >batteries expire.
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 19 May 2024 21:58:37 -0400, knuttle <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my >>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I >>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected >>> criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to
its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work? >>>
OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your
batteries expire.
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if you
weren't.
I've been hiking in the woods alone since I was 6 years old. I never
get lost, I especially like hikes with only deer trails or no trails at
all. For example I led a hike through the Crownsville Hospital forest
years before it opened to the public. As well as the Rocky Gorge
Reservoir, which still has no trails at all. When I camp, I rarely use
a tent and on one occasion, I camped without a sleeping bag and slept
totally without clothes (and that was in a campground!) I've spent the
night atop Mt. Katahdin, even though it was against the rules. (wanted
to watch the sun rise.)
And I eat my meat raw.
I know all about blazed trails, but I don't limit myself to them. OTOH,
I don't want my half-day hike to last an extra hour because I miss a
turn.
Do you hike alone? On weekdays when you are likely the only person
there? When I was 60, I wasn't concerned about this but at age 77, I
know it's possible I'll break a leg or have a heart attack, and it's
foolish not to take a phone. In case I'm unconscious or my phone is
broken, it's foolish not to take advantage of the tech marvels of the
age, so that if I don't come back when I plan to, a friend can send
someone to look for me, rather than my lying there all night (possibly
in the rain). But I guess you're a real man and dying alone in the
woods won't bother you.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my
ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected
criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to
its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work?
OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods >without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or >finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your >batteries expire.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods without a electronic device of any type.� You would learn about mark or finding marks so you could retrace your path.� You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone.� Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your batteries expire.
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to
my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst,
that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is
broken or stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I
still haven't texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's
location using the simple instructions I found on the web.
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if youNo I was not kidding. Today people have put their whole lives in a
weren't.
micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to
my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst,
that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is
broken or stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I
still haven't texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's
location using the simple instructions I found on the web.
When I am out alone I always run a track on my GPS (not phone) which I can follow back so I do not get lost because I am 78 years old. If you are really worried you should look at something like a Garmin inReach.
On 05/20/2024 2:38 PM, Chris wrote:
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if youNo I was not kidding. Today people have put their whole lives in a cellphone. They depend on it to maintain their financial records, their shopping list. They use it to find the places they go. They feel they
weren't.
do not need to know basic, because they think the can use
google/siri/etc when ever they need information. I sometime wonder if
they need to google to tie their shoes.
I think it is a recipe for disaster. They are depending for everything
in their lives based on being able to access a cell tower. Hurricane, tornado, earthquake and the cell system being significantly interrupted,
they will be helpless.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your >>batteries expire.
It's not so easy to do all that with a broken leg.
knuttle wrote on Mon, 20 May 2024 16:00:46 -0400 :This is another statistic.
On 05/20/2024 2:38 PM, Chris wrote:
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if youNo I was not kidding. Today people have put their whole lives in a
weren't.
cellphone. They depend on it to maintain their financial records, their
shopping list. They use it to find the places they go. They feel they
do not need to know basic, because they think the can use
google/siri/etc when ever they need information. I sometime wonder if
they need to google to tie their shoes.
I think it is a recipe for disaster. They are depending for everything
in their lives based on being able to access a cell tower. Hurricane,
tornado, earthquake and the cell system being significantly interrupted,
they will be helpless.
Well, to be fair, cellphones make people safer, and, in fact, cellphones
are one reason traffic safety has steadily improved year after year after year since traffic accident rates steadily went down while cellphone ownership rates skyrocketed (contrary to the myth by most morons out there that cellphone use while driving raises the accident rate).
None of those morons who claim that have ever looked at the accident rates.
In addition to the SOS apps, Satellite communications and HAM radio previously discussed in this group (assuming a broken leg, for example),
for the OP, there's a free geofence app on iOS & Android which will alert anyone he wants to alert the instant his phone goes into our out of the
area (of course, it needs to have cellular coverage at sending time).
https://www.iamherezone.com/ by SyncIt
"This app allows users to send pre-generated messages based on
their geofence location area, thus informing other users when
they enter or leave a geographical area. The user defines the
geographical area by drawing it on the map. The app supports
SMS messaging, WhatsApp, email, and push notifications."
1. Draw a zone (on OpenStreetMap)
2. Write your text message
3. Select recipients
Create multiple zones
Store multiple recipients
Send default and customized messages
Setup recurring and one-time messages
Add icon and color to each zone
iOS:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/im-here-zone/id1452495641
Android:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.syncitgroup.android.iamhere
This is another statistic.
In the past 50 years the government has mandated 100's of safety devices
on automobiles. Each device was to reduce traffic accidents because it
would reduce death by 10%.
SO assume there were 100 devices added each reducing the traffic
accidents. accidents reduced 10% for each device, and 100 device, means
there are no traffic accidents on cars that had all of those devices implemented.
(if there were 100 lost lives, after the 1st device there were 90 death, after the 2nd 81, the 3rd 73, and so on until 100 devices )
So much for the published statistics on the lives saved by each new
device added to the car, it means nothing in the real world.
In case I'm unconscious or my phone is
broken, it's foolish not to take advantage of the tech marvels of the
age, so that if I don't come back when I plan to, a friend can send
someone to look for me, rather than my lying there all night (possibly
in the rain).
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/climber-dead-denali-north-america-tallest-peak-rcna153197>
Therefore do not go alone!
An Android device can not help you in an emergency if it breaks or the battery is dead.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
You can share your location on Google Maps with another user either for
a limited time period or until you turn off this option again:
<https://support.google.com/maps/answer/7326816?hl=en>
Besides that, OSMAnd also supports location sharing.
<https://osmand.net/docs/user/plugins/osmand-tracker/>
Regardless which solution you use - the other person also needs Google
Maps or OSMAnd to view your current location.
But keep in mind that having GPS enabled all the time and sending
location updates drains your battery quite fast. So also keep a big
power bank with you. Also keep in mind that the device can fail and/or batteries can get empty.
Here we have a classic case of advanced, terminal cellphone
addiction. A vehement, irrational -- even religious -- belief that
cellphone distraction while driving reduces accidents.
This is closely
related to the vehement geek belief that playing murderous video
games all day has no effect on mental health. "Cigarettes help your
lungs by reducing coughing." "Alcoholism is just the name used by
teetotalers to describe people who can hold their liquor." "I don't know
how she got pregnant. We never had sex... I don't think."
If you can't be honest with yourself about your cellphone
dependency, that's addiction. Can you just set it aside for a couple
of weeks without any big problems? Then that's addiction. If you
think that you can pay attention driving while on your cellphone,
you're fooling yourself. Those of us who are paying attention are
preventing the accidents. We watch you carefully while your
speed changes, you make sudden movements, you brake for no
reason, you drive like an old lady and then suddenly speed up....
We try to get away from you as soon as possible because you drive
like a drunk, only vaguely aware of what you're doing.
The last accident I was in was due to someone on a cellphone.
A man was driving while getting directions on his phone from friends
who he was going to pick up. He was in the left of 2 lanes, signalling
a left turn. I was passing in the right lane. Suddenly his friends told him he was turning at the wrong street, he overcorrected with his one
free hand and veered into me.
We locked mirrors for a few yards. The man first swore that
I'd hit him. Then he insisted there were not two lanes! He called the
police. He called his insurance company. He truly believed that I had
hit him while he was minding his own business. All the while he never got
off his cellphone. Luckily a sharp cop showed up and pointed out that
all the broken side mirror glass was in my lane, so I couldn't have
hit him... That accident wouldn't have been recorded as being caused
by cellphone usage. Anyone causing an accident by cellphone distraction
is likely to say they weren't on their phone. And we don't have breathalyzer tests for cellphone mania.
I saw a funny story the other day. I forget where it was. A young man
was tracked by a cop using his cellphone while driving, then pulled into
a fast food restaurant. The cop followed, walked over to his window, and
gave him a ticket for using a cellphone while driving. The young man
insisted
that he had just then pulled out his cellphone to let the drive-through
clerk
scan a coupon.
Less amusing was the documentary made by Werner Herzog, about
Amish people in a buggy killed by a texting driver. https://slate.com/culture/2013/08/werner-herzog-texting-while-driving-documentary-from-one-second-to-the-next-is-worth-watching-video.html
To even imagine that you can safely drive while using a cellphone is feeblemindedness. Cellphone addicts feel like they're on top of things, handling all sorts of input at once. Their cellphone is their cockpit. The trouble is that the one thing they're not tracking is the here and now. They're not where their body is. It's like those old Hollywood movies where the mogul is answering 2 or 3 phones at once, too busy to relate to
any of the calls properly.
Every single state reported similar trends of the accident rate going steadily down (for very good reasons, mind you) during the entire time that phone ownership rates were skyrocketing - laying proof to the lie that cellphones have any negative effect on the accident rate.
If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the accident rate
(e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing traffic, warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused turnarounds, etc.).
micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to
my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst,
that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is
broken or stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I
still haven't texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's
location using the simple instructions I found on the web.
When I am out alone I always run a track on my GPS (not phone) which I can follow back so I do not get lost because I am 78 years old. If you are really worried you should look at something like a Garmin inReach.
Bill Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:
micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location
to my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the
worst, that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the
phone is broken or stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's
6PM and I still haven't texted her to say I'm done, she can see my
phone's location using the simple instructions I found on the web.
When I am out alone I always run a track on my GPS (not phone) which
I can follow back so I do not get lost because I am 78 years old.
If you are really worried you should look at something like a Garmin
inReach.
We also have an old (non-phone) GPS (Garmin), which can lay
'breadcrumbs' for backtracking. Got us out of a mess in outback
Australia where there was a maze of non-signposted dirt tracks and our
maps (paper and offline smartphone ones) failed us.
Two-way (text/SMS) satellite communication like the Garmin InReach is
of course better, but also more expensive, because of the monthly
costs for the subscription.
When we're in the boonies of Australia, we have a PLB (Personal
Locator Beacon). That gives only a signal - not a message - and your
location to the satellite, but doesn't need a costly subscription.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon#Personal_Locator_Beacon>
Many people believe in myths, but very few question them, and even fewer
ask why there is no solid evidence in the government record for them.
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Bill Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote:
micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location
to my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the
worst, that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the
phone is broken or stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's
6PM and I still haven't texted her to say I'm done, she can see my
phone's location using the simple instructions I found on the web.
When I am out alone I always run a track on my GPS (not phone) which
I can follow back so I do not get lost because I am 78 years old.
If you are really worried you should look at something like a Garmin
inReach.
We also have an old (non-phone) GPS (Garmin), which can lay
'breadcrumbs' for backtracking. Got us out of a mess in outback
Australia where there was a maze of non-signposted dirt tracks and our
maps (paper and offline smartphone ones) failed us.
Two-way (text/SMS) satellite communication like the Garmin InReach is
of course better, but also more expensive, because of the monthly
costs for the subscription.
When we're in the boonies of Australia, we have a PLB (Personal
Locator Beacon). That gives only a signal - not a message - and your location to the satellite, but doesn't need a costly subscription.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon#Personal_Locator_Beacon>
I am sending this to you and Andrew. If you do not have cell phone service how can you send somebody your location and problem?
On 20.05.2024 03:58, knuttle wrote:
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my >>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I >>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected >>> criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be
a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person.
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to
its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try
the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use
it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do.
I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really
have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work? >>> OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really
show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe
they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your
batteries expire.
Phantastic! THX!
On 20.05.2024 07:11, micky wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 19 May 2024 21:58:37 -0400, knuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my >>>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I >>>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't >>>> texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected >>>> criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be >>>> a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person. >>>>
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to >>>> its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try >>>> the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use >>>> it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do. >>>> I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really >>>> have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work? >>>>
OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really >>>> show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe >>>> they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending >>> on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your >>> batteries expire.
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if you
weren't.
I've been hiking in the woods alone since I was 6 years old. I never
get lost, I especially like hikes with only deer trails or no trails at
all. For example I led a hike through the Crownsville Hospital forest
years before it opened to the public. As well as the Rocky Gorge
Reservoir, which still has no trails at all. When I camp, I rarely use
a tent and on one occasion, I camped without a sleeping bag and slept
totally without clothes (and that was in a campground!) I've spent the
night atop Mt. Katahdin, even though it was against the rules. (wanted
to watch the sun rise.)
And I eat my meat raw.
I know all about blazed trails, but I don't limit myself to them. OTOH,
I don't want my half-day hike to last an extra hour because I miss a
turn.
Do you hike alone? On weekdays when you are likely the only person
there? When I was 60, I wasn't concerned about this but at age 77, I
know it's possible I'll break a leg or have a heart attack, and it's
foolish not to take a phone. In case I'm unconscious or my phone is
broken, it's foolish not to take advantage of the tech marvels of the
age, so that if I don't come back when I plan to, a friend can send
someone to look for me, rather than my lying there all night (possibly
in the rain). But I guess you're a real man and dying alone in the
woods won't bother you.
Even more *OT*. Has nothing to do with Android.
And this is not therapy group for nutty hikers.
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 19 May 2024 21:58:37 -0400, knuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my >>>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I >>>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't >>>> texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected >>>> criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be >>>> a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person. >>>>
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to >>>> its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try >>>> the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use >>>> it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do. >>>> I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really >>>> have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work? >>>>
OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really >>>> show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe >>>> they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending >>> on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your >>> batteries expire.
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if you
weren't.
I've been hiking in the woods alone since I was 6 years old.
Then you should know that before you head off to tell someone your route
and approximate time you will be done by. Then if you're not back by the
time you said you would be that person can alert mountain rescue.
This has always been the case with no need for technology.
If you want to depend on fallible technology - requires battery, wifi, gps,
to work - then you share live location. You still need to pre-arrange with >someone to notify the authorities if you're not back when you said you
would be.
If you can't trust your ex to be able to read a map for the police then ask >someone else.
A non-map based option is WhatThreeWords. See if you can suit your needs.
The system has covered the whole planet surface in a grid of 3x3m squares >each defined by a unique combination of three words e.g.
The White House
///metals.rated.purely
https://w3w.co/metals.rated.purely
It is ideal for giving directions where there's no points of reference.
I never
get lost,
No-one does. Until they do.
On 05/20/2024 5:35 PM, Andrew wrote:
knuttle wrote on Mon, 20 May 2024 16:00:46 -0400 :This is another statistic.
On 05/20/2024 2:38 PM, Chris wrote:
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if youNo I was not kidding. Today people have put their whole lives in a
weren't.
cellphone. They depend on it to maintain their financial records, their >>> shopping list. They use it to find the places they go. They feel they >>> do not need to know basic, because they think the can use
google/siri/etc when ever they need information. I sometime wonder if
they need to google to tie their shoes.
I think it is a recipe for disaster. They are depending for everything
in their lives based on being able to access a cell tower. Hurricane,
tornado, earthquake and the cell system being significantly interrupted, >>> they will be helpless.
Well, to be fair, cellphones make people safer, and, in fact, cellphones
are one reason traffic safety has steadily improved year after year after
year since traffic accident rates steadily went down while cellphone
ownership rates skyrocketed (contrary to the myth by most morons out there >> that cellphone use while driving raises the accident rate).
None of those morons who claim that have ever looked at the accident rates. >>
In addition to the SOS apps, Satellite communications and HAM radio
previously discussed in this group (assuming a broken leg, for example),
for the OP, there's a free geofence app on iOS & Android which will alert
anyone he wants to alert the instant his phone goes into our out of the
area (of course, it needs to have cellular coverage at sending time).
https://www.iamherezone.com/ by SyncIt
"This app allows users to send pre-generated messages based on
their geofence location area, thus informing other users when
they enter or leave a geographical area. The user defines the
geographical area by drawing it on the map. The app supports
SMS messaging, WhatsApp, email, and push notifications."
1. Draw a zone (on OpenStreetMap)
2. Write your text message
3. Select recipients
Create multiple zones
Store multiple recipients
Send default and customized messages
Setup recurring and one-time messages
Add icon and color to each zone
iOS:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/im-here-zone/id1452495641
Android:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.syncitgroup.android.iamhere
In the past 50 years the government has mandated 100's of safety devices
on automobiles. Each device was to reduce traffic accidents because it
would reduce death by 10%.
SO assume there were 100 devices added each reducing the traffic
accidents. accidents reduced 10% for each device, and 100 device, means
there are no traffic accidents on cars that had all of those devices >implemented.
(if there were 100 lost lives, after the 1st device there were 90 death, >after the 2nd 81, the 3rd 73, and so on until 100 devices )
So much for the published statistics on the lives saved by each new
device added to the car, it means nothing in the real world.
micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to
my ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst,
that I break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is
broken or stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I
still haven't texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's
location using the simple instructions I found on the web.
When I am out alone I always run a track on my GPS (not phone) which I can >follow back so I do not get lost because I am 78 years old. If you are >really worried you should look at something like a Garmin inReach.
On 20.05.2024 03:46, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my
ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
*OT*
In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 06:49:23 +0200, Jörg Lorenz <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20.05.2024 03:58, knuttle wrote:
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to my >>>> ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I >>>> break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't >>>> texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
But if she's unable to explain to the police where I am, how do the
police figure it out? Can they see everyone's location just by
knowing their phone number? This would be bad if it were for suspected >>>> criminals and they didn't have a warrant, but if it's to save me, I'd
sort of like for them to know where I am. And I don't want there to be >>>> a lot of time required to enable it each time for each new lost person. >>>>
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
BTW, I started doing this last fall, without realizing the plan was
incomplete. Since then the AllTrails app has added the same feature to >>>> its maps. It probably piggybacks on Google maps. I'll know when I try >>>> the two tomorrow. The AllTrails app is fantastic in that you can use >>>> it for free if you have cellular signal where you are walking, and if
you pay for a year, you can download all the maps you'll want to use
(which I think continue to work even after your subscription has
expired) and you can use them without a cell signal. AND, they show
where on the trail you are. The maps zoom in more than google maps do. >>>> I think they'll even tell you when it's time to turn, but that's not
something I'd likely want to use.
I've come across a couple other non-Google maps that include GPS. I
think the Yorktown battlefield in Virginia was one of them. You really >>>> have to give a lot of credit to the USA government for putting those
satellites up there. Who would even have thunk it that this could work? >>>> OTOH, i've read that the whole thing is a scam, and GPS doesn't really >>>> show where you are. It just sends random locations, and people believe >>>> they are accurate. People are so suggestible. Many have drunk the
kool-aid and they believe in GPS and vaccines. It's sad.
You're pretty funny, Jorg. In another post you complain that this post
is off-topic (even though the first two paragraphs, the important part,
are not), but then below you call knuttle's post, which is entirely off-topic, "Phantastic!" and you say THX!. You don't seem to know if
you like off-topic posts or not, so I don't see how anyone can use your standards for anything.
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or
finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending >>> on your cellphone. Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your >>> batteries expire.
Phantastic! THX!
See? You like off-topic stuff. People should remember that when you complain about somethiung the next time.
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Of course it's on topic. (and far, far more than knuttle's post that you
praised.) Google maps is an Android app that everyone has, and how to
relay to the police what the maps app says about a missing person's
location is a question about more than the maps app. It's about Android
usage in general.
I think the only current way to do this would be to take a screen shot,
or several at different levels of zoom, and send that to some police
number that accepts email. I think I've heard that 911 will accept
emails at least in parts of the country/world, but if it won't, the
police will give you a number that will.
How to take a screenshot and then find the file or the file name and how
to "share" that with the police is another set of Android questions.
My friend is one county away from where I live, so I think the easiest
thing in my case would be to send the Carroll County or state police to
her home and look at the map there. If someone used a friend 1000 miles
away, when a friend is missing, it would then be worth learning how to
take and email screenshots.
Or one could borrow another cellphone and photograph the screen of the
first one and send that picture.
I assume you use the location sharing feature of Google Maps.
Assuming your ex-girlfriend knows how to use Google Maps, she can see
your last known location. She can 'pin' that location by long-pressing
it and then she can 'Share' (see bottom of screen) that location by any
of the available sharing methods, i.e. SMS, email, instant messaging >(WhatsApp), etc., etc..
The sharing goes via the Google Maps URL [1] of the location. Sadly, I do
not see a method to share the actual coordinates, which would be better.
Also see Chris' earlier reference to WhatThreeWords.
BTW, do *not* use a screenshot if the above methods are available. The
screenshot might not contain enough of the surroundings to pinpoint the >location and even if it does, it's uneccessarily hard to determine the
actual coordinates (within some reasonable accuracy).
If your ex-girlfriend does not know how to use Google Maps, it's best
if she goes to the police or they come to her, and take it from there.
[1] Example: <https://maps.app.goo.gl/2TpN5LggxDJNQN7F6> (which is The
White House).
Of course it's on topic. (and far, far more than knuttle's post that you praised.) Google maps is an Android app that everyone has, and how to
relay to the police what the maps app says about a missing person's
location is a question about more than the maps app. It's about Android
usage in general.
I think the only current way to do this would be to take a screen shot,
or several at different levels of zoom, and send that to some police
number that accepts email. I think I've heard that 911 will accept
emails at least in parts of the country/world, but if it won't, the
police will give you a number that will.
How to take a screenshot and then find the file or the file name and how
to "share" that with the police is another set of Android questions.
My friend is one county away from where I live, so I think the easiest
thing in my case would be to send the Carroll County or state police to
her home and look at the map there. If someone used a friend 1000 miles away, when a friend is missing, it would then be worth learning how to
take and email screenshots.
Or one could borrow another cellphone and photograph the screen of the
first one and send that picture.
On 5/19/2024 9:58 PM, knuttle wrote:
If you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods
without a electronic device of any type.� You would learn about mark or
finding marks so you could retrace your path.� You would learn about
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Learn to be in the woods before you go off wandering on a hike depending
on your cellphone.� Knowledge of the Woods will save your life when your
batteries expire.
Also of note is that Micky's sample scenario starts
with him having his cellphone either broken or stolen.
He then goes on to enjoy a high-tech trail map and expects
the police to find him via GPS, presumably because his
cellphone number alone always shows where he is.
I think that the way it turns out is that Micky's ex
figures out the GPS and helps the police track down the
criminal who stole Micky's cellphone. She ends up a hero.
Meanwhile, Micky has a broken leg. He's stuck on the
trail, bending the ear of a weary grizzly bear who's trying
desperately to find an excuse to leave. "Whoa! Sorry Micky.
I think I just saw a salmon walk by. Gotta go!"
But Micky
does finally get saved, because an alien spaceship on
patrol in those woods happens to notice that Micky's
cellphone number has been stopped on a trail for hours
without moving. In the end it all ends well. Micky is awarded
an honorary Eagle Scout medal and gets a lucrative contract
working as a translator at Area 51....
Don't miss Season 2 of Micky Gets By, when Micky struggles
with humidity possibly affecting his computer and takes his
emergency to 9 newsgroups. It's non-stop action.
micky wrote on Mon, 20 May 2024 01:11:51 -0400 :
Or is my friend supposed to somehow send the location information she
can see on her phone to their phone? How?
There are many solutions to the problem you posited above, one of which is >that Andy Burns in a recent thread mentioned a US carrier that will switch
to satellite communications if there isn't any cellular connection.
However, if you have a cellular connection, we've discussed on this
newsgroup many times the typical SOS apps which will send your latitude & >longitude (and even a map with your pre-prepared text if you like) to
anyone listed as your emergency contact.
Offhand, one is SOS Alert where you press a homescreen button to send a >pre-prepared SOS message & your GPS location to up to 5 contacts).
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.main.contacts.smsmanager>
Another one which requires more button presses but which is more useful in >day-to-day hiking situations is this app which sends the GPS by SMS.
*GPS to SMS* - location sharing by Tralchonok Labs <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ru.perm.trubnikov.gps2sms> <https://github.com/tral/GPS2SMS> <https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-2-2-gps-to-sms-location-sharing.2994187/>
Of course, you have to be alive for that to happen, and you need cellular >signal,
although if you're still ambulatory, it will send when you
eventually move into a cellular coverage area.
If you don't have a cellular connection, that's why I keep a HAM radio in
my pack when I'm on off trail hikes in the mountains.
Many people believe in myths, but very few question them, and even fewer
ask why there is no solid evidence in the government record for them.
I told you why... if it's even true. Cellphone use is not
typically something that's investigated and cellphone users
are not likely to offer the information.
If you do not have cell phone service
how can you send somebody your location and problem?
Not only that. the AllTrails map showed my location and it zigzagged
near the trail I was supposed to take, even though I was almost always
right on the trail I was supposed to take. I think this was because GPS
is not perfect
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Not only that. the AllTrails map showed my location and it zigzagged
near the trail I was supposed to take, even though I was almost always
right on the trail I was supposed to take. I think this was because GPS
is not perfect
Was this in a tree covered area or/and with overcast weather? Both
tend to weaken the GPS signal, which is already a very weak signal to
start with. (Imagine the satellites transmitting from some 20,000km >(12,500mi) above the earth to your smartphone.)
Moral: Get out of the woods and only hike on a sunny day! :-)
[...]
In comp.mobile.android, on 22 May 2024 13:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Not only that. the AllTrails map showed my location and it zigzagged
near the trail I was supposed to take, even though I was almost always
right on the trail I was supposed to take. I think this was because GPS >> is not perfect
Was this in a tree covered area or/and with overcast weather? Both
Yes, both of those.
tend to weaken the GPS signal, which is already a very weak signal to
start with. (Imagine the satellites transmitting from some 20,000km >(12,500mi) above the earth to your smartphone.)
But it isn't the strength of the signal that matters, it's the time
delay iirc. Does Going through clouds and leaves delay the signal?
Moral: Get out of the woods and only hike on a sunny day! :-)
[...]
I even successfully used it in a normal commercial
airplane.
Bill Bradshaw wrote on Tue, 21 May 2024 08:49:15 -0800 :
If you do not have cell phone service
how can you send somebody your location and problem?
Please re-read what I wrote (and what Frank wrote) where we took into
account that problem, in various ways - because we understood the
problem set and, as a result of that understanding, we kindly
provided the OP with a variety of purposefully helpful workarounds.
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on 22 May 2024 13:39:35 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<[email protected]d> wrote:
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Not only that. the AllTrails map showed my location and it zigzagged
near the trail I was supposed to take, even though I was almost always
right on the trail I was supposed to take. I think this was because GPS >> >> is not perfect
Was this in a tree covered area or/and with overcast weather? Both
Yes, both of those.
tend to weaken the GPS signal, which is already a very weak signal to
start with. (Imagine the satellites transmitting from some 20,000km
(12,500mi) above the earth to your smartphone.)
But it isn't the strength of the signal that matters, it's the time
delay iirc. Does Going through clouds and leaves delay the signal?
The signal strength does matter, because if it's too low, the
smartphone can't pick it up. I.e. similar to a 'cell' signal, if it's
too weak, you won't get a connection.
In my experience, both with 'real' GPSs - i.e. dedicated devices - and
smartphones, trees and clouds are the main problems for getting a fix.
Indoors is also a problem, but it's not often needed in such
circumstances.
In a vehicle, it's mostly not a problem, because of the
amount of glass. I even successfully used it in a normal commercial
airplane.
(The plane didn't have a screen showing its current position,
etc., so I took my tablet, fired up OsmAnd+ and held the tablet somewhat >close to the window.)
Moral: Get out of the woods and only hike on a sunny day! :-)
[...]
knuttle wrote on Mon, 20 May 2024 16:00:46 -0400 :
On 05/20/2024 2:38 PM, Chris wrote:
I presume you're kidding, but just in case, I'll answer as if youNo I was not kidding. Today people have put their whole lives in a
weren't.
cellphone. They depend on it to maintain their financial records, their
shopping list. They use it to find the places they go. They feel they
do not need to know basic, because they think the can use
google/siri/etc when ever they need information. I sometime wonder if
they need to google to tie their shoes.
I think it is a recipe for disaster. They are depending for everything
in their lives based on being able to access a cell tower. Hurricane,
tornado, earthquake and the cell system being significantly interrupted,
they will be helpless.
Well, to be fair, cellphones make people safer, and, in fact, cellphones
are one reason traffic safety has steadily improved year after year after >year since traffic accident rates steadily went down while cellphone >ownership rates skyrocketed (contrary to the myth by most morons out there >that cellphone use while driving raises the accident rate).
None of those morons who claim that have ever looked at the accident rates.
In addition to the SOS apps, Satellite communications and HAM radio >previously discussed in this group (assuming a broken leg, for example),
for the OP, there's a free geofence app on iOS & Android which will alert >anyone he wants to alert the instant his phone goes into our out of the
area (of course, it needs to have cellular coverage at sending time).
https://www.iamherezone.com/ by SyncIt
"This app allows users to send pre-generated messages based on
their geofence location area, thus informing other users when
they enter or leave a geographical area. The user defines the
geographical area by drawing it on the map. The app supports
SMS messaging, WhatsApp, email, and push notifications."
1. Draw a zone (on OpenStreetMap)
2. Write your text message
3. Select recipients
Create multiple zones
Store multiple recipients
Send default and customized messages
Setup recurring and one-time messages
Add icon and color to each zone
iOS:
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/im-here-zone/id1452495641
Android:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.syncitgroup.android.iamhere
Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their cellphone while driving? And that that isn't dangerous? that it
doesnt' cause accidents?
None of those morons who claim that have ever looked at the accident rates.
How do you know that?
There are dozens of factors that have an effect on the accident rate.
In addition to the SOS apps, Satellite communications and HAM radio >>previously discussed in this group (assuming a broken leg, for example), >>for the OP, there's a free geofence app on iOS & Android which will alert >>anyone he wants to alert the instant his phone goes into our out of the >>area (of course, it needs to have cellular coverage at sending time).
The fact that cellphones are helpful, and can call the police or an
ambulance better than having no phone*** can does not mean that at other times cellphones are the danger. Right?
***But those tasks only start after there is an accident and/or only
after the car has stopped.
micky wrote on Wed, 22 May 2024 20:52:26 -0400 :
Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their
cellphone while driving? And that that isn't dangerous? that it
doesnt' cause accidents?
Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been >publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
start) states since the 1920s, and their data on accident rates for each
and every one of the fifty states show NO ADVERSE EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the >accident rate for any state and for all states in the periods before >cellphones, during cellphone ownership skyrocketing, and afterward.
The accident rate is slowly going down; but it certainly didn't go up
*That's just a fact.*
Only fools dispute facts (that's why they're fools).
How do you know that?
None of those morons who claim that have ever looked at the accident rates. >>
There are dozens of factors that have an effect on the accident rate.
Nay, thousands. We covered this.
We covered that the NHTSA focused on and listed distractions, where in the >top 10 distractions were cellphone use while driving (understandably so).
There were and are *always* distractions while driving, where cellphones >merely moved one of those old top ten distractions to position number 11.
In addition to the SOS apps, Satellite communications and HAM radio >>>previously discussed in this group (assuming a broken leg, for example), >>>for the OP, there's a free geofence app on iOS & Android which will alert >>>anyone he wants to alert the instant his phone goes into our out of the >>>area (of course, it needs to have cellular coverage at sending time).
The fact that cellphones are helpful, and can call the police or an
ambulance better than having no phone*** can does not mean that at other
times cellphones are the danger. Right?
What you have here is a fact. The accident rate is unchanged.
What you need to figure out is why.
The fact is simple (as only fools dispute facts).
The why isn't so simple - but there are reasons why.
But until you agree with the fact, you have no business working on the why.
You should just look up the old threads which contained the URLs.
I'm tired of digging them up because this is old news that cellphones never
changed the accident rate in the United States (or Australia, by the way).
***But those tasks only start after there is an accident and/or only
after the car has stopped.
There's a reason I spoke about accident rates.
a. First off, they're normalized by miles driven
b. Which itself is a complicated function of very many things
c. And secondly, you can't have injuries without accidents first
So injuries (including fatalities) are a second-order effect.
If we don't know the first order effects, we have no business discussing >second-order effects (which also knock your socks off if you knew them).
In summary, every moron on the planet believes that cellphones increased >accident rates - because they're morons - and because three entities take >anecdotal evidence (that accidents occur) and blow them up out of
proportion.
1. Personal injury lawyers (who benefit from the lawsuits)
2. Insurance companies (who benefit from raising rates)
3. Police (who benefit from ticketing)
Try to find a cite please that is NOT from one of those three that shows >reliable data before, during & after cellphone ownership skyrocketing
rates, regarding the accident rate in the United States.
And yet when you look for the accident rates from the US Census Bureau (who >keeps good data) - they didn't go up. They just steadily went down in the >United States in the reliable records (which have been kept since the 1920s >and are the best there is).
Secondly, cellphones certainly are a distraction - no doubt about it. The >NHTSA listed the top ten distractions and cellphones kicked one of them off >the list and replaced them (which should give you a hint as to why the >accident rate remained unchanged - but nobody is ready for the real science >yet).
Thirdly, any talk about injuries/fatalities is premature because that's a >second-order effect. First you have to understand the first-order issues.
And lastly, even I, a trained scientist, *would have thought* that
cellphones must be such a distraction that even I (a trained scientist)
would have thought they certainly would have raised the accident rate.
And yet, when I looked, I found out that they didn't.
And then I looked for why.
Where the why turned out to be obvious - once you realize there have always >been top ten distractions while driving - and where cellphones merely
swapped one of them and pushed another into position 11.
But nobody is ready for the why until they look at the facts.
Google it. We've discussed this many times on this very newsgroup.
The links are in those threads (I'm not bothering to look them up for you).
A non-map based option is WhatThreeWords. See if you can suit your needs.
The system has covered the whole planet surface in a grid of 3x3m squares >each defined by a unique combination of three words e.g.
The White House
///metals.rated.purely
https://w3w.co/metals.rated.purely
It is ideal for giving directions where there's no points of reference.
I am sending this to you
and Andrew.
If you do not have cell phone service
how can you send somebody your location and problem?
<Bill>
There are three questions above and afaict you didn't answer any of
them. Maybe somewhere in your text you have answers, but I didn't see
them, so do me a favor and answer each of the 3 questiosn above.
I'll fully phrase them individually, and add one:
Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their cellphone while driving?
Are you saying no one does anything on his cell phone that take takes
his attention away from his driving?
If you agree that they do do things that take their attention, are you
saying it's not dangerous?
Are you saying it doens't cause accidents?
Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been >>publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still
be a danger. That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
at the top.
What you have here is a fact. The accident rate is unchanged.
What you need to figure out is why.
I just want to figure out what you're saying.
The fact is simple (as only fools dispute facts).
The why isn't so simple - but there are reasons why.
But until you agree with the fact, you have no business working on the why.
I'm not working on the why; I'm not working on any fact. I'm only
asking what you are saying.
micky wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 00:46:56 -0400 :
There are three questions above and afaict you didn't answer any of
them. Maybe somewhere in your text you have answers, but I didn't see
them, so do me a favor and answer each of the 3 questiosn above.
What I'm saying is based on facts, not myth.
I'll fully phrase them individually, and add one:
Are you saying that no one texts or reads texts or articles on their
cellphone while driving?
Of course not. Nobody said that.
Are you saying no one does anything on his cell phone that take takes
his attention away from his driving?
Of course not. Nobody said that.
If you agree that they do do things that take their attention, are you
saying it's not dangerous?
Of course not. Nobody said that.
Are you saying it doens't cause accidents?
Of course not. Nobody said that.
Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been >>>publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still
be a danger. That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
at the top.
I'm a scientist.
It's good that you understand a few things which is that the accident rate
is based on a variety of things
- but what you have to understand is the
accidents that are caused by cellphones would have happened anyway in the >statistical record.
You will NEVER understand that statement, if you don't understand why I
kept advising you that all cellphones did was replace an existing
distraction out of the top ten that was already causing most accidents.
Cellphones merely pushed number 10 of the top ten, into number 11.
Cellphones accomplished nothing else that would raise the accident rate.
And, on the flip side, they lowered the accident rate in many ways.
It's not a simple 1 + 1 = 2 equation.
But anyone who claims the accident rate went up, is a fool.
Because that is a myth.
At least in the USA it is, as the reliable data shows otherwise.
What you have here is a fact. The accident rate is unchanged.
What you need to figure out is why.
I just want to figure out what you're saying.
I'm a scientist. I base assessments on facts. Not myths.
a. I completely understand that cellphones are a distraction.
b. I completely understand they didn't exist and now they're everywhere.
c. I completely understand why people believe the myth.
But when you look at the reliable data, the accident rate remained
unchanged (steadily trending down)
in each of the 50 states before, during
and after the sky rocketing cellphone ownership rates.
The difference between a scientist and a moron is a moron believes the
myths without checking them but the scientist looks for the facts first.
The fact is simple (as only fools dispute facts).I'm not working on the why; I'm not working on any fact. I'm only
The why isn't so simple - but there are reasons why.
But until you agree with the fact, you have no business working on the why. >>
asking what you are saying.
Simple. The reliable records show no effect of cellphones on accidents if
you look at the reliable accident rate statistics of the USA by the CB.
What happened was there were always distractions while driving.
And there were always a top ten (or whatever) cause of accidents.
My hypothesis on the why is all cellphones did was displace one of the top >ten. As such, they had no effect on the accident rate.
But it's open to your assessment as to the why.
Thanks for asking questions - as I'm a scientist so I welcome questions.
Most people just believe in myths without ever checking the data.
Better than that, when you first said that cellphones have lowered the accident rate, it would have been very good if you'd mentioned that they
also cause accidents.
to prove anything to anyone, especially given that you yourself say
there are hundreds of things that affect the accident rate.
Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been >>>>publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
You said this already and I don't find it of value, because lots of
things can make the accident rate go down, while cell phones could still >>> be a danger. That's why I want you to answer each of the 4 questions
at the top.
I'm a scientist.
Being a scientist is great, but writing in a way that convinces people
of things is a separate skill.
It helps a lot to make the affirmative
points one thinks supports his position, but it ALSO MATTERS A LOT to
foresee the objections readers will have and deal with them.
In this
case that would be admitting that cellphones caause accidents and trying
to convince readers that they lessen the number of accidents more than
they increase them. A) I don't know how anyone can do that if the
readers are not going to spend hours and hours looking at detailed
accident data, B) I don't think it matters, because cellphoners have so
many advantages unrelated to traffic accidents, and because this is
supposed to be a free country, so that few are going to object to the
use of cellphones, and also few will object ot enforcing laws against
using them while driving in ways that make accidents more likely. Which
is the situation we have now.
It's good that you understand a few things which is that the accident rate >>is based on a variety of things
Yes, I understand that. I feel so good about that.
- but what you have to understand is the
accidents that are caused by cellphones would have happened anyway in the >>statistical record.
Huh? What is the difference between "would have happened anyway" and
"would have happened anyway in the statistitical record"?
First, if there's a difference, I want to talk about real-life
accidents, not some statistical record which you seem to say disguises
the cause of cell-phone-caused accidents.
Second, if there is no substantial difference, you seem to be
backtracking on the answers you gave to my 4 questions above. No, the accidents caused by cellphones would not have happened anyway if there
were no cellphones or if people didn't use them while driving.
You will NEVER understand that statement, if you don't understand why I >>kept advising you that all cellphones did was replace an existing >>distraction out of the top ten that was already causing most accidents.
What was the existing distraction they replaced? Why don't you include
that since it's clearly so important to the point you are tryhing to
convince people of?
Cellphones merely pushed number 10 of the top ten, into number 11. >>Cellphones accomplished nothing else that would raise the accident rate.
Of course they did. You admitted it when you answered the 4 questions above.
And, on the flip side, they lowered the accident rate in many ways.
You said that earlier, but I don't think so. You brought up traffic
data. Before there was traffic data on cellphones, one could get
traffic data by listening to the radio, and in many cases it made no difference. For me and many there was only one route to work and when
one got to the bumper-to-bumper area, he slowed down, just like now.
In your answer to knuttle at Tue, 21 May 2024 03:12:49 -0000 (UTC) you
said "If anything, they have a positive effect by reducing the accident
rate (e.g., reducing sudden unexpected traffic, re-routing traffic,
warning of construction and congestion, fewer confused turnarounds,
etc.)."
I could go over each of these to say why I think their effects are
minimal. But more important here is "If anything". This is where you
seem to have denied that cellphones cause accidents. You don't say,
Yes, they cause problems but they also help. You say, If anything they
have have a positive effect. Do you see why that seems to be a denial
that their use causes accidents?????
It's not a simple 1 + 1 = 2 equation.
But anyone who claims the accident rate went up, is a fool.
You're not going to get far if you keep insulting people who disagree
with you. Ask the other scientists you know if that's a good way to
promote your ideas.
Because that is a myth.
Largely proof by assertion, since the facts are hidden in details of thousands of pages of accident data.
But when you look at the reliable data, the accident rate remained >>unchanged (steadily trending down)
You constantly talk about the total accident rate, when you should be
looking at and talking about accidents caused by cellphones and
accidents prevented by cellphones. It doesn't seem very scientific to
talk about the total accident rate. Espcially, when the very people
who says cellphones cause accidents and not disputing afaik that the
total accident rate is going down. The total accident rate going down
is a red herring by you. It's not in dispute.
More insults.
No, the post revolved around knowing with some precision where I was,
Which in the scenario you provided of your phone being stolen or broken is impossible.
Only GPS and battery, and I have plenty of battery and GPS is exceedinly
reliable. There was no cell signal on 90% of the trail, and certainly
no wifi.
Well that's useless for anyone but you. Your ex nor the police will ever where you are from your phone 90% of the time.
But I challenge your use of "depend on". You missed the part that I had
told my friend where I was going on and how long it would take me.
Good.
The
technology part is a supplement, so that they will be find me faster.
Not without a data connection they won't.
Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist.
Not even close.
My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been
publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
start) states since the 1920s,
And stopped about 10 years ago as far as I can find. Can you share a link which shows this accident data for the last 20-25 years?
and their data on accident rates for each
Only fools dispute facts (that's why they're fools).
Looking at correlations - which is all you're doing - doesn't categorically answer either way. It's certainly factual information, but it doesn't make your global assertions facts.
Chris wrote on Thu, 23 May 2024 21:47:27 -0000 (UTC) :
Thanks for asking. It's only fools who don't question common myths.
I'm a scientist.
Not even close.
Tell me a single fact I've ever stated that you can prove is wrong?
HINT: You can't.
Note: There's a difference between facts & assessments of those facts.
For example, this is a fact:
The US Census Bureau reports accident rates for every state in the US.
Assessment of that fact:
Those accident rate reports are accurate.
Note the difference, Chris, between fact & assessment of fact.
You'll never find my facts wrong.
What you might (rightfully) disagree with are my assessments of facts.
My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been >>> publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the
start) states since the 1920s,
And stopped about 10 years ago as far as I can find. Can you share a link
which shows this accident data for the last 20-25 years?
and their data on accident rates for each
We can google for it since it was reported in this very newsgroup, Chris.
http://groups.google.com/g/comp.mobile.android
On 05/19/2024 9:46 PM, micky wrote:
Going hiking tomorrow. Finally realized I was sending my location to myIf you had Been in the Boy Scouts you would learn to live in the woods >without a electronic device of any type. You would learn about mark or >finding marks so you could retrace your path. You would learn about
ex-GF, but I hadn't told her how to see it. Assuming the worst, that I
break my leg and can't get off the trail, but the phone is broken or
stolen, and assuming she actually notices it's 6PM and I still haven't
texted her to say I'm done, she can see my phone's location using the
simple instructions I found on the web.
finding your direction so you do not get lost.
Assessment of that fact:
Those accident rate reports are accurate.
Based on what? How are you defining accuracy? Is it post hoc justification because those numbers match your bias?
I'm a scientist. My words below are written very clearly around facts.
I'm saying we covered this many times where the US Census Bureau has been publishing *ACCURATE* accident-rate statistics for all fifty (48 at the start) states since the 1920s, and their data on accident rates for each
and every one of the fifty states show NO ADVERSE EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the accident rate for any state and for all states in the periods before cellphones, during cellphone ownership skyrocketing, and afterward.
The accident rate is slowly going down; but it certainly didn't go up
*That's just a fact.*
The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
about deaths.
Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :
The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
about deaths.
I'm a well-trained scientist.
I base my assessments on facts.
While most people (who are not scientists) simply guess at everything.
Don't look at second-order effects of accidents until you've ascertained first-order effects, since deaths are a function of many more things.
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA
The only place that myth exists is in people's minds when they don't think. However, even I would have *thought* accident rates would have skyrocketed.
They didn't.
Not in the USA anyway (where accurate records have been kept for decades).
The rate not only didn't skyrocket, it barely changed.
And what changed was it slowly trended down, down, down.
That's just a fact.
Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools).
The main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police.
In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone ownership in the United States? <https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
What do you see? <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
None of the above proves that cell-phone use while drivig is not
extremely dangerous or that the part of accidents caused by cell phone
use or by other distracting devices is not increasing with increasing cellphone use.
BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before?
Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
A few years ago I had a near head-on collision (missed BY INCHES) with a closure rate of well over 250 km/h and the other driver was a woman
(sole occupant in that car with phone in hand) who had deviated
completely into my single lane from a point about 200 feet in front of
me, try THAT once for a hard opinion-alignment! Also a few years ago I
was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
(mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).
Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in this respect) try to remember road/traffic details from the previous few minutes without drawing a complete blank. You can cheat,
but when alone and looking at yourself in the mirror you'll remember the astounding revelation and it will change your habbits.
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<[email protected]> wrote:
I looked at it quite a bit and it woudln't be suitable for me. I don't
A non-map based option is WhatThreeWords. See if you can suit your needs. >>
have any way to generate the 3 words while I'm hiking, and every 10 feet
I'd need another set of 3 words. Plus there is no relationship between
the words for one location and the adjacent locations.
Plus if I could generate the words, my friend would not know what they
mean,
I was thinking more for your friend to be able to relay your location more >easily than google map coordinates.
and I doubt the local police would understand them either.
Why? Many rescue services are fully aware.
So how
could they rescue me?
You could ask them.
However, it's definitely interesting
The system has covered the whole planet surface in a grid of 3x3m squares >>> each defined by a unique combination of three words e.g.
The White House
///metals.rated.purely
https://w3w.co/metals.rated.purely
It is ideal for giving directions where there's no points of reference.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
The rest was an hypothesis to potentially explain that unexpected fact.
BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before?
Guess what. The US census bureau statistics do NOT rely on that.
So it's a non sequitur what anyone "says" about the cause of the accident.
The actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states.
Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
Nobody but you said that anyone said anything after the
accident. They could have had the accident for any number of reasons.
On 5/25/24 11:47, Andrew wrote:
Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :
The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
about deaths.
I'm a well-trained scientist.
I base my assessments on facts.
While most people (who are not scientists) simply guess at everything.
Don't look at second-order effects of accidents until you've ascertained
first-order effects, since deaths are a function of many more things.
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA >>
The only place that myth exists is in people's minds when they don't think. >> However, even I would have *thought* accident rates would have skyrocketed. >>
They didn't.
Not in the USA anyway (where accurate records have been kept for decades). >>
The rate not only didn't skyrocket, it barely changed.
And what changed was it slowly trended down, down, down.
That's just a fact.
Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools).
The main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. >>
In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the >> accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
ownership in the United States?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year> >>
What do you see?
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> >>
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
None of the above proves that cell-phone use while drivig is not
extremely dangerous or that the part of accidents caused by cell phone
use or by other distracting devices is not increasing with increasing >cellphone use. BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before? Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
A few years ago I had a near head-on collision (missed BY INCHES) with a >closure rate of well over 250 km/h and the other driver was a woman
(sole occupant in that car with phone in hand) who had deviated
completely into my single lane from a point about 200 feet in front of
me, try THAT once for a hard opinion-alignment!
Also a few years ago I
was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not >noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
(mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).
Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I >affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY >NOTHING in this respect)
try to remember road/traffic details from the
previous few minutes without drawing a complete blank. You can cheat,
but when alone and looking at yourself in the mirror you'll remember the >astounding revelation and it will change your habbits.
What do you see? <https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot>
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones.
The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to, paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
if you're headed to an obstacle.
In order to have any meaningful correlation between cell phones in cars
and their effect on accidents one would have to know how many of those
cell phones were in use while driving and also the accident rate in
those cars as compared to the others. Without this in the case of
cell-phone correlation the supplied study provides just irrelevant statistical noise.
The rest was an hypothesis to potentially explain that unexpected fact.
So we went from scientific method and statistical data to hypothetical potentials. OK, I didn't lock in on that one, my bad :-)
BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before?
Guess what. The US census bureau statistics do NOT rely on that.
So it's a non sequitur what anyone "says" about the cause of the accident.
The cause of the accident is not likely to be recorded as having been cell-phone use unless someone fesses up to it.
Accident investigation
does not on one hand include automatic mandatory x-checking with the
cell service providers and in many jurisdictions such would not even be permitted on the other. I've done accident investigation in three areas
of activity and am of the opinion that quite a few reports are
misleading and not only accidentaly so ..for any number of reasons.
The actual accidents are reportable in all fifty states.
Sidebar: is this comp.mobile.android or comp.mobile.android.us?
Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby >>> one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
Nobody but you said that anyone said anything after the
accident. They could have had the accident for any number of reasons.
I never said that anyone said anything. What I thought to have alluded
to rather unequivocally was that IF someone had used a phone and knew
that that use had lead up to the accident then that person would not
likely volunteer that information.
This may soon become unnecessary
anyway with the onset of AI helping cops catch offenders given that it
has the speed to analyse cell traffic around and entire block for
instance and alert the cop waiting at the intersection "green Honda
arriving from South leg in 45 seconds was on line while in motion for
the last ten and a half minutes". Once the pull-over happens all the
data is already printed on the ticket.
And although this thread is already way off-topic, one more tidbit:
accident prevention depends on defensive legislation AND defensive
driving.
It is not at all necessary for a lawmaker to KNOW that a
scientific correlation exsist between cell use and accidents, it is more important to act with prejudice and watch for what, cell-phones
included, MIGHT cause an accident. The way to legislate is the way that
I have driven over a million clicks with no accident, if anyone wants to argue with that, go for it.
In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 25 May 2024 13:06:06 -0400, bad sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
On 5/25/24 11:47, Andrew wrote:
Newyana2 wrote on Sat, 25 May 2024 10:45:00 -0400 :
The NHTSA seems to be responsible for the gov't record-keeping
about traffic accidents. All I found from them was mixed data, mainly
about deaths.
I'm a well-trained scientist.
I base my assessments on facts.
While most people (who are not scientists) simply guess at everything.
Don't look at second-order effects of accidents until you've ascertained >>> first-order effects, since deaths are a function of many more things.
It's a myth that cellphone use caused the accident rate to rise in the USA >>>
The only place that myth exists is in people's minds when they don't think. >>> However, even I would have *thought* accident rates would have skyrocketed. >>>
They didn't.
Not in the USA anyway (where accurate records have been kept for decades). >>>
The rate not only didn't skyrocket, it barely changed.
And what changed was it slowly trended down, down, down.
That's just a fact.
Only fools disagree with facts (that's why they're fools).
The main proponents of the myth are those with money to gain,
namely (a) injury lawyers, (b) insurance companies & (c) ticketing police. >>>
In the accurate US Census Bureau records, what do you see happening to the >>> accident rate before, during and after the meteoric rise in cellphone
ownership in the United States?
<https://www.google.com/search?q=us+census+accident+rate+statistics+by+year>
What do you see?
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> >>>
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days? >>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. >>
None of the above proves that cell-phone use while drivig is not
extremely dangerous or that the part of accidents caused by cell phone
use or by other distracting devices is not increasing with increasing
cellphone use. BTW, how many accident participants will voluntarily
offer up the fact that they'd been on the phone just before? Right, so
much for statistics which according to one prof. "is the science whereby
one can prove anything, or its exact opposite".
A few years ago I had a near head-on collision (missed BY INCHES) with a
closure rate of well over 250 km/h and the other driver was a woman
(sole occupant in that car with phone in hand) who had deviated
completely into my single lane from a point about 200 feet in front of
me, try THAT once for a hard opinion-alignment!
So what happened? Did she start looking at the road and go back ot her
lane? Did you head for the shoulder?
Also a few years ago I
was stopped at a construction site by a guy wavig down traffic. While
stopped I thought I might as well do a quick call home. Next thing I
know he's jumping up and down waving me to get moving again, I had not
noticed the change in time. Before anyone thinks I'm a bad driver I
might mention that I've been driving since age 13 and have logged well
over a million miles on roads alone all without a single accident
(mostly because my driving has become defensive over time).
Next time anyone hangs up after having used a phone while driving (and I
affirm that beyond freeing one's hands bluetooth accomplishes ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING in this respect)
The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to, paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
if you're headed to an obstacle.
try to remember road/traffic details from the
previous few minutes without drawing a complete blank. You can cheat,
but when alone and looking at yourself in the mirror you'll remember the
astounding revelation and it will change your habbits.
THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.
Only one of those links is for accidents. The others are deaths, which
you've claimed for years are not meaningful.
Having (supposed) college degrees and books doesn't make you a scientist.
And the US Census Bureau has been accurately reporting accident rates since >> the 1920s.
I'm ask again. What makes you believe they are accurate? If they're so accurate why have they stopped collecting the data?
On 5/25/2024 9:16 PM, micky wrote:
That's an important point that cellphone addicts often ignore.
The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
if you're headed to an obstacle.
No one says, "Honey, I want a divorce" from the passenger seat in
the middle of a busy intersection. But they might say it over a
cellphone.
The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
if you're headed to an obstacle.
THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also >assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.
THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.
Hey, I agree with you and even I didn't understand this explanation! If people don't understand, use little words that someone like me will understand.
Roughly 93 percent of drivers consider hand-held cell phone use as dangerous however 27 percent have reported sending a text/email while
driving and 38 percent reported reading a text/email while driving.
On 5/25/2024 11:47 AM, Andrew wrote:
What do you see?I see irrelevant statistics that only go up to 2008 -- about
<https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2010/compendia/statab/130ed/tables/11s1102.pdf>
the time the iPhone came out.
Look at first-order effects, i.e., the accident rate per year.
<https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot> >>
What do you see happening to the rate during skyrocketing cellphone days?
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/>
HINT: US Accident rates trending down were wholly unaffected by cellphones. >>
Your second link is from an insurance company group
and says that 11% of fatal crashes are known to be caused
by cellphone use. That's just the ones that admitted to it or
perhaps were found to be using their cellphone by other means.
And it's only including fatal crashes. The man who sideswiped
me while distracted by his cellphone, for example, didn't cause
a major accident. There was no bodily harm.
Also, pedestrian deaths have increased since 2009. I wouldn't
say that proves a cellphone connection, but it certainly points
in that direction.
Your last link simply says that death rates have decreased.
That relates to seat belts, airbags, better brakes, etc. It's
not a direct indication of actual accident rates. It doesn't
even refer to accident rates. It's referring only to deaths per
miles driven.
This is why you need to keep your emotions out of it. Reading
so much disparate data, which actually says very little about
anything other than the usefulness of seat belts, can make it
very tempting to read meaning into it.
An interesting other factor that's barely mentioned is the
excessive computerization. With today's cars, few things
can be done without looking at the dashboard. In older
cars, heat, AC, radio, etc can be easily adjusted without
looking. With touchscreens distraction is unavoidable.
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Fri, 24 May 2024 21:58:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<[email protected]> wrote:
micky <[email protected]> wrote:
In comp.mobile.android, on Mon, 20 May 2024 18:38:25 -0000 (UTC), Chris >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
I was thinking more for your friend to be able to relay your location more >>> easily than google map coordinates.
Oh, that makes sense. But getting her to learn it would be difficult.
She's very busy, and I'll be lucky if she notices that I didn't come
home at the end of the day.
Sounds like she is the issue here, not your app requirements.
In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 26 May 2024 07:48:52 -0400, bad?sector <forgetski@_INVALID.net> wrote:
The difference between a cell phonecall and talking to someone else in
the car is that the person in the front seat is, even if not trying to,
paying some attention to the traffic and he will stop talking or scream
if you're headed to an obstacle.
THAT's a point I've been trying to make for something like 20 years
without much success. Most people don't understand what I'm saying, much
less the fact that the brain is incapable of multi-processing except by
way of split-delegation to concious and sub-conscious. It can also
assign/handle in a rapidly fragmented fashion (forget the neurologiocal
name of this) so many miliseconds to 2 or 3 tasks at most and with losses.
Hey, I agree with you and even I didn't understand this explanation! If people don't understand, use little words that someone like me will understand.
On 5/26/2024 9:19 PM, micky wrote:
Roughly 93 percent of drivers consider hand-held cell phone use as
dangerous however 27 percent have reported sending a text/email while
driving and 38 percent reported reading a text/email while driving.
There's the rub. Most heavy cellphone users simply don't
have the self-control to resist, and neither do the cops who
should be writing them tickets. It's a kind of lifestyle epidemic.
Not your cherished accident data. There's no data since 2008.
If you select "accidents involving casualties" there clearly is a reversal
in the downward trend around 2010 in the US. The increasing trend continues until covid and the latest data still shows greatest numbers of accidents since 2004.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 147:59:46 |
| Calls: | 12,091 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,550 |