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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:48:42 -0500, "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). > If the number of drunk drivers on the road had increased by millions over about 10 year period would you expect the accident rate to increase noticeably? Cell phone use has .. - increased by millions - cell phones have been claimed to be as bad as having a 0.1 BAC yet accident rated continue to drop. So either driving with a 0.1 BAC is not really the problem we have been told... or Cell phone use while driving is not the same as a 0.1 BAC and doesn't lead to any significant change in accident involvement. >> 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why not methanol | Don Stauffer in Minneapolis | Technology | 213 | March 30th 05 10:11 PM |