Cell phone junkies are as bad as drunks!

On Jul 31, 5:50*pm, "Mark C." wrote:

And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!

Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
be.

If you would like to see such things made illegal, then start a
separate thread. This thread is focused on cellphone distractions.

writes:

On Jul 31, 5:50Â*pm, "Mark C." wrote:

And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!

Changing the radio station distracts you, so why not legislate and disable
that function if the car is in motion? Driving will always have
distractions. The world will never be a perfectly safe place to live. The
sooner people accept this and learn to live life anyway, the happier they'll
be.

If you would like to see such things made illegal, then start a
separate thread. This thread is focused on cellphone distractions.

One of the differences between the two should be pointed out - the
length of time for each activity - you spend relatively little time
changing stations, and with preset buttons and a well-designed radio
(good ergonomics), you can change stations without taking your eyes
off the road. The time spent, however, is a tiny fraction of the
length of a typical phone call.

One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:

One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

Unless one is dealing with a bunch of
dozy *******s who have to put their
reading glasses on, in order to answer
the phone, while asleep or otherwise
distracted at the wheel. And hurtling
a ton & a half of machinery down the street,
and hoping to not hit anything in the process.

Reading glasses: I put 'em on to see what I'm
doing, and take 'em off to see where I'm going.
It's a bitch.

I hope you don't run anybody over.



--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Tom Keats wrote:
In article ,
Tom Sherman writes:
Mark C. wrote:
...
And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...
I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.
You're a curmudgeon.

And that ain't exactly your most endearing trait....

Hey, I love children. They are delicious.

Okay, Swifty.

Ya ogre, ya.

I prefer curmudgeon.

Go live with yourself.

What ever happened to children should be seen but not heard?

What is grossly unfair is that is it perfectly legal for landlords and
condominium boards to discriminate against cats but not children in the
state in which I live. Cats do not bother anyone, while children scream,
cry, throw stuff and otherwise disturb the peace (and often sleep) of
adults.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

(Tom Keats) writes:

In article ,
(Bill Z.) writes:

One might figure that driving like you are drunk for 1 second per hour
is less serious than doing the same thing for 20 minutes per hour: a
difference of a factor of 1200 in the total enhanced risk per hour.
Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

Unless one is dealing with a bunch of dozy *******s who have to put
their reading glasses on, in order to answer the phone, while asleep
or otherwise distracted at the wheel. And hurtling a ton & a half
of machinery down the street, and hoping to not hit anything in the
process.

You really are clueless, aren't you. Are you at all capable of even
a semiserious discussion about anything?




--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On 02 Aug 2008 20:39:59 -0700, (Bill Z.)
wrote:


Even if you change stations 6 times per hour, its still a factor of
200 (figuring on 1 second per station change).

Even less station changes around here. I get in the car, tune the
radio to (BBC) Radio 4 & it stays there until I get out again.

My wife gets in the car, tunes the radio to (BBC) Radio 3 and it stays
there until she gets out again.

If we both get in the car we talk to each other, which must be
remarkably like talking on a mobile. Anyone tried to make a
distinction, or should we legislate against passengers too?

Pete

"Peter Grange" (clip) If we both get in the car we talk to each other,
which must be
remarkably like talking on a mobile.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, it's not. When you're talking to someone on the phone, that that person
is not aware of your driving situation. You are aware of that fact, so you
are more likely to continue talking when you ought to be swerving, braking
or weighing the options in front of you. Let's say, for example, the car in
front of you suddenly starts to decelerate. If you're talking to your wife,
she's probably pressing on the floorboards with her feet, while you are
pressing on the brake. You do not have to yank your mind back to the car,
because you are both already there. If she, instead, is on the phone with
you, there will be a momentary rearrangement in your thought processes which
could make a difference in your safety.

On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:39:50 GMT,
Leo Lichtman wrote:

"Peter Grange" (clip) If we both get in the car we talk to each other,
which must be
remarkably like talking on a mobile.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, it's not. When you're talking to someone on the phone, that that person
is not aware of your driving situation. You are aware of that fact, so you
are more likely to continue talking when you ought to be swerving, braking
or weighing the options in front of you. Let's say, for example, the car in
front of you suddenly starts to decelerate. If you're talking to your wife,
she's probably pressing on the floorboards with her feet, while you are
pressing on the brake. You do not have to yank your mind back to the car,
because you are both already there. If she, instead, is on the phone with
you, there will be a momentary rearrangement in your thought processes which
could make a difference in your safety.

Additionally, the audio quality is significantly degraded over a mobile
phone as compared to face to face talking. It's astonishing how good the
brain is at extracting a signal from the noise[1], but it's also surprising
how much attention the brain has to divert to doing that and how little
attention the brain leaves for doing everything else.

Tim.

[1] of course, the brain is also renouned for detecting a signal in
random noise.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Aug 1, 10:05*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Mark C. wrote:
...
And having an un-muzzled 2 year old screaming his/her head off in the
backseat is a distraction as well...probably in the 0.10 equivalent range!...

I am all for banning carrying children in motor vehicles.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

And I'm against breastfeeding babies while driving. Is that a problem
anywhere?

Originally Posted by Trackerway
"I totally agree that a federal law should be passed banning cell
phone use while driving. And cops should be allowed to pull over
anyone they see talking on a cell phone, it shouldn't be one of those
'secondary offenses' where they have to have another reason (i.e.
speeding) to pull you over."

I totally agree that they should be prosecuted, but there's another
dimension to it: THE SOCIAL DIMENSION. Few in society would justify
the "drunks" (though at one point or another many of us do it), but
cell phones junkies are often seen as a sign of "status." Actually
they almost go hand in hand with the SUV, meaning "I have money to
burn, and I do whatever the **** I want."

So when we see it them as "junkies" and not "success stories," we may
perhaps start seeing a tidal change. Of course, then enforcement would
take care of the real hardcore junkies.