Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
from Yahoo! News: Odd News
Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
"There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...es_massachuset
ts_ban
Great start, but they didn't go far enough. They forgot about people driving
taxi cabs, logging trucks, courier vans, police cars, ... the list is
virtually endless.
"There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...sachusetts_ban
Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
WORKING.
I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the job
non-city-employees.
Frankster wrote:
>
> "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
>> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
>> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
>> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
>> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...sachusetts_ban
>>
>
> Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
>
> The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
> people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
> WORKING.
>
> I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the
> job non-city-employees.
>
> -Frank
I believe New Jersey already bans the use of hand held cell phones while
operating a motor vehicle. It's a ban that I would not mind seeing
nation wide!
I make it a point to pull over and stop if I have to make or receive a call.
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B4adndIFfdc1mpPXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Frankster wrote:
> >
> > "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
> >> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
> >> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains,
> >> street cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones
> >> at work, the toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state
> >> transit agency. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...es_massachuset
ts_ban > >>
> >
> > Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
> >
> > The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
> > people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they
> > are WORKING.
> >
> > I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the
> > job non-city-employees.
>
> I believe New Jersey already bans the use of hand held cell phones while
> operating a motor vehicle. It's a ban that I would not mind seeing
> nation wide!
>
> I make it a point to pull over and stop if I have to make or receive a
call.
Many countries already ban drivers from using a mobile phone, either a total
ban or it is only allowed to be used via a hands-free system.
Of course banning it and actually having people sensible enough to obey are
to totally different things. There are ALWAYS going to be idiots who think
they know better ... just look at how many fools drive while drunk.
Mobile phone use is only the start. They need to also banning people from
driving while putting on make-up, reading the newspaper / book, eating, ...
the list is endless, and other driver distractions include the in-car radio
/ CD, talking with passengers, rowdy children, etc.
I would say "bring on computer driven cars", except that hopeless Microsloth
wopuld get involved and their would be even more crashes than there are now,
and many WOULD be "blue screen of death". :-(
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B4adndIFfdc1mpPXnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>> "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
>>> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
>>> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
>>> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
>>> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...sachusetts_ban
>>
>> Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
>>
>> The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
>> people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
>> WORKING.
>>
>> I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the
>> job non-city-employees.
>>
>> -Frank
>
> I believe New Jersey already bans the use of hand held cell phones while
> operating a motor vehicle. It's a ban that I would not mind seeing nation
> wide!
>
> I make it a point to pull over and stop if I have to make or receive a
> call.
Perhaps you misssed this point...
"Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day suspension for
a first offense."
"Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
news:kJ6dnVFUPpHxrJPXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> Perhaps you misssed this point...
>
> "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day
> suspension for a first offense."
Remove the phone and it removes the temptation to use it.
In article <VaudnQvRgMr5cZDXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>, frank@SPAM2TRASH.com says...
>
> "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
> > from Yahoo! News: Odd News
> > Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
> > cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
> > toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...sachusetts_ban
>
> Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
>
> The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
> people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
> WORKING.
>
> I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the job
> non-city-employees.
>
> -Frank
>
>
Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
Australia. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
allow handheld. And there is much talk about banning their use
altogether, as the attention is still diverted away from the road while
engaged in a phone conversation with someone who is not in the car with
you.
I have personally had the experience of having a lengthy conversation on
a hands-free phone in my car, and when the conversation is finished, I
had absolutely NO recollection of how I got to where I was. My
attention was on the conversation, while my driving was on fully
subconscious auto mode. That was scary when I realized it after the
call ended.
Now I either have the phone switched off in the car, or set to divert to
voicemail. If I'm expecting an important call, I leave the phone on
hands-free and pull over when the call comes in.
> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
> allow handheld.
Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
phone use while driving.
I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
-Lipstick application
-Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
-Combing hair
-Applying mascara
-Shaving
-Reading maps
-Adjusting GPS
-Tuning Radio
-Selecting CD track/song
-Reading newspaper
-Reading book
-Eating hamburger
-Smoking
-Lighting cigarette
-Drinking coffee
-Eating fries
-There's more...
Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while driving
would be perfect.
At 16 May 2009 06:45:45 -0600 Frankster wrote:
>
> > Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
> > allow handheld.
>
> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting
> handheld phone use while driving.
So, is this "Colorado" you spek of west of Queensland?
You snipped an important part of what you quoted:
"Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
_Australi_. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
allow handheld..."
The United States isn't necessarily the only country with states!
> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
<Snip>
I'm (mostly) on your side- a general "distraction" law makes more sense,
but also leaves it too subjective. Some people are just better at
multitasking than others, and frankly, some are just much better drivers.
(I do not claim to be in either of those groups!) My father had an
uncanny ability to tune out the rest of the world when driving, and
concentrate solely on the task at hand- an ability I do not possess.
Frankster wrote:
>
>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>> allow handheld.
>
> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting
> handheld phone use while driving.
Only a few states in the U.S. have laws prohibiting prohibiting holding
the phone while driving.
> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>
> -Lipstick application
> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
> -Combing hair
> -Applying mascara
> -Shaving
> -Reading maps
> -Adjusting GPS
> -Tuning Radio
> -Selecting CD track/song
> -Reading newspaper
> -Reading book
> -Eating hamburger
> -Smoking
> -Lighting cigarette
> -Drinking coffee
> -Eating fries
> -There's more...
You need to understand the difference. The problem isn't holding the
phone itself, it's the spacing out that drivers do while talking. In
fact the hands-free systems only marginally improves safety.
Of all those things on the list, the only one's that make sense are
reading and leaning over to discipline your child. You forgot to include
"talking to passengers." Have you ever noticed that really slow drivers
are either on the phone or engaged in an animated conversation with
other passengers?
A ban on handheld use while driving isn't enough, they need to ban them
completely for driver use.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:b3zPl.18538$D32.2874@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>> allow handheld.
>>
>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting
>> handheld phone use while driving.
>
> Only a few states in the U.S. have laws prohibiting prohibiting
holding
> the phone while driving.
>
>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>
>> -Lipstick application
>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>> -Combing hair
>> -Applying mascara
>> -Shaving
>> -Reading maps
>> -Adjusting GPS
>> -Tuning Radio
>> -Selecting CD track/song
>> -Reading newspaper
>> -Reading book
>> -Eating hamburger
>> -Smoking
>> -Lighting cigarette
>> -Drinking coffee
>> -Eating fries
>> -There's more...
>
> You need to understand the difference.
You need to understand that there is no difference- all distract the
driver. Trying to assign shades of grey demonstrates an uninformed
position.
The problem isn't holding the
> phone itself, it's the spacing out that drivers do while talking. In
> fact the hands-free systems only marginally improves safety.
Cite?
>
> Of all those things on the list, the only one's that make sense are
> reading and leaning over to discipline your child.
So applying makeup or shaving while driving (both of which distract the
driver far more than a phone call) are acceptable to you? Are you
trying to look this clueless on purpose?
You forgot to include
> "talking to passengers." Have you ever noticed that really slow
drivers
> are either on the phone or engaged in an animated conversation with
> other passengers?
Why noit- in your wolrd, it would be a dangerous thing to do to be
talking while driving.
>
> A ban on handheld use while driving isn't enough, they need to ban
them
> completely for driver use.
>
Except that there is no data showing that they are any worse than
anything on the list above.
In article <MPG.247945f69bf419929898ac@news-europe.giganews.com>,
NightStalker <NightStalker@somewhere.or.other> wrote:
> In article <VaudnQvRgMr5cZDXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> frank@SPAM2TRASH.com says...
> >
> > "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> > > Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
> > > from Yahoo! News: Odd News
> > > Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
> > > cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
> > > toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
> > >
> > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...ones_massachus
> > > etts_ban
> >
> > Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
> >
> > The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
> > people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
> > WORKING.
> >
> > I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the job
> > non-city-employees.
> >
> > -Frank
> >
> >
>
> Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
> Australia. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
> allow handheld. And there is much talk about banning their use
> altogether, as the attention is still diverted away from the road while
> engaged in a phone conversation with someone who is not in the car with
> you.
>
> I have personally had the experience of having a lengthy conversation on
> a hands-free phone in my car, and when the conversation is finished, I
> had absolutely NO recollection of how I got to where I was. My
> attention was on the conversation, while my driving was on fully
> subconscious auto mode. That was scary when I realized it after the
> call ended.
>
> Now I either have the phone switched off in the car, or set to divert to
> voicemail. If I'm expecting an important call, I leave the phone on
> hands-free and pull over when the call comes in.
I've had exactly the same experience. I no longer talk while driving.
Handheld use is banned while driving in California, but after the
initial obedience to the law, many have returned to using them - now
they divert more attention from driving to watching for cops while they
talk.
Oh boy.
In article <gul3qs$8ik$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
"Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> Of course banning it and actually having people sensible enough to obey are
> to totally different things. There are ALWAYS going to be idiots who think
> they know better ... just look at how many fools drive while drunk.
The problem is that no one can safely talk and drive at the same time.
Hand-free or not.
Kurt wrote:
> In article <MPG.247945f69bf419929898ac@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> NightStalker <NightStalker@somewhere.or.other> wrote:
>
>> In article <VaudnQvRgMr5cZDXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> frank@SPAM2TRASH.com says...
>>> "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
>>>> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
>>>> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
>>>> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
>>>> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...ones_massachus
>>>> etts_ban
>>> Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
>>>
>>> The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
>>> people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
>>> WORKING.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the job
>>> non-city-employees.
>>>
>>> -Frank
>>>
>>>
>> Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
>> Australia. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>> allow handheld. And there is much talk about banning their use
>> altogether, as the attention is still diverted away from the road while
>> engaged in a phone conversation with someone who is not in the car with
>> you.
>>
>> I have personally had the experience of having a lengthy conversation on
>> a hands-free phone in my car, and when the conversation is finished, I
>> had absolutely NO recollection of how I got to where I was. My
>> attention was on the conversation, while my driving was on fully
>> subconscious auto mode. That was scary when I realized it after the
>> call ended.
>>
>> Now I either have the phone switched off in the car, or set to divert to
>> voicemail. If I'm expecting an important call, I leave the phone on
>> hands-free and pull over when the call comes in.
>
> I've had exactly the same experience. I no longer talk while driving.
>
> Handheld use is banned while driving in California, but after the
> initial obedience to the law, many have returned to using them - now
> they divert more attention from driving to watching for cops while they
> talk.
> Oh boy.
>
Hopefully some of the resulting accidents will have the effect of
cleansing the gene pool!
SMS wrote:
> Frankster wrote:
>>
>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>> allow handheld.
>>
>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting
>> handheld phone use while driving.
>
> Only a few states in the U.S. have laws prohibiting prohibiting holding
> the phone while driving.
>
>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>
>> -Lipstick application
>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>> -Combing hair
>> -Applying mascara
>> -Shaving
>> -Reading maps
>> -Adjusting GPS
>> -Tuning Radio
>> -Selecting CD track/song
>> -Reading newspaper
>> -Reading book
>> -Eating hamburger
>> -Smoking
>> -Lighting cigarette
>> -Drinking coffee
>> -Eating fries
>> -There's more...
>
> You need to understand the difference. The problem isn't holding the
> phone itself, it's the spacing out that drivers do while talking. In
> fact the hands-free systems only marginally improves safety.
But the most recent notable incidents involve text messaging. The train
wreck last year out west and the incident noted here on the green line
involved someone texting. And locally just before winter someone was
texting and split their car in half when they hit a power pole while
texting and they also knocked off power for a wide area for the day
because it was the main feed into the area.
>
> Of all those things on the list, the only one's that make sense are
> reading and leaning over to discipline your child. You forgot to include
> "talking to passengers." Have you ever noticed that really slow drivers
> are either on the phone or engaged in an animated conversation with
> other passengers?
>
> A ban on handheld use while driving isn't enough, they need to ban them
> completely for driver use.
George wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Frankster wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
>>>> allow handheld.
>>>
>>> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting
>>> handheld phone use while driving.
>>
>> Only a few states in the U.S. have laws prohibiting prohibiting
>> holding the phone while driving.
>>
>>> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>>>
>>> -Lipstick application
>>> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
>>> -Combing hair
>>> -Applying mascara
>>> -Shaving
>>> -Reading maps
>>> -Adjusting GPS
>>> -Tuning Radio
>>> -Selecting CD track/song
>>> -Reading newspaper
>>> -Reading book
>>> -Eating hamburger
>>> -Smoking
>>> -Lighting cigarette
>>> -Drinking coffee
>>> -Eating fries
>>> -There's more...
>>
>> You need to understand the difference. The problem isn't holding the
>> phone itself, it's the spacing out that drivers do while talking. In
>> fact the hands-free systems only marginally improves safety.
>
> But the most recent notable incidents involve text messaging. The train
> wreck last year out west and the incident noted here on the green line
> involved someone texting. And locally just before winter someone was
> texting and split their car in half when they hit a power pole while
> texting and they also knocked off power for a wide area for the day
> because it was the main feed into the area.
>
>
>>
>> Of all those things on the list, the only one's that make sense are
>> reading and leaning over to discipline your child. You forgot to
>> include "talking to passengers." Have you ever noticed that really
>> slow drivers are either on the phone or engaged in an animated
>> conversation with other passengers?
>>
>> A ban on handheld use while driving isn't enough, they need to ban
>> them completely for driver use.
Huh!?!?!? You mean something like requiring people to chose between
having a cell phone and having a drivers license?
Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:labolide-1490D1.08331616052009@news.giganews.com:
> In article <gul3qs$8ik$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> Of course banning it and actually having people sensible enough to
>> obey are to totally different things. There are ALWAYS going to be
>> idiots who think they know better ... just look at how many fools
>> drive while drunk.
>
> The problem is that no one can safely talk and drive at the same time.
> Hand-free or not.
>
Are you saying that talking to passengers should be outlawed as well?
On 2009-05-16, John Blutarsky <bluto@ah.com> wrote:
> The problem isn't holding the
>> phone itself, it's the spacing out that drivers do while talking. In
>> fact the hands-free systems only marginally improves safety.
>
> Cite?
>> A ban on handheld use while driving isn't enough, they need to ban
> them
>> completely for driver use.
>>
>
> Except that there is no data showing that they are any worse than
> anything on the list above.
There is no data showing they aren't worse, either. There is, however,
data showing that cell phone use while driving in particular causes
accidents.
they count cellphone use as activity within 10 minutes of the crash
(section 2.1). that's just stupid. and how did they rule out other
possibilities that might have caused the crash? what if there was no
way to avoid the crash, say being stopped at a red light and a drunk
plows into you? and for all they know, the cellphone use 10 minutes
earlier may have been while parked, or maybe the passenger was using
the phone.
how does it compare with people who listen to the radio versus not
listen, or eating while driving, or any number of other things. they
also only look at people who had a crash and not how many people use
cellphones and *don't* crash. they also don't discern between good
drivers who can manage to talk and drive and bad drivers who can't
drive well no matter what they do. some people get into accidents
every few years while others go decades without any accidents at all.
> There is no data showing they aren't worse, either. There is, however,
> data showing that cell phone use while driving in particular causes
> accidents.
people do all sorts of stupid stuff and not pay attention to driving.
why focus on cellphones?
In article <kJ6dnVFUPpHxrJPXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@giganews.com>, Frankster
<frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
> >>> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
> >>> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
> >>> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
>
> Perhaps you misssed this point...
>
> "Drivers found [carrying] their phones on duty face a 10-day suspension for
> a first offense."
drivers of *trains, street cars and busses*. not drivers of cars.
On 2009-05-16, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnh0u8hc.ns.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
> Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.oma.org/health/reports/Ce...fetySept08.pdf
>>
>> The original research is referenced on page 5.
>
> they count cellphone use as activity within 10 minutes of the crash
> (section 2.1). that's just stupid. and how did they rule out other
> possibilities that might have caused the crash? what if there was no
You should look at the original paper, the link is at reference
3. They do a multivariate analysis, and explain the statistics, so
you'd need to argue with that. It would certainly be hard to
argue that accidents aren't correlated with cell phone use, since
that correlation is exactly what they're measuring, though as always
correlation doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship.
Note that what I was responding to, however, was the request for
data about whether hands-free devices help or not. If they do
help that is something studies like those should be able to detect,
but they don't.
>> There is no data showing they aren't worse, either. There is, however,
>> data showing that cell phone use while driving in particular causes
>> accidents.
>
> people do all sorts of stupid stuff and not pay attention to driving.
> why focus on cellphones?
That's the data someone bothered to collect. If you want them to
study something else you'll need to convince someone to do it.
In article <slrnh0ucj6.1b3.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
> You should look at the original paper, the link is at reference
> 3.
i did.
> They do a multivariate analysis, and explain the statistics, so
> you'd need to argue with that. It would certainly be hard to
> argue that accidents aren't correlated with cell phone use, since
> that correlation is exactly what they're measuring, though as always
> correlation doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship.
the question is how much a cellphone increases ones risk. what i don't
see is how they isolated it from all other factors, including chance.
why not look at what the drivers had to eat that day. what if drivers
in an accident drank coffee within one hour of the crash. what does
that prove? ban coffee? that's basically what the survey did.
> Note that what I was responding to, however, was the request for
> data about whether hands-free devices help or not. If they do
> help that is something studies like those should be able to detect,
> but they don't.
they don't have to help. all that needs to be shown is whether
cellphone use is more or less of a distraction than numerous other
things, including reaching over and fumbling for another cd to pop into
the stereo, punch in an address into the gps or discipline a child. it
could be that people are focusing on the wrong activity.
> > people do all sorts of stupid stuff and not pay attention to driving.
> > why focus on cellphones?
>
> That's the data someone bothered to collect. If you want them to
> study something else you'll need to convince someone to do it.
in other words, we don't know how much of a risk cellphones are
compared to everything else drivers do.
"Frankster" <frank@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote in message
news:4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>
> I think we need an individual law prohibiting:
>
> -Lipstick application
> -Leaning over the back seat to discipline your child
> -Combing hair
> -Applying mascara
> -Shaving
> -Reading maps
> -Adjusting GPS
> -Tuning Radio
> -Selecting CD track/song
> -Reading newspaper
> -Reading book
> -Eating hamburger
> -Smoking
> -Lighting cigarette
> -Drinking coffee
> -Eating fries
> -There's more...
>
> Yep, an individual law for each and every distraction possible while
driving > would be perfect.
It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to do any
of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws have
come from).
One of the biggest distractions to a driver are all the other useless
drivers on the road!! Ones who don't obey the existing laws, don't give way
/ stop when they are supposed to, don't indicate when turning or changing
lanes, speed, etc., etc.
The easiest approach is of course to simply ban people from driving at all,
which is where we're heading with self-driving cars ... although God help us
then, because Microsloth will want to stick their greedy snout into that
trough and then we really will have "blue screen of death". :-(
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:160520091500292690%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <slrnh0ucj6.1b3.dcferguson@akit-ferguson.com>, Dennis
> Ferguson <dcferguson@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > You should look at the original paper, the link is at reference
> > 3.
>
> i did.
>
> > They do a multivariate analysis, and explain the statistics, so
> > you'd need to argue with that. It would certainly be hard to
> > argue that accidents aren't correlated with cell phone use, since
> > that correlation is exactly what they're measuring, though as always
> > correlation doesn't necessarily imply a causal relationship.
>
> the question is how much a cellphone increases ones risk. what i don't
> see is how they isolated it from all other factors, including chance.
>
> why not look at what the drivers had to eat that day. what if drivers
> in an accident drank coffee within one hour of the crash. what does
> that prove? ban coffee? that's basically what the survey did.
>
<snip>
Not only do the idiots running these things limit what they ask / measure,
they also use ridiculously small numbers of people they survey. That's what
ALL surveys and studies do, including the stupid TV ratings, and they are
then often contradicted by another silly "study" a couple of weeks later.
Added to that is the fact that statistics are easily manipulated, so the
surveys and studies only ever prove what the people paying for them or using
the so-called "results" WANT them to prove.
Such things are utterly useless and a pointless waste of time and money ...
not to mention damn dangerous when the results of such silly medical
"studies" are publicly released by idiotic news media.
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e6WdnRzHCuj_Q5PXnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
> Kurt wrote:
> > In article <MPG.247945f69bf419929898ac@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> > NightStalker <NightStalker@somewhere.or.other> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <VaudnQvRgMr5cZDXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >> frank@SPAM2TRASH.com says...
> >>> "There's an app for that..." <vic.healey@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>
news:890bd8d9-571c-4f44-b8a6-8b6c703d66fb@q14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles (Reuters)
> >>>> from Yahoo! News: Odd News
> >>>> Reuters - Massachusetts on Wednesday banned drivers of trains, street
> >>>> cars and buses from using or even carrying mobile phones at work, the
> >>>> toughest such measure imposed by a U.S. state transit agency.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090513/...ones_massachus
> >>>> etts_ban
> >>> Talk about an over the top knee jerk reaction.
> >>>
> >>> The only reason they can get away with that is because it only affects
> >>> people ON THE JOB in the EMPLOYMENT of the City, at the time they are
> >>> WORKING.
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't worry about any legislation this stiff affecting non on the
job
> >>> non-city-employees.
> >>>
> >>> -Frank
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Using a handheld mobile phone while driving is illegal here in
> >> Australia. Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
> >> allow handheld. And there is much talk about banning their use
> >> altogether, as the attention is still diverted away from the road while
> >> engaged in a phone conversation with someone who is not in the car with
> >> you.
> >>
> >> I have personally had the experience of having a lengthy conversation
on
> >> a hands-free phone in my car, and when the conversation is finished, I
> >> had absolutely NO recollection of how I got to where I was. My
> >> attention was on the conversation, while my driving was on fully
> >> subconscious auto mode. That was scary when I realized it after the
> >> call ended.
> >>
> >> Now I either have the phone switched off in the car, or set to divert
to
> >> voicemail. If I'm expecting an important call, I leave the phone on
> >> hands-free and pull over when the call comes in.
> >
> > I've had exactly the same experience. I no longer talk while driving.
> >
> > Handheld use is banned while driving in California, but after the
> > initial obedience to the law, many have returned to using them - now
> > they divert more attention from driving to watching for cops while they
> > talk.
> > Oh boy.
>
> Hopefully some of the resulting accidents will have the effect of
> cleansing the gene pool!
Unfortunately the resulting accidents tend to "cleanse" the innocent
bystanders more often than the idiot who caused the accident ... and in some
cases that idiot does exactly the same thing again (and again and again).
:-(
"John Blutarsky" <bluto@ah.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C0D73BEA133FBluto@85.214.105.209...
> Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> amazed us all with the following in
> news:labolide-1490D1.08331616052009@news.giganews.com:
>
> > In article <gul3qs$8ik$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> > "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course banning it and actually having people sensible enough to
> >> obey are to totally different things. There are ALWAYS going to be
> >> idiots who think they know better ... just look at how many fools
> >> drive while drunk.
> >
> > The problem is that no one can safely talk and drive at the same time.
> > Hand-free or not.
>
> Are you saying that talking to passengers should be outlawed as well?
In ideal terms, yes, definitely. In realistic terms, it ain't gonna happen.
I don't know about America, but the buses here in New Zealand have signs
that tell you not to talk to the driver (while he's driving of course),
precisely because it is distracting.
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-1490D1.08331616052009@news.giganews.com...
> In article <gul3qs$8ik$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>,
> "Your Name" <your.name@isp.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course banning it and actually having people sensible enough to
> > obey are to totally different things. There are ALWAYS going to be
> > idiots who think they know better ... just look at how many fools
> > drive while drunk.
>
> The problem is that no one can safely talk and drive at the same time.
> Hand-free or not.
No one can safely drive while drunk either ... or when sleepy, or ...
To drive safely you have to be fully aware and concentraing on driving ...
if only to avoid all the other idiots who aren't doing that.
In article <gunk4u$nm4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, Your Name
<your.name@isp.com> wrote:
> It's not just driving either. People walking shouldn't be allowed to do any
> of these things either (which is where the attempts at anti-iPod laws have
> come from).
then you'll really like the new iphone app that lets you send email
while the camera is used to display where you're going...
In article <4PGdnaMqYPPgKJPXnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com>, frank@SPAM2TRASH.com says...
>
>
> > Most states allow the use of hands-free systems, but none
> > allow handheld.
>
> Not true. Colorado and many other states have no laws prohibiting handheld
> phone use while driving.
>
>
If you'd read my post, you'd realize that I was referring to here in
Australia.
Massachusetts stops drivers carrying mobiles 
Linear Mode
