SHUT THE CELL UP !

"David G. Imber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:07 GMT, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In that case, we need masquera jammers, makeup jammers, eyeliner
>>jammers, and of course eating jammers. It may not reduce all
>>distractions, but it would for almost 50% of the population.
>
> Most of all, we would have to remove radios and cd players, as
> they were shown to be the worst distractors.

By who? Do you have a credible reference to this study?

---

› See More: SHUT THE CELL UP !

it was part of the AAA commissioned study a couple of years ago... the
bottom line was that it's not the cell phone, but the distraction. On a more
personal note, I know several people killed when the driver lost control
changing tapes, cd's or the radio... several killed when the driver reached
for a water or soda bottle... several smokes killed when they dropped the
lighter... two killed because 'friends' put a snake in their car to scare
them... but I don't have any personal experience with someone killed because
someone was talking on the phone. Family members have been involved in
several accidents... most of the time there was a cell phone in at least one
of the cars involved, but no one was talking on any of them.

Where cell phones seem to be more of a problem is with traffic physics.
Because talkers tend to slow down and maintain a longer distance, they
impede the normal flow of traffic. The study compared a talker to an elderly
driver - they go too slow and drive too cautiously, creating a hazard those
around them and causing other drivers to make reckless moves to get past
them. (That was from a recent study but I don't have a cite for it.)

The study didn't mention if other distractions had the same effect on
traffic physics - from what I see on the roads, smoking does. (This means
you don't want stuck behind an elderly smoker talking on a cell phone <g>).


"JohnF" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David G. Imber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:47:07 GMT, Tropical Haven <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In that case, we need masquera jammers, makeup jammers, eyeliner
>>>jammers, and of course eating jammers. It may not reduce all
>>>distractions, but it would for almost 50% of the population.
>>
>> Most of all, we would have to remove radios and cd players, as
>> they were shown to be the worst distractors.
>
> By who? Do you have a credible reference to this study?
>

Getting around or getting past a vehicle is never an excuse for
reckless driving. Nobody or nothing causes a drivers reckless driving
but him self.

cricket wrote:
> it was part of the AAA commissioned study a couple of years ago... the
> bottom line was that it's not the cell phone, but the distraction. On a more
> personal note, I know several people killed when the driver lost control
> changing tapes, cd's or the radio... several killed when the driver reached
> for a water or soda bottle... several smokes killed when they dropped the
> lighter... two killed because 'friends' put a snake in their car to scare
> them... but I don't have any personal experience with someone killed because
> someone was talking on the phone. Family members have been involved in
> several accidents... most of the time there was a cell phone in at least one
> of the cars involved, but no one was talking on any of them.

Actually, there have been numerous pedestrians killed at crosswalks
because drivers were distracted with thier mobiles (especially when
running red lights). This seems to be such a common occurence that it
doesn't even always make the news in Tampa, Florida anymore.


> Where cell phones seem to be more of a problem is with traffic physics.
> Because talkers tend to slow down and maintain a longer distance, they
> impede the normal flow of traffic. The study compared a talker to an elderly
> driver - they go too slow and drive too cautiously, creating a hazard those
> around them and causing other drivers to make reckless moves to get past
> them. (That was from a recent study but I don't have a cite for it.)
>
> The study didn't mention if other distractions had the same effect on
> traffic physics - from what I see on the roads, smoking does. (This means
> you don't want stuck behind an elderly smoker talking on a cell phone <g>).

I guess this means you don't want to drive in Florida, North Dakota, or
West Virginia as those states are full of old dechrepid people.

> Actually, there have been numerous pedestrians killed at crosswalks
> because drivers were distracted with thier mobiles (especially when
> running red lights). This seems to be such a common occurence that it
> doesn't even always make the news in Tampa, Florida anymore.

What does make the news is the elderly FL drivers who run down pedestrians.
Are they on cell phones? Probably not... and a driver drinking a soda,
yelling at their kids, or changing CDs is just as likely to run a red
light... it happens all the time around here. In fact, most people who run
read lights aren't distracted, they just don't want to stop, often because
they are going to fast to stop. (Except the guy who almost t-boned me last
year - he looked about 80, was driving a rambler and going well under the
limit... i think he just didn't see it. )

> I guess this means you don't want to drive in Florida, North Dakota, or
> West Virginia as those states are full of old dechrepid people.

I'll let you in on a secret... there is no escaping them. Laws banning
cell use in cars isn't going to make the roads safer - the laws need to
address all distractions and put more bite into traffic violations. Better
enforcement would help too.

Per David G. Imber:
> Most of all, we would have to remove radios and cd players, as
>they were shown to be the worst distractors.

But neither of them demands attention on a momemt-to-moment basis. Even CB
radio conversations are different in that respect - predicated on the fact that
both people are driving and need to concentrate on that first.

A cell phone conversation is different in that the person on the other end is
not thinking of what you have to do other than talk to them...so the
conversation is more demanding than other things that can be deferred until
convenient.
--
PeteCresswell

"drewdawg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected],
> Linda Evans <[email protected]> typed:
> > SHUT THE CELL UP
> >
> It's interesting how loud conversation is all of a sudden a *HUGE* problem
> when a cell (mobile) phone is involved.

I find that it's interesting how normal conversation becomes loud when a
cellphone is involved. My wife and I have a hand signal to indicate that the
other is talking too loud and you'd be amazed how often I have to use it if
she takes a cell call in a restaurant. In face-to-face conversation she's
never too loud.

BTW, one of the best techniques to get a cellphone talker to be more quiet
is to face them and take notes as they talk.
--
Donald Newcomb
DRNewcomb (at) attglobal (dot) net

I think it's the ear volume.... when it's set too loud it makes you think
you need to talk louder to be heard. Setting it too low has the same effect,
as does a lot of background noise (such as you'd find in a restaurant). I
find I do better with a headset....

I'm more annoyed by people who get annoyed by public cell use than I am by
the people who use them- it's rude to make a scene over someone's cell use
(in an environment where talking is expected). I save my irritations for the
important stuff - those %$&# little kid chopping carts in grocery stores and
the parents who let their kids use them. <g>


"Donald Newcomb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I find that it's interesting how normal conversation becomes loud when a
> cellphone is involved. My wife and I have a hand signal to indicate that
> the
> other is talking too loud and you'd be amazed how often I have to use it
> if
> she takes a cell call in a restaurant. In face-to-face conversation she's
> never too loud.

>>>The study didn't mention if other distractions had the same effect on
>>>traffic physics - from what I see on the roads, smoking does. (This means
>>>you don't want stuck behind an elderly smoker talking on a cell phone <g>).
>>
>>I guess this means you don't want to drive in Florida, North Dakota, or
>>West Virginia as those states are full of old dechrepid people.
>
>
> In North Dakota, they just LOOK old.
>

Anybody who has a mind and wants to use it leaves North Dakota. Then
you've got all the retired farmers, more retired farmers, and soon to be
retired farmers (I heard the average age in ND is something like 67).

TH

cricket wrote:
> I think it's the ear volume...

I know I tend to talk louder when I perceive the other person to be talking
louder because my earpiece volume is up. I end up having to turn my earpiece
volume down often so I don't annoy everyone within a mile of me!

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Sounds like PA...


"Tropical Haven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Anybody who has a mind and wants to use it leaves North Dakota. Then
> you've got all the retired farmers, more retired farmers, and soon to be
> retired farmers (I heard the average age in ND is something like 67).
>
> TH
>

cricket wrote:
> Sounds like PA...

I disagree. You're making it sound like cities like Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and
Philly are all just one-horse hick towns, and they're not. Even Erie isn't.

There aren't any major urban centers in North Dakota.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / [email protected] / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

But the kids still leave... maybe slower than they do in ND though.



"Steve Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> cricket wrote:
>> Sounds like PA...
>
> I disagree. You're making it sound like cities like Harrisburg, Pittsburgh
> and Philly are all just one-horse hick towns, and they're not. Even Erie
> isn't.
>
> There aren't any major urban centers in North Dakota.
>

"cricket" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> The study didn't mention if other distractions had the same effect on
> traffic physics - from what I see on the roads, smoking does. (This means
> you don't want stuck behind an elderly smoker talking on a cell phone <g>).

Back when I was a smoker, I don't recall it interfering with my driving
concentration, except the few times when a hot ash dropped on my lap...

--
John Richards

"Jerome Zelinske" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Getting around or getting past a vehicle is never an excuse for
> reckless driving. Nobody or nothing causes a drivers reckless driving
> but him self.

Perhaps, but human nature being what it is, such an act (driving
way too slow) is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
If I'm on a road where there is no passing lane, I always drive at a brisk
pace so as not to impede traffic behind me.

--
John Richards