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

[Dark Jaguar]

It sure wasn't always like that. Back in the day, almost every teenaged kid had some kind of car to drive to school....even I had a car, and we wuz po. Okay, it wasn't much of a car, but it was mine.

So, tell me: is the Admiral Twin still open? Because if it is, I'm sure you'll find kids there with their own cars....

When was "the day" for you? Depending on the last time you were here there could be little or a lot of changes since then. A few things to note since I've lived here (my whole life): One thing is that Tulsa has essentially spread out (cancer-like) to encompass a number of the surrounding townships. It is now inseperable from Broken Arrow and recently there's been discussions of possible annexing (not among most people, because they can barely be arsed to remember who the mayor of Tulsa is). Second thing is a large number of "super theaters" have pretty much replaced all the small ones. Was the Admiral Twin a giant drive-in? I seem to remember hearing about it, though I never went to it. I THINK it's still open if I'm thinking of the right thing as I've seen a ridiculously oversized screen while driving down a highway (forget which one) one time.

And again, I can really only speak from my personal experience in school and knowledge of family and friends. I'm not saying a lot of people don't have cars and cell phones. I'm just saying most seem to have to get a job and actually buy one themselves.

 

[Tony]

One person's opinion doesn't equate to policy, and don't weasel--aren't you already having a hard enough time with Art's doing that in the other thread?

Hey babe, that's not weaseling, that's forgetting *****. But yeah, Art's weaseling is a real beeotch.

Then at the very least, you'll have to explain why a 47-year-old woman was given the same rule to follow in her college classes as these underage students are expected to follow in theirs.

Perhaps because it's incumbant on you as a teacher to show a good example?

The question is not so much maturity, but propriety. Cells interrupt class, therefore cells are not allowed on in class. Period.

Ok, you've convinced me dammit. I just think it's pitiful that kids are treated like prisoners the moment they enter the school. And, for me, that was my biggest problem with school and disturbed learning more than any beeping electronic device could.

By the way, here's another bandwagon to climb on: boys aren't allowed to wear hats in class, either, though they can wear them in the halls. They might write homework or test answers on the underside of the bill. Poor things have lost their freedom of expression, boo hoo.

In the school district which I went to school. No one could wear hats at anytime.

 

[RandFan]

Your position seems to be to wait until there are body bags on the road.

(emphasis mine) You'll forgive me jim but I'm really frustrated. Let me make this as clear as possible.

No.

Was that clear? Let me state that again.

No.

Got it? The answer is NO, that is NOT my position. It is has not been my poistion. Now that we are clear.

Please read the following carefully and answer yes or no or provide an explanation for any other answer.

1.) Should we ban all conversations between driver and passenger? Why or why not?
2.) Should we ban all activities not directly associated with driving? Why or why not?

{rest of post snipped because it is not relevant to my point}

You started driving when you were 6?

 

[RandFan]

I'm 46 years old and have 40 years of driving experience.

In America where I live people get licenses when they are 16. I'm 45 and I have 29 years of experience.

I am probably a safer driver with a BAC of .06, drinking a coffee, eating a sandwich and talking on a hands free cell phone than many people are with all their focus and both hands on the wheel.

Are you serious? This sounds like hyperbole so I will wait for your answer before I demand that you prove this claim, fair enough?

The laws unfortunately have to be constructed around the lowest common denominator and we all have to live by that.

I can't begin to understand what the hell this has to do with anything. The lowest common denominator is someone who can't drive at all so I guess none of us should drive. Could you make a logically valid argument please?

Go stand on an overpass over a busy freeway and as the cars whizz by try to tell which ones should be allowed to talk on the phone and which ones shouldn't. You can't do it. How can you draw the line anywhere but a total ban?

Which brings us back to my point, my only point. The single point that I have focused on with laser like precision.

1.) By this logic shouldn't we ban all conversations in a car?
2.) Shouldn't we ban everyone from sitting in the passenger seat?
3.) Shouldn't we partition the back from the front?

Do me a favor, focus on the arguments that I'm making and not the ones you wish that I had made. That would seem to be a reasonable request, don't you agree?

So, would you please answer the above questions and stop with the rhetoric, anecdotes and hyperbole?

 

[RandFan]

I don't believe that in car conversations have shown any statistical impact on driving safety and in fact can improve safety because of the extra set of eyes. I know from personal experience that a passenger has helped me avoid a situation.

#1 is a claim. Evidence please?
#2 is anecdotal evidence. Do you have something more?

Jim, please understand that I'm more than happy to accept the proof, if and when you present it. This is a skeptics forum and it is a fair request to ask for proof.

Alan

Edited to add: I'm having a bad day so plese excuse the tone.

 

[slingblade]

Hey babe, that's not weaseling, that's forgetting *****. But yeah, Art's weaseling is a real beeotch.

Perhaps because it's incumbant on you as a teacher to show a good example?

But I wasn't a teacher then. I was a student. And if showing a good example was all it took to keep kids from succumbing to endless distractions....well, maybe I'm not a good role model as I--oh, look, a butterfly!

Ok, you've convinced me dammit. I just think it's pitiful that kids are treated like prisoners the moment they enter the school. And, for me, that was my biggest problem with school and disturbed learning more than any beeping electronic device could.

I do hear you. But it's not all that bad. Each school is different, but I think kids have more freedom now, not less. I let my kids eat in class, have drinks in class (as long as they have a cap), chew gum in class....none of that hurts the learning environment. I let kids get up and move around--I don't pin them in their desks. I encourage group work, but I also let folks who don't do well in groups work alone if they like.

It's a lot more liberal now in many schools, hon. But you'd have to be in a school right now to know that, and you aren't a student, so it's understandable. I'm sorry your experience wasn't good. That's partly why I want to teach. I want to change some things, but I see the point in leaving some things alone, because they work.

And I'd rather think my argument convinced you, instead of it being me.

 

[jimlintott]

(emphasis mine) You'll forgive me jim but I'm really frustrated. Let me make this as clear as possible.

No.

Was that clear? Let me state that again.

No.

Got it? The answer is NO, that is NOT my position. It is has not been my poistion. Now that we are clear.

Please read the following carefully and answer yes or no or provide an explanation for any other answer.

1.) Should we ban all conversations between driver and passenger? Why or why not?
2.) Should we ban all activities not directly associated with driving? Why or why not?

{rest of post snipped because it is not relevant to my point}

You started driving when you were 6?

Whoa. You're coming across like a guy having a road rage episode. That's okay we all have bad days.

Yes, I did learn to drive when I was six. Not in traffic. I didn't get to drive in traffic until I was twelve. Not legally of course. I admit that my driving history has not always been done within the confines of the law. It is accident free however. I am also very passionate about driving and have become very disturbed with how dangerous it has become.

To answer your questions. No and No.

Why: Well accidents have been caused by beautiful women walking down the street. I'm not ready to ban beautiful women. Fact is that all kinds of distractions can cause accidents. In over 100 years of motoring we have always had passengers (and beautiful women) and they have not surfaced statistically as causes of accidents. Accident statistics are not impossible to find. Things like speeding and driving drunk have surfaced and shown, using established testing protocols, to be dangerous. Cell phones are surfacing as being dangerous and the testing is confirming that. Compare to cigarette smoking which is another activity that hasn't shown to be dangerous even though I'm sure a dropped smoke has likely caused an accident.

We can isolate some activities as being more dangerous to driving than others. When something shows that it is unusally dangerous we have to consider banning it. Just like we did with drunk driving.

Now I'm going to paraphrase what I believe your position is because I'm not so sure I understand it. Is it that because some drivers are skilled enough to talk on the phone while driving that it shouldn't be banned?

Is that your position or am I mistaken?

 

[RandFan]

We can isolate some activities as being more dangerous to driving than others. When something shows that it is unusally dangerous we have to consider banning it.

Agreed and I think I have made this quite clear. Again, this not at issue. What is at issue is how dangerous is talking on hands free phones compared to talking to a passenger? And if you knew that they were the same would you ban talking to a passenger?

You simply assume a difference with no evidence, why?

Cell phones are surfacing as being dangerous and the testing is confirming that.

Then please to show me the relative risk of conversations with a passenger compared to the relative risk of conversation with a hands free phone. To date no one has supplied that data though I ask over and over for it. It is simply assumed and asserted.

Now I'm going to paraphrase what I believe your position is because I'm not so sure I understand it. Is it that because some drivers are skilled enough to talk on the phone while driving that it shouldn't be banned?

Is that your position or am I mistaken?

Yes, you are mistaken. No, that is not my position. If you go back through to the start of my responses in this thread and read them carefully you might find out that I don't really have a position. Let me make my purpose here clear.

1.) I'm skeptical that using a hands free phone is significantly more dangerous than talking to a passenger.

2.) I think that those who want to ban phones are doing so for reasons other than safety. They clearly wouldn't ban conversations with passengers but would happily ban hands free phones even though they don't know if such a difference exists and are clearly unable to demonstrate such a difference.

Are we clear?

 

[jimlintott]

"The distraction risks associated with cell phone use do not diminish with hands-free devices," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for NHTSA.
To the extent that hands-free technology gives drivers a false sense of security and prods them to engage in longer phone conversations, it may even exacerbate the safety problem, Tyson said.

http://www.ghsa.org/html/media/mediacoverage/2004/101804.html

A preliminary analysis of detection rates (DR) and reaction times (RT) to traffic signals indicated that there were no differences between hands-free and hand-held cell phone groups.

http://www.nsc.org/library/shelf/inincell.htm

To be fair:

"Driving with both hands on the wheel is the safest option for motorists who use mobile phones, and headsets are tools to enable that improvement."

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/cell_hands_free.html

If you google cell phone related accidents there is a virtual landslide of information. Many recent studies are concluding that hands free is just as dangerous as hand held. Now googling for passenger conversation accidents has little information directly relating that. Although it did turn up one study done exactly comparing cell phone use and passenger converstaion. http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/HFES2004-000597-1.pdf

I skimmed it and will read it thouroughly later but at first glance I don't think you'll like the conclusions.

So here is what I see as the evidence. The lack of statistics showing passenger conversation as becoming a major cause of accidents. A situation that has existed from the very first cars. The abundance of citing cell phones in accidents. Cell phones being a recent thing. Many studies showing that hands free phones produce similar results to tests of hand held phones.

Does that work for you?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I can't begin to understand what the hell this has to do with anything. The lowest common denominator is someone who can't drive at all so I guess none of us should drive. Could you make a logically valid argument please?

I think that it's clear what he means.

1.) By this logic shouldn't we ban all conversations in a car?
2.) Shouldn't we ban everyone from sitting in the passenger seat?
3.) Shouldn't we partition the back from the front?

Even if the risks of two things are the same, that doesn't mean they have to be both or neither banned. If something is more difficult to ban, or banning it would cause more hardship, that might make a difference.

I find it odd that you are asking everyone else to do research on the issue, when you (presumably) can use google just as well as anyone else.

But in the spirit of charity, I give you this:

http://news.siu.edu/news/March06/030306tw5142.jsp

In the school district which I went to school. No one could wear hats at anytime.

According to your rules, I'm allowed to interpret that as saying that students were not allowed to wear hats, even in their own homes. If you mean something other than what you literally said, well, I'm not a mindreader.

 

[RandFan]

If you google cell phone related accidents there is a virtual landslide of information.

One more time. This is conceded. I have agreed over and over. That you continue to argue the point is frustrating.

I skimmed it and will read it thouroughly later but at first glance I don't think you'll like the conclusions.

Whether I will like it is completely irrelevant. I have said over and over that I would happily accept the evidence. Why do persist in this straw man?

I don't find it conclusive that hands free phones are significant. Could you point out that part?

So here is what I see as the evidence. The lack of statistics showing passenger conversation as becoming a major cause of accidents.

Has there been a reason for such research?

The abundance of citing cell phones in accidents. Cell phones being a recent thing.

Yes, Cell phones.

Many studies showing that hands free phones produce similar results to tests of hand held phones.

Does that work for you?

I've not seen these "many studies". Further I have some concerns with both studies (see below). You've linked two and they are not all that convincing that I can tell. I will concede that there is some indication that this might be the case. I don't change my lifestyle every time a study comes out for something. But my mind can be changed.

Let me concede that I asked you for a theory, you supplied the theory and your link backs up that theory. So thank you for that.

One important limitation of this study is that a high
fidelity driving simulator was used to study passenger and
cell-phone conversations. Despite the fact that there is more
and more evidence indicating the validity of driving simulator
based findings with regard to real driving, additional research
investigating passenger conversations and cell-phone
conversations in real driving would be important to show that
the current findings can be generalized beyond simulated
driving.

I note that you are unwilling to be critical of these studies and you seem all too willing to assume that they must be correct because they fit your world view.

Thanks,

RandFan​

 

[RandFan]

I find it odd that you are asking everyone else to do research on the issue, when you (presumably) can use google just as well as anyone else.

Art, real simple, it's not my claim.

According to your rules, I'm allowed to interpret that as saying that students were not allowed to wear hats, even in their own homes. If you mean something other than what you literally said, well, I'm not a mindreader.

Not a clue Art, thanks though, I guess.

 

[RandFan]

Hands-Free Phones Safer, Study Finds

A new study finds that drivers' reaction time, accuracy and consistency of speed improved significantly when they used a headset with their cell phone, compared with using a handheld phone.

Researchers used a driving simulator to compare the driving ability of subjects using a mobile phone under two conditions -- one holding a mobile phone, and the other using a headset, leaving their hands free.

"The central question of our study was, 'For a person using a mobile phone, does driving improve if he or she uses a headset?' What the research showed is that, across all conditions, the answer is a resounding yes," said Stephen Wilcox, Ph.D., Principal of Design Science.

• 71% of the test subjects steered more accurately when using a headset;

• 100% of the test subjects had faster brake reaction times when using a headset;

• 92% of the test subjects maintained a more consistent speed when using a headset.

Eedited to add disclosure: Study was commisioned by the phone industry. Ad hominem to follow.

 

[RandFan]

GM Says 'Real World' Hands-Free Cell Calls Can Be Safe - Technology Information

In the wake of a study suggesting that hands-free cell phone use in cars offers no safety benefits, General Motors [NYSE:GM] says it has data from more than 8 million no-hands calls that says the opposite.
GM, whose OnStar communications service offers built-in technology for mobile voice calls from vehicles, said Wednesday that, in 8.1 million calls between October 1996 and May 2000, just two OnStar customers were involved in a crash severe enough to deploy an airbag.
GM calls its numbers the first precise "real-world" measurement of hands-free calling in automobiles.

No disclosure since source is obvious.

 

[jimlintott]

One more time. This is conceded. I have agreed over and over. That you continue to argue the point is frustrating.

Whether I will like it is completely irrelevant. I have said over and over that I would happily accept the evidence. Why do persist in this straw man?

I don't find it conclusive that hands free phones are significant. Could you point out that part?

Has there been a reason for such research?

Yes, Cell phones.

I've not seen these "many studies". Further I have some concerns with both studies (see below). You've linked two and they are not all that convincing that I can tell. I will concede that there is some indication that this might be the case. I don't change my lifestyle every time a study comes out for something. But my mind can be changed.

Let me concede that I asked you for a theory, you supplied the theory and your link backs up that theory. So thank you for that.

I note that you are unwilling to be critical of these studies and you seem all too willing to assume that they must be correct because they fit your world view.

Thanks,

RandFan​

You know you're a rude person. Breaking apart a paragraph that makes a point takes that point out of context.

I'm perfectly willing to be critical of any study. I'm very much that way. I would suggest that you will categorically reject a study for the same reason. I read the study and the single paragraph you chose to quote from it is where the researchers, quite honestly, see the only weakness. Do you have any reason to believe that when studies are done beyond simulators, which are generally accepted as being quite accurate, that their findings will change dramatically?

Has there been a reason for such research?

This is my point. There hasn't been exhaustive research into driver / passenger conversations and safety because in over 100 years of motoring it hasn't surfaced as a problem. On the other hand cell phones have and hands free hasn't shown to be any better.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, cell phone laws or even speeding laws. Drivers with the proper attitute would wear their belts, only drive sober at a reasonable speed and wouldn't do activities that chew up so many brain cycles that they can't process the environment adequately to drive safely. Unfortunalety we can't legislate attitute. So we just have to draw lines.

I say draw the line at a total ban of cell phones, hand held or not, while driving. Though I know that personally I can handle it too many people can't and people are dying.

And NO it is not the same as a conversation with a passenger. It's your turn to show me some evidence that it is.

(I see a person who reads a sentence and reacts to it without completing a paragraph and putting things into context. If you continue your knee jerk reactions and taking my points out of context then you're just wasting my time.)

 

[jimlintott]

Hands-Free Phones Safer, Study Finds



Eedited to add disclosure: Study was commisioned by the phone industry. Ad hominem to follow.

Did you not notice that I also linked the same study?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Art, real simple, it's not my claim.

It was your question.

Not a clue Art, thanks though, I guess.

Huh?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Did you think I wouldn't notice that you switched the terms? I said "class", not "school". Your dishonesty is blatant.

Let's not be pedantic. So we're saying that yes, of course the child has to go to school, but no, he/she doesn't have to be in class? Give me a break. What kind of teacher would I be if I allowed my students to hang out in the hall talking on the phone during class? It is my responsibility to make sure they learn (yes, whether they want to or not, because despite what you may think they are not always capable of making the mature decision). In order for them to learn, they must be in the classroom where the material is.

Out of classroom? Don't learn.
Don't learn? Partially my fault as a teacher.
My fault? Failed teaching career.

I don't plan on failing.

 

[jimlintott]

GM did not say if it knew how many of the 8.1 million calls logged were made from moving vehicles.

Sounds more anecdotal than scientific to me. Although I will admit that GM is a leader in automotive safety research. (They built the first crash test dummies.) I would have to weigh this with the fact that a banning a hands free cell devices could be a disaster to the marketing of the On-Star feature.

 

[RandFan]

You know you're a rude person. Breaking apart a paragraph that makes a point takes that point out of context.

I don't see how I did that but if I did then I apologize. Let me point out that you have continually put words in my mouth.

I'm perfectly willing to be critical of any study. I'm very much that way. I would suggest that you will categorically reject a study for the same reason. I read the study and the single paragraph you chose to quote from it is where the researchers, quite honestly, see the only weakness. Do you have any reason to believe that when studies are done beyond simulators, which are generally accepted as being quite accurate, that their findings will change dramatically?

? Yeah, I thought I had made that clear. It is counter intuitive. But I'm willing to accept the evidence when it is conclusive.

This is my point. There hasn't been exhaustive research into driver / passenger conversations and safety because in over 100 years of motoring it hasn't surfaced as a problem. On the other hand cell phones have and hands free hasn't shown to be any better.

That is not conclusive and there is counter data.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, cell phone laws or even speeding laws. Drivers with the proper attitute would wear their belts, only drive sober at a reasonable speed and wouldn't do activities that chew up so many brain cycles that they can't process the environment adequately to drive safely. Unfortunalety we can't legislate attitute. So we just have to draw lines.

Entirely beside the point.

I say draw the line at a total ban of cell phones, hand held or not, while driving. Though I know that personally I can handle it too many people can't and people are dying.

If there were no trade offs then I would agree. Since there are trade-offs then I say let's have a discussion and examine the studies critically and find the truth and base our decisions on that.

And NO it is not the same as a conversation with a passenger. It's your turn to show me some evidence that it is.

See above.

(I see a person who reads a sentence and reacts to it without completing a paragraph and putting things into context. If you continue your knee jerk reactions and taking my points out of context then you're just wasting my time.)

I see a person who won't pay attention and continually misrepresents another's position. I've been wondering if you are not a waste of my time for awhile now. Only recently have you started to respond in a substantive fashion.

I have only asked questions and have had to ask the same ones over and over for many posts before you would even respond to the substance of what I was asking.

I guess about the time I started finding you reasonable you found me unreasonable. What are you going to do?