Hands-free still ain't enough...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ction=cnn_tech


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

---

› See More: Hands-free still ain't enough...

Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ction=cnn_tech
>
> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
> THE CONVERSATION.
>
> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous
> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

Hasn't this last paragraph been proven false somewhere/somewhen? I don't
have time to google it, but I thought there was a difference in brain
patterns/attention/reaction time when you (the driver) are talking to a
passenger vs. somebody on a phone....

Of course, I could be completely wrong.

brian
--
If you want to reply to this message by mail, you will
have to change the reply address to [email protected]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ction=cnn_tech
>
> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
> THE CONVERSATION.
>
> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more
> dangerous
> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

They had a ton of links a month or so ago when chicago passed the cell phone
law saying the exact same thing. When i emailed Burt Natarus (the main guy
in chicago who wanted it) his exact responce via email was
"I am sorry, but you are dead wrong."and went on saying this:"I am
attempting to pass a statue state-wise."Thanks!!

I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do
not agree with you!

Mark wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ction=cnn_tech
>
>
> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone. IT'S
> THE CONVERSATION.
>
> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more dangerous
> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.

Yup. I think the solution is to install a monitoring device in the car that
issues you a traffic citation if you attempt to talk to a passenger that is
in the car.


"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I am a rational thinking person, and I have known all along that I do not
> agree with you!
>
> Mark wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:24 -0500, Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ction=cnn_tech
>>
>>
>> I'm glad people are spending so much money to figure out what rational
>> thinking people have known all along. It's not the goddamned phone.
>> IT'S
>> THE CONVERSATION.
>>
>> No difference between talking hands-free on your cell and talking to the
>> person in the passenger seat. If anything, the later may be more
>> dangerous
>> if you tend to try and look at the person occasionally.