If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cell phone use study
An older study, long before the roads
were littered with bodies from this. http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...tton=cellphone Conclusions From the results of the study that has been described in this report, the following conclusions may be offered. 1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic situations and increase in time to respond. 2. Complex, intense conversation leads to the greatest increases in likelihood of overlooking significant highway traffic conditions, and the time to respond to them. The distracting effect is similar to that of tuning a radio. The effect of placing calls or engaging in casual conversation is less of a problem, although, calling tends to retard responses. 3. The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers over age 50 is two- to three-times as great as that of younger drivers and encompasses all three aspects of cellular phone use - placing calls and carrying on simple and complex conversations. The effect is to increase non-response by 33-38%. 4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:07:11 -0400, Rich > wrote:
>An older study, long before the roads >were littered with bodies from this. > If the roads are littered with bodies from "this", then why do the accident and fatality rates continue to be historically low? If cell phone use was of any significance to accidents, the huge increase in such cell phone use would have caused a similarly huge increase in accidents. Since accidents have not gone up either cell phones aren't a problem OR something else is countering the cell phone increase. Since there seems to be nothing much new that would reduce accidents by any huge amount it follows that cell phones have not caused any huge increase in accidents, In fact, it seems they have not caused any increase in accidents. All that's increased is the nutty claims about cell phone use. >http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...tton=cellphone > Conclusions > >From the results of the study that has been described in this report, >the following conclusions may be offered. > > 1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant >increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic >situations and increase in time to respond. > > 2. Complex, intense conversation leads to the greatest >increases in likelihood of overlooking significant highway traffic >conditions, and the time to respond to them. The distracting effect is >similar to that of tuning a radio. The effect of placing calls or >engaging in casual conversation is less of a problem, although, >calling tends to retard responses. > > 3. The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers >over age 50 is two- to three-times as great as that of younger drivers >and encompasses all three aspects of cellular phone use - placing >calls and carrying on simple and complex conversations. The effect is >to increase non-response by 33-38%. > > 4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no >relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Outlaw!!!!
-In no particular order, as they ALL serve to litter our highways and byways with various and sundrie roadkill- 1. Cell phone use while driving 2. Smoking while driving 3. Eating or drinking while driving 4. reading maps while driving 5. talking politics religion or sports while driving 6. kids fighting while driving, either: a. soundproof compartment b gaseous anesthesia 7. billboards 8 thinking of sex while driving 9 listening to political talk radio while driving 10 worrying about sick relatives while driving 11 passengers giving birth while driving 12 showing yer tits while on the road 13 actually having sex while driving 14 thinking about what's showing on the rear seat DVD screen while driving 15 Thinking about a work problem while driving 16 getting lost while driving 17 not defensively driving , failure to hone psychic powers 18 needing to go to bathroom BAD.. while driving 19 reading GPS screen while driving 20 failure to soundproof car while driving, thus distraction from next car backfiring or noxious boom-box ... aw hell did i mention just THINKING while driving? - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - Rich > wrote in news:mjttk1p8sca82hb4o4n3jjsa67ndc8cl21@ 4ax.com: > An older study, long before the roads > were littered with bodies from this. > > http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...tton=cellphone > Conclusions > > From the results of the study that has been described in this report, > the following conclusions may be offered. > > 1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant > increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic > situations and increase in time to respond. > > 2. Complex, intense conversation leads to the greatest > increases in likelihood of overlooking significant highway traffic > conditions, and the time to respond to them. The distracting effect is > similar to that of tuning a radio. The effect of placing calls or > engaging in casual conversation is less of a problem, although, > calling tends to retard responses. > > 3. The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers > over age 50 is two- to three-times as great as that of younger drivers > and encompasses all three aspects of cellular phone use - placing > calls and carrying on simple and complex conversations. The effect is > to increase non-response by 33-38%. > > 4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no > relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Oh!
* napping while driving Backyard Mechanic > wrote in : > Outlaw!!!! > > -In no particular order, as they ALL serve to litter our highways and > byways with various and sundrie roadkill- > > > 1. Cell phone use while driving > > 2. Smoking while driving > > 3. Eating or drinking while driving > > 4. reading maps while driving > > 5. talking politics religion or sports while driving > > 6. kids fighting while driving, either: > a. soundproof compartment > b gaseous anesthesia > > 7. billboards > > 8 thinking of sex while driving > > 9 listening to political talk radio while driving > > 10 worrying about sick relatives while driving > > 11 passengers giving birth while driving > > 12 showing yer tits while on the road > > 13 actually having sex while driving > > 14 thinking about what's showing on the rear seat DVD screen while > driving > > 15 Thinking about a work problem while driving > > 16 getting lost while driving > > 17 not defensively driving , failure to hone psychic powers > > 18 needing to go to bathroom BAD.. while driving > > 19 reading GPS screen while driving > > 20 failure to soundproof car while driving, thus distraction from next > car backfiring or noxious boom-box > > .. aw hell did i mention just THINKING while driving? > > - - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - > Rich > wrote in news:mjttk1p8sca82hb4o4n3jjsa67ndc8cl21@ > 4ax.com: > >> An older study, long before the roads >> were littered with bodies from this. >> >> http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...tton=cellphone >> Conclusions >> >> From the results of the study that has been described in this report, >> the following conclusions may be offered. >> >> 1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant >> increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic >> situations and increase in time to respond. >> >> 2. Complex, intense conversation leads to the greatest >> increases in likelihood of overlooking significant highway traffic >> conditions, and the time to respond to them. The distracting effect is >> similar to that of tuning a radio. The effect of placing calls or >> engaging in casual conversation is less of a problem, although, >> calling tends to retard responses. >> >> 3. The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers >> over age 50 is two- to three-times as great as that of younger drivers >> and encompasses all three aspects of cellular phone use - placing >> calls and carrying on simple and complex conversations. The effect is >> to increase non-response by 33-38%. >> >> 4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no >> relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use. > > |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:07:11 -0400, Rich > wrote:
>An older study, long before the roads >were littered with bodies from this. > >http://www.aaafoundation.org/resourc...tton=cellphone > Conclusions > >From the results of the study that has been described in this report, >the following conclusions may be offered. > > 1. All forms of cellular phone usage lead to significant >increases in the establishment of non-response to highway-traffic >situations and increase in time to respond. > > 2. Complex, intense conversation leads to the greatest >increases in likelihood of overlooking significant highway traffic >conditions, and the time to respond to them. The distracting effect is >similar to that of tuning a radio. The effect of placing calls or >engaging in casual conversation is less of a problem, although, >calling tends to retard responses. > > 3. The distracting effect of cellular phone use among drivers >over age 50 is two- to three-times as great as that of younger drivers >and encompasses all three aspects of cellular phone use - placing >calls and carrying on simple and complex conversations. The effect is >to increase non-response by 33-38%. > > 4. Prior experience with cellular phones appears to bear no >relation to the distracting effect of cellular phone use. Studies, like statistics, say what the information provider wants them to say. I didn't look up the link, but the older the study, the less solid it's information when compared to more recent conflicting studies. Just compare medical studies on how many eggs you can or can not eat. And the moment you make such a blatantly over exaggerated statement as "An older study, long before the roads were littered with bodies from this." the reader is far less apt to believe. While I have nothing handy to back it up, it is my guess that there is a far higher accident rate caused by collisions with wildlife. One need only travel the NY Turnpike and count the deer carcasses. Vehicles get more than hunters. So, should we outlaw animals? Or should we invest billions to redo the roadways to prevent any altercation between animals and vehicles? Spike 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video. Feb 2004 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005 - http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bus + Cell Phone = Dead Pedestrian | Dave | Driving | 47 | September 24th 05 05:12 PM |
And yet more bad cell phone news | RichA | Ford Mustang | 19 | July 18th 05 09:21 PM |
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell | Shrike | Dodge | 0 | March 30th 05 09:03 PM |
Listen to your Cell Phone with Car Stereo | [email protected] | Driving | 0 | March 23rd 05 07:46 PM |
# Get FREE Sony VAIO, iPod, Xbox, PlayStation, or Cell Phone when you spend $40..!! | TSR | Dodge | 0 | October 6th 04 10:24 AM |