Yet another DUH!

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Paul. wrote:
>
> I've had a long-standing theory that being dumb is actually good for
> you. Most of the people I know IRL that I consider truly intelligent
> also tend to be rather introverted, introspective, and often borderline
> (or not so borderline) depressed.

They're probably the autistic ones, and other "truly intelligent"
people escape your notice because they don't have personality
disorders.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:07:30 -0400, "Ted B." > wrote:

>On cell phone use and driving, it is painfully obvious that the conversation
>is the distraction, so hands-free kits do NOTHING to improve safety. This
>is like the second study released in a month or so that confirms it. Note I
>don't want more laws banning cell use while driving, but these laws that
>restrict cell use while driving to "hands free" are laws that totally miss
>the point. -Dave
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ers/index.html

Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records. Its just
one type of distracting activity.

What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less distracting
than talking on a cell phone? Since this "study" has the aim of getting cell
phone use in cars banned altoghether, and if its as distracting, or more
distracting, to talk to someone in the car, should we ban talking to other
people in the car?

What about turning around to smack the kids in the back seat? Should that be
banned?

Should simply placing the small kids / babies in the back seat, where you have
to turn around to look and see if they've found yet another way to get
themselves into some kind of trouble that needs looking after, be banned and
kids, at least the really small ones, be forced, by law, to ride in the front
seat where you can see what they're up to and whether they've vomited and are
now choking... etc. This back-seat-riding nonsense, brought on by the air bag
nonsense and not being able to turn it off nonsense, gets a lot of kids killed
every year 'cuz they're in the back seat and they get _forgotten_ when the
parent gets out of the car and leaves the kid in a closed locked car with 90
degree heat outside. But that's another subject...

Lots of people run their cars into things while looking at the dish/hunk on the
sidewalk. Are we going to make that illegal too?

How many people run their cars up a phone pole while trying to change the CD?
Should we ban CD players in the car? Cassettes? What about just the radio?

And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply give up cell
phones? A lot, probably. And when those people who no longer possess cell
phones see an accident, and can't phone it in, and somebody dies because of
that, then what? Are the unintended consequences acceptable?

I can get on a good rant about this, 'cuz it seems that for every new thing
that comes along, there's someone trying to ban it. The cell phone has a
_huge_ positive impact on the state of things in general, and removing cell
phones from society, which would be true for a lot of people who would not pay
to have one _just_ for the rare time they are away from a landline phone and
_not_ in the car, may ultimately do more harm than good. I think that outcome
is actually likely.

Dave Head

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:07:30 -0400, "Ted B." > wrote:
>
>>On cell phone use and driving, it is painfully obvious that the
>>conversation
>>is the distraction, so hands-free kits do NOTHING to improve safety. This
>>is like the second study released in a month or so that confirms it. Note
>>I
>>don't want more laws banning cell use while driving, but these laws that
>>restrict cell use while driving to "hands free" are laws that totally miss
>>the point. -Dave
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ers/index.html
>
> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records. Its
> just
> one type of distracting activity.
>
> What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less
> distracting
> than talking on a cell phone? Since this "study" has the aim of getting
> cell
> phone use in cars banned altoghether, and if its as distracting, or more
> distracting, to talk to someone in the car, should we ban talking to other
> people in the car?
>

Y'know, everytime this topic comes up, SOMEONE mentions talking to
passengers in the car. This point has been disproven many times, but the
short version is, the cell phone conversation is more distracting than
in-vehicle distractions. For example, it's harder to be rude to someone
when you are talking to them on the cell phone. You can ignore a passenger
when necessary. But get in deep **** behind the wheel and the time it takes
you to say "hold on" to someone you are talking to on a cell phone can be
the difference between a collision and avoiding one. To the passenger in
the car, in the same circumstance, you would say nothing. In fact, the
passenger himself/herself would probably suspend conversation before the
driver does. Most of the other distractions you mentioned are temporary . .
.. nowhere near as bad as being distracted by a cell phone conversation that
lasts several minutes.

But my point in making the OP was to point out that laws banning HAND HELD
cell phones while driving are just plain idiotic. The article even infers
that these laws may do more harm than good, by giving hands-free kit users a
false sense of security. (I'm safe because I'm using a hands-free kit while
driving) I personally think that cell phone use while driving should be
totally unrestricted. That's my personal belief. But if there must be a
law regulating cell phone use while driving, I also believe that cell phone
use while driving should be banned, period. -Dave

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:12:02 -0400, "Ted B." > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:07:30 -0400, "Ted B." > wrote:
>>
>>>On cell phone use and driving, it is painfully obvious that the
>>>conversation
>>>is the distraction, so hands-free kits do NOTHING to improve safety. This
>>>is like the second study released in a month or so that confirms it. Note
>>>I
>>>don't want more laws banning cell use while driving, but these laws that
>>>restrict cell use while driving to "hands free" are laws that totally miss
>>>the point. -Dave
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ers/index.html
>>
>> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records. Its
>> just
>> one type of distracting activity.
>>
>> What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less
>> distracting
>> than talking on a cell phone? Since this "study" has the aim of getting
>> cell
>> phone use in cars banned altoghether, and if its as distracting, or more
>> distracting, to talk to someone in the car, should we ban talking to other
>> people in the car?
>>
>
>Y'know, everytime this topic comes up, SOMEONE mentions talking to
>passengers in the car. This point has been disproven many times, but the
>short version is, the cell phone conversation is more distracting than
>in-vehicle distractions.

You have any hard data on that? I mean, the only distraction I can remember
that caused me some problem was from talking to someone in the car, not on the
cell phone. I went left of center - it was a real low-speed road and there was
no one else around, but it was because I was talking to her that I did that.

No, wait - I went left of center shortly after buying and mounting a GPS in the
car - about 1994 or so if I remember right - stared at it too long - quickly
learned how to deal with it so I don't do that any more - quick glances - but,
as I believe, cell phones are only one of a wide variety of possible
distractions that can be in a car.

Another incident was my friend, who was talking to his kid and didn't notice
the guy that was about to run the stop light. Nailed him in the side, he was
off work for about 3 months recuperating. Yeah, it was the other guy's fault,
but you have to drive both cars, and can't do it while blabbing at someone else
in the car, it would seem.

>For example, it's harder to be rude to someone
>when you are talking to them on the cell phone. You can ignore a passenger
>when necessary. But get in deep **** behind the wheel and the time it takes
>you to say "hold on" to someone you are talking to on a cell phone can be
>the difference between a collision and avoiding one.

That's a matter of individual technique. Maybe some people are too hung-up on
manners to ignore someone on the phone, but I give high priority to anything
that can get me hurt. IOW, this does not apply in my case.

>To the passenger in
>the car, in the same circumstance, you would say nothing. In fact, the
>passenger himself/herself would probably suspend conversation before the
>driver does. Most of the other distractions you mentioned are temporary . .
>. nowhere near as bad as being distracted by a cell phone conversation that
>lasts several minutes.

I'm not sure that is right at all. I think it is a supposition on your part.
My experience is different.

>But my point in making the OP was to point out that laws banning HAND HELD
>cell phones while driving are just plain idiotic.

Yep. You can get in bigger trouble trying to put on a headset in time to
answer a call than simply answering the call the normal way.

>The article even infers
>that these laws may do more harm than good, by giving hands-free kit users a
>false sense of security.

Maybe that too, but that's just another supposition.

>(I'm safe because I'm using a hands-free kit while
>driving) I personally think that cell phone use while driving should be
>totally unrestricted. That's my personal belief.

Yep.

> But if there must be a
>law regulating cell phone use while driving, I also believe that cell phone
>use while driving should be banned, period. -Dave

I don't believe that there needs to be (yet another) law. There's too many
laws already. Getting rid of cell phones in cars would be getting rid of a
lot of them in society when people simply stop buying and using them. As I
sais, if I couldn't use it in the car, it wouldn't be worth a hell of a lot to
me, and I wouldn't be paying $50 a month for the privelege of leaving it laying
around the house where I wouldn't be using it anyway. So, after that, if
there's a big accident and people bleeding all over the place, with the only
people on the scene for the next half hour have given up their cell phones like
I would, some people probably bleed to death. There's some times of the day or
night on some roads that there indeed might only be 1 other person to roll up
on an accident - if he doesn't have a cell phone, then the injured are probably
screwed unless he's also an EMT. Unintended consequences, but real enough, I
think.

Dave Head

>

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:07:30 -0400, "Ted B." >
> wrote:
>
>>On cell phone use and driving, it is painfully obvious that the
>>conversation is the distraction, so hands-free kits do NOTHING to
>>improve safety. This is like the second study released in a month or
>>so that confirms it. Note I don't want more laws banning cell use
>>while driving, but these laws that restrict cell use while driving to
>>"hands free" are laws that totally miss the point. -Dave
>>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ers/index.html
>
> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records.
> Its just one type of distracting activity.
>
> What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less
> distracting than talking on a cell phone?

Less.

> Since this "study" has the
> aim of getting cell phone use in cars banned altoghether,

Prove this,please;That the "Aim" of the study was to *get* a CP ban.
I say the "aim" of the study was to find out how much of a distraction CP
use is while driving.

> and if its
> as distracting, or more distracting, to talk to someone in the car,
> should we ban talking to other people in the car?
>
> What about turning around to smack the kids in the back seat? Should
> that be banned?
>
> Should simply placing the small kids / babies in the back seat, where
> you have to turn around to look and see if they've found yet another
> way to get themselves into some kind of trouble that needs looking
> after, be banned and kids, at least the really small ones, be forced,
> by law, to ride in the front seat where you can see what they're up to
> and whether they've vomited and are now choking... etc. This
> back-seat-riding nonsense, brought on by the air bag nonsense and not
> being able to turn it off nonsense, gets a lot of kids killed every
> year 'cuz they're in the back seat and they get _forgotten_ when the
> parent gets out of the car and leaves the kid in a closed locked car
> with 90 degree heat outside. But that's another subject...
>
> Lots of people run their cars into things while looking at the
> dish/hunk on the sidewalk. Are we going to make that illegal too?
>
> How many people run their cars up a phone pole while trying to change
> the CD? Should we ban CD players in the car? Cassettes? What about
> just the radio?
>
> And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply
> give up cell phones? A lot, probably.

So,who cares? That's their choice.
And they would not be "banned in cars",USING them WHILE DRIVING would be
prohibited,unless there were *justification*,like an accident or serious
crime committed

> And when those people who no
> longer possess cell phones see an accident, and can't phone it in, and
> somebody dies because of that, then what? Are the unintended
> consequences acceptable?
>
> I can get on a good rant

Rant,yes.good,no.

> about this, 'cuz it seems that for every new
> thing that comes along, there's someone trying to ban it. The cell
> phone has a _huge_ positive impact on the state of things in general,



> and removing cell phones from society,

Which no one is trying to do with these bans.

> which would be true for a lot
> of people who would not pay to have one _just_ for the rare time they
> are away from a landline phone and _not_ in the car, may ultimately do
> more harm than good. I think that outcome is actually likely.
>
> Dave Head



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:21:13 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records. Its
> just one type of distracting activity.

Unfortunately it is far more distracting than most other activities,
resulting in an extreme increase (300%) in risk.

> What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less
> distracting than talking on a cell phone?

Less. The main reason being that the people in the car are aware of the
situation and know to shut their mouth when the situation requires it. On
the phone most drivers think they have to continue yapping so the other
party doesn't think they are being disrespected or ignored.

> Since this "study" has the aim of getting cell phone use in cars banned
> altoghether,

I didn't find any passage in it that said that the aim was to ban cell
phones. Could you please reference the exact passage where it said so?

> and if its as distracting, or more distracting, to talk to
> someone in the car, should we ban talking to other people in the car?

No.

> What about turning around to smack the kids in the back seat? Should
> that be banned?

Yes. And if you have even a shred of responsibility and common sense you
don't do so even without a law against it.

> Should simply placing the small kids / babies in the back seat, where
> you have to turn around to look and see if they've found yet another way
> to get themselves into some kind of trouble that needs looking after, be
> banned and kids, at least the really small ones, be forced, by law, to
> ride in the front seat where you can see what they're up to and whether
> they've vomited and are now choking... etc.

Your kids have to be buckled in properly. If you do and you have brought
them up halfway decent they won't constantly get in trouble. But even if
they get in trouble, it is still your responsibility as a driver to pay
attention to the road. There is enough time to discipline them when you
get home or find a place to park.

> This back-seat-riding nonsense, brought on by the air bag nonsense and
> not being able to turn it off nonsense, gets a lot of kids killed every
> year 'cuz they're in the back seat and they get _forgotten_ when the
> parent gets out of the car and leaves the kid in a closed locked car
> with 90 degree heat outside. But that's another subject...

Kids belong in the back seat. The back seat is the safest place in the car
and was even long before airbags ever came along. And if you are so
terminally stupid that you forget your kids in the back seat you deserve
to rot in prison for the rest of your life. And you should not have been
breeding in the first place.

> Lots of people run their cars into things while looking at the dish/hunk
> on the sidewalk. Are we going to make that illegal too?

Where did you get that nonsense from?

> How many people run their cars up a phone pole while trying to change
> the CD? Should we ban CD players in the car? Cassettes? What about
> just the radio?

There was a study a while ago. The risk indeed increases but only by a
tiny fraction of the increase due to cellphone use. One of the reasons of
course being that even the stupidest ricer gets bored with fiddling with
the radio constantly after a while, whereas cellphoniacs keep yakking for
hours and hours.

> And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply give
> up cell phones?

Not me, that's for sure. I like the convenience of carrying around a
phone. And if it rings while driving, the caller leaves voicemail if it is
important and I can stop somewhere and call them back.

> A lot, probably. And when those people who no longer possess cell
> phones see an accident, and can't phone it in, and somebody dies because
> of that, then what? Are the unintended consequences acceptable?

There are still going to be enough people who have cellphones. And don't
tell me a cellphoniac like you would give up his coveted chatterbox just
because he can't be on the phone when driving any more. I suspect you'd
rather give up driving than your ear drug.

> I can get on a good rant about this, 'cuz it seems that for every new
> thing that comes along, there's someone trying to ban it.

No one is trying to ban the cellphone. It's just like with guns. They are
legal but you are not allowed to shoot someone with them. Cellphones are
going to stay legal for the foreseeable future but you may not be allowed
any more to put others' lives in jeopardy just because you have to gossip
with your friends.

> The cell phone has a _huge_ positive impact on the state of things in
> general, and removing cell phones from society, which would be true for
> a lot of people who would not pay to have one _just_ for the rare time
> they are away from a landline phone and _not_ in the car, may ultimately
> do more harm than good. I think that outcome is actually likely.

Most people I know are in the car only a fraction of the day but away from
their landline at home for most of the day. I see people make phonecalls
at stores, at work, on the street and even in restaurants. A cellphone
ban in cars would have zero impact on the number of cellphones out there,
but a significant positive impact on traffic safety.

Chris

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:21:13 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records. Its
>> just one type of distracting activity.
>
>Unfortunately it is far more distracting than most other activities,
>resulting in an extreme increase (300%) in risk.

Based on that one study which failed to distinguish between cell phone
calls made before and after the accident?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On 13 Jul 2005 15:19:36 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:07:30 -0400, "Ted B." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On cell phone use and driving, it is painfully obvious that the
>>>conversation is the distraction, so hands-free kits do NOTHING to
>>>improve safety. This is like the second study released in a month or
>>>so that confirms it. Note I don't want more laws banning cell use
>>>while driving, but these laws that restrict cell use while driving to
>>>"hands free" are laws that totally miss the point. -Dave
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/12/cel...ers/index.html
>>
>> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records.
>> Its just one type of distracting activity.
>>
>> What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less
>> distracting than talking on a cell phone?
>
>Less.

How do you know? That's not been my experience.

>> Since this "study" has the
>> aim of getting cell phone use in cars banned altoghether,
>
>Prove this,please;That the "Aim" of the study was to *get* a CP ban.
>I say the "aim" of the study was to find out how much of a distraction CP
>use is while driving.

Its obvious. The only thing for which the data is of value is for use in
getting a cell phone ban.
>
>> and if its
>> as distracting, or more distracting, to talk to someone in the car,
>> should we ban talking to other people in the car?
>>
>> What about turning around to smack the kids in the back seat? Should
>> that be banned?
>>
>> Should simply placing the small kids / babies in the back seat, where
>> you have to turn around to look and see if they've found yet another
>> way to get themselves into some kind of trouble that needs looking
>> after, be banned and kids, at least the really small ones, be forced,
>> by law, to ride in the front seat where you can see what they're up to
>> and whether they've vomited and are now choking... etc. This
>> back-seat-riding nonsense, brought on by the air bag nonsense and not
>> being able to turn it off nonsense, gets a lot of kids killed every
>> year 'cuz they're in the back seat and they get _forgotten_ when the
>> parent gets out of the car and leaves the kid in a closed locked car
>> with 90 degree heat outside. But that's another subject...
>>
>> Lots of people run their cars into things while looking at the
>> dish/hunk on the sidewalk. Are we going to make that illegal too?
>>
>> How many people run their cars up a phone pole while trying to change
>> the CD? Should we ban CD players in the car? Cassettes? What about
>> just the radio?
>>
>> And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply
>> give up cell phones? A lot, probably.
>
>So,who cares? That's their choice.

You might, if you have an accident on a not-well-traveled road and the next
person, and only person that will be along that way in the next 1/2 hour, does
not have a cell phone because they decided it wasn't worth $50 a month to have
one that they couldn't use _most_ of the time. Meanwhile, U are trapped in the
vehicle and bleeding profusely.


>And they would not be "banned in cars",USING them WHILE DRIVING would be
>prohibited,unless there were *justification*,like an accident or serious
>crime committed

Clue - I'm not paying $50 a month just to carry it around, not being able to
use it, in case there's an accident to report. I'm going to cancel or
non-renew the contract and sell the damn thing...

>> And when those people who no
>> longer possess cell phones see an accident, and can't phone it in, and
>> somebody dies because of that, then what? Are the unintended
>> consequences acceptable?
>>
>> I can get on a good rant
>
>Rant,yes.good,no.
>
>> about this, 'cuz it seems that for every new
>> thing that comes along, there's someone trying to ban it. The cell
>> phone has a _huge_ positive impact on the state of things in general,
>
>
>
>> and removing cell phones from society,
>
>Which no one is trying to do with these bans.

Which will likely happen to some extent as some people find that $50 or so a
month is too much to pay just to have it on the rare occasion that they are not
in the car and also away from a landline phone,

I mean, the way it is now, if someone with a cellphone calls someone else with
a cellphone, chances are _one_ of them is in a car. That would mean that the
vast majority of cell calls would not result in a conversation. I doubt, out of
maybe 200 or so calls I've made or received this year up to now, that I've had
any more than 5 of them where one or the other of us has not been in a car.
Even if I could put up with the restriction, I probably _still_ couldn't talk
to anyone I usually talk to, 'cuz they would be driving and couldn't answer.
How valuable is that? Not very.

Dave Head

>> which would be true for a lot
>> of people who would not pay to have one _just_ for the rare time they
>> are away from a landline phone and _not_ in the car, may ultimately do
>> more harm than good. I think that outcome is actually likely.
>>
>> Dave Head

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:51:43 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 01:21:13 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> Yeah, OK... its an activity that's traceable thru cell phone records. Its
>> just one type of distracting activity.
>
>Unfortunately it is far more distracting than most other activities,
>resulting in an extreme increase (300%) in risk.

No, I think we only really have numbers on the cell phone being 300% more risky
- and not that changing CD's or talking to passengers or turning around to swat
the kid in the back seat or a dozen other distractions aren't _also_ 300% more
risky than doing none of those. I just don't think anyone has those numbers...

>> What about talking to someone in the car? Is that more or less
>> distracting than talking on a cell phone?
>
>Less.

Not in my experience.

>The main reason being that the people in the car are aware of the
>situation and know to shut their mouth when the situation requires it. On
>the phone most drivers think they have to continue yapping so the other
>party doesn't think they are being disrespected or ignored.

As I've said one before in this thread, if something out the window needs
attention, its going to get it, and I'll just miss some conversation.

>> Since this "study" has the aim of getting cell phone use in cars banned
>> altoghether,
>
>I didn't find any passage in it that said that the aim was to ban cell
>phones. Could you please reference the exact passage where it said so?

Its obvious. The only thing such knowledge is really good for is for use in
such a quest. If you don't want to ban cell phones, why go to the trouble and
expense of finding this information?

>> and if its as distracting, or more distracting, to talk to
>> someone in the car, should we ban talking to other people in the car?
>
>No.

Why not? If something is equally or more distracting, and you're going to ban
one thing, why leave the other thing alone?

>
>> What about turning around to smack the kids in the back seat? Should
>> that be banned?
>
>Yes. And if you have even a shred of responsibility and common sense you
>don't do so even without a law against it.

But other people do. And... you still have to turn around every so often to
make sure that the kind is OK - not choking on vomit, or something like that.

>> Should simply placing the small kids / babies in the back seat, where
>> you have to turn around to look and see if they've found yet another way
>> to get themselves into some kind of trouble that needs looking after, be
>> banned and kids, at least the really small ones, be forced, by law, to
>> ride in the front seat where you can see what they're up to and whether
>> they've vomited and are now choking... etc.
>
>Your kids have to be buckled in properly. If you do and you have brought
>them up halfway decent they won't constantly get in trouble. But even if
>they get in trouble, it is still your responsibility as a driver to pay
>attention to the road. There is enough time to discipline them when you
>get home or find a place to park.

You still have to turn around to see what, if anything, is wrong.

>> This back-seat-riding nonsense, brought on by the air bag nonsense and
>> not being able to turn it off nonsense, gets a lot of kids killed every
>> year 'cuz they're in the back seat and they get _forgotten_ when the
>> parent gets out of the car and leaves the kid in a closed locked car
>> with 90 degree heat outside. But that's another subject...
>
>Kids belong in the back seat. The back seat is the safest place in the car
>and was even long before airbags ever came along. And if you are so
>terminally stupid that you forget your kids in the back seat you deserve
>to rot in prison for the rest of your life. And you should not have been
>breeding in the first place.

Yet kids keep baking after having been abandoned in cars every year. Didn't
happen so much when the kids were in the front seat, before air bags.

>
>> Lots of people run their cars into things while looking at the dish/hunk
>> on the sidewalk. Are we going to make that illegal too?
>
>Where did you get that nonsense from?

Its in the papers every now and then.

>> How many people run their cars up a phone pole while trying to change
>> the CD? Should we ban CD players in the car? Cassettes? What about
>> just the radio?
>
>There was a study a while ago. The risk indeed increases but only by a
>tiny fraction of the increase due to cellphone use. One of the reasons of
>course being that even the stupidest ricer gets bored with fiddling with
>the radio constantly after a while, whereas cellphoniacs keep yakking for
>hours and hours.

Well, that does sound like a good point. The duration could and probably should
have a lot to do with it.
>
>> And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply give
>> up cell phones?
>
>Not me, that's for sure. I like the convenience of carrying around a
>phone. And if it rings while driving, the caller leaves voicemail if it is
>important and I can stop somewhere and call them back.

And by that time, _they're_ in the car and moving, so you still can't talk to
them...

>> A lot, probably. And when those people who no longer possess cell
>> phones see an accident, and can't phone it in, and somebody dies because
>> of that, then what? Are the unintended consequences acceptable?
>
>There are still going to be enough people who have cellphones.

Not if you're the one that's bleeding to death at 2 in the morning on a lonely
road that is only going to have 1 other person come by at that hour, and that
person has ceased carrying a cell because it is now mostly useless to him. I
was in that approximate situation in 1978, only I was the one that came up on a
guy in the ditch, bleeding like hell. No cell, no 2-way radio either, the guy
died. If I'd have had a cell phone at that time, I'm sure he'd have been OK
because he ultimately died from loss of blood. There was a bout a 45 minute
delay before help could be notified due to lack of communications. With a cell
phone ban while driving, _some_ parts of the country at some unfortunate times
would be knocked back to 1978, communications-wise. Unintended consequences of
banning cell phones in cars _could_ be an _increase_ in deaths due to the
_decreased_ communications capability.

> And don't
>tell me a cellphoniac like you would give up his coveted chatterbox just
>because he can't be on the phone when driving any more. I suspect you'd
>rather give up driving than your ear drug.

I would cancel/nonrenew the contract in a heartbeat if I couldn't make or
receive calls while driving. Here's the usual calls I make or get:

1) Call buddy in California or another in New Mexico while on way back from
health club at night, after getting out of the health club at 10:00 PM, since
it's only 7 PM or 8 PM there. Gives me something to do during the 20 mile
drive home (on a really lightly traveled 4 lane road).

2) Call the movie theater's info line to find movie times when I'm coming back
to the area from some trip, with nothing to do that evening.

3) Receive calls from others. I get a few calls when I'm at work, but my
friends know my work number anyway, so would not have missed the calls without
a cell phone. Otherwise, I'm in my car, where I couldn't use the phone, or at
home, where I'm sitting beside my landline phone anyway.

4) Driving long distances to meet other people - I call ahead and announce my
estimated time of arrival.

5) Driving long distances, and calling others I know are also driving to the
same destination, to ask them how their schedule is progressing.

About the only time I use it when neither I nor the called party is in a car is
when I'm meeting someone else in the same airport. Then, finding each other is
a bit easier, but still _doesn't require_ a cell phone. Maybe I'll call them
and tell them I found the Cinnabon, too. But really - $50 a month for this? I
think not.

Another time is when I get to a place where I don't have a motel reservation -
I get out the electronic phone book and call motels for prices and vacancy
status, and can do that while stopped. But these kind of calls are really rare.

The fact is, I don't use the cell phone all that much - haven't used it today,
yesterday, day before... I just checked it, and the last call I _made_ was 4
days ago, to voicemail. Last one I received was July 4 - I was driving over to
my friend's place where we were meeting up to go watch fireworks.

>> I can get on a good rant about this, 'cuz it seems that for every new
>> thing that comes along, there's someone trying to ban it.
>
>No one is trying to ban the cellphone.

Ooohhhh yes they are - at least any reasonable usability of it.

>It's just like with guns. They are
>legal but you are not allowed to shoot someone with them.

Sure you are - if they shoot at you first... which is the reason for carrying
one in the 1st place.

>Cellphones are
>going to stay legal for the foreseeable future but you may not be allowed
>any more to put others' lives in jeopardy just because you have to gossip
>with your friends.

Then I, and I suspect a whale of a lot of other people, are going to lose
interest in cell phone ownership. Its damned expensive to leave off in your
glove box for the rare occasion you're going to be out and about, and could
reasonably make or receive a call. Hell, the usual places I go, the movies and
the health club, the movie is pretty limited as I don't like to receive calls
there and miss some of the movie when I step out into the lobby. The health
club I only use during the 1 hr aerobics session on the elliptical - the other
1 1/2 hrs lifting, I don't bring it out 'cuz I don't have a way to wear it, and
am afraid I'll either leave it somewhere or it'll get stepped on or someone
will drop a barbell or dumbell on it or something.

>> The cell phone has a _huge_ positive impact on the state of things in
>> general, and removing cell phones from society, which would be true for
>> a lot of people who would not pay to have one _just_ for the rare time
>> they are away from a landline phone and _not_ in the car, may ultimately
>> do more harm than good. I think that outcome is actually likely.
>
>Most people I know are in the car only a fraction of the day but away from
>their landline at home for most of the day.

Around here, its miles and miles between any two places. I will have driven 1
hr and 50 minutes by the time this day is over, and this is a _usual_ day.
Other days, I may drive _more_.

>I see people make phonecalls
>at stores,

OK. I don't think I've made a call from a store this year, myself.

>at work,

I have a phone on my desk - don't need a cell.

>on the street

If I'm on a street, I'm _probably_ in my car...

>and even in restaurants.

_Could_ use the pay phone if its really, really that important. It isn't - not
for me - to pay the monthly charge for a cell.

>A cellphone
>ban in cars would have zero impact on the number of cellphones out there,

Not true. Mine would be removed from the mix, guaranteed. I doubt I'm unique
in the regard.

>but a significant positive impact on traffic safety.

You don't know that. Harken back to unintended consequences. There _would_ be
fewer cell phones in society, and the lack of communications _would_ cost some
lives in some dire sitautions.

Anyway, I gotta get outa hear right now, 'cuz the health club closes at 10, its
7:13, and the place is 20 miles / 1/2 hr away.

Dave Head

>
>Chris

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> On 13 Jul 2005 15:19:36 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:


>>> Since this "study" has the
>>> aim of getting cell phone use in cars banned altoghether,
>>
>>Prove this,please;That the "Aim" of the study was to *get* a CP ban.
>>I say the "aim" of the study was to find out how much of a distraction
>>CP use is while driving.
>
> Its obvious. The only thing for which the data is of value is for use
> in getting a cell phone ban.

What about making driving safer?
Even if a ban does not get enacted,people may realized how much a
distraction CP use while driving really is. MAYBE.
Some have to have a collision before they come to their senses,some not
even then.



>>> And if cell phones are banned in cars, how many people will simply
>>> give up cell phones? A lot, probably.
>>
>>So,who cares? That's their choice.
>
> You might, if you have an accident on a not-well-traveled road and the
> next person, and only person that will be along that way in the next
> 1/2 hour, does not have a cell phone because they decided it wasn't
> worth $50 a month to have one that they couldn't use _most_ of the
> time. Meanwhile, U are trapped in the vehicle and bleeding profusely.

Heck,they could HAVE a CP with themn and still decide not to "get
involved".And they COULD use it "most of the time",just as long as they are
NOT DRIVING while using it.
>
>
>>And they would not be "banned in cars",USING them WHILE DRIVING would
>>be prohibited,unless there were *justification*,like an accident or
>>serious crime committed
>
> Clue - I'm not paying $50 a month just to carry it around, not being
> able to use it, in case there's an accident to report.

FALSEHOOD;that a CP "ban" would prevent people from making an emergency
call while driving.


> I'm going to
> cancel or non-renew the contract and sell the damn thing...

That's YOUR choice.


>>
>>> and removing cell phones from society,
>>
>>Which no one is trying to do with these bans.
>
> Which will likely happen to some extent as some people find that $50
> or so a month is too much to pay just to have it on the rare occasion
> that they are not in the car and also away from a landline phone,

"Rare occasion",like they spend most of their lives in their cars.
GET REAL.
Most people will still keep their CPs,they still too useful.


>
> I mean, the way it is now, if someone with a cellphone calls someone
> else with a cellphone, chances are _one_ of them is in a car.

Not necessarily.There's no basis for this assumption.

> That
> would mean that the vast majority of cell calls would not result in a
> conversation.

Unfounded assumption.

> I doubt,out of maybe 200 or so calls I've made or
> received this year up to now,

More than 6 MONTHS (~180 days)and you've only made or received 200 calls?
AFAIK,most people make far more calls than that.

> that I've had any more than 5 of them
> where one or the other of us has not been in a car. Even if I could
> put up with the restriction, I probably _still_ couldn't talk to
> anyone I usually talk to, 'cuz they would be driving and couldn't
> answer. How valuable is that? Not very.
>

What,you live in your car,always on the road?

And you neglect the advantages of having a CP in case of
breakdown,emergancy,etc.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net