A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

celphones was Why not methanol



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 21st 05, 06:02 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Pete C. wrote:

> As far as text messaging goes, a "beginner" will do the hunt and peck
> thing when messaging. An experiences messager can type accurately and
> without requiring excessive attention while holding the phone behind
> their back. It's no different than typing on a regular keyboard (or
> driving a manual transmission for that matter). Once you learn it it
> becomes automatic and the only thing you think about is content, not how
> to type it.


Bull and ****. I had to have one of those damn keyboard text pagers at my
previous employer. They let me keep it actually. There is no way that can
be done safely while driving. Not at all.

> You only need the phone in your view to read incoming messages, and when
> you hold the phone at arms length on top of the dashboard it is no more
> of a distraction than reading the street signs you are passing. Where
> people get in trouble is holding the phone in their lap and looking
> down.


Hold out over the top of the dashboard... A road sign doesn't take any
effort, they are put in plain sight and are made so they can be computed
without taking time to read. A text pager takes considerably more
attention to read and respond to.


Ads
  #32  
Old March 21st 05, 12:15 PM
Allen Seth Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, 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.

>
> Haven't you been arguing against practically everything that the majority
> of r.a.d regulars believe in? Things like keep right except to pass, 85th
> percentile speed limits, etc and so forth? I may be mistaken, but I
> think that was you, right?
>
> In any case, that boredom, that feeling they can do other things while
> driving, from phone calls to eating lunch comes from the idiotcy of
> lowest common demonator driving in the USA. Low speed limits, no lane
> displine, etc and so forth. When I did my drive the speed-limit
> experiments to prove how out of touch the speed limits were I became so
> bored while driving, I wanted a TV to watch or a computer to use. That's
> what happens when driving is dumbed down.
>
> People get bored. Some compensate in other ways, by driving faster and
> using traffic a series of problems to solve. Finding better ways around,
> etc and so forth.This is good, because it demands paying attention to
> the road and the conditions in fine detail. Some compensate in other
> ways that are negative. Such as by taking risks, cutting people off,
> passing on shoulders, and just generally being reckless. Others yet just
> decide to watch TV, read the paper and talk on the phone.


This is why billboards are a good idea IMHO. It gives people "eye candy" to
help them break the monotony of long, boring roads (primarily interstates,
at least in the Northeast), while keeping people's focus close enough to the
road. Which makes me wonder if there's ever been a study to look into if
seeing varied colors helps the eyes and help a person keep focused. It seems
to me that seeing different colors than what is typically on long, boring
interstates, through the use of billboards, might actually be beneficial as
it almost seems to recharge my eyes and help keep them focused. Sorry about
the digression :-)

>
> Since there is no lane displine, the system such that no matter what
> you do the other guy has to avoid you, there are no consquences to reading
> the paper or cutting people off. Thusly no consquences to driving
> distracted until actually hitting something.
>
>
>



  #33  
Old March 21st 05, 12:33 PM
Allen Seth Dunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"JP White" > wrote in message
. ..
> Pete C. wrote:
>> Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal
>> vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme
>> concentration? This is not a race track at 180 mph folks, there is
>> indeed extra time to multi task - as long as you keep your eyes on the
>> road.

>
> True 99.999% of the time. It's the 0.001% that will kill you (or worse
> someone else).
>
> I let the cell phone ring off the hook while driving and return the call
> when appropriate. Why let it ring if I won't answer? Just so I know to
> check it later. If it rings 2-3 times in five minutes, then it must be
> urgent, so I find somewhere safe to return the call.
>
> Any idea how many feet per second you travel at 70Mph? The slightest
> distraction can make the difference between a safe stop and a shunt.


For what it's worth, at 70 MPH, a person travels 102 ft, 8 inches per second
at 70 MPH. The equation: 70 miles/hour * (5280 ft/1 mile) * (1 hour/60
minutes) * (1 minute/60 seconds). Thanks for asking that as I really needed
the brain exercise (just to remember the actual format for doing that, not
doing the actual calculation which I put into a graphing calculator to do).

>
> Count yourself lucky to be alive. BTW what make/model and color is your
> car? I need to make a mental note.
>
> JP
>
> --
> JP White
>



  #34  
Old March 21st 05, 01:43 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > As far as text messaging goes, a "beginner" will do the hunt and peck
> > thing when messaging. An experiences messager can type accurately and
> > without requiring excessive attention while holding the phone behind
> > their back. It's no different than typing on a regular keyboard (or
> > driving a manual transmission for that matter). Once you learn it it
> > becomes automatic and the only thing you think about is content, not how
> > to type it.

>
> Bull and ****. I had to have one of those damn keyboard text pagers at my
> previous employer. They let me keep it actually. There is no way that can
> be done safely while driving. Not at all.
>
> > You only need the phone in your view to read incoming messages, and when
> > you hold the phone at arms length on top of the dashboard it is no more
> > of a distraction than reading the street signs you are passing. Where
> > people get in trouble is holding the phone in their lap and looking
> > down.

>
> Hold out over the top of the dashboard... A road sign doesn't take any
> effort, they are put in plain sight and are made so they can be computed
> without taking time to read. A text pager takes considerably more
> attention to read and respond to.


We aren't talking a text pager here, we are talking text messaging on a
cell phone. It is an entirely different thing due to the small number of
keys involved while allows for one handed operation.

Pete C.
  #35  
Old March 21st 05, 01:48 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"C.H." wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:03:39 +0000, Pete C. wrote:
>
> ['nothing can happen to me']
>
> Studies have shown time and again that the risk of being in a fatal
> collision while on the cellphone is about as high as if you were driving
> under the influence of .1% BAC and that reaction times and decision
> making are impaired just as if you were drunk.
>
> If you seriously think this doesn't apply to you you are not responsible
> enough to drive a car.
>
> Chris


Once again you are generalizing. Some people can't walk and chew gum at
the same time as the saying goes. Just because some number of people are
not capable of a particular task does not in any way mean that all
people are not capable of it.

I *know* that this does not apply to me, and I *am* a very responsible
driver. I insure that I am always aware of what is going on around me on
the road, not just what is in front of me.

There is a very large difference between under the influence of a
drug/chemical which you do not have control over, and talking on the
phone which you have 100% control over.

Pete C.
  #36  
Old March 21st 05, 01:51 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Magnulus wrote:
>
> They will never ban cell phones in cars though. Too manny well-heeled
> executives yacking on phones.
>
> I really dislike my dad yacking on his cell phone when he drives. Sure,
> he has a hands free setup, but still, he's debating multi-million dollar
> contracts and arguing with people all. And yet when I have a conversation
> with him while driving, sometimes he's like "can't you see I'm trying to
> drive?" Well, Ok, I guess the cell phone is "less" distracting? I don't
> think so. What's happened is the cell phone has totally swallowed up his
> attention, whereas a conversation perhaps begs it to be pulled away?
>
> So, I'm all in favor of banning cell phones altogether in cars, I just
> don't think it will happen.


Again this is a self control issue, not an inherent danger. Some people
do not have the self control to have a conversation safely while driving
and some do.

Pete C.
  #37  
Old March 21st 05, 02:14 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Magnulus wrote:
>
> "JP White" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > True 99.999% of the time. It's the 0.001% that will kill you (or worse
> > someone else).
> >

>
> I think that's it. Any activity that might require you to take time off
> the road for more than a glance is risky. I really like air conditioner
> knobs and radio dials or big buttons. I don't actually have to look at
> them to change the channel or adjust the air conditioner. Some of these new
> cars have GPS displays, touch screen air conditioner controls and radio
> controls- all well and good but no tactile feedback and they require taking
> your eyes off the road. And the worst offender? Center-mounted
> speedometers. Whatever happened to all those cool heads up displays we were
> promised years ago?


You just noted the same thing that I noted previously, that someone who
is proficient at text messaging does not have to take their attention
off the road to enter a message. It requires no more attention that
adjusting that AC or radio knob you mentioned.

Last I knew there were several cars the had heads up displays available.
I think part of the reason there aren't more, besides the cost factor,
is their limited value in this application. In a fighter jet there is a
lot of dynamic information that the pilot needs to be able to read and
track constantly while flying.

In a car there are really only three things the the driver needs to be
aware of - speed, fuel, and any warning lights. These three items do not
require a full view to monitor, they can be adequately monitored in your
peripheral vision. The orientation of the speedometer and fuel gauge
needles can be readily observed without looking directly at them, all
that is required is to be at least somewhat familiar with the vehicle so
you know the that 65 is at the one o'clock position for example. Warning
lights can be readily seen if they come on.

>
> I remember reading an "ad" for electronic stability control. I happen to
> think this feature is a good thing to have in a car, but I digress. OTOH,
> in the ad they are talking about a mother driving quickly with her baby down
> a rainy country road, she takes her eyes off the road and one hand to mess
> with the kid, and at the last minute she has to swerve to avoid hitting a
> truck- but she's alive thanks to ESC, she didn't skid and hit the tree.
> Well, the articles fails to mention that maybe if the woman was not fooling
> with the kid, was not driving too fast for conditions (rain, messing with
> her child), maybe she wouldn't have needed ESC in the first place.


Perhaps we need an ad that pulls back to show the car that she pushes
out of the lane and into the path of the oncoming truck while she is
fussing with the kid, and the people killed as a result.

We need to focus on the fact that driver inattention is the problem
here, not cell phones or kids or makeup, etc. Operator responsibility,
blame the inattentive operator, not an inanimate object (or kid).

This is a much larger overall problem in society, we are always looking
to blame inanimate objects or groups and absolve people of personal
responsibility for their actions.

Such BS as:

People kill other people because of guns - BS people kill other people
because *they* want to kill other people and have been doing so since
long before guns were invented.

Johnny only used drugs because of peer pressure- BS Johnny used drugs
because *he* decided to use drugs.

Mary rolled her SUV off a cliff because they are unsafe vehicles - BS
Mary rolled her SUV off a cliff because *she* is (was) and unskilled
driver who did not understand the capabilities and limits of the
vehicle.

The list goes on and on...

Pete C.
  #38  
Old March 21st 05, 02:17 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Allen Seth Dunn wrote:
>
> "JP White" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Pete C. wrote:
> >> Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal
> >> vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme
> >> concentration? This is not a race track at 180 mph folks, there is
> >> indeed extra time to multi task - as long as you keep your eyes on the
> >> road.

> >
> > True 99.999% of the time. It's the 0.001% that will kill you (or worse
> > someone else).
> >
> > I let the cell phone ring off the hook while driving and return the call
> > when appropriate. Why let it ring if I won't answer? Just so I know to
> > check it later. If it rings 2-3 times in five minutes, then it must be
> > urgent, so I find somewhere safe to return the call.
> >
> > Any idea how many feet per second you travel at 70Mph? The slightest
> > distraction can make the difference between a safe stop and a shunt.

>
> For what it's worth, at 70 MPH, a person travels 102 ft, 8 inches per second
> at 70 MPH. The equation: 70 miles/hour * (5280 ft/1 mile) * (1 hour/60
> minutes) * (1 minute/60 seconds). Thanks for asking that as I really needed
> the brain exercise (just to remember the actual format for doing that, not
> doing the actual calculation which I put into a graphing calculator to do).
>
> >
> > Count yourself lucky to be alive. BTW what make/model and color is your
> > car? I need to make a mental note.
> >
> > JP
> >
> > --
> > JP White
> >


Yes, and since your vision in most cases is quite a few times that 102'
8" figure you have the necessary information in one view to cover the
next several seconds. In each case I've noted, the key is in keeping
your view on the road and not looking down in your lap, or around in the
back seat.

Pete C.
  #39  
Old March 21st 05, 02:27 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brent P wrote:
>
> In article >, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal
> > vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme
> > concentration? This is not a race track at 180 mph folks, there is
> > indeed extra time to multi task - as long as you keep your eyes on the
> > road.

>
> You drive in the nevada desert? Where I drive, there isn't any time to
> multitask at any speed. I use all my attention to track every vehicle
> around me. Not just drive so I don't hit anything or can react, but
> actually track vehicles in front of me and behind me. Predict their
> future moves. Predict which lane will get me past the next blockage, etc
> and so forth.


No, I don't drive in the desert. I also track all vehicles around me,
all sides and make extensive use of my mirrors. I know that the lane
beside me is clear for the lane change before I turn to look, but I
still double check. Perhaps the difference is that this tracking does
not require all of my attention. Different people have different
multitasking abilities, and to suggest that because a task requires all
of your attention the same task must also require all of my attention is
absurd.

>
> > And no, I never let the phone distract me any more than a conversation
> > with someone in the passenger seat. I *always* keep my eyes on the road
> > ahead, *and* pay attention to what's going on in my mirrors. A lot of
> > people these days seem to forget that they even have mirrors. If
> > something requires additional attention I drop the phone just as I would
> > stop talking to a passenger.

>
> I doubt you put in anywhere close to the amount of attention I do to the
> task if you are also doing something other than driving.


No, apparently I don't since I'm apparently more capable of
multitasking.

Ever notice a musician (no I'm not a musician) playing separate parts
with left and right hands, perhaps piano or drums? This is a learned
skill, when you first start you have great difficulty multitasking like
that.

Ever notice one of those people that gives you the feeling that they are
acutely aware of everything around them even though they are having a
perfectly ordinary conversation? That because they are aware of
everything, they have learned to be highly observant while multitasking.

>
> > The same with text messaging, it is no more distracting than checking
> > the speedometer, fuel gauge or radio station in your peripheral vision.

>
> Really? I had one of those text pagers... I got page when I was driving
> once. I decided the distraction of fetching it, and reading it was
> unsatisfactory. I didn't look at them any more until I was stopped at a
> red signal. responding would have been a nightmare.


Again we're talking about text messaging on a cell phone which is a
small keypad with a small number of buttons and can be operated single
handed. The text pagers where the have a tiny "full" keyboard are an
entirely different thing.

Pete C.
  #40  
Old March 21st 05, 02:33 PM
Pete C.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Allen Seth Dunn wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, 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.

> >
> > Haven't you been arguing against practically everything that the majority
> > of r.a.d regulars believe in? Things like keep right except to pass, 85th
> > percentile speed limits, etc and so forth? I may be mistaken, but I
> > think that was you, right?
> >
> > In any case, that boredom, that feeling they can do other things while
> > driving, from phone calls to eating lunch comes from the idiotcy of
> > lowest common demonator driving in the USA. Low speed limits, no lane
> > displine, etc and so forth. When I did my drive the speed-limit
> > experiments to prove how out of touch the speed limits were I became so
> > bored while driving, I wanted a TV to watch or a computer to use. That's
> > what happens when driving is dumbed down.
> >
> > People get bored. Some compensate in other ways, by driving faster and
> > using traffic a series of problems to solve. Finding better ways around,
> > etc and so forth.This is good, because it demands paying attention to
> > the road and the conditions in fine detail. Some compensate in other
> > ways that are negative. Such as by taking risks, cutting people off,
> > passing on shoulders, and just generally being reckless. Others yet just
> > decide to watch TV, read the paper and talk on the phone.

>
> This is why billboards are a good idea IMHO. It gives people "eye candy" to
> help them break the monotony of long, boring roads (primarily interstates,
> at least in the Northeast), while keeping people's focus close enough to the
> road. Which makes me wonder if there's ever been a study to look into if
> seeing varied colors helps the eyes and help a person keep focused. It seems
> to me that seeing different colors than what is typically on long, boring
> interstates, through the use of billboards, might actually be beneficial as
> it almost seems to recharge my eyes and help keep them focused. Sorry about
> the digression :-)
>
> >
> > Since there is no lane displine, the system such that no matter what
> > you do the other guy has to avoid you, there are no consquences to reading
> > the paper or cutting people off. Thusly no consquences to driving
> > distracted until actually hitting something.
> >
> >
> >


Where did you find long boring interstates in the northeast? The lack of
good interstates is one of the biggest problems in the northeast. There
are only two roads in the NE that I can think of that might come close -
the Mass Tpk. and I91 north of the MA border. I84 and I95 are both
obstacle courses.

Pete C.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why not methanol Don Stauffer in Minneapolis Technology 213 March 30th 05 10:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.