 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2005So much for hands-free cellphones
AP: Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport utility vehicle, crashed through a gauard rail...and plunged into the Willametter River on Saturday. Later in the article it states she was using a headset and and the woman told detectives that she was talking on her cell phone. A river diver said that "Once I got there she was very disoriented and didn't quite know what had happened". Probably was still yakking as the car hit the river. Harry K > AP: > Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Harry K <goad> Why did they feel it was necessary to point out that she was driving an SUV? What role did that play in the accident? </goad> > "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote >> AP: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > SUV? What role did that play in the accident? > </goad> Hey, it's *PORTLAND, OR* for crying out loud; the PC capital of the US. BTW, there was additional info yesterday and this morning: she skidded on the metal bridge deck (drawbridge?), then overcorrected and went off the bridge when she regained traction upon returning to the pavement surface. Floyd Do you think she quit talking or carried on the conversation as usual? > Do you think she quit talking or carried on the conversation as usual? I'd like to have a recording of the conversation as she went over!  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> Do you think she quit talking or carried on the conversation as usual? > > I'd like to have a recording of the conversation as she went over! According to the newspaper article, she was discussing dinner plans with her sister and screamed into the phone as her car went over. Then the phone went dead. >> AP: >> Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >What role did that play in the accident? ></goad> Here's a better question: why does nobody ever complain when OTHER types of vehicles are mentioned in news articles? Case in point: the story I posted earlier about the 17-year-old boy who mowed down a family of six with ihs Cadillac. How come nobody cares if you gratuitously mention the vehicle was a maroon Cadillac, but all the SUV owners scream bloody murder when you mention the FACT that the woman was driving an SUV? SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:30:03 -0800, Scott en Aztlán <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote: >>> AP: >>> Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >SUV owners scream bloody murder when you mention the FACT that the >woman was driving an SUV? Maybe because no one harps on the Caddy, while a lot harp on the SUV. Ya think? Maybe? SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" "Scott en Aztlán" wrote: > Here's a better question: why does nobody ever complain when OTHER > types of vehicles are mentioned in news articles? Case in point: the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > SUV owners scream bloody murder when you mention the FACT that the > woman was driving an SUV? Even paranoids have enemies. After you've seen the 10,000th anti-SUV article you start to scream at them all. I don't own a Cadillac (probably never will). I have owned 4 SUVs of varying sizes. When Arianna Huffington creates an anti-Cadillac (or anti luxobarge) website like http://www.ariannaonline.com/, I'll quit complaing about the constant SUV attacks in the media. When NBC does a three part series on the evils of driving a Cadillac (http://www.suv.com/feature/NBCSUVBASHING/), I'll quit complaining. Try this http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anti-SUV+website and then Try This http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=anti-Cadillac+website (9,910 hits to 40 hits) Or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=I+hate+SUVs vs http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=I+hate+Cadillacs (188,000 hits vs 34,300 hits) Ed On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:04:51 -0500, MidnightDad , one of an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters said the following in rec.autos.driving... > <goad> > Why did they feel it was necessary to point out that she was driving an SUV? > What role did that play in the accident? > </goad> Maybe because a regular sized automobile would not have plowed through the guard rail to begin with and then it would have been just another couple of lines about an accident on a bridge... > On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 13:04:51 -0500, MidnightDad , >> <goad> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the guard rail to begin with and then it would have been just another > couple of lines about an accident on a bridge... I've seen the TV coverage - it's one of those old 4" pipe guardrails popular back in the 60's/70's before the onset of Jersey Barriers. A Subaru Justy would have gone through it. Floyd > AP: > Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Probably was still yakking as the car hit the river. Once again, you folks with no reasoning skills are confusing correlation with causation. Just because she was talking on a cell phone doesn't mean the cell phone caused the accident. I bet she was wearing shoes too. Does that mean that shoes cause accidents? Of course not. >> AP: >> Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > phone caused the accident. I bet she was wearing shoes too. Does that > mean that shoes cause accidents? Of course not. The facts of this case indicate that her lack of attention to the road due to the phone call caused this accident. She was not paying attention to the road conditions and the metal grate on the bridge and lost control of her car. Other people on the bridge took heed of the conditions and didn't crash. > > Just because she was talking on a cell phone doesn't mean the cell > > phone caused the accident. I bet she was wearing shoes too. Does that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > car. Other people on the bridge took heed of the conditions and didn't > crash. Where, in the OP post indicate that her lack of attention caused the accident? Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport utility vehicle, crashed through a gauard rail...and plunged into the Willametter River on Saturday. It doesn't say ANYTHING about why she lost control. >> > Just because she was talking on a cell phone doesn't mean the cell >> > phone caused the accident. I bet she was wearing shoes too. Does [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It doesn't say ANYTHING about why she lost control. The OP didn't post the whole story. I watched an interview of her on the Today show this morning. Her description of the events indicates that she wasn't paying attention because of the cell phone call. > The OP didn't post the whole story. I watched an interview of her on the > Today show this morning. Her description of the events indicates that she > wasn't paying attention because of the cell phone call. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/28/earlyshow/main683445.shtml She says nothing of the sort: Melissa says she was on a bridge that heads downtown and was speaking to her sister on a cell phone but had her hands-free set on. "Both of my hands were on the wheel and I was very aware of my surroundings. "There's a metal grate over this bridge. I think it was just a combination of maybe wind and a lot of water. As soon as I went onto the metal grate, my car started to slide like it was on ice, and it started to slide into oncoming traffic, which made me way over-correct, trying to steer away from the oncoming car. As soon as my car hit the pavement again, it shot me off like a slingshot. My tires were already turned. So it just shot me off. It happened so quickly." >> The OP didn't post the whole story. I watched an interview of her on > the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > pavement again, it shot me off like a slingshot. My tires were already > turned. So it just shot me off. It happened so quickly." In other words, she did everything right for crossing wet bridge grating, right up to the point she drove her car off the bridge. What, the railing just up and bit her car without warning? >> > Just because she was talking on a cell phone doesn't mean the cell >> > phone caused the accident. I bet she was wearing shoes too. Does [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > It doesn't say ANYTHING about why she lost control. Because she was using a CP,she was NOT in complete control of her vehicle. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Well, of course the cell phone didn't cause the accident. But inattention to the business of driving did. And why was she not attentive? Talking on the handsfree phone. > Well, of course the cell phone didn't cause the accident. But > inattention to the business of driving did. You cannot assume as to WHY she lost control. It's your assumption that inattention caused it. Since she said she was talking on the phone it is a pretty good guess that her full attention was not being given to the fancy driving technique needed to cross a bridge. As we all know it is not the act of using a cell phone that causes accidents...it is the shift of attention from the road to holding a conversation over a phone. They hould be banned from moving cars. > Since she said she was talking on the phone it is a pretty good guess > that her full attention was not being given to the fancy driving > technique needed to cross a bridge. Oh REALLY??? That's NOT what she said: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/28/earlyshow/main683445.shtml "There's a metal grate over this bridge. I think it was just a combination of maybe wind and a lot of water. As soon as I went onto the metal grate, my car started to slide like it was on ice, and it started to slide into oncoming traffic, which made me way over-correct, trying to steer away from the oncoming car. As soon as my car hit the pavement again, it shot me off like a slingshot. My tires were already turned. So it just shot me off. It happened so quickly." \ Once again you people with some bug up your butt about cell phones attribute every little thing, and maybe at times even make sh.t up in an attempt to demonize an inanimate object. >> Since she said she was talking on the phone it is a pretty good guess >> that her full attention was not being given to the fancy driving [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > attribute every little thing, and maybe at times even make sh.t up in > an attempt to demonize an inanimate object. Obviously nobody is claiming that the cell phone caused the accident. The facts in this case strongly indicate that her attention was on the cell phone conversation rather than on the difficult road conditions. Had there been no cell phone involved, chance are there would have been no accident. If she were killed (or killed others), would you be so quick to dismiss her cell phone conversation as a benign behavior? >> Since she said she was talking on the phone it is a pretty good guess >> that her full attention was not being given to the fancy driving [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > attribute every little thing, and maybe at times even make sh.t up in > an attempt to demonize an inanimate object. Larry, I've driven over that bridge thousands of times, in everything from shoe leather to bicycle to motorcycle (after midnight, in a rainstorm with a strong crosswind) to jellybean car to my SUV. Never had any trouble. Thousands of people cross the bridge every day without crashing. She swears she was paying attention but she lost control anyway. Almost the only way you can skid on that grating is if you try to change lanes while going too fast. > > "There's a metal grate over this bridge. I think it was just a > > combination of maybe wind and a lot of water. As soon as I went onto [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you can skid on that grating is if you try to change lanes while going too > fast. Thousands of people talk on their cell phone without crashing too. What's your point? How do you know her cell phone attributed to the accident any more than her possibly trying to change lanes on the grating? >> > "There's a metal grate over this bridge. I think it was just a >> > combination of maybe wind and a lot of water. As soon as I went [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > accident any more than her possibly trying to change lanes on the > grating? It's the only theory that covers all the facts. She lost control of her vehicle (which was otherwise operating perfectly) while crossing wet steel grating (steel becomes slippery when wet, which the sign reminds drivers as a courtesy). Trying to change lanes on a bridge grating will get you a ticket (or worse) if you're caught. If over 1000 cars cross that grating every hour and she's the only one that got into an accident, is it the grating's fault? Or her inattention and carelessness? You want the state should stop warning of approaching road hazards? The object is not being demonized, but it's irresponsible use certainly is. As with guys shaving and ladies applying makeup behind the wheel, the use of cell phones while driving ranks right along with reading an in-car gps, looking for that lost CD, reading a map or doing something other than giving full attention to driving. See...I'm not demonizing any of the objects...just to fools who try to multitask while aiming their 3,500 pound missile rolling along at 65 mph. > > Well, of course the cell phone didn't cause the accident. But > > inattention to the business of driving did. > > You cannot assume as to WHY she lost control. It's your assumption > that inattention caused it. OK, let's be charitable and attribute it to her stupidity. Satisfied? 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 >> AP: >> Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > phone caused the accident. I bet she was wearing shoes too. Does that > mean that shoes cause accidents? Of course not. It contributed to the accident.She did not have complete control over her vehicle because of the CP. Wearing shoes or anything else does not require diverting part of one's attention to the business at hand;DRIVING.If she had had a lipstick in her hand,we would consider that as contributing to the "accident". (actually negligent driving) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > AP: > Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Probably was still yakking as the car hit the river. Lucky she didn't hit another car and kill an innocent person. And too bad she didn't kill herself. People that talk on cell phones while driving are psychopaths with no concern for others. This monster should be locked up forever. She'll kill someone eventually. <plonk> > And too bad she didn't kill herself. Too bad? I'm sure if that was one of your family or friends you would think different. People make mistakes. She doesn't deserve to die just because she talks on a cell phone while driving. >> And too bad she didn't kill herself. > > Too bad? I'm sure if that was one of your family or friends you would > think different. People make mistakes. She doesn't deserve to die just > because she talks on a cell phone while driving. The next time,she may kill someone else. Other than herself. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > AP: > Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Probably was still yakking as the car hit the river. Perhaps you're familiar with the old saying "correlation does not necessarily imply causality." The key word there is "necessarily." Common sense tells us that the woman's cell phone conversation was probably a contributing cause to this accident. Certainly, the accident did not "cause" the phone conversation to occur and I doubt a credible argument could be made that the driver's wearing shoes contributed to the accident. Shawn Hearn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote in news:srhi- 626775.00233229032005@news.giganews.com: >> AP: >> Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > argument could be made that the driver's wearing shoes contributed to > the accident. I note there was no mention of any involvement by another vehicle,it was a single-vehicle "accident". Whether it was veering and overcorrection,or edging off the road onto the shoulder(and overcorrection),pothole,debrid avoidance,does not matter;she did not have control of her vehicle *while she was on the phone*. Her ATTENTION was on her call,not on her driving(where it was supposed to be). Thus the phone WAS the -cause- of the crash. (no "accident",but negligent driving) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >I note there was no mention of any involvement by another vehicle,it was a >single-vehicle "accident". >Whether it was veering and overcorrection,or edging off the road onto the >shoulder(and overcorrection),pothole,debrid avoidance,does not matter; >she >did not have control of her vehicle *while she was on the phone*. >Her ATTENTION was on her call,not on her driving(where it was supposed to >be). >Thus the phone WAS the -cause- of the crash. There's no "thus" about that. The two activities were simultaneous, yes. That the second caused the crash is not determined, nor obvious. >(no "accident",but negligent driving) You're quick to judge. I'll wager you don't like being on the other end of such. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>I note there was no mention of any involvement by another vehicle,it >>was a single-vehicle "accident". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You're quick to judge. I'll wager you don't like being on the other > end of such. I suspect she did NOT SEE the sign saying to NOT CHANGE LANES on the bridge because she was putting her attention on her call(tunnel-vision),and not on her driving. Whatever,though,her **inattention to DRIVING** was the cause of the crash. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net And no driver of a "regular car" who wasn't on a cell phone has ever run off the road..... >AP: >Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Harry K > And no driver of a "regular car" who wasn't on a cell phone has ever > run off the road..... They have, but the probability that a non-cellphone driver causes an accident is only a tiny fraction of the probability of a cellphone driver. Maybe you are not smart enough to understand probabilities, so I will rephrase it so even you can get it: Being on a cellphone while driving is approximately as dangerous as .1% BAC. Chris > > And no driver of a "regular car" who wasn't on a cell phone has ever > > run off the road..... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Chris Correct. And .1% is over the legal limit for a DUI conviction in most states. I would wager that that the naysayers in this thread are CP while driving users themselves. Harry K >> And no driver of a "regular car" who wasn't on a cell phone has ever >> run off the road..... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Chris Who did the studies that determined that? SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > AP: > Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport > utility vehicle, crashed through a gauard rail...and plunged into the > Willametter River on Saturday. I see a lot of people quick to focus on the cell phone and SUV aspects, but what about the true cause of the accident? Metal on the bridge? I see the state has "fixed" it by posting a warning sign. I have to laugh whenever I see the idiocy of something like this. Often I see a bump in the road and the state puts a BUMP sign in front of it. I just picture the proud roadworkers walking away after pounding the sign in congratulating themselves on a job well done. If I were the lady, I'd be going after the state. >> AP: >> Portland: A driver talking on a cell phone lost control of her sport [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Metal on the bridge? Thousands of people cross that bridge every day, in all kinds of weather and driving conditions. And you think it was the bridge's fault? > I see the state has "fixed" it by posting a warning sign. I have to laugh > whenever I see the idiocy of something like this. Often I see a bump in > the road and the state puts a BUMP sign in front of it. I just picture > the proud roadworkers walking away after pounding the sign in > congratulating themselves on a job well done. Everyone sees that sign and the icon of a skidding car, but few notice the fine print. Under the huge print that says "DO NOT CHANGE LANES ON STEEL GRATING", there is much smaller print that says "but this doesn't apply to you so don't worry about it". > If I were the lady, I'd be going after the state. I hope so too. I could use a good laugh. "Your honor, the bridge jumped up and bit my car--it wasn't my fault!" >> Metal on the bridge? > > Thousands of people cross that bridge every day, in all kinds of > weather and driving conditions. And you think it was the bridge's > fault? The faulty bridge design was certainly much more of a factor than the cell phone. >> I see the state has "fixed" it by posting a warning sign. I have to >> laugh whenever I see the idiocy of something like this. Often I see [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > LANES ON STEEL GRATING", there is much smaller print that says "but > this doesn't apply to you so don't worry about it". You are the funny one. >> If I were the lady, I'd be going after the state. > > I hope so too. I could use a good laugh. "Your honor, the bridge > jumped up and bit my car--it wasn't my fault!" "Your honor, the state acknowledges a design defect in the bridge in the form of a huge sign." >>> Metal on the bridge? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The faulty bridge design was certainly much more of a factor than the cell > phone. Do you have any information on that bridge? Location, design, age, traffic flow, dimensions, anything that would lead to that conclusion? >>> I see the state has "fixed" it by posting a warning sign. I have to >>> laugh whenever I see the idiocy of something like this. Often I see [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > You are the funny one. Hehe... >>> If I were the lady, I'd be going after the state. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Your honor, the state acknowledges a design defect in the bridge in the > form of a huge sign." "The state also acknowledges and admits to all liability to keeping secret the identity of Elvis Presley, who is in fact alive, well, and posing as a student in the local university diesel engineering program in preparation for his big comeback. And as long as we're coming clean, Your Honor, the state dog did in fact eat the typed briefs pertaining to plaintiff's cause of action. We move for a mistrial based on our illness and fatigue. The state is sick and tired of frivolous lawsuits." > Everyone sees that sign and the icon of a skidding car, but few > notice the fine print. Under the huge print that says "DO NOT > CHANGE LANES ON STEEL GRATING", there is much smaller print that > says "but this doesn't apply to you so don't worry about it". For us foreigners.. how long is the steel grating? "Old Wolf" <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> wrote >> Everyone sees that sign and the icon of a skidding car, but few >> notice the fine print. Under the huge print that says "DO NOT >> CHANGE LANES ON STEEL GRATING", there is much smaller print that >> says "but this doesn't apply to you so don't worry about it". > > For us foreigners.. how long is the steel grating? Perhaps Skip will know more precisely (I believe I've been on that bridge but can't remember details), but from my experience on similar drawbridges, they usually have two spans, each probably 100' in length. Some are bigger - the 1st Ave S. bridge in Seattle is more like 2x200'. Tires have a large impact on how well a car drives on them; typical performance tires are horrible. Motorcyclists hate them. Floyd >> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 100' in length. Some are bigger - the 1st Ave S. bridge in Seattle > is more like 2x200'. I crossed that bridge tonight in the rain and wind (just like that woman but I wasn't talking on my cp) on my way to dinner with a friend. It's a six lane bridge; 2x100 looked about right. If you want, I can look up the exact dimentions. Anyway, the highway department had patched up the damaged railing. It's a long ways down from that point. > Tires have a large impact on how well a car drives on them; typical > performance tires are horrible. Motorcyclists hate them. I crossed that bridge many times on my motorcycle (BMW R80) in every weather except ice. I was careful and never had a problem, even on the grating. Another, older bridge in Portland has just had its grating replaced with a new plastic polymer compound. It's lighter, easier to repair, and meant to maintain more traction than steel grating. But it's just a matter of time before some fool thinks this new polymer gives him cat-like traction and smashes up his car proving how cool he is. Or her. > Harry K wrote: >> AP: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the proud roadworkers walking away after pounding the sign in > congratulating themselves on a job well done. Considering that the bridge has been there 40 years or so, and AFAIK this is the first person to go into the water due to skidding on the grating, it's not likely that the state will lose. Floyd |
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.