Yet another DUH!

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> 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 have been a number of studies now,and they all point to CPs as being
a serious distraction while driving.
This latest one is by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Have there been ANY studies that have found CPuse while driving to NOT be a
distraction?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Dave Head > wrote in
:

> 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...

Strawman;just because other activities are distractions does not make CP
use while driving any less of a serious problem.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:14:18 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

> 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.

No driver, who is even halfway sane, turns around to swat the kid in the
back seat. If you really are unable to discipline your kids so they don't
get in trouble in the car, you should not be allowed to drive at all.

>>> 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.

I don't think the experience of someone who seriously considers turning
around to beat their children is worth anything, sorry.

>>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.

Apparently most cellphohniac drivers think differently, or the number of
accidents would not be so excessively high.

>>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.

No, it's not. But even if it were I'd be all for it. Make revenue by
fining the (dangerous) cellphoniacs instead of people who go a few miles
over an arbitrary speed limit.

>>> 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?

Talking is not even close to as distracting as being on the phone. Plus it
can be easily stopped if the situation demands it, whereas cellphoniacs
usually don't want the person they are cellyakking to to know that they
are not giving them their full attention.

>>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.

If your kid is likely to choke on vomit or get in trouble, sit in the back
seat with him and let someone else drive.

>>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.

No. You have to find a place to park and then turn around to see what is
wrong. If your kids get in trouble so often that this method is not
feasible you need to find someone to sit with them in the back seat or do
so yourself and let someone else drive.

>>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.

Two or three cases a year, whereas a few _thousand_ kids get killed every
year because they were in the passenger seat illegally or not buckled in
properly in the back seat.

> Didn't happen so much when the kids were in the front seat, before air
> bags.

If someone is too stupid to remember their kid in the back seat they need
to be locked up anyway.

>>> 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.

I remember reading of one such incident within the last year, and
the kids were streetracing to boot, which probably was the main
reason for the accident, whereas I read of at least a hundred fatal
collisions with cellphone involvement within the same time frame.

>>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...

Tough luck. Safety of others on the road goes before your 'right' to
gossip with your buddies.

>>> 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.

How often does a situation like this occur? The number of deaths caused
by cellphones is a few thousand times greater than the number of lives
potentially saved by a cellphone carrying person. And as only very few
people will be stupid enough to give up their cellphones just because they
can't yack in the car any more the point is moot anyway.

Btw, in Germany it is illegal to use the phone in the car and by now the
fines are quite stiff plus they check your cellphone records in case of an
accident. The number of cellphone carriers has not decreased at all but
continues climbing.

> With a cell phone ban while driving, _some_ parts of the country at
> some unfortunate times would be knocked back to 1978,
> communications-wise.

Not at all. No one stops you from whipping out your cell once you have
parked properly, which was not possible in 1978.

> Unintended consequences of banning cell phones in cars _could_ be an
> _increase_ in deaths due to the _decreased_ communications capability.

What a nonsense. Banning cell phones in cars will drastically decrease
deaths. Pitting a lone soul saved somewhere in a ditch against thousands
killed by cellphoniacs is a joke.

>>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.

I don't believe you. And even if it were, you are in a tiny minorty as the
example Germany clearly shows.

[snip - examples of reckless cellphone usage]

>>> 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.

In Germany being on the cell while driving is illegal. And people still
have/buy/use cellphones and get very reasonable usability out 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.

So how is an innocent driver 'shooting at you' when you t-bone him because
you missed the red light because of your oh so important call to the movie
theater?

>>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.

Experience from countries (not only Germany) where cellphoniakking while
driving is illegal, shows the opposite.

>>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_.

Who cares? Given 8 hours of sleep you will still have 14 hours and 30
minutes of non-driving potential cellphone time. And if you really have to
be on the phone so urgently while in the car, hire a driver.

>>I see people make phonecalls at stores,
>
> OK. I don't think I've made a call from a store this year, myself.

I have.

>>at work,
>
> I have a phone on my desk - don't need a cell.

I prefer being available on my private phone. I don't have a landline any
more because of its utter lack of flexibility.

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

You might want to try walking sometimes (you know, moving these two
things that you use to press the pedals in your car). It is good for you,
good for the environment and utterly cheap to boot.

>>and even in restaurants.
>
> _Could_ use the pay phone if its really, really that important.

How are your friends, who you claim are calling you in your car, reach you
at the pay phone?

> It isn't - not for me - to pay the monthly charge for a cell.

But you are seriously stupid enough to have a landline, that you can't use
most of the day...

>>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.

That would definitely be a good thing.

> I doubt I'm unique in the regard.

I am sure there are two or three others in the US who think like you. But
the large majority would not get rid of their beloved chatterboxes.
Germany shows that clearly.

>>but a significant positive impact on traffic safety.
>
> You don't know that.

Studies show that clearly.

> 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.

Yes, two or three a year opposed to a few thousand that are saved by
stopping people from yakking on the phone.

> 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.

I think it would be very healthy for you if you started walking to your
health club *eg*

Chris

On 14 Jul 2005 00:42:21 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

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

There is that, I suppose. But I think the study was really politically
motivated for the purpose I stated.

>>>> 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"

Yeah, but that statistic will not be affected by a cell phone ban in cars.
Such people would be useless for the situation with or without such a law.
They can be ignored for the purposes of the argument.

>.And they COULD use it "most of the time",just as long as they are
>NOT DRIVING while using it.

Well, when _I'm_ not driving in the car, there's usually a _landline_ around
that I can use, and it doesn't come with a $50 a month charge, either. IOW,
when I'm _not_ driving, then I mostly _don't_ need a cell phone to communicate.

>>>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.

No, your statement is false, because some people would simply non-renew their
contracts and sell the phone. They wouldn't _have_ the thing with them. And
even if they did, and thought they would only use it in an emergency, the
battery would be dead when they went to acutally use it if they weren't using
it routinely and therefore keeping the battery charged.
>
>
>> I'm going to
>> cancel or non-renew the contract and sell the damn thing...
>
>That's YOUR choice.

Yep, and that will not be a unique choice. Lotsa people will do that. Those
that do, who roll up on an accident or an emergency, will not have a cell phone
with them, or they will not have a _working_ cell phone with them ('cuz they
haven't charged the battey for the last 5 years) and that accident won't get
reported as soon as it otherwise could have. The delay could be critical.

>>>> 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.

It _is_ a rare occasion that I am not in the car and do not have a landline
phone available to make a call. This area - everything is far from everything.
All one gets done is drive, drive, drive. I dislike the area, and this is one
of the big reasons. When you get in the car here, you're generally looking at
a 1/2 hr trip each way.

>Most people will still keep their CPs,they still too useful.

If 10% give 'em up, what effect will that have on emergency situations that are
delayed in reporting them? There _will_ be an effect - no question. Its just
how many lives are lost for lack of a timely response vs. how many lives are
lost due to cell phone induced accidents.

>> 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.

I base it on my personal experience.

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

_Most_ of my calls consist of one or the other of us are driving a car. I
can't be all that unique, nor can the people I talk to.

>> 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.

I got to thinking - I think I probably have to revise it downward. Didn't
realize that until I looked and saw that the last call I received was July 4,
and this is the 13th. Last call I made was July 9. I probably have only had
100 calls this year so far. I don't use it all that much.

>> 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?

The car is about the only place I don't have a phone available unless I have a
cell phone along. Most everywhere else, I can use a pay phone, or the phone on
my desk at work, or the phone at home, or the courtesy phone in the health
club, etc. But yeah, I'm on the road _a lot_. I put on about 35K miles a
year.

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

There's still a thing called CB radio, which does _not_ come with a $50 a month
charge, and you _can_ blab your ass off all the way down the road and nobody's
thinking about banning them. And that's assuming you don't have some other
kind of 2-way radio.

Dave Head

On 14 Jul 2005 00:48:20 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>
>> 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...
>
>Strawman;just because other activities are distractions does not make CP
>use while driving any less of a serious problem.

So you want a nanny-state approach, where anything involving risk is banned?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:21:55 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:14:18 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>No driver, who is even halfway sane, turns around to swat the kid in the
>back seat.

There's _lotsa_ lunatics behind the wheel, and they actually _do_ that.

> If you really are unable to discipline your kids so they don't
>get in trouble in the car, you should not be allowed to drive at all.

Not my kids - talking about other people.

>>>> 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.
>
>I don't think the experience of someone who seriously considers turning
>around to beat their children is worth anything, sorry.

I don't. But others do.

>>>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.
>
>Apparently most cellphohniac drivers think differently, or the number of
>accidents would not be so excessively high.

That's another thing - where is this skyrocketing death rate that we _should_
have with the proliferation of cell phones. Haven't noticed it. Rate is still
about 40K per year, about the same as it was 10 years ago. Whazzup with that?

>>>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.
>
>No, it's not. But even if it were I'd be all for it. Make revenue by
>fining the (dangerous) cellphoniacs instead of people who go a few miles
>over an arbitrary speed limit.

Yeah, lets make driving a hell on earth for everyone. Legislators in NJ want
to ban _smoking_ in the car. Y'all want to ban cell phones. Someone else is
eventually going to want to ban radios and tape players and CD players 'cuz
they're _all_ distractions. Maybe we can make driving so damn boring that
everyone will go to sleep at the wheel and the death rate will _still_ go up!

>>>> 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?
>
>Talking is not even close to as distracting as being on the phone.

Prove it. My personal experience says they're about equal.

>Plus it
>can be easily stopped if the situation demands it, whereas cellphoniacs
>usually don't want the person they are cellyakking to to know that they
>are not giving them their full attention.

Maybe some people are brain-dead enough to act this way, but I think most
people will do what is necessary to keep from having their hair, teeth, and
eyes ending up all over the highway.

>>>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.
>
>If your kid is likely to choke on vomit or get in trouble, sit in the back
>seat with him and let someone else drive.

Not my kid. I don't have any. But you know that the average parent is going to
be turning around every few minutes to have a look. Doing otherwise might even
be chargeable as "neglect", esp. if the rug-rat were to do exactly that and die
of asphyxiation.

>>>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.
>
>No. You have to find a place

No such place on most interstate highways... at least not in the time-frame it
takes to choke to death (6 - 10 minutes to brain-death.)

>to park and then turn around to see what is
>wrong. If your kids get in trouble so often that this method is not
>feasible you need to find someone to sit with them in the back seat or do
>so yourself and let someone else drive.
>
>>>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.
>
>Two or three cases a year, whereas a few _thousand_ kids get killed every
>year because they were in the passenger seat illegally or not buckled in
>properly in the back seat.
>
>> Didn't happen so much when the kids were in the front seat, before air
>> bags.
>
>If someone is too stupid to remember their kid in the back seat they need
>to be locked up anyway.

That still doesn't help the par-boiled kid in the back seat...

>>>> 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.
>
>I remember reading of one such incident within the last year, and
>the kids were streetracing to boot, which probably was the main
>reason for the accident, whereas I read of at least a hundred fatal
>collisions with cellphone involvement within the same time frame.
>
>>>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...
>
>Tough luck. Safety of others on the road goes before your 'right' to
>gossip with your buddies.

But that's what I'm paying for. If I can't do that, I'm not going to pay for
it.

>>>> 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.
>
>How often does a situation like this occur?

Well, that's what we don't know. It may be such that the removal of, say, 10%
of the cell phones from society will cause a net overall zero effect in the
death rate - for each cell phone death driving that is prevented, a
delay-of-report of a dangerous situation results in a death that offsets the
one that was saved. We don't know, tho.

> The number of deaths caused
>by cellphones is a few thousand times greater than the number of lives
>potentially saved by a cellphone carrying person.

You don't know that - you're guessing.

>And as only very few
>people will be stupid enough to give up their cellphones just because they
>can't yack in the car any more the point is moot anyway.

Oh, getting personal now - I think you're preparing to lose this arguement,
then.

As I said, if I couldn't talk in the car, I wouldn't have it. I _bought_ it
for talking in the car. Most anywhere else I am, I have access to another
phone, and don't _need_ the cell. Yeah, it might be a little more convenient
in some situations, but not $50 a month more convenient. I'd give it up in a
heartbeat.

>Btw, in Germany it is illegal to use the phone in the car and by now the
>fines are quite stiff plus they check your cellphone records in case of an
>accident. The number of cellphone carriers has not decreased at all but
>continues climbing.

There's lots of nanny-state stuff going on in all parts of the world. Just
'cuz they do it doesn't mean we have to.

>> With a cell phone ban while driving, _some_ parts of the country at
>> some unfortunate times would be knocked back to 1978,
>> communications-wise.
>
>Not at all. No one stops you from whipping out your cell once you have
>parked properly, which was not possible in 1978.

Except I'm not going to have one - I don't relish the idea of stopping to make
a casual call. I'd just keep driving - the call isn't _that_ important that I
need to stop for it.

>> Unintended consequences of banning cell phones in cars _could_ be an
>> _increase_ in deaths due to the _decreased_ communications capability.
>
>What a nonsense. Banning cell phones in cars will drastically decrease
>deaths. Pitting a lone soul saved somewhere in a ditch against thousands
>killed by cellphoniacs is a joke.

I don't see thousands in the yearly death rate. Its still about 40K a year,
like its been for quite a while.

>>>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.
>
>I don't believe you. And even if it were, you are in a tiny minorty as the
>example Germany clearly shows.

Believe it. I only got the dang thing about 3 years ago. Up 'til that point,
I didn't believe I needed it at all, but found it convenient to be able to...
talk in the car while approaching some people I was going to meet up with at an
army post about 300 miles away. I basically got it for coordination with
others at my nephew's graduation from basic training. I've been finding it to
be a great convenience... but mostly while driving. As I said, if I couldn't
use it while driving, I'd cancel / non-renew.

>[snip - examples of reckless cellphone usage]
>
>>>> 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.
>
>In Germany

We are not in Germany...

>being on the cell while driving is illegal. And people still
>have/buy/use cellphones and get very reasonable usability out of it.

Maybe everything isn't a 1 hr round-trip like it is here. About the only thing
I do that doesn't involve a 1 hr round trip is go to the grocery or the post
office, and I don't go to the post office that often. Work is slightly less
than a 1 hr round trip, maybe 45 minutes or so. Health club (just got back) is
at least 1 hr. Movie is across the street from the health club, so can you
guess how long that round trip is? Work, movie, health club are my 3 main
destinations. The next most often is my friend's house in Maryland, but that
is a 1 1/2 hr round trip.

>
>>>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.
>
>So how is an innocent driver 'shooting at you' when you t-bone him because
>you missed the red light because of your oh so important call to the movie
>theater?

I can't actually remember the last time I missed a red light, but I'm sure its
not because I was talking on a cell phone. I think it was because it was too
big of a risk to try to stop for it because it was wet, and then I only missed
it by maybe 1/2 second. Try to stop and lose control, or just motor on thru
and take the chance on a ticket. What would U do?) I think it was a
revealed-light situation from a tall semi-truck, and the wet street made for a
not-so-good situation with respect to stopping.

Before that, I think it was on the order of years since I missed a light.
>
>>>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.
>
>Experience from countries (not only Germany) where cellphoniakking while
>driving is illegal, shows the opposite.

Again, maybe its not a 1 hr round trip to just about everywhere...

>>>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_.
>
>Who cares? Given 8 hours of sleep you will still have 14 hours and 30
>minutes of non-driving potential cellphone time.

Nope. Any time I have a landline phone available, that is _not_ potential cell
phone time. This cuts potential cell phone time down to the few minutes it
takes me to get to and from the car from the movie or health club, and work,
unless you include driving. Not worth $50 a month to me.

>And if you really have to
>be on the phone so urgently while in the car, hire a driver.

Get real...

>>>I see people make phonecalls at stores,
>>
>> OK. I don't think I've made a call from a store this year, myself.
>
>I have.
>
>>>at work,
>>
>> I have a phone on my desk - don't need a cell.
>
>I prefer being available on my private phone.

I can do that by forwarding my home phone to my work phone.

>I don't have a landline any
>more because of its utter lack of flexibility.

I do.

>>>on the street
>>
>> If I'm on a street, I'm _probably_ in my car...
>
>You might want to try walking sometimes (you know, moving these two
>things that you use to press the pedals in your car). It is good for you,
>good for the environment and utterly cheap to boot.

Hello - what have I been telling you? Its about an hour of _driving_ anywhere
I normally go. That would be like 10 hrs of walking. I don't have that much
time.

As for exercise, that's what I go to the gym for. Hotter than hell out
tonight, but I exercised in a 70-degree room on some really fine equipment,
burned about 1000 calories, and didn't have heat stroke either...

>>>and even in restaurants.
>>
>> _Could_ use the pay phone if its really, really that important.
>
>How are your friends, who you claim are calling you in your car, reach you
>at the pay phone?

They don't. But then its not really all that important that they reach me.
Its mostly important that I reach them when I need to. If there looks like
there's going to be a situation where its going to be important, I'll give them
the number of my health club. If its important enough to interrupt a movie,
then I just won't go to the movie until the potential crisis is over. I'm 58
yrs old, and for 55 years I didn't _need_ a cell phone. If I can't use it
_most_ of the time when it is the only alternative to communications, then I
won't _need_ it in the future, either.

>> It isn't - not for me - to pay the monthly charge for a cell.
>
>But you are seriously stupid enough to have a landline, that you can't use
>most of the day...

I use it just fine. I forward it to my cell phone. Its in the phone book
(unlike my cell phone) so I get calls from people I know and maybe people I do
business with, like plumbers and HVAC people, and other repairmen. If i didn't
have a cell, I'd forward it to my work phone.


>>>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.
>
>That would definitely be a good thing.

>> I doubt I'm unique in the regard.
>
>I am sure there are two or three others in the US who think like you. But
>the large majority would not get rid of their beloved chatterboxes.
>Germany shows that clearly.

I'm getting real tired of hearing about Germany. **** Germany, if for no other
reason than their behavior with regard to Iraq. And, again, Germany is not the
USA. We have 3000 miles of space between two oceans, they do not. It can be a
seriously long distance between places for Americans to drive, and thus a lot
longer time in the car for most Americans vs. Germans. People who get deprived
of the use of their cell phone for _most_ of the time that there is no
alternative to cell phone usage might just do something different than the
average German. They just might cancel the contract.

>>>but a significant positive impact on traffic safety.
>>
>> You don't know that.
>
>Studies show that clearly.

What studies? We have one that says cell phones are distracting. I'm not
familar with any that take into account the consequences of a complete ban on
cell phone in cars IN THIS COUNTRY with all its expanse of highways to be
driven, which might figure into people leaving the cell phone at home a lot
more because they know they're not going to be able to use it for 99% of the
trip anyway.

>> 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.
>
>Yes, two or three a year opposed to a few thousand that are saved by
>stopping people from yakking on the phone.

You don't know that. Again, the death rate is right around 40K per year, like
its been for quite some time. Where is this skyrocketing death rate?


>> 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.
>
>I think it would be very healthy for you if you started walking to your
>health club *eg*

If I walked, I prolly wouldn't _need_ any more exercise... <G>

Dave Head

>
>Chris

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:52:04 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

> On 14 Jul 2005 00:48:20 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>
>>Dave Head > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> 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...
>>
>>Strawman;just because other activities are distractions does not make CP
>>use while driving any less of a serious problem.
>
> So you want a nanny-state approach, where anything involving risk is
> banned?

No, I just want a reasonable state, where things involving unreasonably
high risks are banned. And yacking on the cellphone involves an
unreasonably high risk. Quadrupling the risk of killing someone over not
yacking on the cellphone is unreasonable, especially considering that your
babbling does not serve any constructive purpose.

Chris

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:48:13 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:

>On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:52:04 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> On 14 Jul 2005 00:48:20 GMT, Jim Yanik .> wrote:
>>
>>>Dave Head > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>Strawman;just because other activities are distractions does not make CP
>>>use while driving any less of a serious problem.
>>
>> So you want a nanny-state approach, where anything involving risk is
>> banned?
>
>No, I just want a reasonable state, where things involving unreasonably
>high risks are banned. And yacking on the cellphone involves an
>unreasonably high risk. Quadrupling the risk of killing someone over not
>yacking on the cellphone is unreasonable, especially considering that your
>babbling does not serve any constructive purpose.

My _having_ the cell phone serves the purpose of being able to report
accidents, house fires, drunk drivers, and lots other stuff that are all net
good effects. But I guarantee you, if I can't use the cell for the purposes
that I bought it for, it will be history, and I'll be saving $50 a month - and
you'll be able to kiss all those good effects goodbye - at least from _my_ cell
- and I just might be the _only_ person around at some of these disasters...

Dave Head
>
>Chris

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 05:02:19 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:48:13 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:
>
>>No, I just want a reasonable state, where things involving unreasonably
>>high risks are banned. And yacking on the cellphone involves an
>>unreasonably high risk. Quadrupling the risk of killing someone over not
>>yacking on the cellphone is unreasonable, especially considering that
>>your babbling does not serve any constructive purpose.
>
> My _having_ the cell phone serves the purpose of being able to report
> accidents, house fires, drunk drivers, and lots other stuff that are all
> net good effects. But I guarantee you, if I can't use the cell for the
> purposes that I bought it for, it will be history, and I'll be saving $50
> a month - and you'll be able to kiss all those good effects goodbye - at
> least from _my_ cell - and I just might be the _only_ person around at
> some of these disasters...

Even if you and three other cellphoniacs cancel their accounts there are
still millions out there who won't, so I am not worried about that at all.

If you threaten something, make sure it is something that actually makes
people want to reconsider, not something like 'I will get rid of my cell'
which merely makes me say 'go ahead'.

Chris

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 04:46:40 +0000, Dave Head wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 18:21:55 -0700, "C.H." > wrote:
>
>>No driver, who is even halfway sane, turns around to swat the kid in the
>>back seat.
>
> There's _lotsa_ lunatics behind the wheel, and they actually _do_ that.

And the fact that other people do stupid things relates to your 'right' of
doing something exquisitely stupid exactly how?

>>If you really are unable to discipline your kids so they don't
>>get in trouble in the car, you should not be allowed to drive at all.
>
> Not my kids - talking about other people.

Turning around is already illegal (careless driving).

>>Apparently most cellphohniac drivers think differently, or the number of
>>accidents would not be so excessively high.
>
> That's another thing - where is this skyrocketing death rate that we
> _should_ have with the proliferation of cell phones. Haven't noticed it.
> Rate is still about 40K per year, about the same as it was 10 years ago.
> Whazzup with that?

Cars have been getting much safer over the last few years. The death rate
OTOH has almost leveled out, because a certain risk factor offsets the
positive effect from the safety gains.

>>No, it's not. But even if it were I'd be all for it. Make revenue by
>>fining the (dangerous) cellphoniacs instead of people who go a few miles
>>over an arbitrary speed limit.
>
> Yeah, lets make driving a hell on earth for everyone. Legislators in NJ
> want to ban _smoking_ in the car.

I'm all for it. Nicotine increases reaction times, fiddling with
cigarettes distracts.

> Y'all want to ban cell phones.

Only at the wheel.

> Someone else is eventually going to want to ban radios and tape players
> and CD players 'cuz they're _all_ distractions.

OK with me, even though the safety gain would be minute in relation to the
gain when outlawing cellphones.

> Maybe we can make driving so damn boring that everyone will go to sleep
> at the wheel and the death rate will _still_ go up!

If you are unable to concentrate on driving you need to return your
driver's license because you are apparently an unfit driver.

>>Talking is not even close to as distracting as being on the phone.
>
> Prove it. My personal experience says they're about equal.

Remember the experiment they did on Mythbusters? They were talking in the
car on both the test run and the phone run. Test run: Good results, phone
run: Half the obstacles run over. IOW: Talking doesn't significantly
distract, yakking on the phone does.

>>Plus it can be easily stopped if the situation demands it, whereas
>>cellphoniacs usually don't want the person they are cellyakking to to
>>know that they are not giving them their full attention.
>
> Maybe some people are brain-dead enough to act this way, but I think
> most people will do what is necessary to keep from having their hair,
> teeth, and eyes ending up all over the highway.

Most people won't even let go of their freaking cellphone when they wreck.

>>If your kid is likely to choke on vomit or get in trouble, sit in the
>>back seat with him and let someone else drive.
>
> Not my kid. I don't have any. But you know that the average parent is
> going to be turning around every few minutes to have a look. Doing
> otherwise might even be chargeable as "neglect", esp. if the rug-rat
> were to do exactly that and die of asphyxiation.

The average parent is not. And even if they did, it is illegal and for
good reason, just as cellphoniakking at the wheel should be illegal. Btw,
since when is a bad act by someone else an excuse for a bad act committed
by you? "He smoked on the bus, so I am to cut his throat"...

>>No. You have to find a place
>
> No such place on most interstate highways... at least not in the
> time-frame it takes to choke to death (6 - 10 minutes to brain-death.)

It's called emergency lane and it is present almost everywhere on the
interstates.

>>> Didn't happen so much when the kids were in the front seat, before air
>>> bags.
>>
>> If someone is too stupid to remember their kid in the back seat they
>> need to be locked up anyway.
>
> That still doesn't help the par-boiled kid in the back seat...

How often does that happen? Once a year? Twice? Kids get killed in traffic
accidents every day because they were sitting where they are not supposed
to sit: In the front seat. The chance of accidentally being parboiled
because a braindead parent forgets them in the back seat is smaller by a
very large factor thant the chance of being squashed or smashed because
the braindead parent was too stupid to put the kid where it belongs: In
the back seat.

>>> And by that time, _they're_ in the car and moving, so you still can't
>>> talk to them...
>>
>> Tough luck. Safety of others on the road goes before your 'right' to
>> gossip with your buddies.
>
> But that's what I'm paying for. If I can't do that, I'm not going to
> pay for it.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

>>> 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.
>>
>>How often does a situation like this occur?
>
> Well, that's what we don't know. It may be such that the removal of,
> say, 10% of the cell phones from society will cause a net overall zero
> effect in the death rate - for each cell phone death driving that is
> prevented, a delay-of-report of a dangerous situation results in a death
> that offsets the one that was saved. We don't know, tho.

Double nonsense. One, only a tiny fraction of a percent of cellphoniacs
will give up their chatterbox just because they can't use it for 10% of
their day. I am almost sure that even though you are whining so loudly you
would not give up yours either, you are much too addicted to it. And even
if 10% would give up their chatterbox the death rate would nosedive. The
number of people bleeding to death on the freeway because no one can call
help is very close to zero nowadays and will not be noticeably higher if a
few people give up their gossip machine.

>>The number of deaths caused by cellphones is a few thousand times
>>greater than the number of lives potentially saved by a cellphone
>>carrying person.
>
> You don't know that - you're guessing.

Yes, I am making an educated guess. A lot more educated than your whining
'oh no, I can't babble for an hour, how horrible!'

>>And as only very few people will be stupid enough to give up their
>>cellphones just because they can't yack in the car any more the point is
>>moot anyway.
>
> Oh, getting personal now - I think you're preparing to lose this
> arguement, then.

Not really, because I am quite certain that you are not going to give up
your chatterbox either, even though you threaten to do so in here, because
aside from your 'i might be able to save a guy bleeding to death' you have
shown zero positive aspects of cellphones for safety.

> As I said, if I couldn't talk in the car, I wouldn't have it.

And I say you are just saying that, because you are much too addicted to
actually do it.

> I _bought_ it for talking in the car.

Good riddance then, when you have to get rid of it.

> Most anywhere else I am, I have access to another phone, and don't
> _need_ the cell. Yeah, it might be a little more convenient in some
> situations, but not $50 a month more convenient. I'd give it up in a
> heartbeat.

My cellphone plan is cheaper than my landline plan was. I am certainly not
stupid enough to go back to a landline.

>>Btw, in Germany it is illegal to use the phone in the car and by now the
>>fines are quite stiff plus they check your cellphone records in case of
>>an accident. The number of cellphone carriers has not decreased at all
>>but continues climbing.
>
> There's lots of nanny-state stuff going on in all parts of the world.
> Just 'cuz they do it doesn't mean we have to.

Germany shows that a cellphone ban for drivers has no negative impact on
the number of cellphones in the general population and a decidedly
positive impact on safety.

>>Not at all. No one stops you from whipping out your cell once you have
>>parked properly, which was not possible in 1978.
>
> Except I'm not going to have one - I don't relish the idea of stopping
> to make a casual call. I'd just keep driving - the call isn't _that_
> important that I need to stop for it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you get rid of your
cellphone, then don't whine about being in communication limbo (as you
don't need your cellphone outside your car anyway according to your own
words) or you don't.

>>What a nonsense. Banning cell phones in cars will drastically decrease
>>deaths. Pitting a lone soul saved somewhere in a ditch against thousands
>>killed by cellphoniacs is a joke.
>
> I don't see thousands in the yearly death rate. Its still about 40K a
> year, like its been for quite a while.

And it would be much lower with the recent improvements in car safety if
not a bunch of cellphone addicted morons would increase the risk.

>>I don't believe you. And even if it were, you are in a tiny minorty as
>>the example Germany clearly shows.
>
> Believe it. I only got the dang thing about 3 years ago.

Who cares whether you have a cellphone or not? The world will continue
spinning if you drop dead or get rid of your cellphone. Your threat
impresses exactly nobody.

>>> Ooohhhh yes they are - at least any reasonable usability of it.
>>
>>In Germany
>
> We are not in Germany...

But almost every American wishes that German safety, traffic education and
discipline were here.

>>being on the cell while driving is illegal. And people still
>>have/buy/use cellphones and get very reasonable usability out of it.
>
> Maybe everything isn't a 1 hr round-trip like it is here.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Munich to Hamburg is a
5-10 hour drive depending on traffic.

> About the only thing I do that doesn't involve a 1 hr round trip is go
> to the grocery or the post office, and I don't go to the post office
> that often.

If you really can't live with the large distances, move somewhere, where
the distances are shorter.

> Work is slightly less than a 1 hr round trip, maybe 45 minutes or so.
> Health club (just got back) is at least 1 hr. Movie is across the
> street from the health club, so can you guess how long that round trip
> is? Work, movie, health club are my 3 main destinations. The next most
> often is my friend's house in Maryland, but that is a 1 1/2 hr round
> trip.

Boo-hoo!

You apparently are living in the wrong place, but that doesn't impress
anyone either. Face it, the world will not even notice if you make true on
your terrible threat.

>>So how is an innocent driver 'shooting at you' when you t-bone him
>>because you missed the red light because of your oh so important call to
>>the movie theater?
>
> I can't actually remember the last time I missed a red light, but I'm
> sure its not because I was talking on a cell phone.

Quite likely you merely didn't notice the last time you missed a red light
because you were too busy with the phone.

>>> Then I, and I suspect a whale of a lot of other people, are going to
>>> lose interest in cell phone ownership.
>>
>> Experience from countries (not only Germany) where cellphoniakking
>> while driving is illegal, shows the opposite.
>
> Again, maybe its not a 1 hr round trip to just about everywhere...

Again, no one cares whether you live in the wrong place. Germany shows
that people have cell phones and use them, although they are not allowed
to do so in the car. Which shows that your oh so horrible 'negative safety
impact' because one Dave Head doesn't have a cellphone any more in reality
does not exist nor will.

>>Who cares? Given 8 hours of sleep you will still have 14 hours and 30
>>minutes of non-driving potential cellphone time.
>
> Nope. Any time I have a landline phone available, that is _not_
> potential cell phone time.

Why not? I don't use up my cellphone minutes anyway, so why not use the
cellphone when I have to make a call? Whether at the office (no recording,
no billing problems, no dispute with the boss), at the store (should I
pick up this or that while I am at it?) or at home (free long distance
and free unlimited night and weekend minutes), the cellphone usually is
the better deal. When I dont want it at my ear I use a headset, which
makes the whole thing even comfortable. Sitting on my balcony in my
comfortable chair making a phone call beats yanking wires and dialing
dial-around numbers by a mile.

> This cuts potential cell phone time down to the few minutes it takes me
> to get to and from the car from the movie or health club, and work,
> unless you include driving. Not worth $50 a month to me.

Then you apparently don't have a legitimate need for one, so get rid of
it. No one is going to have to go to bed hungry just because you decide to
get rid of a service.

>>And if you really have to
>>be on the phone so urgently while in the car, hire a driver.
>
> Get real...

I am serious. Dead serious. If you can't afford a driver, concentrate on
driving instead of yakking.

>>> I have a phone on my desk - don't need a cell.
>>
>>I prefer being available on my private phone.
>
> I can do that by forwarding my home phone to my work phone.

Sure. Every day. And in the evening you switch off the forwarding. Sure.

>>I don't have a landline any more because of its utter lack of
>>flexibility.
>
> I do.

I pity you.

>>You might want to try walking sometimes (you know, moving these two
>>things that you use to press the pedals in your car). It is good for
>>you, good for the environment and utterly cheap to boot.
>
> Hello - what have I been telling you? Its about an hour of _driving_
> anywhere I normally go. That would be like 10 hrs of walking. I don't
> have that much time.

Guess what? I don't care. You live in the wrong place, that's not my
problem. And certainly no reason for endangering others. You made the
decision to live there, now suffer the consequences.

>>> _Could_ use the pay phone if its really, really that important.
>>
>>How are your friends, who you claim are calling you in your car, reach
>>you at the pay phone?
>
> They don't. But then its not really all that important that they reach
> me.

Then you don't need a cellphone.

> Its mostly important that I reach them when I need to.

Use a pay phone.

> If there looks like there's going to be a situation where its going to
> be important, I'll give them the number of my health club.

Wow, that clown has a cellphone and goes to any lengths to not use it.
You are either one of the stupidest people who ever lived or you have a
very vivid imagination.

> If its important enough to interrupt a movie, then I just won't go to
> the movie until the potential crisis is over. I'm 58 yrs old, and for
> 55 years I didn't _need_ a cell phone. If I can't use it _most_ of the
> time when it is the only alternative to communications, then I won't
> _need_ it in the future, either.

Congratulations, you don't need it so do us all a favor and get rid of it.

>>But you are seriously stupid enough to have a landline, that you can't
>>use most of the day...
>
> I use it just fine. I forward it to my cell phone.

You can't be serious! No one can be that stupid and still remember to
breathe. Your imagination is indeed priceless, you should try your hand on
a novel.

> Its in the phone book (unlike my cell phone) so I get calls from people
> I know and maybe people I do business with, like plumbers and HVAC
> people, and other repairmen. If i didn't have a cell, I'd forward it to
> my work phone.

Why in all the world would you have a land line so you have to forward
your number all the time when you have a perfectly serviceable cellphone?

>>Studies show that clearly.
>
> What studies? We have one that says cell phones are distracting. I'm
> not familar with any that take into account the consequences of a
> complete ban on cell phone in cars IN THIS COUNTRY with all its expanse
> of highways to be driven, which might figure into people leaving the
> cell phone at home a lot more because they know they're not going to be
> able to use it for 99% of the trip anyway.

The consequences are not going to be noticeably different than they are in
Germany. People know that a cellphone is a comparatively inexpensive
convenience and have it for that reason. Granted, almost no one is stupid
enough to worry about forwarding his landline all day when he has a cell.
If a handful of people don't need their cellphones any more the world will
continue spinning, the cellphone companies will continue to make money and
the road safety is not going to be compromised.

>>> 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.
>>
>>I think it would be very healthy for you if you started walking to your
>>health club *eg*
>
> If I walked, I prolly wouldn't _need_ any more exercise... <G>

All the better, then you can save health club fees.

Chris