Cellphone Drivers Equivalent to Drunks

phone-jockey wrote:
> ted wrote:
>>
>> A University of Utah study claims that drivers who use a cell phone
>> will be 'more impaired than drunken drivers with blood alcohol
>> levels exceeding
>> 0.08.' The study also says that use will turn a driver who is age 20
>> into age 70. Hands-free systems apparently don't help much either as
>> they still require a driver to 'actively be part of a conversation.'
>
> Just today I observed three vehicles swerving from lanes
> and all three drivers were using cell phones. It's getting
> ridiculous out there!

What sucks is when they call you from the car and say "AH LOVE YOU, MAN!"

---

› See More: Cellphone Drivers Equivalent to Drunks

>>>> Don't kid yourself. *None of us* are as good as we think we are!
>
>>> None of us _is_ as good as we think we are. *g*
>
>> Damn syntax checker! <g>
>
> Damn _grammar_ checker.

Damn _grandmother_ checker.

fbloogyudsr wrote:

> "Arif Khokar" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> The problem stems from Google Groups beta's interface. At the end of
>> every post there is a 'Reply' link that does not include quoted text by
>> default. One has to click on 'show options' and then on the 'Reply'
>> link that subsequently appears. Then quoted text is included.

> Now if you'd just a *real* newsreader like OE... ;->

Why use a newsreader instead of telnet to port 119?

phone-jockey Feb 2, 1:18 pm
Just today I observed three vehicles swerving from lanes
and all three drivers were using cell phones. It's getting
ridiculous out there!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if they lose control and kill three people, they just say it's an
accident and forget it. America is a nation of psychopaths.

Yup; that's why Mass. residents keep electing a murderer to the senate.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> > The problem stems from Google Groups beta's interface.
>
> Naw, I don't buy it. It's the driver's job to know how to use all the
> controls and read all the displays.

Yeah, that is the problem and I have been trying to break myself of the
habit of using the 'quick reply' thingy. Why it is even there I can't
imagine. I am doing better, I usually catch myself now before sending
and redo it.

Harry K

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>> <>Cite?
>>
This is from the study in question I have other sources I assumed this
was common knowledge that senior are a hazard on the road. Strayer said
they found that when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving
simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights
from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who<> were
not using a cell phone.

http://www.e-z.net/~ts/reaction.htm
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/olderdrivers.html
http://www.usroads.com/journals/rej/9708/re970804.htm
Sharing is caring Screw the RIAA

Per phone-jockey:
>Just today I observed three vehicles swerving from lanes
>and all three drivers were using cell phones. It's getting
>ridiculous out there!

Some weeks ago, my dentist said that some guy almost got him - who appeared to
be doing email on a BlackBerry.
--
PeteCresswell

"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:
>
> Per phone-jockey:
> >Just today I observed three vehicles swerving from lanes
> >and all three drivers were using cell phones. It's getting
> >ridiculous out there!
>
> Some weeks ago, my dentist said that some guy almost got him - who appeared to
> be doing email on a BlackBerry.

Pretty good concentration to determine "email on a Blackberry" while traveling
in
a moving vehicle.

Maybe your dentist should've had his eyes on the road!

Notan

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:

> I assumed this was common knowledge that senior are a hazard on the
> road.

"Common knowledge" is frequently not supportable by anything more than
repetition.

> they found that when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving
> simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights
> from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who<> were
> not using a cell phone.

That does not support your assertion that elderly drivers are more
dangerous than celphone users.

The Blue wrote:
>
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> <>Cite?
>>>
> This is from the study in question I have other sources I assumed this
> was common knowledge that senior are a hazard on the road. Strayer said
> they found that when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving
> simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights
> from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who<> were
> not using a cell phone.
>
Slower reaction time does not does not mean _much_more_of_a_danger_. If
your also following so closely that your slow reaction causes an
accident... The people that have the real numbers are insurance
companies. 18- to 25-year-olds have the highest rates because they cost
the insurance company the most. Most 65- to 74-year-olds have figured
out that they are not invincible and compensate for their slower
reaction times.

Lurking wrote:
>
> The Blue wrote:
> >
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> <>Cite?
> >>>
> > This is from the study in question I have other sources I assumed this
> > was common knowledge that senior are a hazard on the road. Strayer said
> > they found that when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving
> > simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights
> > from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who<> were
> > not using a cell phone.
> >
> Slower reaction time does not does not mean _much_more_of_a_danger_. If
> your also following so closely that your slow reaction causes an
> accident... The people that have the real numbers are insurance
> companies. 18- to 25-year-olds have the highest rates because they cost
> the insurance company the most. Most 65- to 74-year-olds have figured
> out that they are not invincible and compensate for their slower
> reaction times.

You don't have to be *in* an accident to cause one.

The little old lady, driving slowly in the left-hand lane,
who decides (a bit late) that "this is her exit" and proceeds
to exit the highway/freeway, may leave unscathed, with cars
piling up around her.

I've seen it happen.

Notan

Notan wrote:
> Lurking wrote:
>
>>The Blue wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>><>Cite?
>>>>>
>>>This is from the study in question I have other sources I assumed this
>>>was common knowledge that senior are a hazard on the road. Strayer said
>>>they found that when 18- to-25-year-olds were placed in a driving
>>>simulator and talked on a cellular phone, they reacted to brake lights
>>>from a car in front of them as slowly as 65- to 74-year-olds who<> were
>>>not using a cell phone.
>>>
>>
>>Slower reaction time does not does not mean _much_more_of_a_danger_. If
>>your also following so closely that your slow reaction causes an
>>accident... The people that have the real numbers are insurance
>>companies. 18- to 25-year-olds have the highest rates because they cost
>>the insurance company the most. Most 65- to 74-year-olds have figured
>>out that they are not invincible and compensate for their slower
>>reaction times.
>
>
> You don't have to be *in* an accident to cause one.
>
> The little old lady, driving slowly in the left-hand lane,
> who decides (a bit late) that "this is her exit" and proceeds
> to exit the highway/freeway, may leave unscathed, with cars
> piling up around her.
>
> I've seen it happen.
>
and BMWs, Audis, red sports cars, SUVs with soccer moms, delivery
trucks, pickups.... kids/"adults" weaving through traffic and on and
on. so what is your point? 18-25 year old males have the highest
insurance rates and the high death rate of any age group.

<snip>

Lurking wrote:
>
> Notan wrote:
> >
> > You don't have to be *in* an accident to cause one.
> >
> > The little old lady, driving slowly in the left-hand lane,
> > who decides (a bit late) that "this is her exit" and proceeds
> > to exit the highway/freeway, may leave unscathed, with cars
> > piling up around her.
> >
> > I've seen it happen.
> >
> and BMWs, Audis, red sports cars, SUVs with soccer moms, delivery
> trucks, pickups.... kids/"adults" weaving through traffic and on and
> on. so what is your point? 18-25 year old males have the highest
> insurance rates and the high death rate of any age group.

No one ever said they didn't.

What's *your* point?

Notan

Per Notan:
>Pretty good concentration to determine "email on a Blackberry" while traveling
>in
>a moving vehicle.
>
>Maybe your dentist should've had his eyes on the road!

I understood his use of "Blackberry" tb a generic for any email device.

Driving the Atlantic City Expressway last summer, some guy in a Jeep Cherokee
almost nailed me. I was crusing the right lane, he was next to me in the
middle lane. Just started coming over....I took to the shoulder, but just a
quick glance told me that he was holding a cell phone in one hand and dialing
with the other. Couldn't have been more than a tenth of a second that I took
to look at him....but it was easy to see.

If he was doing email on a Blackberry-type thumbpad I think it would have been
equally obvious if his hands were in view.


--
PeteCresswell