 |
 | 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 2005Bus + Cell Phone = Dead Pedestrian
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html SAN DIEGO -- Sheriff's investigators say a bus driver who hit and killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was making a personal call on his cell phone. The accident happened at the intersection of 9th Street and Imperial Beach Boulevard last Tuesday. Eva Smart, 85, was within a few feet of the curb in a crosswalk when a municipal bus rounded the corner and hit her. Smart died in the hospital of multiple injuries. Smart was walking home from an outing with her daughter when the accident occurred. Family members left flowers at the curb where Smart was killed, with a note reading, "Mama, we love you so very much." Witnesses said the driver, Jesus Villaneuva, was talking on his cell phone when the accident occurred. Villaneuva, 60, has worked for the transit system for 12 years. While it is not illegal to talk on cell phones while driving in California, San Diego municipal bus drivers are prohibited from using cell phones to make personal calls. Calls are only allowed in the case of emergencies. Officials say they are seeing more and more cases where cell phones threaten public safety. "You see your everyday driver driving with cell phones. Other drivers and pedestrians need to be aware that they are not paying attention," said Franco Del Rosario, of the San Diego Sheriff's Department. "We get complaints about it all the time. Swerving in and out of traffic, not stopping for stop signs." Villaneuva's case is being referred to the district attorney for possible prosecution, NBC 7/39 reported. He has been placed on administrative leave. > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > SAN DIEGO -- Sheriff's investigators say a bus driver who hit and > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was > making a personal call on his cell phone. How do they know the reason he was distracted was his cell phone? It's an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind of illogic in all sorts of arguments: All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man Obviously wrong. >> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Obviously wrong. Sally's tie isn't distracting.  Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. >>> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sally's tie isn't distracting. What if that's all she's wearing? >>>> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What if that's all she's wearing? I'd probably crash a bus too. :o) Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. >> It's an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind >> of illogic in all sorts of arguments: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Sally's tie isn't distracting. Don't quit your day job, funny man. > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Obviously wrong. Left out of the article but on some televised reports is that the driver first told police he was distracted by the phone, then later claimed he wasn't using it. That claim was disputed by witnesses and electronic records. But the important part, and I'll repeat it, is that the driver reportedly told police at one point that he believed the distraction of the phone caused the accident. Dave > > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > claimed he wasn't using it. That claim was disputed by witnesses and > electronic records. That certainly is an important part of the story that was left out. >>http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind > of illogic in all sorts of arguments: If he was using is mobile phone, then he wasn't paying full attention to the task at hand. The task that he wasn't properly paying attention to was maneuvering a ~10 tonne piece of machinery full of people through a urban environment. Pretty dangerous if you ask me. If I were ever on a bus and the driver started making mobile phone calls, I'd get off. > All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man > > Obviously wrong. Maybe, but not far off! >> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Obviously wrong. Well gee, maybe they found out that he was doing two things - talking on the phone and driving. > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It's an illogical leap to come to that conclusion, and we see this kind > of illogic in all sorts of arguments: Au contraire. It's actually very logical. When driving in heavy traffic and negotiating say a complicated junction, I'll even ask passengers to be quiet. Conversations don't allow proper concentration on the driving. Graham > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > All men wear ties -> Sally is wearing a tie -> Sally is a man Cell phones cause distraction -> The driver was on his cell phone -> The driver was distracted by his cell phone. >http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >possible prosecution, NBC 7/39 reported. He has been placed on >administrative leave. Goddam - that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever but i bet he doesn't do a day. We are a nation of criminal coddlers. > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. >This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever sh.t. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you. Except, I seem to believe this should be tried as murder unless that is not possible. >> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks >>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. >>This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever > >sh.t. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you. That's ok. Shows i'm knocking some sense into that thick skull of yours. > >> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks > >>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's ok. Shows i'm knocking some sense into that thick skull of > yours. You are one of the few trolls who admits you're a deadly criminal (41 in a school zone) then makes their rare good point. This bus driver does belong in jail, and judging by the community outrage probably will serve time. I'm on federal grand jury duty this month, and if he came before me he'd be facing a trial for sure from what I know of the incident. Dave > This bus driver does belong in jail, and judging by the community > outrage probably will serve time. I'm on federal grand jury duty this > month, and if he came before me he'd be facing a trial for sure from > what I know of the incident. > > Dave Trouble is lots of people, maybe most people, drive while talking on a cell phone. And they're gonna be loath to lock up one of their own. Bet the guy's lawyer tries for an all-female jury. >>> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks >>>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That's ok. Shows i'm knocking some sense into that thick skull of >yours. No, it shows that even a broken clock is right twice a day. SignatureBill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE: > That's ok. Shows i'm knocking some sense into that thick skull of > yours. Judy, you are so f.cking idiotic, you couldn't knock sense into a person's skull even if a surgeon removed the bone and other protective material first, positioned the hammer for you and drew your arm back to get the swing started, you tick turd. Now why go back to bartlo's barnyard and hump some chickens! > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > material first, positioned the hammer for you and drew your arm back to > get the swing started, you tick turd. Tick turd? You give Aunt Judy *way* too much credit. :-D > Now why go back to bartlo's barnyard and hump some chickens! Even though Joey might explode in a rage, he won't do anything except run back to mommy. > >> that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks > >>drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's ok. Shows i'm knocking some sense into that thick skull of > yours. Heh heh; since when have you had any sense? > > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks > >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. > >This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever > > sh.t. I feel so dirty for agreeing with you. Except, I seem to > believe this should be tried as murder unless that is not possible. Doesn't a murder charge require evidence of intent ? This can only qualify as manslaughter. Graham > > > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks > > >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doesn't a murder charge require evidence of intent ? Depends on the state. 9 states have a felony murder law: if the death occurs in the commission of a felony - including felony reckless driving - it doesn't require intent. > This can only qualify as manslaughter. People have been charged under the felony murder statute for deaths that occurred when they weren't even present. >> > > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks >> > >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >occurs in the commission of a felony - including felony reckless driving - >it doesn't require intent. Using a cell phone while driving is felony reckless driving? SignatureBill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com >>> > > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks >>> > >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Using a cell phone while driving is felony reckless driving? Depends on what you have to do to use it, and what you're driving. It's not a CB where you don't even have to look at it to get your party on the other end, and when you're driving a bus, m.o. is that you need 100% of your mind focused on doing your job. Doing something non-vital such as calling someone on a cell phone is a significant enough distraction in _cars_ for some people. On a bus, yet? No question, unless it's a dire emergency and the bus just can't be stopped for some reason, the cell phone needs to stay out of the driver's hand. Justm ho, oc. I wouldn't, on the other hand, have a problem with a bus driver using a hands-free model, the kind that he didn't even have to look at to answer or dial. -- L8r, Uncle Buck _o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O= Those first to step up and say, "Now is not the time for placing blame" ... ...are quite often to blame.... _o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O=~_o-O= >Depends on the state. 9 states have a felony murder law: if the death >occurs in the commission of a felony - including felony reckless driving - >it doesn't require intent. PA has a felony murder law, but it is limited to _specific_ felonies. This, as far as I know, is typical of such laws. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks >> >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Doesn't a murder charge require evidence of intent ? Not sure, but it should include obvious neglect. >This can only qualify as manslaughter. I hope you are wrong. > >> > that really makes me mad. Bad enough when regular folks > >> >drive while on a CP but for a bus driver to do it is 10 times worse. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I hope you are wrong. I checked it out. It can only be manslaughter. Death caused by neglect or reckless behaviour falls into the manslaughter category. Graham > >http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > > >SAN DIEGO -- Sheriff's investigators say a bus driver who hit and > >killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was > >making a personal call on his cell phone. People need to think about phones this way: When you are talking on the damn thing, it creates a sort of mental cocoon around you, where you are just about shut off from everything around you. (if you ever approached someone who is talking on the phone, you've seen this effect in action). This is especialy true when using the handset, but happens with speakerphones and headsets too. Now, is it wise to drive a multi-ton machine that can kill in an instant even at low speeds while in this cocooned state? BTW: Every day, I see drivers of large sedans and SUVs yakking on the phone while driving around Downtown L.A. on streets that have heavy foot traffic! > >The accident happened at the intersection of 9th Street and Imperial > >Beach Boulevard last Tuesday. Eva Smart, 85, was within a few feet of [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever > but i bet he doesn't do a day. We are a nation of criminal coddlers. > BTW: Every day, I see drivers of large sedans and SUVs yakking on the > phone while driving around Downtown L.A. on streets that have heavy > foot traffic! This sounds like evidence that cell phone usage is *not* the problem it's portrayed to be. If the practice is so pervasive and it were so unsafe, then we'd be hearing about a large surge in the number of pedestrian deaths and injuries in downtown LA due directly to this. >> BTW: Every day, I see drivers of large sedans and SUVs yakking on the >>phone while driving around Downtown L.A. on streets that have heavy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unsafe, then we'd be hearing about a large surge in the number of > pedestrian deaths and injuries in downtown LA due directly to this. There is an increase in complaints by pedestrians against stupid drivers in LA. catchin the bus is dngerous over here the problem is not usin the cell phone while driving the problem is using the phone just while being vulnerable in street not cars but people you gotta keep look out im terrorized >This sounds like evidence that cell phone usage is *not* the problem >it's portrayed to be. If the practice is so pervasive and it were so >unsafe, then we'd be hearing about a large surge in the number of >pedestrian deaths and injuries in downtown LA due directly to this. We have *worse*- fscked-up traffic 'cause the folks on the phone don't move anywhere near as quickly as they should. Any time I'm behind some jackass on the phone, he's moving slowly, or braking all the damn time. -Kenny SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 He's a City employee. He broke a City law that led to the death of another human being. It seems logical to me that 2nd degree murder should be the charge > >http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > This monster should be convicted of manslaughter and locked up forever > but i bet he doesn't do a day. We are a nation of criminal coddlers. As usual, you're wrong. Transit bus operators are held to a HIGHER standard. First, his job is toast. Second, he is far more likely to face crminal charges because, as a professional, he damn well should have known better than to be talking on the phone. So negligent homocide and wreckless driving await him in the near future. I drove a transit bus while writing a book. Drivers lose their jobs for collisions you would never be considered at fault for. The panels look to see if the accident was at all preventible IF THE BUS OPERATOR HAD USED EVERY DEFENSIVE DRIVING SKILL. For instance, if the other vehicle hits the front half of the bus, it is usually PRESUMED that the bus operator could have avoided the accident. Using a cell phone would be a fireable offense even without the accident. > wreckless driving Shouldn't that be every driver's goal? > > wreckless driving > > Shouldn't that be every driver's goal? Plus a hate crime is involved, to wit: > > negligent homocide and wreckless driving > I drove a transit bus while writing a book. Isn't that even worse than using a cell phone? ;) > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > SAN DIEGO -- Sheriff's investigators say a bus driver who hit and > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was > making a personal call on his cell phone. Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. > Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial > solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the > cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls > and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. So if you are jogging, your cell phone doesn't ring? -Dave >>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the >>cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls >>and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. > So if you are jogging, your cell phone doesn't ring? Correct. I'm sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour without a phone call if needed. If they're that desparate to use their cell phone, then they can buy a treadmill. > >>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial > >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > without a phone call if needed. If they're that desparate to use their > cell phone, then they can buy a treadmill. What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? As of now, espescially in a car, there's no problem whatsoever with a person answering a phone or making a call. Good intent, terrible idea. Try again. Dave >> >>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial >> >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Dave Mr. Khokar does not seem to understand that the rationale for "mobile phones" is that they be usable while moving. I was the programs manager for network programs in a company that pioneered packet-based technology for military, and later, civilian phones. The fact that there are stupid users does not detract from the efficacy of the technology. I also have an Air Medal for commanding units while talking on four radios while flying in a helicopter. Maybe the average person should pull over to the side of the road to talk on the phone. This has nothing to do with the technology. It has everything to do with the limitations of the person. I've driven across the US more that twenty times, and have a GPS system, hooked to a DeLorme mapping system on a laptop computer, and GMA cellphone, and, when travelling with friends, VHF intervehicular communications. And I also listened to the radio. No problem. The fact that there are stupid users has nothing to do with the technology. Darwin's Law seems to apply. > I've driven across the US more that twenty times, and have a GPS system, > hooked to a DeLorme mapping system on a laptop computer, and GMA cellphone, > and, when travelling with friends, VHF intervehicular communications. Ah yes, but when I drive 85 to 90 mph on a rural interstate devoting my full attention to the driving task, I'm the one who's targetted by police, but you're the one who is far more likely to not react in time to a situation to avoid a crash. Are you one of those people who believes that it's safe to text message while driving as well? >> I've driven across the US more that twenty times, and have a GPS system, >> hooked to a DeLorme mapping system on a laptop computer, and GMA [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > situation to avoid a crash. Are you one of those people who believes that > it's safe to text message while driving as well? You don't know my reaction times and you are blaming a piece of equipment for human incapability. Some people can drive while talking on multiple radios, and some people can't. The problem is that (in the US) we do not have graduated licenses, like they do in Europe. In Germany, if one does not pass the Autobahn portion, one may not drive on the Autobahn. And yes I lived there for seven years, drove an E-Type Jaguar, and returned from my marriage in Basel driving an average of 130mph from Munich to Frankfurt. This was not unusual. I also drove an XK-140 Jaguar at Laguna Seca (amateur) and while there were no radios at that time, Michael Schumacher now drives a Ferrari in Formula One and talks on the radio at the same time. On should not blame cell phone technology for human failure. Some people can actually talk and drive at the same time. Some people can't. Most police talk and drive at the same time. If a person can not drive and talk at the same time, maybe their license should have that restriction, like eyeglasses. By the way I always pull over to talk on my cellphone, even though it's got a microphone and speaker, but I am now 67 years old and recognize my limitations. My wife said that I could look for my retirement Ferrari (an old one - like me) and I know that I will never drive it faster than the posted speed limit. But talk on the radio while driving? Piece of cake. Only one radio? As far as text-messaging, it is simple to memorize a keyboard. I have a dash-mounted laptop computer and can select keys while never taking my eyes off the road - although I rarely do this - because the display is mostly automated. As an aside, my third son, just out of being a teen-ager, text-messages, with the phone held at his side. He never has to look at it. Anyway, this is too much time to spend on this subject, so I leave. One thinks what one thinks. I'm beginning to think that if one says one cannot drive and talk on the radio it is that person that has a problem, and is projecting their problem onto others, who do not have that problem. > You don't know my reaction times and you are blaming a piece of equipment > for human incapability. Your reaction time is greater then you're processing audio and visual input that's not related to driving. A number of studies have demonstrated that to generally be the case. I certainly can drive on the highway or surface streets while talking on a cell phone, but I certainly won't claim that I'd be as ready to react to certain situations or anticipate certain scenarios as quickly as I would when not using a cell phone. It also doesn't mean I wouldn't do better if I wasn't having a cellphone conversation. I probably could drive with the same ability while my BAC is 0.10. That doesn't mean that I couldn't do better when I'm sober. I certainly could drive after not having slept for 30 hours, but that doesn't mean I couldn't do better when I'm wide awake. > You don't know my reaction times and you are blaming a piece of equipment Your reactions *per se* are irrelevant. What's relevant -- and factual -- is that they are slower and less acccurate when you're yacking on a celphone while driving. >> You don't know my reaction times and you are blaming a piece of equipment > > Your reactions *per se* are irrelevant. > > What's relevant -- and factual -- is that they are slower and less > acccurate when you're yacking on a celphone while driving. You are wrong. Probably your reactions are slower, and you project your limitations to others, and think that everyone should be restricted to the lowest common denominator. My reaction times have been tested on the track and in combat. You, and anyone else who talks about driving and talking on the radio, as a limitation, have the problem. You are limited, and think that others are. Read the book, "The Right Stuff." The fact that you cut everything that I had to say, says something also. Did you notice that Michael Schumacher "yaks" on the radio while driving a Ferrari Formula One? Did you notice that I monitored and talked on four radios in helicopters and Jeeps in combat? No, you missed that. You think that everybody is the same, like you. Guess what? Everybody is not the same. John Glenn picked Ted Williams to be his wing man in Korea because Williams had the best eye-hand coordination ever seen in the USMC. Guess what? They both flew fighters and talked on the radio at the same time. Guess what? A bunch of us have driven things and talked on the radio at the same time. I'm guessing you have not done that. Read what miniscule piece of my post that you left. You are blaming a piece of equipment for human limitations. Your limitations. You, and everyone else, that have not been tested, should have a limitation on your driving license to preclude driving and talking on a radio. > My reaction times have been tested on the track > and in combat. You, and anyone else who talks about driving and talking on > the radio, as a limitation, have the problem. You are limited, and think > that others are. So are you saying you cannot react any faster even if you're *not* multitasking? >> My reaction times have been tested on the track and in combat. You, and >> anyone else who talks about driving and talking on the radio, as a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So are you saying you cannot react any faster even if you're *not* > multitasking? No. I did not say that. You have another problem. It is called the English language. Since you are posting from West Virginia University, you might want to look up the human factors studies done at the Ohio State University. Believe it or not, there is a "Bell Curve" of people who, at the upper end, can drive (or fly) and answer a radio (more than one radio) and at the lower end can not drive a car (and cannot fly) and listen to a siren on the AM dial without pulling over. After I left the field I went into operations research / systems analysis and have some twelve published studies (all the communications side) and retired, for the second time, as the Programs Manager for Network Programs for Rockwell. Anyway, tell me what study shows that *all* people cannot drive a car and talk on a radio. Don't bother. I have to take another trip (back to DFW for the hurricane) and won't be back for two weeks maybe. > "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No. I did not say that. But that is the point. I could multitask to large degree and still meet the lowest common demonator requirements for driving. I choose not to because I believe driving to be a task in and of itself that should be done as well as one can. >>> My reaction times have been tested on the track and in combat. You, >>> and anyone else who talks about driving and talking on the radio, as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. I did not say that. You may as well have, for you implied it with your claim that your reaction times aren't slowed by talking on a celphone. > You have another problem. Ah, yes, of course. You're fine, it's the *rest* of the world that's got problems. Most of us were disabused of that particular conceit by the fourth grade. >>>My reaction times have been tested on the track and in combat. You, and >>>anyone else who talks about driving and talking on the radio, as a >>>limitation, have the problem. You are limited, and think that others >>>are. >>So are you saying you cannot react any faster even if you're *not* >>multitasking? > No. I did not say that. > > You have another problem. It is called the English language. You're the one who has the problem. It's called logical reasoning. Claim 1: You're a good driver Claim 2: Your driving ability is not affected when having a cell phone conversation Conclusion 1: Your driving ability is the same regardless of whether you're engaged in a cell phone conversation or devoting your full attention to the driving task. >>> You don't know my reaction times and you are blaming a piece of equipment >> Your reactions *per se* are irrelevant. What's relevant -- and factual >> -- is that they are slower and less acccurate when you're yacking on a >> celphone while driving. > You are wrong. A lot of people think they can drive perfectly fine when drunk, too. >>>> You don't know my reaction times and you are blaming a piece of >>>> equipment [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A lot of people think they can drive perfectly fine when drunk, too. It's not just the reaction times,it's the diversion of your attention to begin with. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > The fact that there are stupid users does not detract from the > efficacy of the technology. True and irrelevant. > I also have an Air Medal for commanding units while talking on four > radios while flying in a helicopter. Grand and irrelevant. > Maybe the average person should pull over to the side of the road to > talk on the phone. This has nothing to do with the technology. It has > everything to do with the limitations of the person. True. So what? I don't recall anyone impugning the technology. Celphones don't maliciously jump up and force themselves into drivers' hands. Of course it's about the limitations of the person. Again: So what? > Darwin's Law seems to apply. Well, *no*, because celphone-using drivers hurt and kill _other people_. > >> >>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial > >> >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Darwin's Law seems to apply. So you're another one who thinks he is a superior driver? Clue. Damn near everyone behind a wheel thinks the same thing and the fact is that damn few of them are right. A cell phone does not belong in the hand of a moving -driver-. You want to use it, pull over. Harry K >>>>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial >>>>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the >>>>cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls >>>>and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. > What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? It's amazing what those groups of people did even 15 years ago. >>>>> Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a >>>>> partial solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's amazing what those groups of people did even 15 years ago. Yeah: they survived brief periods of telephone unavailability, and we were all better off for it. > >>>>> Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a > >>>>> partial solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yeah: they survived brief periods of telephone unavailability, and we were > all better off for it. Yeah, since it sure encourages people to use mass transit when it takes longer and they're completely out of touch the entire time. Golly, those evil cell phones have done all kinds of great things for the economy, but since you have no good use for one you might as well condem them all. Dave >>>> What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? >>> It's amazing what those groups of people did even 15 years ago. >> Yeah: they survived brief periods of telephone unavailability, and we were >> all better off for it. > Yeah, since it sure encourages people to use mass transit when it takes > longer and they're completely out of touch the entire time. If celphones don't work in cars, *AND* they don't work in buses/trains, then there is no incentive either way. > Golly, those evil cell phones have done all kinds of great things for > the economy You'll have to back up this assertion with facts. > What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? They can jolly well cope with being unreachable by phone for a few minutes to a few hours, and spare the rest of us their overloud halves of conversations. FTR, I'm also very much in favour of celphone jammers in theatres, quiet restaurants, concert halls and operahouses and houses of worship. > > What about passengers of cars, busses, trains, etc? > > They can jolly well cope with being unreachable by phone for a few minutes > to a few hours, and spare the rest of us their overloud halves of > conversations. Or you can stay home and quit bitching about people talking. Do you get mad if two people are on a bus together talking? Or is it that some people decide to talk really loudly cause they're on a phone, and it's those people that you dislike? You know, the same people who loudly ask the person next to them, "Did I tell you about my hemmroihds?" I have a much bigger problem with people who don't shower daily than I do with passengers using a cell phone on any form of transit. > FTR, I'm also very much in favour of celphone jammers in theatres, > quiet restaurants, concert halls and operahouses and houses of worship. Those are entirely different settings. Most people don't take their work to a movie, church or a concert with them. In addition, if a private entity chooses to ban cell phones on their property it's not my issue, but banning them from working at over 5 mph (espescially on publically funded mass transit) is just a brain damaged idea. Dave >> They can jolly well cope with being unreachable by phone for a few >> minutes to a few hours, and spare the rest of us their overloud halves >> of conversations. > > Do you get mad if two people are on a bus together talking? Of course not. > Or is it > that some people decide to talk really loudly cause they're on a phone, Ding! Very good. You understood on the second try. > I have a much bigger problem with people who don't shower daily than I > do with passengers using a cell phone on any form of transit. Good for you. >> FTR, I'm also very much in favour of celphone jammers in theatres, >> quiet restaurants, concert halls and operahouses and houses of worship. > > Those are entirely different settings. Quite. > Most people don't take their work to a movie, church or a concert with > them. Lots of people take their turned-on celphones, though. > banning them from working at over 5 mph (espescially on publically > funded mass transit) is just a brain damaged idea. You'll have to do a lot better than simply saying "it's a brain damaged idea" to achieve anything but being laughed at. > >>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial > >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Correct. I'm sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour > without a phone call if needed. So a passenger can't call ahead for directions??? -Dave >>Correct. I'm sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour >>without a phone call if needed. > So a passenger can't call ahead for directions??? I figure out my directions before I leave. In the event I still can't find my destination, I pull into a parking lot or equivalent and make a phone call. > >>Correct. I'm sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour > >>without a phone call if needed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > find my destination, I pull into a parking lot or equivalent and make a > phone call. > >>Correct. I'm sure that most people can go for 30 minutes to an hour > >>without a phone call if needed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > find my destination, I pull into a parking lot or equivalent and make a > phone call. So you never drive with passengers, I rarely do and understand. But many times, if I do have a passenger, I hand them my phone and ask them to make a call for me. Is that so bad? Why shouldn't my passenger be able to (as one did tonight) call Dick's Last Resort and ask where they're located exactly? I knew they were in downtown San Diego, but without knowing which streets it can be difficult to choose a parking spot. I rarely use a cell phone while driving, if so it's usually to say, "Hey (insert name here), can I call you back in ## minutes?" If it's important I might let them ask a few simple questions, but if they ask me for something too technical/complicated, they get a call back. I have to wonder about studies that generically claim that cell phones make you drive like a drunk. I've gotten drunk before, and I know that on a cell phone unless someone's giving me physics problems I'm a lot better off than I'd be after 4 beers in an hour. Most of these studies might be focusing on what happens to a driver when dealing with a complex situation over the phone, as opposed to the average cell-while-driving call of, "Which lot should I park in?" I don't chat on my cell phone like I would with a passenger in the car, but it doesn't mean it's not a useful tool sometimes that can be used much safer than my CD player. Dave > So you never drive with passengers, I rarely do and understand. But > many times, if I do have a passenger, I hand them my phone and ask them > to make a call for me. Is that so bad? It's not a necessity. Planning ahead of time reaps great rewards in time and money saved. > Why shouldn't my passenger be able to (as one did tonight) call Dick's > Last Resort and ask where they're located exactly? I knew they were in > downtown San Diego, but without knowing which streets it can be > difficult to choose a parking spot. That's why you call them ahead of time and get directions. You can also make use of any one of several online driving direction services. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to drive around in circles while my passenger tries to get directions and then tailor them to your changing location. > Most of these studies > might be focusing on what happens to a driver when dealing with a > complex situation over the phone, as opposed to the average > cell-while-driving call of, "Which lot should I park in?" When talking on a cell phone, one tends not to check the situation behind and beside them. They don't keep a mental image of the traffic situation around them. They see things ahead of them but they don't really try to determine, through experience, what's likely to happen next (e.g., is that vehicle planning to change lanes). > I don't chat on my cell phone like I would with a passenger in the car, > but it doesn't mean it's not a useful tool sometimes that can be used > much safer than my CD player. A cd player requires no active user input other than switching it on (press a button or turn a knob) and occasionally changing tracks (press another button). I don't try changing cds while driving. > > So you never drive with passengers, I rarely do and understand. But > > many times, if I do have a passenger, I hand them my phone and ask them > > to make a call for me. Is that so bad? > > It's not a necessity. Planning ahead of time reaps great rewards in > time and money saved. You've never had plans change, a meeting get cancelled, a customer not show up? You've never spontaniously decided to do something other than what you'd planned? > > Why shouldn't my passenger be able to (as one did tonight) call Dick's > > Last Resort and ask where they're located exactly? I knew they were in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's why you call them ahead of time and get directions. You can also > make use of any one of several online driving direction services. We changed our mind as to where we were going when the first place was closed. I started down the 163, and while heading to the general neighborhood on the freeway my passenger called to find out exactly which corner they were at so were weren't walking in circles. > I don't know about you, but I'm not going to drive around in circles > while my passenger tries to get directions and then tailor them to your > changing location. How far do you go while asking, "What's your address?" As I pointed out in the previous post, I know about where they were but since downtown is over 100 square blocks, it seemed stupid to park, find out where they were, move the car and pay for parking twice. > > Most of these studies > > might be focusing on what happens to a driver when dealing with a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > really try to determine, through experience, what's likely to happen > next (e.g., is that vehicle planning to change lanes). So ban the use of using them while driving if you want, but why can't a passenger use one? Why must they be disabled on trains and busses, other than some people complain about it. > > I don't chat on my cell phone like I would with a passenger in the car, > > but it doesn't mean it's not a useful tool sometimes that can be used [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (press a button or turn a knob) and occasionally changing tracks (press > another button). I don't try changing cds while driving. My CD player has buttons to control the treble, the bass, the bass boost, has AM and FM radio too & all the associated controls, a clock to set, etc. Tons of ways to be distracted. You choose to be responsible with your CD player, and I choose to be responsible with my cell phone. If you're going to ban letting cell phones work over 5 mph, you better ban CD players too since people can be just as distracted by them. No passengers in cars either, since who knows could happen then. Dave > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls > and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. The solution is to ticket drivers for shitty driving no matter the cause. Let's start putting the blame on the driver instead of the inanimate object. On 21 Sep 2005 15:52:09 -0700, Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> said the following in rec.autos.driving... > The solution is to ticket drivers for shitty driving no matter the > cause. Let's start putting the blame on the driver instead of the > inanimate object. Sounds like the most rational idea I have heard here in quite a while. SignaturePaul. Self appointed unofficial overseer of kooks and trolls in rec.autos.driving > > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls > and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. Why 5 or 6 mph? Is that the 85th percentile? Anyway, why can't I talk on my cell phone when I'm riding a cab? >>Though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case, there's a partial >>solution to the problem of cell phone distraction. Make it so that the >>cell phone is not capable of receiving or dialing (except for 911) calls >>and will cut off existing calls if its speed is greater than 5 or 6 mph. > Why 5 or 6 mph? Because I still believe that people should be able to walk while using their cellphones. For instance, I may need to go from one room to another while on the phone to get a piece of paper so that I can write down some information. > Is that the 85th percentile? Eighty-fifth percentile of what? > Anyway, why can't I talk on my cell phone when I'm riding a cab? Because it'll disturb the cab driver. > > Anyway, why can't I talk on my cell phone when I'm riding a cab? > > Because it'll disturb the cab driver. Let's ban talk radio too! Dave > http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4999480/detail.html > > SAN DIEGO -- Sheriff's investigators say a bus driver who hit and > killed a pedestrian in the South Bay was distracted because he was > making a personal call on his cell phone. Why did the pedestrian step in front of a bus? SQUISH! |
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.