| |
Main
Date: 26 Feb 2007 12:59:16
From: treynolds@my-deja.com
Subject: A new cell phone experience
|
Pardon the rant.
On my commute to work this morning I was making a left turn on to a
side street. A BMW SUV was pulling out from the side street, also
making a left turn. I could see that the driver was on the phone and
didn't see me. So I yelled at him. I got his attention and, although
he continued to pull out, he slowed enough to not hit me.
As I went by his car I saw that his window as down and at the moment
he was no more than five feet from me. I yelled loudly "Get off the
phone".
>From the look on his face it was obvious that my yelling at him did
not even register. His mind was totally absorbed by what he was
listening to on the phone, maybe his bank account, or a voice mail
from his boss telling him he's fired or who knows what. That blank
look was a totally new experience.
If someone yelling in his face doesn't register then his mind can't
possibly be focused enough for him to drive.
What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
End of rant.
Tom
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 09:02:51
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 28, 8:19 am, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> There are many things which a responsible driver avoids doing, some of
> which aren't necessarily illegal. I personally avoid using the
> hands-free when driving in the city, but on quiet roads I never felt
> uneasy with it.
I think you're drawing a significant and important distinction here--
one with which the law can't easily grapple.
My brother drives a great deal for his work--criss-crossing the
country with a trailer full of brand new power tools (yeah, lucky ba
$tard). Half his time is spent on interstates with minimal traffic in
sparsely populated regions and few of the normal urban distractions
(eg, us cyclists) that city driving provides.
He's on the phone /a lot/.
IMO, he's not often endangering others. He doesn't often /encounter/
others on these long highway stretches--particularly at night.
I'd love to see a way to make that distinction IN legislation, but
it's gotta be awfully tough.
Although ... we do have speeding laws that are as general as "too fast/
unsafe for conditions." Sure, it's murky, but ... it makes a point.
> Besides, while I'm ready to admit that a
> hands-free call probably distracts the driver more than the radio or a
> conversation with a passenger, I doubt there's going to be a ban on GPS
> navigators, radios for cabs and truck drivers etc., which are perhaps
> more valid comparisons.
In some ways, I'm sure. The studies continually cite things like
"changing the radio station" as being comparably distracting, but ...
for what period of time ... with what frequency ... is it /
quantitatively/ as distracting, /qualitatively/ as distracting, or
both? I mean: a sneeze forces you to close your eyes, but .....
I would agree that it's quite possible that IF you simply BANNED all
cell phones while driving, then we'd verrrry quickly tire of CD-
changing, navigation system-operating, DVD-loading drivers.
But ... that's just a "line in the sand issue," and governments deal
with them all the time. Start somewhere. Move if/when indicated.
> I guess the bottomline is that it's usually a bad idea to have laws
> which the public at large doesn't agree with, and which are almost
> impossible to enforce. By doing that you only achieve a diminished
> respect for the law in general.
I'm not sure I agree with your premises.
You might find overwhelming support for raising the highway speed
limit by 15mph, but ... that doesn't mean it's going to become law.
Also, the enforcement issue -- AFAIK -- hasn't been a negative in the
seat belt issue. How much more difficult is this one, in theory?
> As far as I know, a lot of the EU does have laws which only allow
> hands-free while driving. I guess I could do some digging and check what
> the alternatives where and why exactly they eventually chose to go this
> way.
It is an interesting question.
I also wonder if they've achieved the anticipated reduction in MVA's
where hands-free legislation was enacted.
|
| |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:55:07
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
How about a law requiring all new cars to have a device under the hood that
makes it hard to hear a cell phone with the engine running?
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 13:06:42
From: amakyonin
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 26, 3:59 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com"
<thomas.treyno...@gmail.com > wrote:
> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
An AirZound can be pretty effective in freezing these no-yield
deadbeats. It isn't 100% effective though, so it pays to still be
extra cautious.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 14:24:57
From: SMS
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
amakyonin wrote:
> On Feb 26, 3:59 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com"
> <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
>> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>
> An AirZound can be pretty effective in freezing these no-yield
> deadbeats. It isn't 100% effective though, so it pays to still be
> extra cautious.
It's true that a very loud horn makes a big difference in gaining the
attention of inattentive motorists.
If you have a 12 volt lighting system, you can run the following horn
off of your battery,
"http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/item/ES-1/search/12_VDC_SIREN_.html"
One reviewer (me) wrote:
"I hooked this to my 12 volt lighting system battery on my bicycle. Now
I never get cut off by people backing out of driveways, failing to stop
at exits from shopping centers, or turning into me as I go straight
across an intersection. They can't figure out where the sound is coming
from."
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 12:26:01
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 27, 1:30 pm, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
> > Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
> > adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
> > difference.
>
> Hands-free makes a lot of difference, especially when you drive a
> stick-shift. It should be pretty apparent if actually think about it.
The issue isn't the lack of hands, so much as the mental engagement in
a remote conversation, rather than with the traffic and road.
>
> > I'd prefer a ban on cellphones while driving.
>
> Then you probably also want to ban talking in a car? I don't see why
> that is any different.
It's different because the typical car conversation involves two
people looking out the windshield. If a complicated situation arises,
your passenger knows enough to shut up. In fact, they'll probably
stop chatting and give you a warning.
Furthermore, there's none of the fluster that comes with dropped calls
or reception fading in and out. There's none of the distraction that
comes from dialing, or digging a ringing phone out of a purse, holster
or pocket.
I could go on - but in general, I'd say if you can't see the
differences, you probably haven't thought about it much!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 16:19:42
From: Antti Salonen
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Furthermore, there's none of the fluster that comes with dropped calls
> or reception fading in and out. There's none of the distraction that
> comes from dialing, or digging a ringing phone out of a purse, holster
> or pocket.
There are many things which a responsible driver avoids doing, some of
which aren't necessarily illegal. I personally avoid using the
hands-free when driving in the city, but on quiet roads I never felt
uneasy with it. Besides, while I'm ready to admit that a
hands-free call probably distracts the driver more than the radio or a
conversation with a passenger, I doubt there's going to be a ban on GPS
navigators, radios for cabs and truck drivers etc., which are perhaps
more valid comparisons.
I guess the bottomline is that it's usually a bad idea to have laws
which the public at large doesn't agree with, and which are almost
impossible to enforce. By doing that you only achieve a diminished
respect for the law in general.
As far as I know, a lot of the EU does have laws which only allow
hands-free while driving. I guess I could do some digging and check what
the alternatives where and why exactly they eventually chose to go this
way.
Antti
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 12:17:21
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
I've skimmed this one, but never read it in its entirety.
You may find it interesting in the context of this thread, though:
http://www.mobilesociety.net/uploadi/editor/strayer.pdf
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 10:41:07
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 27, 10:30 am, Antti Salonen <antti.salo...@helsinki.if.invalid >
wrote:
> Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
> > Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
> > adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
> > difference.
>
> Hands-free makes a lot of difference, especially when you drive a
> stick-shift. It should be pretty apparent if actually think about it.
Then you seem to disagree with all of the large-scale tests conducted
by groups like the Auto Club and Harvard School of Public Safety.
You /could/ be right in this case, but my money's on them.
> > I'd prefer a ban on cellphones while driving.
>
> Then you probably also want to ban talking in a car? I don't see why
> that is any different.
Then you're missing a good number of pretty obvious factors that all
seem to prove out in simulator testing and over-the-road tests.
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 10:09:14
From: Marz
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 27, 1:19 pm, neil0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:55 am, "z" <zjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 6:57 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
> > > neil0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
> > > >> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>
> > > > California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
> > > > like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
> > > > manufacturers; nothing more.
>
> > > > The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
> > > > the mind.
>
> > > Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
> > > adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
> > > difference.
>
> > So you're suggesting that the driver be cocooned in a box in the car
> > where they can't talk to other people in the car, listen to music or a
> > hands free phone.
>
> I must have missed where anybody said that. I'll re-read.
They didn't, I did. My dad used to drive like he was cocooned in the
car, everyone shut up, turn that damn music off and sit still. He'd
drive fast, but his full attention was on the road in front and
behind. He even avoided being rear ended once because he saw the guy
coming up too fast from behind.
Maybe we've allowed too much distraction into the car, radios, cd
players, mp3/ipod interfaces, dvd players, gps, cell phones.... and we
need to remind everyone that a car isn't a living room and is a lethal
weapon if not attended to with care.
>
> > People have managed to drive a car and hold a
> > conversation for years, why does the fact the other person in the
> > converstion is on the end of a phone make any difference?
>
> Interesting question. Lots of valid answers. AAA and Harvard have
> backed it up with studies. Google and find. Other countries have
> similar results in their studies.
>
> > Is it the
> > poor quality of reception, do we have to listen harder to a cell phone
> > conversation? All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
> > with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear. And yes
> > there will be a difference in response times, similiar maybe to being
> > drunk. But what about people who listen to loud music, have 4 kids in
> > the car or a bunch of chatty friends? Is cell phone use a worse
> > distraction than a crying baby on the back seat?
>
> These are fairly testable questions. Those which are statistically
> most likely to degrade driver performance (we test these things quite
> often in this country, and others) might represent the first, worst
> offenders. I doubt it's going to be loud music, per se, but ... it is
> what it is.
>
> The analogy I've always used is this: if you're at an archery range,
> or a (firearm) shooting range, holding a loaded bow/.45ACP in your
> hand ... and yacking on the cell phone with your pal ... and
> thoughtlessly waving the loaded weapon around without regard to where
> it's pointing or who you might be impacting ... then your distraction
> could readily prove lethal.
>
> 1,500+ pounds of metal (increases at least linearly with mass) is a
> similarly potentially-lethal weapon, lest we forget.
>
> Distractions should be actively discouraged and--where feasible (maybe
> just by consensus of a society) regulated for the greater good. Where
> to DRAW that line would be subject to much, and heated, debate.
> That's why we have a Congress. Well, that and to institutionalize
> corruption and sloth, but I digress.
>
> But you start with the low-hanging fruit ... and I would submit that
> that AIN'T gonna' be the soccer mom with the whining back-seat-
> jockeys.
>
> Nossir. Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture.....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess that's always the way, pick the easy target and maybe make
things a little bit better.
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:48:34
From: SMS
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
treynolds@my-deja.com wrote:
> What can you possible do about someone like that?
Equip all cyclists with portable cell phone jammers. Unfortunately the
range of the portable devices is pretty low, so by the time the
offender's call is cut off it may be too late. They are priily
designed for use in places like restaurants, etc.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 14:55:40
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> treynolds@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> What can you possible do about someone like that?
>
> Equip all cyclists with portable cell phone jammers. Unfortunately the
> range of the portable devices is pretty low, so by the time the
> offender's call is cut off it may be too late. They are priily
> designed for use in places like restaurants, etc.
Ha! I think not. They'd looking down at their phone and trying to
redial the lost call and would be *doubly* distracted.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Alliance, n.:
In international politics, the union of two thieves who have
their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot
separately plunder a third.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 21:15:13
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:55:40 -0800, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu >
wrote:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> treynolds@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>> What can you possible do about someone like that?
>>
>> Equip all cyclists with portable cell phone jammers. Unfortunately the
>> range of the portable devices is pretty low, so by the time the
>> offender's call is cut off it may be too late. They are priily
>> designed for use in places like restaurants, etc.
>
>Ha! I think not. They'd looking down at their phone and trying to
>redial the lost call and would be *doubly* distracted.
You know, if we still had the analog cell phones of 15 years ago, you
could easily generate a "Hang up and drive, you jerk!" jamming message
with today's electronics. That would be worth watching, IMHO.
Too bad the digital phones are encrypted and jam resistant.
Pat
Email address works as is.
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:42:11
From: Marz
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 27, 12:19 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org >
wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2007 07:55:49 -0800, "z" <zjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
> >with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear.
>
> That makes only a small difference. A person's attention to the here
> and now is much less when talking on a cell phone, even one that works
> through car mounted speakers and phone, than when talking to someone
> in the same car. Of course a person that is talking on a cell phone
> with no other distractions and conciously attempting to pay attention
> can do better than a clueless moron with four kids in the car, using
> one hand to hold a cigarette and checking his or her hair in the rear
> view mirror. The bottom line is that you are better off not trying any
> of the above.
>
Agreed and why I think cell phone use as a distraction from driving
should not be singled out of all other possible distractions. I wonder
how may accidents are due to folks playing too close attention to
their gps device rather than the road ahead.
As a side note, our company policy is for the cell phone to be off
before entering the vehicle.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 23:01:09
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
z wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:19 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org>
> wrote:
>
>>On 27 Feb 2007 07:55:49 -0800, "z" <zjenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
>>>with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear.
>>
>>That makes only a small difference. A person's attention to the here
>>and now is much less when talking on a cell phone, even one that works
>>through car mounted speakers and phone, than when talking to someone
>>in the same car. Of course a person that is talking on a cell phone
>>with no other distractions and conciously attempting to pay attention
>>can do better than a clueless moron with four kids in the car, using
>>one hand to hold a cigarette and checking his or her hair in the rear
>>view mirror. The bottom line is that you are better off not trying any
>>of the above.
>>
>
>
> Agreed and why I think cell phone use as a distraction from driving
> should not be singled out of all other possible distractions. I wonder
> how may accidents are due to folks playing too close attention to
> their gps device rather than the road ahead.
>
> As a side note, our company policy is for the cell phone to be off
> before entering the vehicle.
I believe eating in the car while driving is a fairly
major contributor to accidents.
Not certain where I came across that, so don't hold me
to it, but it sounds reasonable.
Virtually everyone is guilty of eating while driving
and it most certainly can be distracting trying to track
down that last McNugget!
SMH
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 09:19:24
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 27, 7:55 am, "z" <zjenni...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:57 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > neil0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
> > >> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>
> > > California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
> > > like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
> > > manufacturers; nothing more.
>
> > > The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
> > > the mind.
>
> > Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
> > adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
> > difference.
>
> So you're suggesting that the driver be cocooned in a box in the car
> where they can't talk to other people in the car, listen to music or a
> hands free phone.
I must have missed where anybody said that. I'll re-read.
> People have managed to drive a car and hold a
> conversation for years, why does the fact the other person in the
> converstion is on the end of a phone make any difference?
Interesting question. Lots of valid answers. AAA and Harvard have
backed it up with studies. Google and find. Other countries have
similar results in their studies.
> Is it the
> poor quality of reception, do we have to listen harder to a cell phone
> conversation? All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
> with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear. And yes
> there will be a difference in response times, similiar maybe to being
> drunk. But what about people who listen to loud music, have 4 kids in
> the car or a bunch of chatty friends? Is cell phone use a worse
> distraction than a crying baby on the back seat?
These are fairly testable questions. Those which are statistically
most likely to degrade driver performance (we test these things quite
often in this country, and others) might represent the first, worst
offenders. I doubt it's going to be loud music, per se, but ... it is
what it is.
The analogy I've always used is this: if you're at an archery range,
or a (firearm) shooting range, holding a loaded bow/.45ACP in your
hand ... and yacking on the cell phone with your pal ... and
thoughtlessly waving the loaded weapon around without regard to where
it's pointing or who you might be impacting ... then your distraction
could readily prove lethal.
1,500+ pounds of metal (increases at least linearly with mass) is a
similarly potentially-lethal weapon, lest we forget.
Distractions should be actively discouraged and--where feasible (maybe
just by consensus of a society) regulated for the greater good. Where
to DRAW that line would be subject to much, and heated, debate.
That's why we have a Congress. Well, that and to institutionalize
corruption and sloth, but I digress.
But you start with the low-hanging fruit ... and I would submit that
that AIN'T gonna' be the soccer mom with the whining back-seat-
jockeys.
Nossir. Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture.....
|
| |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 07:55:49
From: Marz
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 26, 6:57 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu > wrote:
> neil0...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
> >> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>
> > California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
> > like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
> > manufacturers; nothing more.
>
> > The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
> > the mind.
>
> Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
> adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
> difference.
So you're suggesting that the driver be cocooned in a box in the car
where they can't talk to other people in the car, listen to music or a
hands free phone. People have managed to drive a car and hold a
conversation for years, why does the fact the other person in the
converstion is on the end of a phone make any difference? Is it the
poor quality of reception, do we have to listen harder to a cell phone
conversation? All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear. And yes
there will be a difference in response times, similiar maybe to being
drunk. But what about people who listen to loud music, have 4 kids in
the car or a bunch of chatty friends? Is cell phone use a worse
distraction than a crying baby on the back seat?
>
> > Write your congressional representative and urge them to implement a
> > distracted driver law. They can make it a priy infraction (can be
> > pulled over for that alone), a secondary infraction (if pulled over
> > for something else, they can then ticket you for the distraction, if
> > noted), or .... whatever.
>
> I'd prefer a ban on cellphones while driving. I believe England has
> such a law on the books (with spotty enforcement).
>
> --
> Dane Buson - sigd...@unixbigots.org
> The only real advantage to punk music is that nobody can whistle it.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 08:47:44
From: dgk
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On 27 Feb 2007 07:55:49 -0800, "z" <zjennings@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Feb 26, 6:57 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>> neil0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
>> >> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>>
>> > California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
>> > like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
>> > manufacturers; nothing more.
>>
>> > The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
>> > the mind.
>>
>> Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
>> adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
>> difference.
>
>So you're suggesting that the driver be cocooned in a box in the car
>where they can't talk to other people in the car, listen to music or a
>hands free phone. People have managed to drive a car and hold a
>conversation for years, why does the fact the other person in the
>converstion is on the end of a phone make any difference? Is it the
>poor quality of reception, do we have to listen harder to a cell phone
>conversation? All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
>with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear. And yes
>there will be a difference in response times, similiar maybe to being
>drunk. But what about people who listen to loud music, have 4 kids in
>the car or a bunch of chatty friends? Is cell phone use a worse
>distraction than a crying baby on the back seat?
>
>
>
Talking on the phone while driving is, for me, much more of a
distraction than listening to the radio or talking to someone in the
car. I suppose that talking to someone who is in the car means that at
least one other person is watching what is going on and can yell if
something is happening.
Maybe it is that the radio is background noise for the most part,
while a phone call is frontground noise. Talking to someone in a car
means sharing a conversation with someone in the same physical plane.
They aren't going to be talking to you if something is happening that
requires your attention, but someone that you're on the phone with has
no idea what is happening, until they hear the CRASH, that is.
A famous family story to illustrate the point. When I just a little
thing my mother was on the phone with someone while I was pulling at
her arm and trying to get her attention. Finally she looked down to
find that I had placed a waterbug in her hand. See what talking on the
phone gets you?
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 12:44:43
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote in message
news:fl0bu2lffbhtscclt26l6s8v2ap4v1dmji@4ax.com...
> On 27 Feb 2007 07:55:49 -0800, "z" <zjennings@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 26, 6:57 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>> neil0...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> > <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
>>> >> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>>>
>>> > California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
>>> > like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
>>> > manufacturers; nothing more.
>>>
>>> > The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
>>> > the mind.
>>>
>>> Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
>>> adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
>>> difference.
>>
>>So you're suggesting that the driver be cocooned in a box in the car
>>where they can't talk to other people in the car, listen to music or a
>>hands free phone. People have managed to drive a car and hold a
>>conversation for years, why does the fact the other person in the
>>converstion is on the end of a phone make any difference? Is it the
>>poor quality of reception, do we have to listen harder to a cell phone
>>conversation? All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
>>with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear. And yes
>>there will be a difference in response times, similiar maybe to being
>>drunk. But what about people who listen to loud music, have 4 kids in
>>the car or a bunch of chatty friends? Is cell phone use a worse
>>distraction than a crying baby on the back seat?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Talking on the phone while driving is, for me, much more of a
> distraction than listening to the radio or talking to someone in the
> car. I suppose that talking to someone who is in the car means that at
> least one other person is watching what is going on and can yell if
> something is happening.
>
> Maybe it is that the radio is background noise for the most part,
> while a phone call is frontground noise. Talking to someone in a car
> means sharing a conversation with someone in the same physical plane.
> They aren't going to be talking to you if something is happening that
> requires your attention, but someone that you're on the phone with has
> no idea what is happening, until they hear the CRASH, that is.
>
That is what some of the studies have shown. They found that when people in
a car are talking to the driver, especially folks old enough to have
'traffic sense', they pace their conversations to the conditions of the road
and other traffic. They pause the conversation when the driver is in a tough
spot or manuever. They don't expect a response when the driver is 'busy'
momentarily. And, as we've all experienced or seen, the passenger will even
often simultaneously and unconsciously 'hit the brakes' during a situation
that cause for a sudden stop. None of this subtle but important
accommodation can take place with a phone conversation.
jb
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 17:27:44
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
"z" wrote: (clip) why does the fact the other person in the converstion
is on the end of a phone make any difference? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think I can answer that. As you talk on the phone, you are aware that the
other person does not know what is happening at your end. If you are
holding a conversation with the person next to you in the car, and a traffic
situation requires all your attention, you simply suspend the conversation,
and the person next to you understands this without need for any
explanation. Furthermore, when you are talking on the phone, the imagery in
your mind is on the other person. It takes a mental effort to return your
atention to the traffic.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 22:58:07
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "z" wrote: (clip) why does the fact the other person in the converstion
> is on the end of a phone make any difference? (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think I can answer that. As you talk on the phone, you are aware that the
> other person does not know what is happening at your end. If you are
> holding a conversation with the person next to you in the car, and a traffic
> situation requires all your attention, you simply suspend the conversation,
> and the person next to you understands this without need for any
> explanation. Furthermore, when you are talking on the phone, the imagery in
> your mind is on the other person. It takes a mental effort to return your
> atention to the traffic.
I think this is indeed the current thinking as to why a cell phone
would be any more distractive in motoring than passengers.
The hypothesis is that the brain is indeed doing "more work" in
communicating via cell phone than with a person next to you in
the flesh.
But what is going on inside the brain isn't really understood
beyond that there appears to be "something more" at work.
I find the question quite interesting actually.
SMH
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 11:19:55
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On 27 Feb 2007 07:55:49 -0800, "z" <zjennings@gmail.com > wrote:
>All the test's I've seen compare driving in a quiet car
>with no distractions to driving with a phone held to one ear.
That makes only a small difference. A person's attention to the here
and now is much less when talking on a cell phone, even one that works
through car mounted speakers and phone, than when talking to someone
in the same car. Of course a person that is talking on a cell phone
with no other distractions and conciously attempting to pay attention
can do better than a clueless moron with four kids in the car, using
one hand to hold a cigarette and checking his or her hair in the rear
view mirror. The bottom line is that you are better off not trying any
of the above.
OTOH, it is statistically even more dangerous to pull to the side of
the road and talk. Unless you can pull into a safe parking area, you
are better off just putting off the call.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 17:31:45
From: Leo Lichtman
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote: (clip) it is statistically even more dangerous
to pull to the side of the road and talk. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what I usually do. What can you tell me that will convince me that
it is really that dangerous? How is it more dangerous than pulling over to
mail a letter, say?
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 05:51:04
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
:: "Curtis L. Russell" wrote: (clip) it is statistically even more
:: dangerous to pull to the side of the road and talk. (clip)
:: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:: This is what I usually do. What can you tell me that will convince
:: me that it is really that dangerous? How is it more dangerous than
:: pulling over to mail a letter, say?
Stop on an interstate. Get out and stand next to your car for a few minutes
to watch traffic. You don't be fond of that activity for long.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 12:49:27
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:31:45 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
<l.lichtman@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>This is what I usually do. What can you tell me that will convince me that
>it is really that dangerous? How is it more dangerous than pulling over to
>mail a letter, say?
We aren't speaking generally of residential streets, which generally
don't have the break down lanes for pulling over. And stopping in a
travel lane to make a phone call is usually against the law.
Most occurences of pulling to the side of the road are on roadways
that have break down lanes, such as Interstates and higher speed
connectors. And whether you are doing it to change a tire or make a
phone call, it is about the most dangerous thing you can do. Police
and state troopers aren't real fond of it, either. Watch the news -
you'll see and hear a lot of cases of troopers with lights on and
flashing being hit by traffic.
In the area on or about the Mixing Bowl in the DC/VA area, they
recommend that you actually drive on your flat until you exit
completely.
Evidently it is better to travel at 20 mph on that portion of the
beltway than to stop on the side of the road.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 14:51:49
From: H M Leary
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
In article <mbr8u254n00npolqr42dqvjplt1dgaspmb@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
snip
Watch the news -
> you'll see and hear a lot of cases of troopers with lights on and
> flashing being hit by traffic.
>
I never knew that yland State Troopers wore lights and flashed
passing motorists.......:)
snip
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
HAND
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:10:40
From: catzz66
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
treynolds@my-deja.com wrote:
> [cell phone rant]
> What can you possible do about someone like that?
>
Do your best to stay out of their way.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 18:44:02
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
treynolds@my-deja.com wrote:
::
:: What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
:: Darwin in reverse.
Actually, not.
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 22:07:52
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
treynolds@my-deja.com <thomas.treynolds@gmail.com > wrote:
> Pardon the rant.
Il n'y a pas du quoi.
> On my commute to work this morning I was making a left turn on to a
> side street. A BMW SUV was pulling out from the side street, also
> making a left turn. I could see that the driver was on the phone and
> didn't see me. So I yelled at him. I got his attention and, although
> he continued to pull out, he slowed enough to not hit me.
> As I went by his car I saw that his window as down and at the moment
> he was no more than five feet from me. I yelled loudly "Get off the
> phone".
> >From the look on his face it was obvious that my yelling at him did
> not even register. His mind was totally absorbed <snip>
Celling while driving is just as dangerous as driving drunk, and needs
to be treated accordingly. Meanwhile, yelling "hang up and drive" is
totally justified and potenitally useful.
Bill, who has nearly been clobbered by cellies many times.
__________________________________________________________________
|
| | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 08:39:27
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
<D_Frumious_B@ndersnat.ch > wrote in message
news:ervlno$rpl$1@news.xmission.com...
> treynolds@my-deja.com <thomas.treynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pardon the rant.
> Il n'y a pas du quoi.
>
>> On my commute to work this morning I was making a left turn on to a
>> side street. A BMW SUV was pulling out from the side street, also
>> making a left turn. I could see that the driver was on the phone and
>> didn't see me. So I yelled at him. I got his attention and, although
>> he continued to pull out, he slowed enough to not hit me.
>
>> As I went by his car I saw that his window as down and at the moment
>> he was no more than five feet from me. I yelled loudly "Get off the
>> phone".
>
>> >From the look on his face it was obvious that my yelling at him did
>> not even register. His mind was totally absorbed <snip>
>
> Celling while driving is just as dangerous as driving drunk, and needs
> to be treated accordingly. Meanwhile, yelling "hang up and drive" is
> totally justified and potenitally useful.
>
>
> Bill, who has nearly been clobbered by cellies many times.
>
>
This is why I cringe everytime I hear about a municipality passing
'hands-free' legislation. Forcing drivers to use hands-free cell phones
eliminates a critical clue we need to determine that a driver is distracted
by a phone call.
jb
|
| |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:04:52
From:
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Feb 26, 12:59 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com"
<thomas.treyno...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Pardon the rant.
>
> On my commute to work this morning I was making a left turn on to a
> side street. A BMW SUV was pulling out from the side street, also
> making a left turn. I could see that the driver was on the phone and
> didn't see me. So I yelled at him. I got his attention and, although
> he continued to pull out, he slowed enough to not hit me.
>
> As I went by his car I saw that his window as down and at the moment
> he was no more than five feet from me. I yelled loudly "Get off the
> phone".
>
> >From the look on his face it was obvious that my yelling at him did
>
> not even register. His mind was totally absorbed by what he was
> listening to on the phone, maybe his bank account, or a voice mail
> from his boss telling him he's fired or who knows what. That blank
> look was a totally new experience.
>
> If someone yelling in his face doesn't register then his mind can't
> possibly be focused enough for him to drive.
>
> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>
> End of rant.
> Tom
Write your congressman.
Seriously. Write your congressman (sorry: congressional
representative).
California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
manufacturers; nothing more.
The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
the mind.
Write your congressional representative and urge them to implement a
distracted driver law. They can make it a priy infraction (can be
pulled over for that alone), a secondary infraction (if pulled over
for something else, they can then ticket you for the distraction, if
noted), or .... whatever.
I think it's a valid issue and a worthy cause. YMMV ... and hopefully
you'll get lots of mileage to HAVE it vary ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 15:59:20
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
> California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
> like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
> manufacturers; nothing more.
>
> The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
> the mind.
I disagree that the law is useless. Even if driving distracted from having a
cell phone wired to your ear is dangerous, you're still at least sending a
message to drivers that cell phone use, in general, is something that can
create problems.
I'm curious how the law is going to go over with the average cop though.
Why? Because I have seen them *frequently* talking on cell phones,
presumably personal, while driving. My guess is that they're not allowed to
wear something (like a hands-free earpiece) that might interefere with their
ability to hear things while on the job, unless it's part of the job.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
<neil0502@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1172527492.166361.196300@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 12:59 pm, "treyno...@my-deja.com"
> <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Pardon the rant.
>>
>> On my commute to work this morning I was making a left turn on to a
>> side street. A BMW SUV was pulling out from the side street, also
>> making a left turn. I could see that the driver was on the phone and
>> didn't see me. So I yelled at him. I got his attention and, although
>> he continued to pull out, he slowed enough to not hit me.
>>
>> As I went by his car I saw that his window as down and at the moment
>> he was no more than five feet from me. I yelled loudly "Get off the
>> phone".
>>
>> >From the look on his face it was obvious that my yelling at him did
>>
>> not even register. His mind was totally absorbed by what he was
>> listening to on the phone, maybe his bank account, or a voice mail
>> from his boss telling him he's fired or who knows what. That blank
>> look was a totally new experience.
>>
>> If someone yelling in his face doesn't register then his mind can't
>> possibly be focused enough for him to drive.
>>
>> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
>> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>>
>> End of rant.
>> Tom
>
> Write your congressman.
>
> Seriously. Write your congressman (sorry: congressional
> representative).
>
> California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
> like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
> manufacturers; nothing more.
>
> The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
> the mind.
>
> Write your congressional representative and urge them to implement a
> distracted driver law. They can make it a priy infraction (can be
> pulled over for that alone), a secondary infraction (if pulled over
> for something else, they can then ticket you for the distraction, if
> noted), or .... whatever.
>
> I think it's a valid issue and a worthy cause. YMMV ... and hopefully
> you'll get lots of mileage to HAVE it vary ;-)
>
|
| | |
Date: 26 Feb 2007 14:57:39
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
neil0502@yahoo.com wrote:
> <thomas.treyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What can you possible do about someone like that? It seems like
>> Darwin in reverse. This moron will live and people like me will die.
>
> California's implementing a "hands-free or nothing" law in something
> like 7/08, BUT ... that seems like a gift to the hands-free
> manufacturers; nothing more.
>
> The studies all seem to agree that the problem isn't the hands; it's
> the mind.
Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
difference.
> Write your congressional representative and urge them to implement a
> distracted driver law. They can make it a priy infraction (can be
> pulled over for that alone), a secondary infraction (if pulled over
> for something else, they can then ticket you for the distraction, if
> noted), or .... whatever.
I'd prefer a ban on cellphones while driving. I believe England has
such a law on the books (with spotty enforcement).
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
The only real advantage to punk music is that nobody can whistle it.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Feb 2007 00:03:50
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:57:39 -0800, Dane Buson wrote:
> I'd prefer a ban on cellphones while driving. I believe England has
> such a law on the books (with spotty enforcement).
Hands-free phones are OK in the UK.
However the UK were first to recognize the hazards and restrict phone
use while driving at all -- over 10 years ago.
Note that their accident rates are lower than ours. Maybe we could learn
something from them.
Matt O.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Feb 2007 18:30:09
From: Antti Salonen
Subject: Re: A new cell phone experience
|
Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu > wrote:
> Yup. Most people have trouble paying attention while driving without
> adding additional distractions. I doubt hands-free makes any
> difference.
Hands-free makes a lot of difference, especially when you drive a
stick-shift. It should be pretty apparent if actually think about it.
> I'd prefer a ban on cellphones while driving.
Then you probably also want to ban talking in a car? I don't see why
that is any different.
-as
|
|
