 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / March 2005Why not methanol
Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of ethanol? The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made from much cheaper feed stock than ethanol. I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels themselves, rather than fossil fuels. How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about alternate energy? > Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in > Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about > alternate energy? It is simple really, the ethanol is much more enviroment friendly. It is not personally hazzardos like methanol is and a spill is just washed away, it is not corrosive to the internal vechicle parts like methanol is also. KB  SignatureThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice 460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on >>Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in >>Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > away, it is not corrosive to the internal vechicle parts like methanol is > also. KB Then why does everyone say we can't use ethanol higher than 10 or 15% in our cars? I thought it was because ethanol was corrosive to internal parts. Yeah, now that you mention it methanol is hard on paint- the tail of my race car verifies this. However, for my methanol powered model airplanes, we have fuel-proof paints. So I am assuming they could use such paints on cars. Good point about the hazard to people, though. My dad got really sick one time trying to siphon gas from a car and swallowed a mouthful, but he certainly did survive. If it had been methanol, he probably wouldn't have. Good thing he was siphoning it from his passenger car, not his race car, 'cause even way back then race cars were using methanol. Remember the fuel air ratio of alcohol is much different than gasoline. Even if the computer on an EFI car could make the needed adjustments you would needed bigger injectors maybe larger fuel pump and lines. Stan > >>Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in > >>Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > from his passenger car, not his race car, 'cause even way back then race > cars were using methanol. They already make E85 cars (they burn 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol. I assume the same pump, injectors, and fuel control could be modified to burn methanol okay. With a carb it is much easier. We drill jets out to 100% increase in area (41% bigger drill diameter). Fortunately, both ethanol and methanol burn well over a much wider range of mixture ratios than does gasoline. > Remember the fuel air ratio of alcohol is much different than gasoline. > Even if the computer on an EFI car could make the needed adjustments you > would needed bigger injectors maybe larger fuel pump and lines. > Stan trouble is, the taxes are levied by the gallon and the thing will burn about twice as much. sam > They already make E85 cars (they burn 15% gasoline, 85% ethanol. I > assume the same pump, injectors, and fuel control could be modified to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > would needed bigger injectors maybe larger fuel pump and lines. > > Stan > Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in > Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to > require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of > ethanol? Because methanol is much more corrosive, much more toxic and hazardous, much harder and more expensive to blend successfully with gasoline, and requires much more drastic (and expensive) redesign of ALL vehicle components that come into contact with fuel. > Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in > Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently > use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a > lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels > themselves, rather than fossil fuels. > > How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about > alternate energy? Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been "even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test requirements because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not survivable in even a 30 mph crash...little more than a skin around the driver/passengers. That said....I've been wondering the answer to your question since the gas shortage of '74. An interesting side note...it's in OPEC's interest to keep oil prices from going over-the-top. They know that if the prices get too high, it will ignite an oil "revolution" that begins with a massive effort to shift off of fossil fuels. They want to keep the status quo until their oil reserves are gone, as that's their livelihood and it's a co-dependent relationship. They are as dependent on money from the US for the oil as we are for the oil. (Don't ask what they intend to do with their countries once the oil is gone) Joe > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as > much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been > "even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test > requirements On the contrary; Europe and Japan use international ECE auto safety requirements that are in many cases considerably more stringent than those used in the US. > because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not > survivable in even a 30 mph crash "Obviously"...? Horseshit. Crashworthiness is not something that can be gauged by eye. On the ranked list of countries by highway fatalities and injuries, the US isn't even close to being first-best. The US is *16th* best and *10th* best per vehicle-kilometre travelled and per vehicle registered, respectively. Only one country (Canada) higher up on the list allows US-spec vehicles in any significant number on public roads, and Canada's only a couple slots above the US. Virtually all the safer countries use those "obviously uncrashworthy" vehicles you're bleating about. http://www.scienceservingsociety.com , better read the author's bio before you think about trashing his bona fides. > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > survivable in even a 30 mph crash...little more than a skin around the > driver/passengers. Gee, I have a 600 pound race car. While I have never had a bad crash in it yet, I have two friends with same class of cars who really rolled theirs hard. One got a dislocated shoulder, the other a broken wrist. I don't believe the weight alone is as important in a crash as other things. > > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than > > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > theirs hard. One got a dislocated shoulder, the other a broken wrist. > I don't believe the weight alone is as important in a crash as other things. Your friends didn't get run into by a 9,000 lb SUV. They also had real racing harnesses as opposed to air bags and generic seatbelts. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > > > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than > > > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry > ********************************************************** Exactly which US SUV is 9,000#? Curb weight not GVWR. I believe most are under 7,000# Ex: Chev / GMC Suburban 3/4T 4x4 curb weight: 6,073# Pete C. > > > > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than > > > > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Pete C. I exaggerated a bit. Curb weight on the Hummer H2 is 6,400 lbs, but that's empty of passengers, driver, and cargo. It has a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating over 8,500 lbs, which is why the window sticker doesn't have to show the fuel economy and why it has to have the additional running and marker lights. And then there's the cxt: http://www.internationaldelivers.com/site_layout/xtfamily/cxt.asp At 14,500 lbs if you're in a car, any kind of car, and get hit by one of these being piloted by a cell-phone junkie you're going to die. The main issue will be if there's enough left of your organs to make donation worthwhile. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > > > > > Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than > > > > > countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry > ********************************************************** Ok, so add a couple lard-a.s PYV's (plastic yuppie vermin), five hell spawn and some sports equipment and you might hit 7,500# on any of the common SUVs. That International is the exception and I can't say I've seen many of them. My pickup is something like 6,680# curb weight. A bigger threat out there is the large numbers of RV's. Most of the RVs are at least as heavy as that International. Certainly there are many being driven by qualified drivers, but a lot are driven by 70 year olds who never drove anything bigger than a Caddy before they bought the RV. I suspect the statistics will undercount accidents caused by RVs since they will often be unaware of the accident they just caused. As for the cell phone thing, the problem really has little to do with cell phones. The real problem is untrained and inattentive drivers. If they aren't distracted by the cell phone, it's the coffee, sandwich, kids, makeup, newspaper or even the radio. I suspect if you were to do a study you'd find that truckers are on the cell phone quite a bit these days and cause very few accidents. Professionally trained drivers are aware of their surroundings whether they are on the cell phone or eating a sandwich. I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from driving. If something on the road requires more attention I just drop the phone in my lap. When I text message while driving, the phone is held at arms length on top of the dashboard so my view is always directed at the road ahead and I view the phone in my lower peripheral vision. I've frequently said that the test standards for a "regular" drivers license should be about the same as for a commercial class B. Not terribly difficult, but something more than "you drove around the block from the DMA and back and didn't hit anything". Pete C. > I've frequently said that the test standards for a "regular" drivers > license should be about the same as for a commercial class B. Not > terribly difficult, but something more than "you drove around the block > from the DMA and back and didn't hit anything". I'd like to see more European standards applied, with months of training and serious practice, and very difficult tests, before getting a license. And, one small screwup and the license is gone, they're serious about driving over there. Around here, especially in my state, the main requirement to qualify for a driver's license is the presence of DNA and a pulse, and sometimes that there pulse thing is optional. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** > I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from > driving. Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions are worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours. > When I text message while driving, the phone is held at arms length on > top of the dashboard so my view is always directed at the road ahead and > I view the phone in my lower peripheral vision. So you genuinely believe you can text message while driving and *not* have it distract you, eh? DS >> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from >> driving. > > Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions are > worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours. I read two different studies on that subject and both say that the reaction time and the ability to make correct decisions when using the cellphone is just about as impaired when using a cellphone as it is when driving with .1% BAC. The accident rates with cellphones seem to confirm that. >> When I text message while driving, the phone is held at arms length on >> top of the dashboard so my view is always directed at the road ahead and >> I view the phone in my lower peripheral vision. > > So you genuinely believe you can text message while driving and *not* have > it distract you, eh? Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' - until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it. Chris > >> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from > >> driving. > > Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions > > are worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > driving with .1% BAC. The accident rates with cellphones seem to confirm > that. Yep. The data continue to mount (except for the "studies" commissioned and funded by the celphone industry). > Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' - > until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it. Half-decent analogy, except celphone-yakking idjits' behavior kills, damages and maims much more quickly and violently than smokers' exhaust. DS >> Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' - >> until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it. > > Half-decent analogy, except celphone-yakking idjits' behavior kills, > damages and maims much more quickly and violently than smokers' exhaust. That's true. What I meant, though, was the mechanism of suppressing anything, that would make reconsidering one's behavior necessary... Chris > > >> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from > > >> driving. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > DS I don't consider studies funded by the insurance industry to be any more credible than those funded by the cell phone industry. The only "good" insurance industry studies were the ones that showed that radar detector users were safer drivers, and they repeated those studies several times because they weren't producing the results they wanted before they finally gave up and admitted the truth. Government studies are somewhat marginal as well, though mostly from insufficient funding. Certainly the idea of producing ratings of something as complex as rollover probability from just a CG calculation shows this. Clearly steering and suspension response is a significant factor in rollover risk and has to be included to have any hope of getting a credible result. Pete C. Pete C. >> >> I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from >> >> driving. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yep. The data continue to mount (except for the "studies" commissioned and >funded by the celphone industry). If the number of drunk drivers on the road had increased by millions over about 10 year period would you expect the accident rate to increase noticeably? Cell phone use has .. - increased by millions - cell phones have been claimed to be as bad as having a 0.1 BAC yet accident rated continue to drop. So either driving with a 0.1 BAC is not really the problem we have been told... or Cell phone use while driving is not the same as a 0.1 BAC and doesn't lead to any significant change in accident involvement. >> Its just like with the smokers 'my uncle smoked and lived to be 99' - >> until it happens to them and they have to live or die with it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >DS If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on a cell phone and type text messages, then they are not spending enough time paying attention to the road. If people are getting so bored from driving that they have to yack and yack or argue while driving, again, they aren't paying attention to the road. (I can converse while I drive... but please don't ask me to make any big decissions- too focused on the road. It really sucks that my dad yacks on a cell phone while he drives. He's figuring out million dollar budgets and crap when he should be focused on the driving. It gets to the point I won't call anybody on a cell phone because I don't want to interupt them while driving. IMO, the cell phone was one of the most misguided inventions ever. Driving is the wrong time to multi-task. I'm actually a bit ashamed I never learned how to drive a manual. People who drive manuals, from what I have seen, are usually focused on driving, and it pretty much takes yacking on a cell phone out of the picture. Maybe an automatic transmission is an enabler? > Driving is the wrong time to multi-task. I'm actually a bit ashamed I > never learned how to drive a manual. People who drive manuals, from what > I > have seen, are usually focused on driving, and it pretty much takes > yacking > on a cell phone out of the picture. You'd think that. Some still try to drive and shift while eating or talking on the phone. Not a pretty picture. Although in the case of a standard the main obstacle is not having the arm to shift with. If you use a handsfree headset you can still shift (which doesn't take much mental work once you're proficient) and yack on the phone, driving as dangerously as a headset user in an automatic. > Maybe an automatic transmission is an > enabler? Plus it doesn't belong in a TDI. Almost sacrilegious. > Plus it doesn't belong in a TDI. Almost sacrilegious. Maybe so but automatic transmissions are deeply ingrained, and I can't blame Volkswagen for selling what sells. In a few years manual transmissions will be all but dead in the US. They are pretty much dead in the luxury car market as it is (Volkswagen didn't even bother with a manual Passat TDI last year), they only really hang around in enthusiast and economy cars. Direct shift gearboxes are going to outperform a traditional manual, and for fuel economy now days there's increasingly very little different from auto and manual, especially in Japanese cars. The automatic transmissions they have now days are also a far cry from the older mechanical versions- if I did have a manual it would probably be superfluous because my automatic shifts perfectly as it is. I have an aversion to manuals. It comes from a very bad experience driving my uncles Ford F-150 manual. The thing died constantly, or rather, I let the engine stall. Eventually I got the hang of it but it was a pain in traffic. I think the worst thing for manual is having to use a clutch all the time and having to shift into neutral- some of the newer transmissions used in European cars have sequential manuals or "semi-automatics" that don't require a clutch (the DaimlerChrysler Smart car has a clutchless automatic that lets the driver upshift, but the car automaticly downshifts). So, I'm not saying an automatic transmission is all bad. It certainly makes driving easier. But that's both a good and bad thing. > If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on a > cell phone and type text messages, then they are not spending enough time [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > on a cell phone out of the picture. Maybe an automatic transmission is an > enabler? Actually I *do* drive a manual, in fact I really rather hate automatics. And yes I can shift just fine while on the phone, even without a headset. Perhaps people have forgotten how to wedge a phone to their ear with their shoulder. I'm pretty sure that an automatic *is* an enabler as you put it, although I'm not sure to how great an extent. Anything that help a driver get away with being less attentive to the task of driving would seem to be a somewhat bad thing, whether it's an automatic, or stability control, ABS or whatever. Probably all small factors, but they add up. Pete C. >> If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on >> a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > headset. Perhaps people have forgotten how to wedge a phone to their ear > with their shoulder. Not so much that, as it is with the sheer size of cell phones these days. Trying to do that with a lot of cell phones these days is literally impossible because 1) the non-flip phones are straight (harder to cradle with something like that), 2) the possibility is real that you will accidentally push a bunch of buttons when it is up against the face and screw up your call is much greater, 3) the newer the phone, the seemingly smaller they get, and as a result, the harder to cradle with. Oh, by the way, I prefer manuals 9 times out of 10. The only place where they really, really, really stink is when you are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic. I commuted 30 miles each way with one in Northern VA traffic, and took it through NYC's evening rush hour once, and it was not fun. My left leg was so sore afterwards. > I'm pretty sure that an automatic *is* an enabler as you put it, > although I'm not sure to how great an extent. Anything that help a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pete C. LG VX4400, a straight phone, never had a problem. I don't mind a manual in stop and go traffic, I just put it in 1st (low on a truck) and let it idle along at .5 mph while everyone around me starts and stops. This of course won't work on a car where 1st is not low enough, on the truck you normally start in second and use 1st when you are pulling a heavy trailer. Pete C. > >> If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on > >> a [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > > > Pete C. Won't that cause the engine to stall, though? > Won't that cause the engine to stall, though? Not on this truck. 1st gear is 3.something to 1 ratio, i.e. very low (actually lower than reverse), and the engine is the 7.4l (a.k.a. 454 big block) with plenty of HP and torque. It will quite happily idle up a fair grade in 1st. On a car 1st is not normally this low a ratio so it's quite possible it would stall although I have driven a couple cars that did ok idling in 1st. I got stuck in an ice storm in one and idled in 1st on a fairly level stretch of highway for about 15 miles. Pete C. > Won't that cause the engine to stall, though? A skilled driver can start from a dead stop in 3rd or 4th. It'll vibrate like hell, and do untold wear to the clutch, but stall? No. JP SignatureJP White mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net > And yes I can shift just fine while on the phone, even without a > headset. Perhaps people have forgotten how to wedge a phone to their ear > with their shoulder. Gee, Pete, you seem to have all the bases covered ... except a rudimentary knowledge of how your *vision* works while driving. FWIW, I learned this stuff while training as an instructor and now I help teach it in BMW CCA driving schools. Your vision isn't designed to work at angles other than horizontal. Here's how you can test this. Time yourself while reading a page or paragraph of text. Then, read a similar amount of the same typeface and style with your head tilted at 45 degrees. Check your time. Try it at 90 degrees. Still slower. So, when you have that cellphone wedged up between your head and your shoulder, your vision is screwed. You can't properly analyze what you see as quickly as you can with your eyes level. This is why we instruct drivers to keep their heads level as the car leans in turns. This is the same thing that motorcyclists are taught. Watch a MotoGP race and see what their heads are doing and compare it to what you see from the onboard cameras tilted at crazy angles. OK; that's Lesson 1. Lesson 2 is about the peripheral vision you claim to use for text messaging while driving. Absolutely impossible. You have *no* ability to focus with your peripheral vision! *No one does!* Your field of focus is on the order of 2 degrees; yes, you read it right: *two degrees*! Test it *right now*. Focus on the word in the middle of any sentence here and concentrate on *that word*. If you're being honest about it, you'll admit that you can't actually read the words at either end of the same line. The only reason you (and all of us) think our field of focus is larger is that we move out eyes a lot and focus on a lot of different things, but in truth, it's only *one small part* at a time. What you are *really* doing is shifting your focus to your phone. It logically follows that when you do so, you *cannot* be focused on traffic ahead of you. This brings up Lesson 3. Although you might save a millisecond or three by having your phone *nearer* your field of focus, every time you actually *focus* on it, your eyes have to adjust for depth of field. They have to focus close, on the phone, and then when you're ready to look at the road ahead again, they refocus. This is a slower process than the movements they make side to side all the time. For one thing, human eyes weren't designed for close-up work, either. They work for hunting and tracking but not very well (certainly not for very *long*, as any over-50 guy like me will assure you) for stuff you can reach with your hands. While I might give you a break on using the cellphone in the absence of traffic, I find your practice of text messaging while driving to be downright stupid whether there's traffic or not. *Talking* on the cellphone shifts your attention but not your vision. *Typing* dangerously shifts *both*. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; taught that) "Motorhead Lawyer" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote >> And yes I can shift just fine while on the phone, even without a >> headset. Perhaps people have forgotten how to wedge a phone to their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > C.R. Krieger Unfortunately, none of us have been able to convince Pete to make an "honest" appraisal of his abilities, or to convince him that although he may be an exceptional individual he's not a superman with abilities beyond well-proven human limits. Floyd > "Motorhead Lawyer" <warp2_shadow@yahoo.com> wrote >>> And yes I can shift just fine while on the phone, even without a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Floyd Thank God he's not in my area. DYM > Thank God he's not in my area. > > DYM Which area is he in? I need to know. JP SignatureJP White mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net >> Thank God he's not in my area. >> >> DYM > > Which area is he in? I need to know. Texas, which has *me* worried. I mean its a big state and all that, but its still got me a little scared... :-) > >> Thank God he's not in my area. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Texas, which has *me* worried. I mean its a big state and all that, but > its still got me a little scared... :-) As the slogan goes: "It's like a whole other country"... Pete C. > > And yes I can shift just fine while on the phone, even without a > > headset. Perhaps people have forgotten how to wedge a phone to their [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > C.R. Krieger > (Been there; taught that) I'm not going to argue your other points, but two things you are fundamentally wrong on are: 1. You will not on any optical system that while there is a good spread to the adjustments for focus at closer ranges, once you get out some distance you hit the sudden jump to "infinity" focus. I indicated holding the phone at arms length which places it much closer to this point and therefore brings it much closer to, or into the depth of field. The actually depth of field is heavily influenced by the amount of light reaching your eye, whether from the actually lighting or the use of sunglasses. Sunglasses may reduce glare and provide some protection from UV, but they also reduce your depth of field by causing your pupils to dilate more. Auto glass absorbs much of the UV anyway. 2. Your assertion that typing causes a shift in vision is 100% false. Reading a text message could cause a shift in vision, but typing can absolutely be done without looking at all. I can quite readily hold my phone behind my back and type. I can put a piece of paper over my computer and still type reasonably successfully, more so if I was a true touch typer. The amount of attention that typing may shift is entirely dependent on practice and skill. If you look at a stenographer their eyes are almost always focused on the person talking, and that is where their attention is as well. The act of typing, particularly on a limited keyboard is subconscious once they are proficient. Pete C. > I'm not going to argue your other points, I take it therefore that you accept Motorheads points as vaild and you admit that you compromise your ability to drive while using your cellphone for chat and text. Thanks for that subtle admission. JP SignatureJP White mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net > > I'm not going to argue your other points, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > JP White > mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net No, it's hardly an admission of anything. It is the recognition that the poster is likely a PYV and there is no point in arguing with them. Pete C. > No, it's hardly an admission of anything. It is the recognition that the > poster is likely a PYV and there is no point in arguing with them. > > Pete C. How convenient for you. JP SignatureJP White mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net > If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on a > cell phone and type text messages, then they are not spending enough time > paying attention to the road. If people are getting so bored from driving > that they have to yack and yack or argue while driving, again, they aren't > paying attention to the road. Haven't you been arguing against practically everything that the majority of r.a.d regulars believe in? Things like keep right except to pass, 85th percentile speed limits, etc and so forth? I may be mistaken, but I think that was you, right? In any case, that boredom, that feeling they can do other things while driving, from phone calls to eating lunch comes from the idiotcy of lowest common demonator driving in the USA. Low speed limits, no lane displine, etc and so forth. When I did my drive the speed-limit experiments to prove how out of touch the speed limits were I became so bored while driving, I wanted a TV to watch or a computer to use. That's what happens when driving is dumbed down. People get bored. Some compensate in other ways, by driving faster and using traffic a series of problems to solve. Finding better ways around, etc and so forth.This is good, because it demands paying attention to the road and the conditions in fine detail. Some compensate in other ways that are negative. Such as by taking risks, cutting people off, passing on shoulders, and just generally being reckless. Others yet just decide to watch TV, read the paper and talk on the phone. Since there is no lane displine, the system such that no matter what you do the other guy has to avoid you, there are no consquences to reading the paper or cutting people off. Thusly no consquences to driving distracted until actually hitting something. >> If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on >> a [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > passing on shoulders, and just generally being reckless. Others yet just > decide to watch TV, read the paper and talk on the phone. This is why billboards are a good idea IMHO. It gives people "eye candy" to help them break the monotony of long, boring roads (primarily interstates, at least in the Northeast), while keeping people's focus close enough to the road. Which makes me wonder if there's ever been a study to look into if seeing varied colors helps the eyes and help a person keep focused. It seems to me that seeing different colors than what is typically on long, boring interstates, through the use of billboards, might actually be beneficial as it almost seems to recharge my eyes and help keep them focused. Sorry about the digression :-) > Since there is no lane displine, the system such that no matter what > you do the other guy has to avoid you, there are no consquences to reading > the paper or cutting people off. Thusly no consquences to driving > distracted until actually hitting something. > >> If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on > >> a [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > the paper or cutting people off. Thusly no consquences to driving > > distracted until actually hitting something. Where did you find long boring interstates in the northeast? The lack of good interstates is one of the biggest problems in the northeast. There are only two roads in the NE that I can think of that might come close - the Mass Tpk. and I91 north of the MA border. I84 and I95 are both obstacle courses. Pete C. > > If people have so much free time on their hands that they can yack on a > > cell phone and type text messages, then they are not spending enough time [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the paper or cutting people off. Thusly no consquences to driving > distracted until actually hitting something. Certainly where roads are properly constructed and speed limits are reasonable you see less aggressive driving. I've recently moved to N. Texas from CT and I've noticed a very big difference in driving behavior. In CT if you switch in your turn signal to change lanes, someone *will* try to cut you off. In N. TX if you switch on your turn signal to change lanes, someone *will* drop back to give you more room. In CT people regularly drive 70 in a 55 zone because the road conditions are sufficient for it but the state refuses to set the speed limits appropriately. In TX people regularly drive 70 in a 70 zone because road conditions are sufficient and the speed limits were set appropriately. The argument that if you raise the speed limit people will just drive faster has not been backed by any objective study that I've seen. People will drive the speed that is comfortable for road conditions regardless of the speed limit and if you set a speed limit higher than people are comfortable with they will drive slower. Where there is a problem is in people adjusting for adverse conditions. They choose a safe speed for normal conditions but fail to adjust for wet, icy, foggy conditions. The proliferation and promotion of AWD, ABS, traction control, stability control, etc. and the decline of peoples understanding of the operation of a vehicle has increased peoples tendency to ignore adverse conditions. Manufacturers are being allowed to imply that 4WD / AWD allows you to drive on snow and ice as if it wasn't there which simply is not true. 4WD / AWD primarily allows you to get moving in adverse traction situations, i.e. not get stuck. 4WD / AWD has little effect on directional control in adverse conditions and no effect on braking control. Manufacturers imply the ABS will allow you to stop in the same distance under all conditions which is not true. ABS can improve braking control in marginal conditions, but stopping distance are still further than under normal conditions, and ABS is of no help on ice. Traction control and stability control are both "Band-Aids" for people not learning the capabilities and limitations of a vehicle and are dangerous when manufacturers imply that they will let you drive without accounting for road conditions. It all comes down to driver skill and training. I drive a fairly heavy pickup and I'm acutely aware that my stopping distance is longer than the cars around me. I'm also aware that without added weight in the rear the stability in ice and snow is atrocious. When I lived in CT I would place 1,000# (1 ton dually truck, smaller trucks would need less weight) of concrete blocks in the bed of the truck in the winter which improved stability and wet braking traction immensely. When I'm pulling my 10,000# 24' trailer (49' total length with truck) I'm acutely aware that my stopping distance is increased as is the space required for lane changes. I'm always aware of the bounds of my vehicle and the clearances required for it. I find in both amusing and somewhat scary to watch some people in some of the smallest cars around (Metro, Mini, etc.) who have a hell of a time fitting that car into a space that I have no trouble fitting my truck which is 3' wider and 12' longer into. I once watched a person in a Ford Expedition (smaller than my truck) try for literally 8 minutes to fit it into a parking space before giving up. Once they left I promptly pulled up and backed into the same space in one maneuver without any issues. Years ago I worked for a small printing company that had a single loading dock in a rather tight parking lot. There were some truck drivers that would take 10 minutes to back into that dock and would still be all crooked, and some drivers who would back in in 30 seconds and be lined up so accurately that I could measure less then 1/4" different in the space to the dock on each side of the trailer. Driver skill varies considerably, and most people these days are not getting enough training. Pete C. > The argument that if you raise the speed limit people will just drive > faster has not been backed by any objective study that I've seen. People > will drive the speed that is comfortable for road conditions regardless > of the speed limit and if you set a speed limit higher than people are > comfortable with they will drive slower. Some people will drive slower because of fear of enforcement or they are the kind who follow rules because they are rules and nothing more. Often these people feel that it's their god-given-right to use the left lane too. > Driver skill varies considerably, and most people these days are not > getting enough training. Parking really isn't an indicator of it. Ask me to park a truck at loading dock or even a full size car and I'll have trouble with it. Why? I don't drive large vehicles often and park them in less than ideal circumstances even less often. My friend's van being the only one and I can still drive it well on the interstate with regards to lane displine, passing, following distance, etc. Just don't ask me to do much in the way of parking manuvers with it. > > The argument that if you raise the speed limit people will just drive > > faster has not been backed by any objective study that I've seen. People [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the kind who follow rules because they are rules and nothing more. Often > these people feel that it's their god-given-right to use the left lane too. When I am driving I am rarely speeding and I always insure that I am not impeding traffic either. I do not ever sit in the left lane at 5 mph under the speed limit, in fact I never sit in the left lane any length of time at all unless I'm about to take a left exit. Normally I'm in the center or right lane going with the flow of traffic. > > Driver skill varies considerably, and most people these days are not > > getting enough training. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > passing, following distance, etc. Just don't ask me to do much in the > way of parking manuvers with it. My comment referred to professional truck drivers for a paper company. They are driving a larger truck and backing into loading docks multiple times every day. The point about widely varying driving skill remains valid. Pete C. >> Parking really isn't an indicator of it. Ask me to park a truck at >> loading dock or even a full size car and I'll have trouble with it. >> Why? I don't drive large vehicles often and park them in less than >> ideal circumstances even less often. My friend's van being the only >> one and I can still drive it well on the interstate with regards to >> lane displine, passing, following distance, etc. Just don't ask me to >> do much in the way of parking manuvers with it. Do the vast majority of people here ONLY drive on interstates? I find that 95% of my driving is on secondary roads and streets. Here is where this MFFY mentality of "I can drive any damn way I choose." breaks down. Here you need to do the SL. We've had some pretty spectacular and tragic crashes where speeding was the cause. This attitude seems to cover all aspecs of driving, rolling stops, not stopping where you are suppose to, failure to yeld right of way. DYM > >> Parking really isn't an indicator of it. Ask me to park a truck at > >> loading dock or even a full size car and I'll have trouble with it. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DYM I don't know about the other folks here, but for me, yes, the majority of my driving is on intestates / major highways. When I lived in CT they were about 60% or better of my driving, and now that I'm in TX they account for better than 80% of my driving. A trip to the closest large shopping center where the Home Depot, Lowe's', Target, etc. is located consists of: Approx. 1/2 mi down my street which does not have a posted speed limit, but 30-35 is typical. Turn onto the main road which although it is not really a highway, has a 65 speed limit. Travel about 3 mi on this road until it gets to "town" where it drops to 45 mph for about 1 mi until you turn onto the highway connector and it's back up to 55 mph for about 2 mi and then 70 mph. Follow this to the highway and then the highway for about 4 mi then take the exit that drops you 100 yd. from the shopping center entrance. About 10 miles / 10 minutes averaging about 65 mph. Pete C. > I find that 95% of my driving is on secondary roads and streets. This is the driving I do- very little on the expressways and big highways. And I see alot of bad driving behavior. Speeding is only one of the problems on these roads. I always try and drive the speed limit, and I find the speeds on roads are, if anything, optimistic in a few cases. > > I find that 95% of my driving is on secondary roads and streets. > > This is the driving I do- very little on the expressways and big highways. > And I see alot of bad driving behavior. Speeding is only one of the > problems on these roads. I always try and drive the speed limit, and I > find the speeds on roads are, if anything, optimistic in a few cases. In CT I found, and the bulk of the traffic during non peak hours showed as well (by driving 10mph over) that the posted speed limit on most roads was about 10mph below what it should have been. There were only three sections of road I found in 15+ years of driving in CT where the speed limit was appropriate for road conditions. Now that I'm in TX I'm finding that the speed limits here are set appropriately for road conditions and I see very few people exceeding these speed limits. As far as speed goes, people will drive a speed that is comfortable for the given road conditions and the bulk of people seem to find the same speed comfortable on a given road. As for other bad behavior such as "leap frogging" I don't see this occurring much when traffic is flowing smoothly at the appropriate speed limit. The "leap frogging" seems to occur during congested sub speed limit traffic conditions where the arrogant folks who believe they are better than others on the road decide they need to bob and weave to try to get ahead of everyone else. Other bad behavior such as inappropriate lane use i.e. "granny" doing 45mph in the left lane of the highway seems to get no attention from the police in this country even though it is a significant hazard. I've heard that in other countries this is not the case and there is enforcement. Pete C. > I read two different studies on that subject and both say that the > reaction time and the ability to make correct decisions when using the > cellphone is just about as impaired when using a cellphone as it is when > driving with .1% BAC. The accident rates with cellphones seem to confirm > that. Hardly. How many times do people have to be told that correlation does not equate causeation? Just because someone is using a cell phone when in an accident does not mean that the accident is caused by the cell phone. If that was true, it would be just as valid to say that having a windshield causes accidents, because everyone that gets into an accident has a windshield. I think if the analogy of a .1% BAC was true, you'd be seeing a LOT more accidents and deaths than we currently see. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=544953&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 8% of drivers using cellphones. Think of 8% of the drivers under the influence... > > I use a cell phone while driving and I never let it distract me from > > driving. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > DS Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme concentration? This is not a race track at 180 mph folks, there is indeed extra time to multi task - as long as you keep your eyes on the road. And no, I never let the phone distract me any more than a conversation with someone in the passenger seat. I *always* keep my eyes on the road ahead, *and* pay attention to what's going on in my mirrors. A lot of people these days seem to forget that they even have mirrors. If something requires additional attention I drop the phone just as I would stop talking to a passenger. The same with text messaging, it is no more distracting than checking the speedometer, fuel gauge or radio station in your peripheral vision. It's the people who look down into their laps at the phone while text messaging that have the problem, a lot can happen in the few seconds your eyes are not on the road. My eyes never leave the road, and the phone is not at the center of my vision either. I also don't go bobbing and weaving through traffic while one the phone either, I settle into the right lane and go with the flow of traffic. Actually I settle into the right lane and go with the flow of traffic most of the time anyway. Occupying one hand while driving is *not* an issue. Handicapped folks who only have the use of one arm can drive just fine, the issue is in *not* looking at the road. People looking down at the newspaper in their lap, or digging for stuff in their purse or turned around yelling at the kids in the back are the problem. Pete C. > > Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions > > are worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours. So you genuinely > > believe you can text message while driving and *not* have it distract > > you, eh? > Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal > vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme > concentration? It doesn't until it does. > And no, I never let the phone distract me It's not under your control. > The same with text messaging, it is no more distracting than checking > the speedometer, fuel gauge or radio station in your peripheral vision. Horseshit. None of those things requires you to formulate the message you want to send and the number you want to send it to, then push very small buttons the correct number of times in the correct sequence to compose it, then push the correct buttons to send it. > Occupying one hand while driving is *not* an issue. Nobody said it was. Comments inline... > > > Right, of *course* you don't. Only stupid *other* people's reactions > > > are worsened by talking on a celphone...not yours. So you genuinely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It doesn't until it does. At which point picking your nose is just as likely to distract you as talking on the phone. > > And no, I never let the phone distract me > > It's not under your control. Where I place my attention is indeed 100% under my control, perhaps I'm better than average that way. In fact there have been times when I've told the person on the phone I missed their whole last sentence because I was dealing with traffic. > > The same with text messaging, it is no more distracting than checking > > the speedometer, fuel gauge or radio station in your peripheral vision. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > buttons the correct number of times in the correct sequence to compose it, > then push the correct buttons to send it. There isn't any "formulating" if you are used to text messaging, it flows just like a conversation. Someone new to text messaging would perhaps need to focus it. No numbers to enter, they're in the directory two clicks away. Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch typing and does not occupy your attention. > > Occupying one hand while driving is *not* an issue. > > Nobody said it was. It was implied that holding the phone was distracting, or would prevent you from shifting while a headset would eliminate those problems. Pete C. > Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch typing and > does not occupy your attention. If I were watching a television program on another screen while typing this, either I'm not paying attention to what's happening on tv, or I'm not paying attention to what I type. I can't pay attention to both at the same time. > > Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch typing and > > does not occupy your attention. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not paying attention to what I type. I can't pay attention to both at > the same time. Since common sense doesn't seem to work on cell phone users maybe we need a special licence. One that requires a large billboard sign on top of the vehicle "STAY CLEAR, DISTRACTED DRIVER". Harry K > > > Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch > typing and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Harry K To me the answer is clear. Treat them just like a driver impaired by alcohol. Someone who crashes and is suspected of alcohol impairment is tested for alcohol and if it is found they are imprisoned and fined heavily. So, if someone crashes and there's a cellphone present just pull the call logs to see if they were on the phone at the time of the accident and if so, off to prison with mega fines. I routinely get run off the road or have to take evasive action to avoid an accident because the other person was on a cell phone. It's time they start being held responsible for their actions, just like drunk drivers are now. JazzMan Signature********************************************************** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ********************************************************** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ********************************************************** I worry even more about a form of talking that is NOT on a cell phone. I see too many drivers talking to passengers who must maintain eye contact when they talk. I know that our society values eye contact during conversations, but geez! I watched a car in front of me a few weeks ago. I timed by counting, how long he'd stay looking at his passenger. Several times it was about 15 seconds. At 90 feet per second, this is over a quarter mile without looking at road. Fortunately the road was straight, and his periodic swerves back into the traffic lane were not to severe. > I worry even more about a form of talking that is NOT on a cell phone. I > see too many drivers talking to passengers who must maintain eye contact > when they talk. I know that our society values eye contact during > conversations, but geez! A particular friend of mine and me had a mutual dislike of each other's driving. He hated my driving (paying attention, optimizing for traffic, going faster) and I hated his (LLBing, looking at passengers while talking to them, etc) He once said I must have been a fighter pilot in a former life. His driving just scared me, people punching it around to the right then cutting back in front.... People were trying to send him a message but he never noticed it. > > I worry even more about a form of talking that is NOT on a cell phone. I > > see too many drivers talking to passengers who must maintain eye contact [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > right then cutting back in front.... People were trying to send him a > message but he never noticed it. I know several people who's driving tends to scare me. Mostly it's from not allowing any safety margin for braking, one spot of spilled oil or diesel on the road and they'd rear end someone. A little may just be from my being accustomed to stopping distances of a 6,700# pickup vs. a Honda civic at 1/3 the weight. Pete C. > A particular friend of mine and me had a mutual dislike of each other's > driving. He hated my driving (paying attention, optimizing for traffic, > going faster) and I hated his (LLBing, looking at passengers while > talking to them, etc) While I can understand why you didn't like his driving, what was his objection to yours? >> A particular friend of mine and me had a mutual dislike of each other's >> driving. He hated my driving (paying attention, optimizing for traffic, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > While I can understand why you didn't like his driving, what was his > objection to yours? Let me remember: If someone attempted to cut me off, I would use the horn and not give in. basically anything where I wouldn't just 'let them do it'. I drove faster than he did on the interstate, he didn't like my lane changing to pass and return to the right. When he couldn't read a map for me, I pulled over to read it myself, he didn't like that either. Those are the specifics I can remember. > > > And no, I never let the phone distract me > > It's not under your control. > Where I place my attention is indeed 100% under my control Nope, it isn't. Unless you're some sort of non-human with psychological superpowers not possessed by any other driver. That's probably not the case. It's far more likely you're just self-assuredly ignorant, which is what your statements in this thread are suggesting, ever more strongly as you continue to participate. > I'm better than average that way. Of course you are. Why, *everyone's* better than average! Just ask them! > Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch typing and > does not occupy your attention. How 'bout that...we've got a guy here who can touch type and text message *without paying attention*. H'm. Maybe the psychological superman theory is correct. > > > Occupying one hand while driving is *not* an issue. > > Nobody said it was. > It was implied that holding the phone was distracting, or would prevent > you from shifting while a headset would eliminate those problems. By whom? > > > > And no, I never let the phone distract me > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what your statements in this thread are suggesting, ever more strongly as > you continue to participate. I'm quite sure that my powers of attentiveness are indeed possessed by many other drivers. I've seen many the I'd consider better than I and many that I'd consider worse. You are once again projecting the "If I can't do it then nobody could do it" mentality into this. Just because you or even 75% of people can't do something does not in any way prove that the remaining people can't. I think we could probably agree that *most* people can reach over and adjust the heater temp control while driving without undue distraction. Why can you not realize / admit that there are both people who would have difficulty with such a task, and people who are capable of more complicated tasks without undue distraction. Not everyone is equal, and that is a fact. > > I'm better than average that way. > > Of course you are. Why, *everyone's* better than average! Just ask them! Presumably somewhere near 50% are above average and somewhere near 50% are below average. That bell curve thing... > > Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch typing and > > does not occupy your attention. > > How 'bout that...we've got a guy here who can touch type and text message > *without paying attention*. H'm. Maybe the psychological superman theory > is correct. Do you actively think about shifting when you are driving? Sure you did when you were learning, but now that you've learned you think about driving and the shifting part is near sub-conscious. Do you think about the act of saying "We should arrive in ten minutes" to your passenger? Of course not, you learned how to speak decades ago and it is sub-conscious. You only think about the content of your speech, not the act of speaking. The same thing happens when you become proficient at text messaging, you do not think about the act of typing or have to look at the keys, you simply think that you will reply "eta 10" or whatever is appropriate. > > > > Occupying one hand while driving is *not* an issue. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > By whom? Don't recall who, someone elsewhere in this thread. Pete C. > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote: >> Nope, it isn't. Unless you're some sort of non-human with psychological [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it" mentality into this. Just because you or even 75% of people can't do > something does not in any way prove that the remaining people can't. You are deluding yourself in your belief because "I have done it." Yes, you have done it, but not in situations where driving demands your undivided attention. For instance, if you were skiing down a 45-50 degree slope of the "you fall, you die" type, would you be text- messaging all your friends? Your problem is that you (and other cell-phone users) don't recognize that driving is a concentrate or die situation, too. Granted, it's not always a task that requires 100% concentration, but neither does skiing. Try this: toss a dozen or so pennies down on a table. Now count them. You will use a technique called "chunking" to do so. Note that the largest "chunk" your mind is able to see is 4. That's right, four. If you put 5 pennies down on a table, you have to count 4+1=5. This fact about the limitations of the human mind is well-proven. There are other well-known limitations; I saw an article just a month ago or so proving that working in a time-share environment, a human is much less effective than one-task-at-a-time mode. Daniel has spent quite some time in human factors (related to visual recognition). I dabble in all this cognitive psych stuff because I'm a teacher (as is my wife) and computer scientist with a lot of experience in CAI. It's obvious from your postings that you don't know what you're talking about. Put down the phone, or some time you'll die. Floyd > > "Daniel J. Stern" wrote: > >> Nope, it isn't. Unless you're some sort of non-human with psychological [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > degree slope of the "you fall, you die" type, would you be text- > messaging all your friends? I don't ski, but I also don't text message while driving in adverse conditions. I don't text message in city traffic. I do text message from the right lane, going the same speed as the rest of the traffic on relatively straight and level roads with few if any traffic lights. I also never take my eyes off of the road ahead while doing so. > Your problem is that you (and other cell-phone users) don't recognize > that driving is a concentrate or die situation, too. Granted, it's not > always a task that requires 100% concentration, but neither does > skiing. The last time I tried skiing it did require 100% concentration and I did fall. I decided it was not interesting / enjoyable enough to pursue, but presumably if I practiced I would have reached some level of proficiency. What folks such as yourself don't recognize is that different people have different capacities for multitasking and for some people using the phone does not mean that they are not also concentrating on the road. In my younger school days I was something of an annoyance to my teachers (big surprise there). I was known for sitting in the back of class reading a book, seemingly not paying any attention to the teacher - until I'd put down the book for a minute and correct the teacher. By the time they looked at the board and realized I was correct I'd be back to reading my book. I also never did homework, but consistently got 95% or better on tests. > Try this: toss a dozen or so pennies down on a table. Now count > them. You will use a technique called "chunking" to do so. Note [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ago or so proving that working in a time-share environment, a human > is much less effective than one-task-at-a-time mode. Just tried it, didn't duplicate your results. I found the the groupings I used varied widely and were most dependent on the patterns the pennies landed in. I readily recognized groups of 5 or 6 when they were separated from others. Where things fell apart more was when they overlapped. > Daniel has spent quite some time in human factors (related to > visual recognition). I dabble in all this cognitive psych stuff [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Floyd It's obvious from your posts that you think you know more than you do and you are unwilling to accept the fact that there are exceptions to every so called rule. I worked in a college environment for a while. I left in part because I grew tired of explaining technical things to "faculty" with inflated egos who though they knew everything. Worse yet I had to explain IP subnet masking to 11 of 12 "degreed" DP directors who presumably had some technical qualifications. Pete C. "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote >> Try this: toss a dozen or so pennies down on a table. Now count >> them. You will use a technique called "chunking" to do so. Note [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > separated from others. Where things fell apart more was when they > overlapped. You are (almost certainly) deluding yourself. 4+-1 is the commonly accepted size: http://www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/misart.pdf. Most likely, you are recognizing the 5/6 sets as subsets of 1/2/3/4. A better set of random experiments administered by someone else would probably convince you of this. Floyd > It's obvious from your posts that you think you know more than you do > and you are unwilling to accept the fact that there are exceptions to > every so called rule. Certainly there are exceptions. However, I and other posters here believe that your recognition of your limitations is not in line with research on the subject, and therefore you have too high opinion of yourself, which constitutes a danger to yourself and others on the road. Floyd >> > > And no, I never let the phone distract me > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >superpowers not possessed by any other driver. That's probably not the >case. It's far more likely you're just self-assuredly ignorant, You're certainly the poster boy for that. which is >what your statements in this thread are suggesting, ever more strongly as >you continue to participate. Someday you'll realize that just because you are incapable of doing something does not mean everyone else is. >> I'm better than average that way. > >Of course you are. Why, *everyone's* better than average! Just ask them! Hi poster boy. >> Again, if you are used to text messaging it's just like touch typing and >> does not occupy your attention. > >How 'bout that...we've got a guy here who can touch type and text message >*without paying attention*. H'm. Maybe the psychological superman theory >is correct. Maybe some people actually learn to do things. Under your theory a car with an automatic transmission in the hands of the average driver is always inherently safer. No distracting shifts needed. Ditto for AC with auto temp and fan controls, and on and on. No one can possibly learn to do more then one thing at a time.....gotta chose - should I steer OR brake to avoid that cow, can't do both, just too complicated according to dan, would require multitasking. The Dan S school of driving.. Monday - braking but not steering Tuesday - steering but not braking Wednesday - visit insurance agent about policy cancellation > Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal > vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme > concentration? This is not a race track at 180 mph folks, there is > indeed extra time to multi task - as long as you keep your eyes on the > road. True 99.999% of the time. It's the 0.001% that will kill you (or worse someone else). I let the cell phone ring off the hook while driving and return the call when appropriate. Why let it ring if I won't answer? Just so I know to check it later. If it rings 2-3 times in five minutes, then it must be urgent, so I find somewhere safe to return the call. Any idea how many feet per second you travel at 70Mph? The slightest distraction can make the difference between a safe stop and a shunt. Count yourself lucky to be alive. BTW what make/model and color is your car? I need to make a mental note. JP SignatureJP White mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net > > Uh, huh... So you think that driving on a well designed road in a normal > > vehicle at a normal 70 mph (speed limit here) requires extreme [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > JP White > mailto:jpwhite3@bellsouth.net As I noted that 0.001% of the time, you're just as likely to be distracted picking your nose as talking on the phone or talking to a passenger. If you think there is some magic difference between when the person you are talking to is in the vehicle vs. on the phone you are delusional. A conversation is a conversation period. If you think that you shouldn't be having a conversation while driving then let's make all vehicles driver and cargo only, no passengers allowed... Pete C. > If you think there is some magic difference between when the > person you are talking to is in the vehicle vs. on the phone you are > delusional. No, there was a study titled "Cell Phone Use Can Lead to Inattention Blindness Behind the Wheel," published in the March 2003 issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied that concluded that there was a difference between the two. >> If you think there is some magic difference between when the >> person you are talking to is in the vehicle vs. on the phone you are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied that concluded that there >was a difference between the two. Do you suppose there is a possibility that as cell phone use become more and more ubiquitous at earlier and earlier ages that that effect will disappear? When they first put radios in cars they had the same "the sky is falling" pronouncements. People learn and things become second nature. Do you think a rookie cop who's never used a radio before gets distracted when he starts using one for real? After a year do you think it's become second nature to him? Have you ridden with any career cops who can turn on the overheads, punch up the computer terminal, grab the radio to call for backup, stop and jam it in park, drop their baton in the holder as they exit, and run off after someone and do it all without having to "think", what's my next step? They didn't the first week out, or if they did they probably ran into a parked car. Do we stop learning anything new because new requires practice? > As I noted that 0.001% of the time, you're just as likely to be > distracted picking your nose as talking on the phone or talking to a > passenger. You do a lot more than talk tho'. Text messaging? Good Grief!! JP If you think there is some magic difference between when the > person you are talking to is in the vehicle vs. on the phone you are > delusional. A conversation is a conversation period. If you think that > you shouldn't be having a conversation while driving then let's make all > vehicles driver and cargo only, no passengers allowed... Have you never noticed the driver weaving all over the road because he/she was having an animated conversation with the person in the passenger seat? Some people don't know how important it i |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message