celphones was Why not methanol
 

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote:


> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from
> driving.

Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions are
worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours.

> When I text message while driving, the phone is held at arms length on
> top of the dashboard so my view is always directed at the road ahead and
> I view the phone in my lower peripheral vision.

So you genuinely believe you can text message while driving and *not* have
it distract you, eh?

DS

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:13:53 -0500, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote:
>
>
>> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from
>> driving.
>
> Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions are
> worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours.

I read two different studies on that subject and both say that the
reaction time and the ability to make correct decisions when using the
cellphone is just about as impaired when using a cellphone as it is when
driving with .1% BAC. The accident rates with cellphones seem to confirm
that.

>> When I text message while driving, the phone is held at arms length on
>> top of the dashboard so my view is always directed at the road ahead and
>> I view the phone in my lower peripheral vision.
>
> So you genuinely believe you can text message while driving and *not* have
> it distract you, eh?

Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' -
until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it.

Chris

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, C.H. wrote:

> >> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from
> >> driving.

> > Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions
> > are worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours.
>
> I read two different studies on that subject and both say that the
> reaction time and the ability to make correct decisions when using the
> cellphone is just about as impaired when using a cellphone as it is when
> driving with .1% BAC. The accident rates with cellphones seem to confirm
> that.

Yep. The data continue to mount (except for the "studies" commissioned and
funded by the celphone industry).

> Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' -
> until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it.

Half-decent analogy, except celphone-yakking idjits' behavior kills,
damages and maims much more quickly and violently than smokers' exhaust.

DS

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:48:42 -0500, Daniel J. Stern wrote:


>> Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' -
>> until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it.
>
> Half-decent analogy, except celphone-yakking idjits' behavior kills,
> damages and maims much more quickly and violently than smokers' exhaust.

That's true. What I meant, though, was the mechanism of suppressing
anything, that would make reconsidering one's behavior necessary...

Chris

If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on a
cell phone and type text messages, then they are not spending enough time
paying attention to the road. If people are getting so bored from driving
that they have to yack and yack or argue while driving, again, they aren't
paying attention to the road. (I can converse while I drive... but please
don't ask me to make any big decissions- too focused on the road. It really
sucks that my dad yacks on a cell phone while he drives. He's figuring out
million dollar budgets and crap when he should be focused on the driving.
It gets to the point I won't call anybody on a cell phone because I don't
want to interupt them while driving. IMO, the cell phone was one of the
most misguided inventions ever.

Driving is the wrong time to multi-task. I'm actually a bit ashamed I
never learned how to drive a manual. People who drive manuals, from what I
have seen, are usually focused on driving, and it pretty much takes yacking
on a cell phone out of the picture. Maybe an automatic transmission is an
enabler?

"Magnulus" > wrote in message
. ..

> Driving is the wrong time to multi-task. I'm actually a bit ashamed I
> never learned how to drive a manual. People who drive manuals, from what
> I
> have seen, are usually focused on driving, and it pretty much takes
> yacking
> on a cell phone out of the picture.

You'd think that. Some still try to drive and shift while eating or talking
on the phone. Not a pretty picture. Although in the case of a standard the
main obstacle is not having the arm to shift with. If you use a handsfree
headset you can still shift (which doesn't take much mental work once you're
proficient) and yack on the phone, driving as dangerously as a headset user
in an automatic.

> Maybe an automatic transmission is an
> enabler?

Plus it doesn't belong in a TDI. Almost sacrilegious.

"Bill 2" > wrote in message
...
>
> Plus it doesn't belong in a TDI. Almost sacrilegious.

Maybe so but automatic transmissions are deeply ingrained, and I can't
blame Volkswagen for selling what sells.

In a few years manual transmissions will be all but dead in the US. They
are pretty much dead in the luxury car market as it is (Volkswagen didn't
even bother with a manual Passat TDI last year), they only really hang
around in enthusiast and economy cars. Direct shift gearboxes are going to
outperform a traditional manual, and for fuel economy now days there's
increasingly very little different from auto and manual, especially in
Japanese cars. The automatic transmissions they have now days are also a
far cry from the older mechanical versions- if I did have a manual it would
probably be superfluous because my automatic shifts perfectly as it is.

I have an aversion to manuals. It comes from a very bad experience
driving my uncles Ford F-150 manual. The thing died constantly, or rather,
I let the engine stall. Eventually I got the hang of it but it was a pain
in traffic. I think the worst thing for manual is having to use a clutch
all the time and having to shift into neutral- some of the newer
transmissions used in European cars have sequential manuals or
"semi-automatics" that don't require a clutch (the DaimlerChrysler Smart car
has a clutchless automatic that lets the driver upshift, but the car
automaticly downshifts).

So, I'm not saying an automatic transmission is all bad. It certainly
makes driving easier. But that's both a good and bad thing.

Magnulus wrote:
>
> If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on a
> cell phone and type text messages, then they are not spending enough time
> paying attention to the road. If people are getting so bored from driving
> that they have to yack and yack or argue while driving, again, they aren't
> paying attention to the road. (I can converse while I drive... but please
> don't ask me to make any big decissions- too focused on the road. It really
> sucks that my dad yacks on a cell phone while he drives. He's figuring out
> million dollar budgets and crap when he should be focused on the driving.
> It gets to the point I won't call anybody on a cell phone because I don't
> want to interupt them while driving. IMO, the cell phone was one of the
> most misguided inventions ever.
>
> Driving is the wrong time to multi-task. I'm actually a bit ashamed I
> never learned how to drive a manual. People who drive manuals, from what I
> have seen, are usually focused on driving, and it pretty much takes yacking
> on a cell phone out of the picture. Maybe an automatic transmission is an
> enabler?

Actually I *do* drive a manual, in fact I really rather hate automatics.
And yes I can shift just fine while on the phone, even without a
headset. Perhaps people have forgotten how to wedge a phone to their ear
with their shoulder.

I'm pretty sure that an automatic *is* an enabler as you put it,
although I'm not sure to how great an extent. Anything that help a
driver get away with being less attentive to the task of driving would
seem to be a somewhat bad thing, whether it's an automatic, or stability
control, ABS or whatever. Probably all small factors, but they add up.

Pete C.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from
> > driving.
>
> Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions are
> worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours.
>
> > When I text message while driving, the phone is held at arms length on
> > top of the dashboard so my view is always directed at the road ahead and
> > I view the phone in my lower peripheral vision.
>
> So you genuinely believe you can text message while driving and *not* have
> it distract you, eh?
>
> DS

Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal
vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme
concentration? This is not a race track at 180 mph folks, there is
indeed extra time to multi task - as long as you keep your eyes on the
road.

And no, I never let the phone distract me any more than a conversation
with someone in the passenger seat. I *always* keep my eyes on the road
ahead, *and* pay attention to what's going on in my mirrors. A lot of
people these days seem to forget that they even have mirrors. If
something requires additional attention I drop the phone just as I would
stop talking to a passenger.

The same with text messaging, it is no more distracting than checking
the speedometer, fuel gauge or radio station in your peripheral vision.
It's the people who look down into their laps at the phone while text
messaging that have the problem, a lot can happen in the few seconds
your eyes are not on the road. My eyes never leave the road, and the
phone is not at the center of my vision either.

I also don't go bobbing and weaving through traffic while one the phone
either, I settle into the right lane and go with the flow of traffic.
Actually I settle into the right lane and go with the flow of traffic
most of the time anyway.

Occupying one hand while driving is *not* an issue. Handicapped folks
who only have the use of one arm can drive just fine, the issue is in
*not* looking at the road. People looking down at the newspaper in their
lap, or digging for stuff in their purse or turned around yelling at the
kids in the back are the problem.

Pete C.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2005, C.H. wrote:
>
> > >> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from
> > >> driving.
>
> > > Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions
> > > are worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours.
> >
> > I read two different studies on that subject and both say that the
> > reaction time and the ability to make correct decisions when using the
> > cellphone is just about as impaired when using a cellphone as it is when
> > driving with .1% BAC. The accident rates with cellphones seem to confirm
> > that.
>
> Yep. The data continue to mount (except for the "studies" commissioned and
> funded by the celphone industry).
>
> > Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' -
> > until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it.
>
> Half-decent analogy, except celphone-yakking idjits' behavior kills,
> damages and maims much more quickly and violently than smokers' exhaust.
>
> DS

I don't consider studies funded by the insurance industry to be any more
credible than those funded by the cell phone industry. The only "good"
insurance industry studies were the ones that showed that radar detector
users were safer drivers, and they repeated those studies several times
because they weren't producing the results they wanted before they
finally gave up and admitted the truth.

Government studies are somewhat marginal as well, though mostly from
insufficient funding. Certainly the idea of producing ratings of
something as complex as rollover probability from just a CG calculation
shows this. Clearly steering and suspension response is a significant
factor in rollover risk and has to be included to have any hope of
getting a credible result.

Pete C.


Pete C.