FINALLY...doing something about #$@! cell phones

[Tony]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, too. How is this the case?

Gee. I don't know. How many times have you gotten plastered from talking on a cell phone? Answer that and you'll figure out why his reasoning was bogus.

 

[Luke T.]

So did I (not for over 10 years). What is your point?

It is the difference between micro and macro. On a macro scale, drunk driving is a serious threat to society. A person may have been driving drunk for 10 years and not had an accident yet, but that does not mean all drivers should be allowed to drive drunk. But when a large percentage of accidents and deaths are caused by drunk drivers, that means no drivers should be allowed to drive drunk.

ETA: The same with cell phones. If a significant percentage of accidents are caused by talking on a cell phone while driving...

 

[RandFan]

Sorry I misunderstood your request before

No problem.

I use a hands free phone and my anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that there is a huge difference between hands free and a regular phone. But that is just anecdotal and I'm clearly biased since a cell phone is critical to my job. I'm willing to accept evidence to the contrary though I would like to see some other studies.

The evidence that I would most like to see is accident investigation data. After the introduction of cell phones, AIU, there was a sharp rise in accidents and based on interviews of the drivers that rise was attributed to cell phones. If hands free could be pegged to that rise then clearly it would demonstrate a difference between ordinary conversations with passengers and conversations on the cell phone. I honestly cannot fathom the theory of why and not one person has ever given me a reason why. I've asked a lot. It also seems that no one wants to ban conversations in cars. I can't help but wonder why that is?

 

[Katana]

Gee. I don't know. How many times have you gotten plastered from talking on a cell phone? Answer that and you'll figure out why his reasoning was bogus.

I guess I was responding to his question, "Do you seriously believe this line of argument?" As in your own statement alone-not relative to his comment. Does that make any sense?

 

[Tony]

I guess I was responding to his question, "Do you seriously believe this line of argument?" As in your own statement alone-not relative to his comment. Does that make any sense?

Yes you're making sense. Did ja get what I was saying?

 

[egslim]

Gee. I don't know. How many times have you gotten plastered from talking on a cell phone? Answer that and you'll figure out why his reasoning was bogus.

Did you really miss the fact that both consuming alcohol and talking on your cellphone impairs your driving capabilities?

There is clear evidence for that. And just like drunk drivers claim they can still drive safely, so do you.

And it's equally nonsensical.

 

[Tony]

ETA: The same with cell phones. If a significant percentage of accidents are caused by talking on a cell phone while driving...

I might agree. I'll echo RandFan. Have accidents increased since the proliferation of cell phones? And if they have. Is it because of the cell phones? If so, is that really a reason to keep people from talking to them whilst driving? If it is, why don't we ban all talking in the car and make it mandatory that all people have to keep both hands on the wheel at all times?

 

[Tony]

Did you really miss the fact that both consuming alcohol and talking on your cellphone impairs your driving capabilities?

My driving capabilities? Or yours? Speak for yourself. Cell phones have no effect on how I drive.

There is clear evidence for that.

There is? Funny, I've never been tested. When and how was this evidence gathered on me?

And just like drunk drivers claim they can still drive safely, so do you.

And it's equally nonsensical.

Yes it is. Comparing drunk driving and talking on a phone is nonsensical.

 

[BPSCG]

Too bad that's not the logic I'm using. But go ahead, I'm not going to get in the way of your stupidity.

No, your portrait of my argument was a strawman.

Well, gee, Tony, since everyone here seems to be having trouble understanding the point you were trying to make, maybe you need to explain it a little better, hmm? 'Cuz the ad homs don't seem to be carrying the day.

 

[Tony]

Well, gee, Tony, since everyone here seems to be having trouble understanding the point you were trying to make, maybe you need to explain it a little better, hmm?

Go cry somewhere else.

 

[BPSCG]

Go cry somewhere else.

Ah, now I understand. The thrust of your argument is, "STFU, I know what I know."

What's the difference between Tony and the IDiots? Nothing, really - just what they believe on faith.

 

[egslim]

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/164/11/1581

In our research, we found that drivers were 4 times more likely to have a collision when using a cellular telephone than when not using a cellular telephone.

As a consequence, people who were reluctant to participate because of concerns about personal liability were excluded from the analysis. These exclusions can cause our analysis to underestimate by an order of magnitude the risk associated with using a cellular telephone while driving.

As for Tony's driving capabilities:

If a driver believes that he or she has superior skills and is immune to collisions, for example, then cellular telephone calls would seem perfectly safe (because a 4-fold increase in nothing is still nothing). However, a widespread sense of security is unwarranted because more than 600 000 reportable collisions occur in Canada each year.10,11 Most of these collisions come as a complete surprise to drivers

Education is always an alternative to regulation. However, our study suggests that education may not be sufficient because the increase in risk persisted even for drivers with years of experience with a cellular telephone. This implies a fundamental limitation in human performance (e.g., attention span).

So unless Tony considers himself a Homo Superior instead of a Homo Sapiens, he's subject to the same human limitations as the rest of us.

 

[Katana]

Yes you're making sense. Did ja get what I was saying?

Gotcha. Thanks.

 

[jimlintott]

I didn't mean that at all. It is not ok ever to drive while reading. Not only are both hands holding up the book (at least in this woman's case) rather than focused on the act of steering, your eyes are diverted from the road as is a great deal of your attention. Talking on a cell phone requires only one hand (or less if on hands-free mode), doesn't divert one's eyes, and occupies no more of one's attention than a conversation with someone in the car.

As for the golf comparison, I'm not sure it fits. Driving a car, when it comes down to the actual motions used is pretty simple by comparison. Perhaps, that's why most people can somewhat competently drive a car but so few can drive a golf ball well (even with two hands).

Well how many people are killed driving golf balls each year?

Seriously, driving is the only safe activity to engage in while driving. Both hands on the wheel and 100% focus on the environment is the only safe behaviour. Safe driving is mostly compensating for other people's mistakes.

I would agree that talking on a cell phone is less dangerous than reading while driving which is only slightly less dangerous than sleeping while driving. Eating while driving, drinking any beverage, fiddling with the radio and sometimes even talking to passengers can all be dangerous to certain degrees. When you consider that pedestrians have died while talking on cell phones because they have become completely oblivious to their surroundings it is obvious that it is very dangerous while driving. Lack of attention is a huge contributor to auto accidents. When a driver allows an activity to compete for the precious brain cycles needed to drive they are impaired.

Personally I think that lack of attention and lack of patience are two major problems while driving.

 

[Katana]

Well how many people are killed driving golf balls each year?

I typically feel like killing someone after playing golf so hard to say.

Personally I think that lack of attention and lack of patience are two major problems while driving.

Personally, I think that lack of attention, patience, and personal accountability are huge problems with our society.

 

[RandFan]

I would agree that talking on a cell phone is less dangerous than reading while driving which is only slightly less dangerous than sleeping while driving. Eating while driving, drinking any beverage, fiddling with the radio and sometimes even talking to passengers can all be dangerous to certain degrees. When you consider that pedestrians have died while talking on cell phones because they have become completely oblivious to their surroundings it is obvious that it is very dangerous while driving. Lack of attention is a huge contributor to auto accidents. When a driver allows an activity to compete for the precious brain cycles needed to drive they are impaired.

Personally I think that lack of attention and lack of patience are two major problems while driving.

I agree. But where is the line that we draw? Perhaps cars shouldn't have a side passenger seat and there should be a partition separating the front and the back. If we assume your argument, and I do, then listening to the radio falls somewhere on the continuum from safe to dangerous.

Why do we have such a visceral response to cell phones? My guess is that many of us have confronted some driver clearly oblivious to his or her surrounding with a phone to his ear who cut us off.

Don't we want a bit of satisfaction? A bit of retribution? Or are we all really sensitive to our safety? If you chose the latter then I have to ask, what are you willing to ban or change to increase safety?

No matter how often I ask or how hard I try I simply can't get more than a handful of people to respond and I've asked a lot of people. So why don't people want to address my questions? I can only speculate but I would say that it really has little to do with any concern for safety. It's much more primordial.

 

[Tony]

Ah, now I understand. The thrust of your argument is, "STFU, I know what I know."

What's the difference between Tony and the IDiots? Nothing, really - just what they believe on faith.

You're a whiner and a hypocrite.

 

[jimlintott]

In a vain attempt to rerail. At my daughters high school a new cell phone policy was recently implimented. Cell phones are not banned, cell phone use is. If you phone even rings in class it is to be confiscated by the teacher, it will be held at the office and the student's parents must come to the school to reclaim it.

I think it is a pretty good solution. Hopefully they would only have to follow through a few times before the students learn that they are serious and simply turn their phones off.

 

[Tony]

So unless Tony considers himself a Homo Superior instead of a Homo Sapiens, he's subject to the same human limitations as the rest of us.

Just making stuff up I see. Nothing in your post suggested that the research was a representation of all humanity.

 

[Tony]

If you phone even rings in class it is to be confiscated by the teacher, it will be held at the office and the student's parents must come to the school to reclaim it.

What if the call is from the kids parent saying a family member has been seriously hurt or dead? Surely there are exceptions.