If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Joe" > wrote in message ... >> Just about every Mercedes >> All BMW's >> All Ferrari's >> All Maserati's (hell, lets just say all Italian sports cars) >> Pontiac GTO (2004 - onward) (Had to fit Holden in there somewhere) >> etc etc etc > > You would drive a Ferrari in winter? > > A Fezzazz? In winter? Any time!!! Especially here - Q: what is "snow"? :-) Steve Magee |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:
> How would the phone conversation differ from merely conversing with > someone in your vehicle, unless the handset had something to do with it? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0129080944.htm http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,59371,00.html etc. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, pawn, loathesome, credible wrote: > >>How would the phone conversation differ from merely conversing with >>someone in your vehicle, unless the handset had something to do with it? > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0129080944.htm > http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,59371,00.html > The second article makes no mention at all of normal passenger conversation compared to handsfree cell conversation, so it's not relevant to my question. The first article makes this reference: "The earlier study also found there was no impairment of drivers who either conversed with a passenger or who listened to the radio or to books on tape." And it makes it with no analysis or reasoning whatsoever. Without the report, neither I, nor you (although feel free to let me know if you've read the actual report) can assess the validity of their claim, or statistical relevance of their data. Certainly a logical person would want to ask the question, did their comparison of regular passenger conversation meet the same standard as the handsfree cell conversation, namely, were the participants "conversing with another student who was instructed to keep a balance between making the driver talk and listen"? Maybe, but I'll never know with the articles you cited. Or maybe you can present a logical argument of your own that discriminates in any way whatsoever between a passenger conversation and a handsfree cell conversation. > etc. No, please, continue. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:56:54 -0800, Harry K wrote:
> Listen to a police scanner some time. Notice how almost all transmissions > are a matter of seconds? Notice how almost all cell phone uses are a > matter of minutes?? See any difference? Yeah, but they're also typing on their laptops and doing a bunch of other things at once. I've had police cars try to share my lane with me when they're typing. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:
> >>How would the phone conversation differ from merely conversing with > >>someone in your vehicle, unless the handset had something to do with > >>it? > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0129080944.htm > > http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,59371,00.html > "The earlier study also found there was no impairment of drivers who > either conversed with a passenger or who listened to the radio or to > books on tape." > > And it makes it with no analysis or reasoning whatsoever. It's a news article, not a study abstract or text. It is assumed (correctly) that those who are interested will read the actual study. One does not obtain scientific knowledge from Wired Magazine. There are many resources available for reading studies on the matter. The National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute maintain outstandingly complete and well-indexed libraries of research, and both are easily searchable online. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > It's a news article, not a study abstract or text. It is assumed > (correctly) that those who are interested will read the actual study. One > does not obtain scientific knowledge from Wired Magazine. > > There are many resources available for reading studies on the matter. The > National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board and the > University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute maintain > outstandingly complete and well-indexed libraries of research, and both > are easily searchable online. > In other words: 1. No, you have not read the report and have no scientific knowledge with which to make the statement "it's known and robustly shown that the distraction is from the phone conversation, not the hold-in-the-hand phoneset." and. 2. No, you cannot formulate your own logical argument why there would be any difference between an in-car conversation and a handsfree cell phone conversation. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:
> > It's a news article, not a study abstract or text. It is assumed > > (correctly) that those who are interested will read the actual study. > > One does not obtain scientific knowledge from Wired Magazine. There > > are many resources available for reading studies on the matter. The > > National Academy of Sciences Transportation Research Board and the > > University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute maintain > > outstandingly complete and well-indexed libraries of research, and > > both are easily searchable online. > In other words: 1. No, you have not read the report Wrong. I've read the report. I just don't feel obligated to do *your* homework for you. If you want to read the report, go and do it and be successful with it. If you don't want to read the report, feel free to remain ignorant. But until you *have* read the report, your opinions and guesses and preferences have very little weight. DS |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> >>In other words: 1. No, you have not read the report > > > Wrong. I've read the report. I think you're full of ****. But I'll look for the report and let you know just how full of **** you really are. Upon further review, the article you provided (you know, not the one that was totally irrelevant) actually beefed up the original press release from the NSC to actually add "conversed with a passenger" to the original sentence "and that cell phone conversations create much higher levels of driver distractions than listening to the radio or audio books" which made no mention of in-car conversation at all. > I just don't feel obligated to do *your* > homework for you. LOL, you had time to google up a couple of unrelated news articles, that you now say "One does not obtain scientific knowledge from", but no time to answer the very simple question I asked. Simple that is, for someone who claims to have read a study or report or any other source of information in existence which presents evidence that a handsfree cell phone conversation is more dangerous than an equivalent in-car conversation. > If you want to read the report, go and do it and be > successful with it. If you don't want to read the report, feel free to > remain ignorant. So which report that you claim you read was it? The report cited in the article discussed above, or the "earlier" study cited in that same article, or the Swedish study in the second article you posted? All three? Which one made any mention at all of a comparison between in-car conversation and handsfree cell conversation? > > But until you *have* read the report, your opinions and guesses and > preferences have very little weight. > True enough, I'll be sure to report back and trounce you some more after I track it down. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > > > > I have, however, seen ice so slick that the rear tires will spin lazily > (in an automatic) while a car is waiting stopped at a light. So it > might be possible for the front wheels to drag a little when starting > off. Of course that falls under the category of "probably should have > stayed home today..." > > nate > Used to have a 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass that did this with annoying regularity. Trying to keep the rear drums properly adjusted on that car was more difficult than just about anything else automotive that I've ever done. It was also the poster child for poor snow performance. Jeff |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
pawn, loathesome, credible wrote:
> > True enough, I'll be sure to report back and trounce you some more after > I track it down. > Just checking back in with you, didn't want to leave you hanging. The NSC report is only available for purchase online, so I guess you either subscribe to Injury Insights and read the Feb/March 2003 issue, or were interested enough to purchase the study, so I applaud your diligence in this important matter. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't lie about reading the study, or your claim that there was an analysis of cell vs passenger conversation. There were plenty of other studies and articles available through a quick search, like the one below, that shows that in car conversation is the leading cause of driver distraction, contrary to the ridiculous and possibly fabricated statement in the article you provided "...there was no impairment of drivers who either conversed with a passenger or who listened to the radio or to books on tape.". No impairment, that's a pretty bold statement. Anyway, in either case, I'll leave it at that: you have provided no logical reasoning behind your implied claim that there's a difference between equivalent in car and handsfree cell conversations. I am sticking with common sense which yields there being no difference whatsoever. http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/jan05/295724.asp "In what were described as preliminary estimates, the study found that the most common distraction - 29% of the cases - was an outside person, object or event. Using a cell phone was ranked eighth as a source of distraction, at 1.5%." "In a follow-up study, the researchers put cameras for one week in the vehicles of 70 volunteers in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The researchers announced in August 2003 that the most common distraction was conversing, as drivers talked with passengers 15% of the time but talked on a cell only 1% of the time. The follow-up study did not attempt to find which distractions are most likely to lead to crashes." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|