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.

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.

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.

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.
>
>

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