RWD vs. FWD in snow and ice

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:52:49 -0500, "pawn, loathesome, credible"
> wrote:

>Just checking back in with you, didn't want to leave you hanging.
>
>The NSC report is only available for purchase online, so I guess you
>either subscribe to Injury Insights and read the Feb/March 2003 issue,
>or were interested enough to purchase the study, so I applaud your
>diligence in this important matter. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't lie
>about reading the study, or your claim that there was an analysis of
>cell vs passenger conversation.
>
>There were plenty of other studies and articles available through a
>quick search, like the one below, that shows that in car conversation is
>the leading cause of driver distraction, contrary to the ridiculous and
>possibly fabricated statement in the article you provided "...there was
>no impairment of drivers who either conversed with a passenger or who
>listened to the radio or to books on tape.". No impairment, that's a
>pretty bold statement.

I suspect having to listen to the reprocessed audio of a cellphone requires
more brain processing time than listning to reasonable-fidelity radio or
books on tape. I also notice I'm more distracted when listen to scratchy
2-way analog radios while mobile as well, but not so much as with
cellulars.
<snip>

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 wrote:

> I suspect having to listen to the reprocessed audio of a cellphone
> requires more brain processing time than listning to reasonable-fidelity
> radio or books on tape. I also notice I'm more distracted when listen
> to scratchy 2-way analog radios while mobile as well, but not so much as
> with cellulars.

That may be so, but it's probably a secondary factor. Passengers
physically in the car can shut up when a challenging driving situation
arises, can point and go "LOOK OUT FOR THAT KID!", can say "Hey, you gonna
stop for the red light?", etc. The other end of even a hands-free celphone
conversation can't.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> That may be so, but it's probably a secondary factor. Passengers
> physically in the car can shut up when a challenging driving situation
> arises, can point and go "LOOK OUT FOR THAT KID!", can say "Hey, you gonna
> stop for the red light?", etc. The other end of even a hands-free celphone
> conversation can't.

Strange, because the way I read it, you already knew all about the
difference, based on some sort of study you read where they apparently
compared handsfree cell conversation to passenger conversation.
Furthermore, you now seem to have time to "do (my) homework" for me and
take a crack at answering the original question I asked, but still no
time to shed any light on what was written in this report you read.
Intriguing.

pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:

> but still no
> time to shed any light on what was written in this report you read.

Why don't you take the time to read the report instead of wasting your
time complaining about someone who doesn't want to read it to you.

Arif Khokar wrote:

>
> Why don't you take the time to read the report

Sure. Care to provide it to me (they take credit cards, but sorry, not
PayPal)? And in any case, the answer is obvious if you care to read
between the lines.

> instead of wasting your
> time complaining about someone who doesn't want to read it to you.

Please don't mistake my enjoyment in exposing a bull****ter for complaining.

pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:

>> Why don't you take the time to read the report

> Sure. Care to provide it to me

No. Now, why do you keep asking everyone else to do your work for you?

Arif Khokar wrote:

>
> Now, why do you keep asking everyone else to do your work for you?

Is Dan your Dad or something?

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:

> > That may be so, but it's probably a secondary factor. Passengers
> > physically in the car can shut up when a challenging driving situation
> > arises, can point and go "LOOK OUT FOR THAT KID!", can say "Hey, you
> > gonna stop for the red light?", etc. The other end of even a
> > hands-free celphone conversation can't.

> Strange, because the way I read it, you already knew all about the
> difference

Beggin' your pardon, ma'am, but I wasn't talking to you.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> Beggin' your pardon, ma'am, but I wasn't talking to you.

Good thing for you.