Great Cycling Advocate Killed by repeat Drunk Driver

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:05:13 GMT, Chuck Anderson
wrote:
Hands-free units are fine. But personally, I don't think hands are the
issue. I think cell phones are way too distracting, and I'd just ban
them from use by a driver, period, while the vehicle is in traffic.

What I want to know is how talking on a hands-free phone
is any different than conversing with passengers who are
actually in the vehicle.

Because the passengers will quiet down when they can seen you are going
to be busy with traffic jams, complex intersections, etc. The ones on
the phone do not. Plus if it rings while you are in the middle of
merging on to the interstate by squeezing between two semi's, that can
be a major distraction at a very bad time even if you don't answer it.
This is personal experience speaking, BTW.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

"Rick Onanian" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:05:13 GMT, Chuck Anderson

wrote:
Hands-free units are fine. But personally, I don't think hands are the
issue. I think cell phones are way too distracting, and I'd just ban
them from use by a driver, period, while the vehicle is in traffic.

What I want to know is how talking on a hands-free phone
is any different than conversing with passengers who are
actually in the vehicle.

The focus of your conversation is outside the vehicle.
http://www.nsc.org/library/shelf/inincell.htm
Our data suggest that legislative initiatives that restrict hand-held
devices but permit hands-free devices are not likely to reduce interference
from the phone conversation, because the interference is, in this case, due
to central attentional processes.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,59371,00.html
STOCKHOLM -- Talking on a mobile phone while driving your car is just as
dangerous when using hands-free equipment as when holding the phone in your
hand, according to a Swedish study published on Monday.



Try this experiment.
Crank up your favorite task intensive PC game. Driving, flying, FPS. Make a
phone call during the game. See how fast you get killed out.

Now try the same game without the phone call.

On the road, there is no reboot.

Pete

In article dGncb.566198$YN5.399914@sccrnsc01, Chuck Anderson
wrote:

Trudi Marrapodi wrote:

In article W38cb.558849$YN5.383334@sccrnsc01, Chuck Anderson
wrote:



Mitch Haley wrote:



David Kerber wrote:




In article , says...




iLiad wrote:




http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/121802.htm




From what I've read, in accident statistics, "Alcohol-related" means


that the alcohol contributed in some significant way to causing the
accident. A drunk pedestrian on the sidewalk who is killed by a
reckless driver who loses control on the road and runs up on the
sidewalk and kills said drunk pedestrian is not considered an "alcohol-
related" accident.




In the link above, this definition was given:
NHTSA defines an alcohol-related fatality as any that occurred
in an accident where a driver, pedestrian or cyclist had alcohol
detected in their blood. In most states, it is legal to drive with
less than 0.08 percent blood alcohol content.

After seeing that definition of the alcohol relationship with the 17,000
deaths, we see this quote on the same page:
"We have very little evidence that a significant number of people
are dying from cell phones, yet we know that more than 17,000
people died from drunken driving,"




It's not illegal so no one ever follows up with an investigation (cell
phone records could be used to prove it - but there's no reason to).
Annnnd ...... as it is now; who would admit to it?



In some states, it is illegal,

I think you mean in some cities. I am unaware of any state that has
banned hand held phone usage while driving.

[I pointed out here that New York state has banned use of hand-held phones
while driving.]

but only to talk on a hand-held cell phone.
Hands-free units are fine. But personally, I don't think hands are the
issue. I think cell phones are way too distracting, and I'd just ban them
from use by a driver, period, while the vehicle is in traffic.

How do you tell if someone is on a hands free phone?

(The same way you can tell when a politician is lying?)

It's not a matter of telling whether they're on a hands-free phone. It's a
matter of telling whether they're on a regular phone...and that's pretty
easy to do.

Nearly every close call I've had in the last few years has involved a
driver with their cell phone clamped firmly to their head and NOT paying
attention. My daughter, when driving an Access Ride bus said that bus
drivers talk about seeing that inattention due to cell phone usage all
the time. Seen many cars changing lanes without a blinker? In my
experience, odds are very high that the person is on their hand held
cell phone - too busy - too mentally occupied - to reach the blinker
lever. I have a friend who was hit by a cell phone toting driver and and
suffered a serious back injury. This may all sound anecdotal, but I've
seen enough to know that cell phones are a unique hazard and their use
while driving should be banned.



Well, I don't know if I'd call them unique. I think other distractions
while driving are just as bad, and people have to realize just how
dangerous they are. You can get in a terrible accident because of
refereeing a fight with the kids in the back, arguing with the passenger,
switching radio stations to find something you like, eating, or reaching
down to get your wallet from your purse. Until people take all these
behaviors, as well as cell phone use, seriously as driving hazards, there
will continue to be more accidents by distracted drivers.

Some examples you cite are infrequent occurrences - fighting with the
kids in back. Or are the equivalent of blinking (changing the radio
station). I agree there are other dangerous distractions (you didn't
mention applying makeup in the AM commute).

That's one of them. And what people don't realize is that all it takes is
a moment's inattention. And sometimes people think they're only going to
be inattentive for a nanosecond--they'll just punch a button or grab a pen
or whatever--and then, they don't like the music on that station or it's
not coming in well or where IS that damn pen, it was right here...and
that's all it takes.

However, many people seem addicted to their cell phones - they are
unable to leave home without talking to someone the whole time they are
"out."

I agree with you there. Nothing is more annoying than people who seem to
have to walk around 24-7 telling someone else where they are and what
they're doing. As if most people they call really care.

As long as we're going off on a tangent, I'd love to see people stop:

--yelling on phones in public
--going into a public restroom to talk on the phone (especially when
hogging a toilet that could otherwise go to good use)--hey, not all of us
want the sounds of our private bodily functions broadcast to your friends!
--not looking where they're going when they walk and talk on the phone
--forgetting to turn them off or set them to vibrate at events like concerts
--ignoring the people they're with to answer their ringing phone
--talking on the phone while waiting in line, and forgetting to move when
the line moves (I have heard that some people have the absurdity get to
the front of the line and then keep the service person waiting while they
talk on the phone! Which is not only rude to the person giving them
service, but to everyone else in line behind them.)

I have to repeat and emphasize, my experience is that there is a
new, common, and dangerous distraction out there that has significantly
increased the number of near encounters I have with autos. I could make
money by betting that every encounter involves a cell phone. Yes - I
mean that in most of my encounters* I spy with my little eye - a cell phone.

And I would agree it's a big new problem. I would just say let's not
discount the little old ones, either.

(*Encounter - often the motorist never even becomes aware of the
encounter, like when I stop to let them out of the driveway they are
exiting, one hand on their ear and too busy to look both ways. Rolling a
stop sign, violating my right of way. They often never even notice my
presence. This happens to me more frequently - and is most often a cell
phone user. Statistics and distracting arguments aside - cell phone
usage while driving needs to be banned.

I agree absolutely. I would ban even hands-free phone use. I think that
phone conversation in and of itself is too distracting for a person to try
to conduct while driving. To me, it has nothing to do with whether or not
the hands are employed.

Some people even stop by the mailbox on the way out of the house, open up
their mail, and read it while driving.

There has to be an attitude developed that even in a world so busy that
one is constantly tempted to multitask, driving is one action that should
be done completely by itself, without trying to accomplish anything else
at the same time.


I couldn't agree more.

Now I have to end with a funny anecdote. One of the things I've said to
myself recently is that back in the '80s when I walked down a city street
and I saw someone yelling and muttering to himself, I knew I was in the
presence of a recently deinstitutionalized person with a mental problem.
Now, when I walk down a city street and hear someone yelling and muttering
with no one else around, I look up and, inevitably, that person has a
phone pressed to the ear.

However, the other day while I was at the laundromat, I had one of my old
'80s experiences again. I was putting my laundry in the dryer and another
woman was at the washers, occasionally muttering something like
"Yeah...right...uh-huh..." I stole a glance at her and was a little
unnerved to see that she did NOT have a phone at her ear; she was using
both hands to move laundry while she muttered. Was it a return to the good
old days when only "people with a problem" talked to themselves in public?
Nope. Later on, I got a better look at the woman and saw that she had a
wire snaking out of one ear. Yep--she was using a hands-free phone
(probably from her car) so she could have both hands free to handle
laundry and yak at the same time.
--
Trudi

In article , Rick Onanian
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:05:13 GMT, Chuck Anderson
wrote:
Hands-free units are fine. But personally, I don't think hands are the
issue. I think cell phones are way too distracting, and I'd just ban
them from use by a driver, period, while the vehicle is in traffic.

What I want to know is how talking on a hands-free phone
is any different than conversing with passengers who are
actually in the vehicle.

[snip]

In some cases, it may not be--both may be equally distracting, depending
on the conversation. But I think that talking on the phone tends to
provide more cognitive dissonance and be a more involving task than
talking to someone sitting right next to or behind you. You have to
concentrate harder to get the gist of the conversation with absolutely no
visual cues at all (even if you don't directly look at your passengers and
keep your eyes on the road, you have a better sense of their body
language, facial expression, etc., than you do of someone who isn't at all
present). I think it requires more of a person mentally in most cases to
pick up the entire meaning of another person's conversation on sound
alone--and what the driver's applying mentally to the conversation is
cognition and alertness that can and should be applied to the road
instead.

I also think passengers have a better sense of when a driver is likely to
be distracted--and thus instinctively will cut short or pause their
conversation with the driver if it looks as if a difficult traffic
situation is presenting itself--than a person on the other end of a phone
who can't even see where the driver is or what the traffic situation is
like and how much of the driver's attention it may require. The passengers
may not even consciously think about it, but they will fall silent or talk
less with a driver who seems tested by the traffic conditions at a given
time. A person at the other end of a phone can't do that, because that
person is blind to the traffic conditions.
--
Trudi

"Mitch Haley" wrote in message
...

The passengers in the car can see what's going on and know
when they have to shut up and let you drive.
Mitch

You don't have kids, do you?

Dave

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:41:31 GMT, "Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a
l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote:


Please don't quote statistics without a link to the source of said
statistics. Otherwise it is just hearsay. I

I heard that, despite years of effort and millions poured into our
public school system, fully 50% of our students still have a
less-than-average mastery of the science of statistics.

Statistically-speaking, 50% of ALL students must ALWAYS be below average
(and 50% above) - that's what 'average' means!
--
Steve Juniper
Berkeley, CA

"You can't clean up the water 'til you get the hogs outta the creek."
-- Jim
Hightower --

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:41:31 GMT, "Buck" s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a
l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m wrote:


Please don't quote statistics without a link to the source of said
statistics. Otherwise it is just hearsay. I

I heard that, despite years of effort and millions poured into our
public school system, fully 50% of our students still have a
less-than-average mastery of the science of statistics.

In rec.bicycles.misc Steve Juniper wrote:
: Statistically-speaking, 50% of ALL students must ALWAYS be below average
: (and 50% above) - that's what 'average' means!

actually that's the definition of median. average can loosely (but not
properly) refer to mean, mode and median but properly average is just the
summation of all points divided by their number which may or may not have 50%
above and below. distributions are not always bell curves nor symmetric
about their average.

much more importantly, though, are you really that humour impaired? or is
this some clever bait? i hate that.
--
david reuteler

In article Gr6eb.465554$Oz4.270556@rwcrnsc54,
says...
Statistically-speaking, 50% of ALL students must ALWAYS be below average
(and 50% above) - that's what 'average' means!


More accurately that's what "median" means. The "mean" is somewhat
different, and does not necessarily have equal numbers of samples
above and below it, even that's what most people think of when they
hear "average".

The "mean" can be skewed by outliers, such as when you try to find the
"average" income of people in the U.S.: the very rich people skew it
to a number which is higher than a true representation should be.
That's why they use "median" income and "median" house price data.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 03:07:18 GMT, "Steve Juniper"
wrote:
Statistically-speaking, 50% of ALL students must ALWAYS be below average
(and 50% above) - that's what 'average' means!

I don't think so. Approximately 50% must be below MEDIAN,
but not average. I say "approximately" because there may be
an odd number of students.

I could have some or all of that wrong.

--
Rick "No math genius" Onanian