 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / September 2006Californians: Better Start Shopping for a Hands-Free Kit...
http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 New Bill Would Restrict Cellphone Use by Drivers By Nancy Vogel, Times Staff Writer September 1, 2006, 6:04 AM PDT Bills that received final legislative approval and were sent to the governor Thursday included a measure to ban drivers from talking on cellphones unless they use a headset that frees their hands. Lawmakers had introduced similar measures in each of the last five years to no avail, but Schwarzenegger recently expressed support, saying, "We must make sure that people don't use phones, because it not only endangers them but it endangers everyone else out there." SB 1613 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) would make driving while holding a cellphone an infraction starting in 2008. > http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > saying, "We must make sure that people don't use phones, because it > not only endangers them but it endangers everyone else out there." I wonder if the governator believes cell phone use while driving is as dangerous as driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle license? I'd love to hear his thoughts on that issue. -Dave > I wonder if the governator believes cell phone use while driving is as > dangerous as driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle license? I'd love to > hear his thoughts on that issue. -Dave The ruling class doesn't have to worry about either. >> I wonder if the governator believes cell phone use while driving is as >> dangerous as driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle license? I'd love >> to >> hear his thoughts on that issue. -Dave > > The ruling class doesn't have to worry about either. Yup, I heard that the charges were dropped. Big surprise, there. -Dave > I wonder if the governator believes cell phone use while driving is as > dangerous as driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle license? I'd love to > hear his thoughts on that issue. -Dave Having a skill and having a license are not necessarily the same thing. Is there a proposal to license cellphone use while driving?  SignatureCheers, Bev - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Some people are like Slinkies... Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs. >> I wonder if the governator believes cell phone use while driving is as >> dangerous as driving a motorcycle without a motorcycle license? I'd love >> to hear his thoughts on that issue. -Dave > > Having a skill and having a license are not necessarily the same thing. Is > there a proposal to license cellphone use while driving? Bev - That one went right over your head. The governator who is pushing this legislation that will do NOTHING to increase safety on the roads was recently involved in a traffic collision, and cited for driving his motorcycle without a license. OF COURSE the charge was later dropped. Any one of us would have had to pay the fine, but the ultra-rich governator skates on the charge. So apparently the gov feels it's a bad thing to talk on a cell phone, but OK to drive without a license. -Dave >> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Mike T. wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> the roads was recently involved in a traffic collision, and cited >> for driving his motorcycle without a license. No it didn't. I know all that. >> OF COURSE the charge was later dropped. Any one of us would have >> had to pay the fine, but the ultra-rich governator skates on the >> charge. Common sense indicates that he can ride a motorcycle. I've seen him do it in movies, haven't you? I don't worry about people breaking laws made purely to exercise one more form of control over the populace. >> So apparently the gov feels it's a bad thing to talk on a cell >> phone, but OK to drive without a license. I understand that. My comment still stands. Governments suck at making rules. I rode a motorcycle before licenses were required. Getting one did NOT improve my skill level. The riding test: "Ride up to the end of the driveway shifting as many times as you can and come back." I also know (from my single experience) that phoning while driving diminishes the attention available for driving and I don't think that hands-freedom makes a significant difference. Why not ban them outright? You can't have a TV within sight of the driver, why should (s)he have a phone within hearing? Driving used to be good. It was a place where NOBODY could get at you for a while. It could be that way again... -- Cheers, Bev ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public." -- H.L. Mencken SignatureCheers, Bev *********************************************** "A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki The Real Bev wrote: <brevity snip> > I also know (from my single experience) that phoning while driving > diminishes the attention available for driving and I don't think that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Driving used to be good. It was a place where NOBODY could get at you > for a while. It could be that way again... Will you marry me...? ----- - gpsman > The Real Bev wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Will you marry me...? Wow, that was fast! Not fast enough, though... > - gpsman Magellan? Is that you? SignatureCheers, Bev ***************************************************************** "Why does everybody always forget the eigthth dwarf? Just because poor old Lumpy died of cancer doesn't mean he should be written out of history." -- RMassey >The Real Bev wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Will you marry me...? Now how is a slavish speed-limit observer like yourself going to get along with someone who thinks there's no problem riding without a license? It'll never work. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Common sense indicates that he can ride a motorcycle. I've seen him do > it in movies, haven't you? And I've seen Superman leap tall buildings in a single bound. Oh wait, I think that was his stunt double. What was the question again? > I don't worry about people breaking laws > made purely to exercise one more form of control over the populace. News flash, it's easy to kill someone on a motorcycle if you don't know what you are doing. There is a reason for the licensing procedure. That reason may be PARTLY to excercise one more form of control over the populace. But how would you feel if the governator squashed your child while doing something he was not licensed to do? > I understand that. My comment still stands. Governments suck at making > rules. I rode a motorcycle before licenses were required. Getting one > did NOT improve my skill level. The riding test: "Ride up to the end > of the driveway shifting as many times as you can and come back." Whoa. You might be surprised to discover that you could NOT pass a DMV road test on a motorcycle today. Not on the first try anyway. It's fricking tough. People average two years of trying in our state before they finally pass it. Note that they TRY to pass it for two years. I passed it first try after exactly 2 days of riding. But I had considerable related experience to draw upon. Even then, I felt very lucky to pass it on the first try. > I also know (from my single experience) that phoning while driving > diminishes the attention available for driving and I don't think that > hands-freedom makes a significant difference. Why not ban them > outright? You can't have a TV within sight of the driver, why should > (s)he have a phone within hearing? That much I can agree on. I don't think cell phone use while driving should be restricted at all. But if you're going to restrict it, don't do a half-assed job of it, ban it outright. -Dave >News flash, it's easy to kill someone on a motorcycle if you don't know what >you are doing. There is a reason for the licensing procedure. That reason >may be PARTLY to excercise one more form of control over the populace. But >how would you feel if the governator squashed your child while doing >something he was not licensed to do? I don't know about you, Dave, but I'd be a LOT happier if he squashed my child while licensed. Duh! SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Common sense indicates that he can ride a motorcycle. I've seen him do >> it in movies, haven't you? > > And I've seen Superman leap tall buildings in a single bound. Oh wait, I > think that was his stunt double. What was the question again? Some shots could have been faked but some were clearly real. >> I don't worry about people breaking laws >> made purely to exercise one more form of control over the populace. > > News flash, it's easy to kill someone on a motorcycle if you don't know what > you are doing. No sh.t. People in SUVs do it every day, or try to. What was the name of that football player that was bashed up by a left-turing idiot who "didn't see him"? A license confers neither expertise nor protection. > There is a reason for the licensing procedure. That reason > may be PARTLY to excercise one more form of control over the populace. But > how would you feel if the governator squashed your child while doing > something he was not licensed to do? No different from the way I'd feel if he had a license. Squashed is squashed. Only James Bond has a license to kill. >> I understand that. My comment still stands. Governments suck at making >> rules. I rode a motorcycle before licenses were required. Getting one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > test on a motorcycle today. Not on the first try anyway. It's fricking > tough. People average two years of trying in our state Not California? Then what? > before they finally > pass it. Note that they TRY to pass it for two years. I passed it first > try after exactly 2 days of riding. But I had considerable related > experience to draw upon. Even then, I felt very lucky to pass it on the > first try. A bit more detail please? I've been riding dirt and street for 38 years. >> I also know (from my single experience) that phoning while driving >> diminishes the attention available for driving and I don't think that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be restricted at all. But if you're going to restrict it, don't do a > half-assed job of it, ban it outright. -Dave SignatureCheers, Bev ================================================================= "A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses." -- C.M.Cipolla The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >You can't have a TV within sight of the driver, why should >(s)he have a phone within hearing? > >Driving used to be good. It was a place where NOBODY could get at you >for a while. It could be that way again... It's too late for that - Pandora's Box cannot be closed. Hands-free is the best we can realistically do at this point. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > I also know (from my single experience) that phoning while driving > diminishes the attention available for driving and I don't think > that hands-freedom makes a significant difference. Two weeks ago I bought a new cell phone. It has Bluetooth, so having an incredible knack for being telephoned while driving home from work as I do, I also purchased one of those Lt. Uhura- style cordless earpieces to go with it. That thing makes all the difference. Not having to hold a phone against my head removes all the distraction -- or at least, brings it down to the level of talking to someone in the car, which no one ever seems to have any issues with. Geoff Signature"Kentucky Freud Chicken ('It's motherfuckin' good!')" -- Anatoly Matlis >http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >SB 1613 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) would make driving while >holding a cellphone an infraction starting in 2008. More criminal coddling. It says it will be an infraction which is the lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Prolly have a fine of $25 as if that's gonna stop anyone. > >http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Prolly have a > fine of $25 as if that's gonna stop anyone. Ah well, sh.t happens. Jealous because you can't afford a cell phone, loser? wouldn't matter if you could; the only idiots who would call you would be your faggot bath house buddies. > >http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Prolly have a > fine of $25 as if that's gonna stop anyone. Well, its a start, anyways. Reform takes time, and its a continual progression, not a sudden discrete jump. >> >http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Well, its a start, anyways. Reform takes time, and its a continual >progression, not a sudden discrete jump. Oh don't gimme that slow as she goes crap. People have been phone-driving for over a decade now!!! > Oh don't gimme that slow as she goes crap. People have been > phone-driving for over a decade now!!! And it hasn't really caused any problems, now, has it? John Mara >> Oh don't gimme that slow as she goes crap. People have been >> phone-driving for over a decade now!!! > > And it hasn't really caused any problems, now, has it? Yes, cell phones cause problems. I've been hit (while stopped for a red light, no less) by a guy who had a cell phone jammed in his ear, and wasn't paying attention to traffic. SignaturePat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but vandals... > Yes, cell phones cause problems. I've been hit (while stopped for a red > light, no less) by a guy who had a cell phone jammed in his ear, and > wasn't paying attention to traffic. It depends on the person. I'm kinda in the middle. I try to avoid having a phone stuck to my ear when I'm driving, as that detracts from my attention to the road, as does trying to press buttons. I now have a phone with speaker- independent voice dial and I have a Bluetooth cordless handsfree, and it's great, I can keep my eyes on the road and my hands on the wheel at all times. I have "digit dial" so I can say "digit dial, 760-555-1212" to dial even numbers that aren't in my phonebook. But it is true that even with a handsfree, some people will have trouble concentrating. OTOH, others have good enough concentration that they can use a cell phone in almost any conditions without problems... SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room. >> Yes, cell phones cause problems. I've been hit (while stopped for a red >> light, no less) by a guy who had a cell phone jammed in his ear, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >concentrating. OTOH, others have good enough concentration that they can use >a cell phone in almost any conditions without problems... Tests have been run with drivers using cellphones that shows their peripheral vision narrows down to about half of what it usually is, and their perception and response times decrease as well. I've seen drivers with cellphones act oblivious to everything around them as long as it isn't directly in front of them. John Lansford, PE -- John's Shop of Wood http://wood.jlansford.net/ > Tests have been run with drivers using cellphones that shows their > peripheral vision narrows down to about half of what it usually is, Sure. I could see that happening when you have a phone blocking your peripheral vision on one side. Makes perfect sense. But what about a Bluetooth headset hanging from your ear? Mine doesn't wrap around my head and it isn't big enough to block the peripheral vision on my right sisde. > and their perception and response times decrease as well. I've seen > drivers with cellphones act oblivious to everything around them as > long as it isn't directly in front of them. As I said, depends on the driver. SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room. > More criminal coddling. It says it will be an infraction which is the > lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Prolly have a > fine of $25 as if that's gonna stop anyone. Actually the fine would be $20. Subsequent fines $50. John SignatureVon Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven >>http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Prolly have a >fine of $25 as if that's gonna stop anyone. It's more than you could pay, if they let you drive. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >an infraction [...] is the lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Oooohhhh!!!! I'm impressed! I bet you know the three branches of government, too... SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Oooohhhh!!!! I'm impressed! I bet you know the three branches of >government, too... You're really getting desperate, aren't you.? >>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> said in >>rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You're really getting desperate, aren't you.? So, Scott was right. Does the library there at your facility have books on US civics? SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" >>http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >lowest crime level - below felony and misdemeanor. Prolly have a >fine of $25 as if that's gonna stop anyone. It probably would stop some. Lotta people don't want to break the law, get caught, no matter what the fine. But I think I read that the problem isn't holding the cell phone - it's using it . That those with hand-free devices have just as many accidents. That it's the mental distraction which causes the problems. I bet listening to Rush Limbaugh also kills people. I mean, obviously it kills people, but I mean by car crashes, not by getting them to vote for war criminals. "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> said in rec.autos.driving: >But I think I read that the problem isn't holding the cell phone - >it's using it . That those with hand-free devices have just as many >accidents. Cite. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cite. Scott - What he says is absolutely correct. In the only scientific study done on this issue, it was found that holding a cell phone was no more dangerous than using a hands-free kit while driving. -Dave "Dave" <never@not.invalid> said in ca.driving: >> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >done on this issue, it was found that holding a cell phone was no more >dangerous than using a hands-free kit while driving. Read it again - that's NOT what he said. He said "those with hand-free devices have just as many accidents" which isn't the same thing at all. I've asked for accident statistics that back up that claim. I suspect I'll be waiting a LONG time... Scott en Aztlán <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >>> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> said in >>> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >which isn't the same thing at all. I've asked for accident statistics >that back up that claim. I suspect I'll be waiting a LONG time... The wait is over, the stats are in, and George is full of sh.t. :) http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellphone,0,7024620.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 >California Highway Patrol data from 2004 show police reports for 775 >accidents in which a driver at fault was using a hand-held cellphone. > >There were only 28 reports of accidents in which drivers using hands-free >phones were to blame. Preliminary data from last year show a similar pattern. What do you have to say now, George? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > The wait is over, the stats are in, and George is full of sh.t. :) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What do you have to say now, George? I'm not George, but there's some pretty critical data missing from that story. - geoff > The wait is over, the stats are in, and George is full of sh.t. :) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What do you have to say now, George? I don't know what George has to say, but I'd say those statistics prove that you are full of sh.t. Saying that there were fewer accidents in which drivers used hands-free phones is JUST like saying Most accidents happen close to home At best, it is meaningless. At worst, very misleading. Just about everybody who uses a cell phone while driving holds it in their hands. So you'd expect to see significantly fewer cell phone accidents related to hands-free cell phone use. But on top of that, it's easier to claim that you weren't using the cell phone if you are involved in an accident while using a hands-free device. So the hands-free device accident rate is likely way under-reported. -Dave "Dave" <never@not.invalid> said in rec.autos.driving: >I don't know what George has to say, but I'd say those statistics prove that >you are full of sh.t. How they could possibly prove ANYTHING about ME is not immediately obvious. Care to explain? >you'd expect to see significantly fewer cell phone accidents related to >hands-free cell phone use. So far you and the data agree. >But on top of that, it's easier to claim that >you weren't using the cell phone if you are involved in an accident while >using a hands-free device. Not at all. All it would take is a simple check of your phone records to establish the truth no matter which kind of equipment you were using. >So the hands-free device accident rate is likely way under-reported. My bet is that ALL cell-phone-related collisions are under-reported. How hard is it to toss your cell phone into your glovebox, briefcase, or purse before you get out of the car after the crash? Unless the cops investigate thoroughly, they won't even know you HAVE a cell phone, much less whether you were talking on it at the time of the collision. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > "Dave" <never@not.invalid> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How they could possibly prove ANYTHING about ME is not immediately > obvious. Care to explain? Certainly. You are full of sh.t for taking data that doesn't prove anything and claiming that it proves something. You're welcome. >>you'd expect to see significantly fewer cell phone accidents related to >>hands-free cell phone use. > > So far you and the data agree. Only if you mis-quote me. I said that I expect the DATA to show exactly what it does. But You're the one who implied that the data meant that hands-free kits were safer. The data actually means nothing. >>But on top of that, it's easier to claim that >>you weren't using the cell phone if you are involved in an accident while [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to establish the truth no matter which kind of equipment you were > using. Unless someone squeals on you (that fricking a.shole was yacking away on his cellphone right before he hit me!!!), the cops aren't going to pull your cell phone records. In fact, it's very unlikely to happen anyway unless the charges are up'ed to something requiring a court trial. How many traffic incidents result in a court trial? >>So the hands-free device accident rate is likely way under-reported. > > My bet is that ALL cell-phone-related collisions are under-reported. > How hard is it to toss your cell phone into your glovebox, briefcase, > or purse before you get out of the car after the crash? Well yes, probably all cell-phone-related collisions are under-reported. But again, it is the distraction of the telephone conversation that is the danger, as it takes your mind off the road. I'm totally against restrictions on cell-phone use while driving. HOWEVER, if states must limit cell-phone use, ban it outright. These states enacting hands-free legislation are accomplishing nothing at all. At least if cell phone use while driving is banned, that might make a difference for the small percentage of the population that can't walk and chew gum at the same time. That's what this issue is really about. There are a few idiots who spoil it for everybody, as usual. -Dave "Dave" <never@not.invalid> said in rec.autos.driving: >> "Dave" <never@not.invalid> said in rec.autos.driving: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Certainly. You are full of sh.t for taking data that doesn't prove anything >and claiming that it proves something. You're welcome. I'm not the one making the claim - the authors of the article I cited are. Perhaps you meant to say THEY are full of sh.t? >>>you'd expect to see significantly fewer cell phone accidents related to >>>hands-free cell phone use. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Only if you mis-quote me. I said that I expect the DATA to show exactly >what it does. Where did I mis-quote you? >But You're the one who implied that the data meant that >hands-free kits were safer. The data actually means nothing. Are you sure you're not just saying that because you don't like the obvious conclusion? :) >>>But on top of that, it's easier to claim that >>>you weren't using the cell phone if you are involved in an accident while [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >cellphone right before he hit me!!!), the cops aren't going to pull your >cell phone records. Exactly. So it stands to reason that ALL cell-phone-related collisions are under-reported. In order for accurate data to be collected, police investigators would have to check the phone records after EVERY collision. >>>So the hands-free device accident rate is likely way under-reported. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Well yes, probably all cell-phone-related collisions are under-reported. It seems we agree more than we disagree. So if one day the cops began checking cell phone records after every collision, would the data still be meaningless? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >So if one day the cops began checking cell phone records after every >collision, would the data still be meaningless? Yes, unless they could pin down the time of the accident sufficiently to avoid counting the "Honey, I wrecked the car" call as being the cause of the accident. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) said in rec.autos.driving: >>So if one day the cops began checking cell phone records after every >>collision, would the data still be meaningless? > >Yes, unless they could pin down the time of the accident sufficiently >to avoid counting the "Honey, I wrecked the car" call as being the >cause of the accident. Which brings us back to the original statement: there are no meaningful statistics that prove users of hands-free cellular phones have the same accident rate as hand-held cell phone users have, since accurate data is so difficult to collect. Ergo George is still wrong. :) SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >Scott en Aztlán <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >What do you have to say now, George? Interesting that it continues the usual double standard. Drivers of emergency vehicles, which would be the group where holding a phone would be the most dangerous, are exempt. It also exempted push-to-talk "phones" which was most likely the way they put in the other double standard, so the cops could continue to use their two way radiophones, again, the group where it would be most dangerous to be holding something is exempt. More legislative idiocy. > Interesting that it continues the usual double standard. Drivers of > emergency vehicles, which would be the group where holding a phone > would be the most dangerous, are exempt. This just in: life is unfair. Film at 11. Geoff Signature"Next time, grab it, put it in your mouth, and start humming the Battle Hymn Of the Republic. That should do the trick." -- mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu > >California Highway Patrol data from 2004 show police reports for 775 > >accidents in which a driver at fault was using a hand-held cellphone. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What do you have to say now, George? You're making the same logical error that someone else just made regarding crash statistics of speeding drivers. You've just pointed out that 3% of cellphone crashes involved hands-free units. But if only 1% of cellphone-in-car users have a handsfree kit, then this evidence would suggest that the hands-free kit increases the risk of a crash. >> "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@mooresciencehigh.edu> said in >> rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >done on this issue, it was found that holding a cell phone was no more >dangerous than using a hands-free kit while driving. -Dave The same study also failed to adequately distinguish between calls placed AFTER the accident and calls placed before it; they used times noted on the police report as compared to the time in the phone records. The phone records are quite precise... time noted on a police report, however, is not. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Bills that received final legislative approval and were sent to the > governor Thursday included a measure to ban drivers from talking on > cellphones unless they use a headset that frees their hands. Don't you guys have hands free kits that don't require headphones ? Graham Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >Don't you guys have hands free kits that don't require headphones ? Of course. My last car came with one as standard equipment. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! Just ban them altogether. Cars are transportation, not portable offices. Your job behind the wheel of a car is to drive. "Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> said in rec.autos.driving: > Just ban them altogether. > > Cars are transportation, not portable offices. Your job behind the wheel >of a car is to drive. Actually they can be mobile offices, as long as someone else is driving and you're sitting in the back seat behind a panel of soundproof privacy glass. SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! > Just ban them altogether. > > Cars are transportation, not portable offices. Your job behind the wheel >of a car is to drive. Ahh, jealousy. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. Horeshit. The NEJM concluded in an article several years ago that using a handsfree set has no positive effect on limiting cellphone related accidents. It's the cellphone *conversation* that is the distraction and the effect lingers for several minutes beyond termination of the conversation. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/336/7/453 >http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-cellban,0,7859186.story?coll=ktla-newsspecial3-1 > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >SB 1613 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) would make driving while >holding a cellphone an infraction starting in 2008. Typical gvt nannyism. Recent studies that were PROPERLY done, which is a rarity, show cell phone use is no worse a distraction then any number of other things people regularly do while they are driving. If our stupid gvt wanted to be consistent it should outlaw doing ANYTHING while driving, no listening to the radio, no eating, no brushing your teeth, no looking at maps, and of course, it would mean that for the POLICE they would not be able to use their radio or computer while driving - if they needed to use either they would pull over and stop first. But we know the hypocrite fuckheads in power will never see the hypocrisy of having cops routinely violating the same law they would be pulling people over for. Kinda like speeding, it's a terrible thing, unless a cop does it of course. Or shooting someone in the back, if a citizen does it they are screwed, if a cop does it who the hell cares. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.