Cellphone Drivers Equivalent to Drunks

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!

---

› See More: Cellphone Drivers Equivalent to Drunks

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!
>
>
Ok so when are getting old people off the road; if i have to give up my
cell to get nana and papa off the road i will. Old people are much more
of a danger than cell phones.

--
Sharing is caring Screw the RIAA

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:

> Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.

Cite?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:
>
>
>
>>Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.
>>
>>
>
>Cite?
>
>
Well the study said cell phones made young driver equivalent of a
senior behind the wheel. That is only while they are on the phone. The
senior is a senior from the start of the trip till finish. So the
senior is a less capable drive for a longer period of time. I have no
problem using my cell phone when I drive. However i use my hand device
and i pay attention to the roads. I think food is much more of
distraction than a cell phone.

--
Sharing is caring Screw the RIAA

The Blue wrote:
>
> Well the study said cell phones made young driver equivalent of a
> senior behind the wheel. That is only while they are on the phone. The
> senior is a senior from the start of the trip till finish. So the
> senior is a less capable drive for a longer period of time. I have no
> problem using my cell phone when I drive. However i use my hand device
> and i pay attention to the roads. I think food is much more of
> distraction than a cell phone.

Don't kid yourself.

*None of us* are as good as we think we are!

Notan

The Blue wrote:

<snip>

Please change the settings in your newsreader so that it will only post
plain text to usenet.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Notan wrote:

> 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*

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, The Blue wrote:

> >>Old people are much more of a danger than cell phones.

> >Cite?

> Well the study said cell phones made young driver equivalent of a
> senior behind the wheel. That is only while they are on the phone. The
> senior is a senior from the start of the trip till finish.

Bzzzt! Reading conclusions into the study that aren't there!

This is not applicable support for your assertion, so I'll repeat my
request that you cite the source of your assertion.

> I have no
> problem using my cell phone when I drive.

You don't *think* that you do, but in fact, yes, you do. It's
quantifiable.

> I think food is much more of distraction than a cell phone.

Fortunately for everyone, your guesses and opinions aren't science.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Notan wrote:
>
> > 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>

Notan

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Notan wrote:

> > > 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.

<gd&r>

DS

I presume you will copy and frame that post so you will be reminded of
it when (if) you reach of people status. I suspect your opinion will
be quite different then.

Harry K

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Harry K wrote:

> I presume you will copy and frame that post so you will be reminded of
> it when (if) you reach of people status. I suspect your opinion will
> be quite different then.

Y'know, Harry, when you post garbled nonsentences without quoted text,
nobody knows what the hell you're talking about, whom you're talking to,
or what point you're trying to make. Also, it makes you look like a dweeb.

$13.98, please drive around.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Harry K wrote:

> > I presume you will copy and frame that post so you will be reminded
of
> > it when (if) you reach of people status. I suspect your opinion
will
> > be quite different then.

> Y'know, Harry, when you post garbled nonsentences without quoted
text,
> nobody knows what the hell you're talking about, whom you're talking
to,
> or what point you're trying to make. Also, it makes you look like a
dweeb.

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.

Unfortunately, the interface is not properly handling line wrapping of
quoted text which is not evident in the compose window (one has to
preview the post first).

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.

"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... ;->

Floyd